GOP Totally Committed to Obstructionism

Politics • Views: 30,845

After President Obama met with Republican leaders yesterday, GOP bigwigs like John Boehner and Mitch McConnell made lots of noises that sounded like they were ready to start working together with Obama and the Democrats.

Would you be surprised to learn that they were flat-out lying? Senate GOP letter calls for blocking most bills.

WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans intend to block action on virtually all Democratic-backed legislation unrelated to tax cuts and government spending in the current postelection session of Congress, officials said Tuesday, adding that the leadership has quietly collected signatures on a letter pledging to carry out the strategy.

If carried out, it would doom Democratic-backed attempts to end the Pentagon’s practice of discharging openly gay members of the military service and give legal status to young illegal immigrants who join the military or attend college.

Jump to bottom

390 comments
1 bluewater  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:17:12am

No surprise there...but no joy either.

At some point are these guys going to consider the need to govern the country? I doubt it.

2 jamesfirecat  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:18:54am

re: #1 bluewater

No surprise there...but no joy either.

At some point are these guys going to consider the need to govern the country? I doubt it.

They didn't seem to do much considering even when they were in more or less full Power under Bush why should they start now?

3 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:20:52am

The GOP spent to years refusing to compromise on anything. No matter what the president set in motion, even if it was something that formerly had broad bi-partisan support, like cap and trade (which they ran on in 2008!) or the START treaty, they flipped on. Boner (intentional misspelling) announced clearly after the recent elections that there would be even less compromise (as if that were possible).

They are the party of no. With Fox news smearing everything that the president does as the work of Satan, or communists or terrorists or Cthulu or whatever the fear mongering du jour is, this plays well to the GOP's ignorant and stupid base. It was a winning strategy for the GOP up to the election.

They see no reason to actually govern or come up with ideas of their own. I do not expect that to change now that they have the house. As to things I do expect to see pushed, it will all be on agendas that turn back or prevent any progress, in areas like climate legislation, education, personal liberties and civil rights.

4 Varek Raith  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:20:59am

The GOP doesn't want the government to work.
Nice, frakked up logic they got going.

5 funky chicken  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:21:35am

Political suicide if the Dems can find a better leader/communicator than Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid. And their choice of Patty Murray to head the DSCC or DCCC or whatever is baffling, as she doesn't communicate well either.

Refusing to extend unemployment benefits while concurrently demanding to extend tax cuts for millionaires? Should be political suicide. But, like I said.....

6 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:21:43am

re: #4 Varek Raith

The GOP doesn't want the government to work.
Nice, frakked up logic they got going.

But they do love frakking! There is after all money to be made by poisoning watersheds!

7 jamesfirecat  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:23:21am

re: #5 funky chicken

Political suicide if the Dems can find a better leader/communicator than Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid. And their choice of Patty Murray to head the DSCC or DCCC or whatever is baffling, as she doesn't communicate well either.

Refusing to extend unemployment benefits while concurrently demanding to extend tax cuts for millionaires? Should be political suicide. But, like I said...

Maybe we should get Al Franken on the job...

There's nothing like humor (black humor as the case may be) to make people face up to an unpleasant truth.

8 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:23:22am

re: #5 funky chicken

Political suicide if the Dems can find a better leader/communicator than Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid. And their choice of Patty Murray to head the DSCC or DCCC or whatever is baffling, as she doesn't communicate well either.

Refusing to extend unemployment benefits while concurrently demanding to extend tax cuts for millionaires? Should be political suicide. But, like I said...

The Dems have the astonishing ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. It would help a lot if someone could beat some spine into them. Unfortunately, the last real Dem leaders are from the last generation and they are all dead or retired.

9 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:24:58am

re: #1 bluewater

No surprise there...but no joy either.

At some point are these guys going to consider the need to govern the country? I doubt it.

First they have to save it from gay, illegal immigrant soldiers.

10 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:25:13am
Senate Republicans intend to block action on virtually all Democratic-backed legislation unrelated to tax cuts and government spending in the current postelection session of Congress

Something tells me they'd block dem-backed tax cuts and spending cuts as well, just because.

11 jamesfirecat  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:25:15am

re: #8 LudwigVanQuixote

The Dems have the astonishing ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. It would help a lot if someone could beat some spine into them. Unfortunately, the last real Dem leaders are from the last generation and they are all dead or retired.

Hey we've got Al Franken for at least another 4 years or so... if he wins a few more elections he might have the seniority to start really steering the dem senators in the right direction and attitude.... or at least a guy can hope...

12 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:25:30am

I have never seen anything sum up this situation better than this minute and a half long cartoon:

Uncompromise

Youtube Video
13 Shiplord Kirel  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:26:18am

GOP Fatcat: What? You think we're doing this because our corporate supporters want us to, regardless of what it costs the country and the little people?

Citizen: Yeah, that's exactly what I think.

GOP Fatcat: Look! Over there! A couple of gays getting married!

14 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:27:16am

re: #9 SanFranciscoZionist

First they have to save it from gay, illegal immigrant soldiers.

Who make anchor babies, will take your guns, kill your granny in death panels, fluoridate the water, convince you to masturbate and force you to be commies for their Kenyan born Muslim leader!

15 Varek Raith  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:28:02am

re: #14 LudwigVanQuixote

Who make terror anchor babies, will take your guns, kill your granny in death panels, fluoridate the water, convince you to masturbate and force you to be commies for their Kenyan born Muslim leader!

16 Political Atheist  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:29:04am

Does anyone think this will get better after all the new guys swear in?

From CNN
Washington (CNN) -- Senate Republicans promised Wednesday to block legislative action on every issue being considered by the lame-duck Congress until the dispute over extending the Bush-era tax cuts is resolved and an extension of current government funding is approved.

All 42 Senate Republicans signed a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, vowing to prevent a vote on "any legislative item until the Senate has acted to fund the government and we have prevented the tax increase that is currently awaiting all American taxpayers."

17 Gus  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:29:24am

re: #14 LudwigVanQuixote

Who make anchor babies, will take your guns, kill your granny in death panels, fluoridate the water, convince you to masturbate and force you to be commies for their Kenyan born Muslim leader!

Don't forget the "war on Christmas"!!11ty

18 Jeff In Ohio  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:29:49am

re: #4 Varek Raith

The GOP doesn't want the government to work.
Nice, frakked up logic they got going.

If they let the government work, the current GOP would have no reason to exist since their reason for existing is the assertion that government does not work.

19 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:30:48am

re: #3 LudwigVanQuixote

PIMF I hate typos that are not only typos, but make it look like I don't know English.

The GOP spent two years refusing to compromise on anything. No matter what the president set in motion, even if it was something that formerly had broad bi-partisan support, like cap and trade (which they ran on in 2008!) or the START treaty, they flipped on. Boner (intentional misspelling) announced clearly after the recent elections that there would be even less compromise (as if that were possible).

They are the party of no. With Fox news smearing everything that the president does as the work of Satan, or communists or terrorists or Cthulu or whatever the fear mongering du jour is, this plays well to the GOP's ignorant and stupid base. It was a winning strategy for the GOP up to the election.

They see no reason to actually govern or come up with ideas of their own. I do not expect that to change now that they have the house. As to things I do expect to see pushed, it will all be on agendas that turn back or prevent any progress, in areas like climate legislation, education, personal liberties and civil rights.

20 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:31:34am

re: #16 Rightwingconspirator

Does anyone think this will get better after all the new guys swear in?

From CNN
Washington (CNN) -- Senate Republicans promised Wednesday to block legislative action on every issue being considered by the lame-duck Congress until the dispute over extending the Bush-era tax cuts is resolved and an extension of current government funding is approved.

All 42 Senate Republicans signed a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, vowing to prevent a vote on "any legislative item until the Senate has acted to fund the government and we have prevented the tax increase that is currently awaiting all American taxpayers."

Uhhh they filibustered everything else... What else is new?

21 kingkenrod  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:32:01am

re: #16 Rightwingconspirator

Does anyone think this will get better after all the new guys swear in?

From CNN
Washington (CNN) -- Senate Republicans promised Wednesday to block legislative action on every issue being considered by the lame-duck Congress until the dispute over extending the Bush-era tax cuts is resolved and an extension of current government funding is approved.

All 42 Senate Republicans signed a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, vowing to prevent a vote on "any legislative item until the Senate has acted to fund the government and we have prevented the tax increase that is currently awaiting all American taxpayers."


There's nothing more important to the economic recovery than getting the tax situation worked out. Remember, the Bush tax cuts will expire for everyone, including the middle class, if Congress takes no action. If this move forces action on extending the tax cuts, I'm all for it. There's nothing else scheduled in the lame duck session that can't wait anyway.

22 Gus  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:32:10am

So if the Senate GOP was a footballs team it would be all defense and no offense? IOW, they'll block the drive but won't score a touchdown. If successful, the final score, theoretically, would be 0-0. No one wins. I never though I'd see the GOP playing soccer.

23 jamesfirecat  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:33:00am

re: #16 Rightwingconspirator

Does anyone think this will get better after all the new guys swear in?

From CNN
Washington (CNN) -- Senate Republicans promised Wednesday to block legislative action on every issue being considered by the lame-duck Congress until the dispute over extending the Bush-era tax cuts is resolved and an extension of current government funding is approved.

All 42 Senate Republicans signed a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, vowing to prevent a vote on "any legislative item until the Senate has acted to fund the government and we have prevented the tax increase that is currently awaiting all American taxpayers."

You're being sarcastic right?

///Yes the Senate is bound to become a more rational place once Rand Paul joins it!

24 Vicious Babushka  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:33:09am

re: #14 LudwigVanQuixote

Who make anchor babies, will take your guns, kill your granny in death panels, fluoridate the water, convince you to masturbate and force you to be commies for their Kenyan born Muslim leader!

Heh. My son has made a bunch of Canadian anchor babies.

25 Linden Arden  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:33:18am

FWIW - the Fed has released the details of its emergency actions - what they did was incredible. Bernanke earned his Man of the Year award.

NYT

Now Ron Paul can STFU about his fake "audit" - every transaction from 2007- July 2010 is now public.

26 funky chicken  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:33:22am

re: #8 LudwigVanQuixote

The weird thing is, I was over at TPM and a guy was screaming for them to grow spine and attack Obama over the Federal employee pay freeze. I think that is a brilliant move, and sets the stage perfectly to put the GOP and millionaires up against the wall on the tax cut issue--Fed workers are gonna sacrifice, so the rich damn well should too. Unemployed or underemployed folks ain't gonna feel bad for government employees because their pay is gonna be the same for 2 years, right?

So the impulse to just be always pugilistic should be avoided...but surely the dems have more attractive and capable communicators than Pelosi, Reid, and Patty Murray? I'll admit Barbara Mikulski isn't attractive as a woman, but she's sharp. Maybe they need to roll out The Big Dog to make this case if they can't find anybody else.

27 Political Atheist  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:34:18am

Mixed signals to say the least...
Headling GOP Softens Stance on SALT
From WST
*grain of Salt*
President Barack Obama on Tuesday gained significant Republican support for his top foreign-policy priority, a nuclear-arms treaty with Russia that in recent days had appeared all but dead for the year in the Senate.

Separately, in their long-awaited first meeting since the election, the president and Republican leaders appointed a set of negotiators to hunt for a compromise on the future of the Bush-era tax cuts, set to expire at year's end.
Mr. Obama wants the Senate to ratify the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty in its current lame-duck session, but Republican leaders have resisted. On Tuesday, however, two key Senate Republicans, John McCain of Arizona and George Voinovich of Ohio, expressed confidence that the agreement could be ratified before the end of the year.

28 blueraven  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:34:54am

re: #21 kingkenrod

There's nothing more important to the economic recovery than getting the tax situation worked out. Remember, the Bush tax cuts will expire for everyone, including the middle class, if Congress takes no action. If this move forces action on extending the tax cuts, I'm all for it. There's nothing else scheduled in the lame duck session that can't wait anyway.

I guess the unemployed can eat cake for Christmas.

29 Political Atheist  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:35:07am

re: #23 jamesfirecat

Pointing out the rock-(lame ducks) and the hard place-Next years GOP majority

30 deranged cat  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:35:33am

oh and if/when they do get the tax cuts, THEN they're gonna be all for cooperating, right? yea, right.

31 Lidane  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:35:51am

re: #10 Slumbering Behemoth

Something tells me they'd block dem-backed tax cuts and spending cuts as well, just because.

Democrats could call for things like a flat tax or national sales tax, repealing the 16th Amendment, or a balanced budget Amendment and these assholes would find a way to oppose it.

It's not about the principles for these jokers. It's about having the credit go to someone with an (R) after their name for the idea. They're still pissed about Clinton co-opting their entire agenda, and they're determined to stifle Obama at every turn.

32 jamesfirecat  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:35:59am

re: #29 Rightwingconspirator

Pointing out the rock-(lame ducks) and the hard place-Next years GOP majority

Okay sorry internet means I can't hear your tone of voice.

So I wasn't sure if you were saying it as an honest question or in a groany "this is gonna get even worse when the new guys come in...." kind of way...

33 funky chicken  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:36:22am

re: #21 kingkenrod

There's nothing more important to the economic recovery than getting the tax situation worked out. Remember, the Bush tax cuts will expire for everyone, including the middle class, if Congress takes no action. If this move forces action on extending the tax cuts, I'm all for it. There's nothing else scheduled in the lame duck session that can't wait anyway.

If the dems are smart, they will fire back with extensions for everybody below $200,000 annual income only. Then they will tie this action in with the Federal government 2 year pay freeze and explain that everybody is sacrificing in this tough economy, and the percentage increase for the wealthy isn't that big anyway.

I'm not terribly optimistic.

34 Jeff In Ohio  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:36:54am

re: #21 kingkenrod

There's nothing more important to the economic recovery than getting the tax situation worked out. Remember, the Bush tax cuts will expire for everyone, including the middle class, if Congress takes no action. If this move forces action on extending the tax cuts, I'm all for it. There's nothing else scheduled in the lame duck session that can't wait anyway.

Right. Unemployment insurance. Start. DADT. These are all things that will be brought to the floor when the new congress gets in. And defeated.

There is no bigger canard then the tax cuts are key to economic recovery. It was a canard when they were enacted. It's a canard now.ca

35 Varek Raith  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:37:28am

re: #28 blueraven

I guess the unemployed can eat cake for Christmas.

And I suppose START is no biggie.

36 kingkenrod  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:37:35am

re: #28 blueraven

I guess the unemployed can eat cake for Christmas.

What is unemployment up to now, 99 weeks? I say creating jobs is more important. Besides, everyone knows that unemployment will be extended, even if there is a gap, the extension will be retroactive.

37 nines09  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:37:37am

re: #28 blueraven

I guess the unemployed can eat cake for Christmas.

That is the GOP Christmas Message.

38 jamesfirecat  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:38:37am

re: #22 Gus 802

So if the Senate GOP was a footballs team it would be all defense and no offense? IOW, they'll block the drive but won't score a touchdown. If successful, the final score, theoretically, would be 0-0. No one wins. I never though I'd see the GOP playing soccer.

The GOP controlled all three branches for six years under Bush... what did they accomplish besides getting us bogged down in one land war in the Middle East and another in Asia?

What did W really change about life in America besides the Overton window and a couple of things I think most people can agree with me that he shouldn't have done?


Say what you will about Obama and if you like them or not but he sure is making big changes in a number of places ..

39 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:38:40am

re: #21 kingkenrod

You are aware, right, that the GOP has blocked extensions of the tax cuts that don't include those for the highest percentile?

They have refused to compromise one whit on that.

40 SpaceJesus  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:38:45am

the system isn't broken, the american people are broken

41 Four More Tears  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:39:15am

Yesterday's news, but it made me sigh:

Republican Calls Obama 'Very, Very Urban' On House Floor

Rep. Steve King, a Republican from Iowa, referred to President Obama as "very, very urban," while charging that as a senator he gave special favor to African American farmers who were victims of government discrimination.
42 Lidane  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:39:16am

re: #28 blueraven

I guess the unemployed can eat cake for Christmas.

As long as they don't pay for that cake with unemployment benefits or food stamps, sure.

/2010 GOP

43 Varek Raith  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:39:31am

re: #36 kingkenrod

What is unemployment up to now, 99 weeks? I say creating jobs is more important. Besides, everyone knows that unemployment will be extended, even if there is a gap, the extension will be retroactive.

Show me proof that extending the tax cuts for the wealthy will create jobs.

44 jamesfirecat  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:39:44am

re: #34 Jeff In Ohio

Right. Unemployment insurance. Start. DADT. These are all things that will be brought to the floor when the new congress gets in. And defeated.

There is no bigger canard then the tax cuts are key to economic recovery. It was a canard when they were enacted. It's a canard now.ca

You do realize that Unemployment benefits do NOTICEABLY MORE to stimulate the economy than tax cuts don't you?

45 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:39:55am

re: #41 JasonA

Yesterday's news, but it made me sigh:

Republican Calls Obama 'Very, Very Urban' On House Floor

HOW urban is the President, again?

46 Varek Raith  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:40:17am

re: #45 SanFranciscoZionist

HOW urban is the President, again?

Yo mama!
/

47 jamesfirecat  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:40:26am

re: #36 kingkenrod

What is unemployment up to now, 99 weeks? I say creating jobs is more important. Besides, everyone knows that unemployment will be extended, even if there is a gap, the extension will be retroactive.

Its not gonna happen unless a GOP Senator or two has their heart grows three sizes...

48 Lidane  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:40:29am

re: #41 JasonA

Yesterday's news, but it made me sigh:

Republican Calls Obama 'Very, Very Urban' On House Floor

WTF does that even mean? "Very, very urban"? Is that code for him being a Blood or a Crip or something?

49 Gus  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:40:38am

re: #36 kingkenrod

What is unemployment up to now, 99 weeks? I say creating jobs is more important. Besides, everyone knows that unemployment will be extended, even if there is a gap, the extension will be retroactive.

The top earners have had the tax cuts for what, 4 years now? Have they been creating jobs? Frankly (and I'm no fan of high taxes) where's the beef? We're looking at record profits all across the board and I'm not seeing any job creation coming from the top earners (and corporations). I seriously doubt extending the Bush tax cuts will have any effect on job creation since we haven't seen it work already.

50 kingkenrod  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:40:39am

re: #34 Jeff In Ohio

Right. Unemployment insurance. Start. DADT. These are all things that will be brought to the floor when the new congress gets in. And defeated.

There is no bigger canard then the tax cuts are key to economic recovery. It was a canard when they were enacted. It's a canard now.ca

START isn't affected by the filibuster threat. The rules are different for treaties.

51 webevintage  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:41:02am

re: #1 bluewater

No surprise there...but no joy either.

At some point are these guys going to consider the need to govern the country? I doubt it.

NO.
It is all about winning.
That's it.

52 Four More Tears  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:41:07am

re: #46 Varek Raith

Yo mama!
/

Word yo.

53 nines09  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:41:13am

re: #48 Lidane

From da hood.

54 Varek Raith  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:41:34am

re: #49 Gus 802

The top earners have had the tax cuts for what, 4 years now? Have they been creating jobs? Frankly (and I'm no fan of high taxes) where's the beef? We're looking at record profits all across the board and I'm not seeing any job creation coming from the top earners (and corporations). I seriously doubt extending the Bush tax cuts will have any effect on job creation since we haven't seen it work already.

And don't get me started on that "they're not creating jobs because of uncertainty" bullshit.

55 Killgore Trout  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:41:40am

re: #38 jamesfirecat

Agreed. Obama has already passed the most pressing parts of his agenda. Saving the economy and healthcare reform were very necessary. We'll see how committed the Republicans are to collapsing the country but when it comes right down to it I don't think they have the guts.

56 jamesfirecat  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:41:52am

re: #45 SanFranciscoZionist

HOW urban is the President, again?

Well Hawaii is just one big city after another isn't it?

57 blueraven  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:41:55am

re: #36 kingkenrod

What is unemployment up to now, 99 weeks? I say creating jobs is more important. Besides, everyone knows that unemployment will be extended, even if there is a gap, the extension will be retroactive.

There is no evidence that tax cuts (especially for the wealthy) stimulates the economy.

[Link: capitalgainsandgames.com...]

58 Sinistershade  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:41:58am

re: #45 SanFranciscoZionist

HOW urban is the President, again?

I think for these folks, "very, very urban" equates to "darker than a brown-paper grocery bag."

(I wish I could put a sarc tag on this.)

59 Four More Tears  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:41:59am

re: #48 Lidane

WTF does that even mean? "Very, very urban"? Is that code for him being a Blood or a Crip or something?

In da ghetto...

60 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:42:00am

re: #46 Varek Raith

Yo mama!
/

The President is so urban that his Christmas tree has an iron fence around it!

61 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:42:03am

re: #14 LudwigVanQuixote

Who make anchor babies, will take your guns, kill your granny in death panels, fluoridate the water, convince you to masturbate and force you to be commies for their Kenyan born Muslim leader!

That's total bullshit, LVQ. If masturbating made you a commie, I'd make Stalin, Mao, and Castro all look like fluffy, capitalist bunnies by now.
:P

62 jamesfirecat  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:42:39am

re: #50 kingkenrod

START isn't affected by the filibuster threat. The rules are different for treaties.

No instead it's locked down by needing SIXTY SEVEN votes to passed.

63 Varek Raith  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:42:43am

re: #59 JasonA

In da ghetto...

Like gangstalicious up in this joint.
/

64 NJDhockeyfan  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:42:49am

re: #48 Lidane

WTF does that even mean? "Very, very urban"? Is that code for him being a Blood or a Crip or something?

Maybe they got that idea from NPR...

That Fat Lip Might Give Obama Some Street Cred

65 Gus  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:43:56am

re: #54 Varek Raith

And don't get me started on that "they're not creating jobs because of uncertainty" bullshit.

That's the excuse I've been hearing: uncertainty. They've had certainty for the past two years since the market crashed in October of 2008. The recession, I believe, officially began in 2007. They've had these tax cuts for a long time now? What have they been doing buying luxury items?

66 Varek Raith  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:44:01am

re: #63 Varek Raith

Like gangstalicious up in this joint.
/

I blame it on me watching too much Boondocks.
:P

67 Talking Point Detective  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:44:39am

re: #5 funky chicken

fits while concurrently demanding to extend tax cuts for millionaires? Should be political suicide. But, like I said...

I think at least some of them are making a calculated risk. Not extending unemployment benefits will hurt the economy; hurting the economy while Obama is president works to the GOP's political benefit

Given that virtually all economists agree that unemployment benefits bring a significantly greater gain than the revenues invested, there seems to be no other logical explanation. The fact that these people gain political traction by calling for "fiscal conservatism" is the height of fraud.

68 cliffster  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:44:50am

re: #64 NJDhockeyfan

Maybe they got that idea from NPR...

That Fat Lip Might Give Obama Some Street Cred

haha, oh those racists at NPR..

69 wrenchwench  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:44:56am

re: #58 Sinistershade

I think for these folks, "very, very urban" equates to "darker than a brown-paper grocery bag."

(I wish I could put a sarc tag on this.)

Would that be a "Sinistershade"?

/

70 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:44:59am

I beg you all to look at this post and at least watch the two little videos. They are short. Please. This needs to be put in prospective.

Republicans are fundamentally opposed to the rights, liberty and prosperity of the American people in as much as those rights liberties and prosperity disagrees with the profits of their corporate masters or the ideologies of the the religious right.

But it really is much worse than that.

Look at:

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

The most likely scenarios now have us reaching a four degree rise in global temperatures by 2060-2070 and six by 2100.

That is the end of the world folks. No really. No exaggeration. Game over for our civilization, no hyperbole, game over.

Please look at this little video from National Geographic.

6 Degrees Warmer: Mass Extinction

Youtube Video

5 Degrees Warmer: Civilization Collapses

Youtube Video

4 Degrees Warmer: Great Cities Wash Away

Youtube Video

I repeat, at present course we hit 4 degrees by 2060-2070.

71 Jeff In Ohio  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:45:04am

re: #36 kingkenrod

What is unemployment up to now, 99 weeks? I say creating jobs is more important. Besides, everyone knows that unemployment will be extended, even if there is a gap, the extension will be retroactive.

Unemployment insurance and job creation are not mutually exclusive activities.

72 Lidane  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:45:15am

re: #43 Varek Raith

Show me proof that extending the tax cuts for the wealthy will create jobs.

"Well, all I can say it hasn’t trickled. You know, as I said, a rising tide has lifted all yachts, but the rowboats have been left behind.”

--Warren Buffett on trickle-down economics

73 webevintage  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:45:24am

re: #36 kingkenrod

What is unemployment up to now, 99 weeks? I say creating jobs is more important. Besides, everyone knows that unemployment will be extended, even if there is a gap, the extension will be retroactive.

Can't create jobs if you have no one with money to spend.
Consumers drive our economy...have enough consumers without money to buy even groceries and we come to a screeching halt.

74 stevemcg  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:45:41am

re: #61 Slumbering Behemoth

That's total bullshit, LVQ. If masturbating made you a commie, I'd make Stalin, Mao, and Castro all look like fluffy, capitalist bunnies by now.
:P

Can we PLEASE not go there?

75 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:46:12am

re: #24 Alouette

Heh. My son has made a bunch of Canadian anchor babies.

I finally came up with the best way to really explain the bit about the vowels from that other discussion.

Consider:

The cat was on the hat table,

vs.

The cat was on the hot table,

vs.

The cot was on the hat table. (Maybe, someone folded it up and put it there.)

vs.

The cot was on the hot table.

The written Hebrew in the written Torah would look like:

The "ct" was on the "ht" table.

Without some tradition or context to tell you which of those four totally different sentences was what the actual phrase is, you would be at an utter loss. The deal with do not cook a kid in its mother's milk vs. do not cook a kid in its mother's fat is exactly, a case like this.

You might ask why the written Torah doesn't have those vowels in it. The answer is so that you have to get the Oral Tradition when you learn it in the first place! This was to prevent against the entire issue of people making what they will out of the verses in the first place!

Once someone goes and makes a translation though, that has all of the vowels, you remove the entire process of teacher and student, and allow someone to read that translation as whatever the words they see are.

76 jamesfirecat  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:46:37am

re: #72 Lidane

//CLASS CIVIL-WARFARE!

77 Shiplord Kirel  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:46:37am

re: #14 LudwigVanQuixote

Who make anchor babies, will take your guns, kill your granny in death panels, fluoridate the water, convince you to masturbate and force you to be commies for their Kenyan born Muslim leader!

Besides, I'd take my granny over a bureaucrat death panel any day.

Granny: "So, you paper-pushing pissants! You think you're gonna make Soylent Green outta' me!"

Death Panelist: "Not exactly, ma'am."

Granny: "Hah! A likely story. How old are you anyway?"

Death Panelist: "I'm 53 now, ma'am."

Granny: "Just outta' diapers then. What would you know about aging?"

Death Panelist: "Well, I..."

Granny: "Did you know you look like Herbert Hoover?"

Death Panelist: "Huh?"

Granny: "Just as I thought, dumber than a snowflake and not nearly as pretty."

Death Panelist: "Now wait a minute, ma'am!"

Granny: "Wrong again, snotnose. I've waited 50 years to use this cane on some insolent young punk and you're it!"

Death Panelist: "Acchhhh!! Someone call the cops!"

Granny: "What a wienie, wants to report a 104 year old woman beat him up. (Reaches into handbag) Here, have a couple of chocolate-chip cookies and calm down."

78 Four More Tears  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:46:40am

re: #70 LudwigVanQuixote

Scuba-diving through the Venitian ruins actually sounds like fun.

/

79 funky chicken  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:46:53am

re: #34 Jeff In Ohio

Right. Unemployment insurance. Start. DADT. These are all things that will be brought to the floor when the new congress gets in. And defeated.

There is no bigger canard then the tax cuts are key to economic recovery. It was a canard when they were enacted. It's a canard now.ca

Speaking as an Air Force officer's spouse, I can tell you that DADT is a peripheral issue at best to most AF folks, active duty or dependent. The Marines are a different story, and I wouldn't ever want to tell them how they have to do their jobs because they are tasked with the worst of the worst stuff already, and forcing something upon them out of the blue when they're already bogged down in Afghanistan isn't fair, IMHO. However, I really don't think the repeal of DADT would result in a huge stampede of flamboyant homosexual men knocking down doors for the opportunity to participate in Marine boot camp, so it's probably a peripheral issue for the USMC too, to be honest :-).

A good compromise could be a trial period where DADT is repealed for the USAF and the Coast Guard for 5 years to see how it goes and study the situation before enacting a repeal for the Marines, Army, and full Navy.

80 webevintage  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:47:04am

re: #41 JasonA

Yesterday's news, but it made me sigh:

Republican Calls Obama 'Very, Very Urban' On House Floor

Well King is a hick moron from Iowa who seems to not realize that most Americans live in urban/suburban areas.

(and yeah, I know what he meant...what an asshole)

81 Jeff In Ohio  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:47:06am

re: #44 jamesfirecat

You do realize that Unemployment benefits do NOTICEABLY MORE to stimulate the economy than tax cuts don't you?

Um...yes. I do know that.

82 Bulworth  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:47:10am

I'm waiting for the inevitable David Broder column saying this now forces Obama to be Very Serious about Bipartisanship.

Also, too, the deficit.

83 Varek Raith  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:47:14am

re: #72 Lidane

Image: wealthtrickle.jpg

84 Lidane  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:47:45am

re: #76 jamesfirecat

//CLASS CIVIL-WARFARE!

Yep. Started by a billionaire who thinks he doesn't pay enough in taxes. Heh.

85 Jeff In Ohio  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:49:08am

re: #50 kingkenrod

START isn't affected by the filibuster threat. The rules are different for treaties.

Fiar point. It's +10% better then a filibuster.

86 funky chicken  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:49:10am

re: #49 Gus 802

The top earners have had the tax cuts for what, 4 years now? Have they been creating jobs? Frankly (and I'm no fan of high taxes) where's the beef? We're looking at record profits all across the board and I'm not seeing any job creation coming from the top earners (and corporations). I seriously doubt extending the Bush tax cuts will have any effect on job creation since we haven't seen it work already.

Well, to be fair, it created jobs in 3rd world textile, shoe, and electronics factories.

Try finding shoes made in the USA anymore, even at an expensive store like Dillards.

87 Gus  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:49:20am

And it's not the tax "earners" that create jobs as much as the corporations. The corporate tax rate hasn't budged in years and there are no plans to raise the corporate tax. Jobs can also be created through investment and investors require capital and it's the banks that aren't releasing the credit since they're busy claiming uncertainty while setting record earnings and giving out record bonuses.

88 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:49:47am

re: #77 Shiplord Kirel

Besides, I'd take my granny over a bureaucrat death panel any day.

Granny: "So, you paper-pushing pissants! You think you're gonna make Soylent Green outta' me!"

Death Panelist: "Not exactly, ma'am."

Granny: "Hah! A likely story. How old are you anyway?"

Death Panelist: "I'm 53 now, ma'am."

Granny: "Just outta' diapers then. What would you know about aging?"

Death Panelist: "Well, I..."

Granny: "Did you know you look like Herbert Hoover?"

Death Panelist: "Huh?"

Granny: "Just as I thought, dumber than a snowflake and not nearly as pretty."

Death Panelist: "Now wait a minute, ma'am!"

Granny: "Wrong again, snotnose. I've waited 50 years to use this cane on some insolent young punk and you're it!"

Death Panelist: "Acchhh!! Someone call the cops!"

Granny: "What a wienie, wants to report a 104 year old woman beat him up. (Reaches into handbag) Here, have a couple of chocolate-chip cookies and calm down."

These two posts of yours are genius. You really should expand them and make a page out of them.

89 Talking Point Detective  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:50:07am

re: #54 Varek Raith

And don't get me started on that "they're not creating jobs because of uncertainty" bullshit.

C'mon - do you doubt that since the country's inception, businesses only hired workers and/or invested in new assets when they were guaranteed success?

I mean - it's not like the current financial crises is attributable to massively irresponsible risk taking.

Or anything like that.

90 funky chicken  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:51:04am

re: #14 LudwigVanQuixote

Who make anchor babies, will take your guns, kill your granny in death panels, fluoridate the water, convince you to masturbate and force you to be commies for their Kenyan born Muslim leader!

Every mention of "death panels" makes me remember the "keep the government away from my Medicare" stuff. LOL

91 Tigger2  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:51:33am

re: #18 Jeff In Ohio

If they let the government work, the current GOP would have no reason to exist since their reason for existing is the assertion that government does not work.

The only thing the GOP exist for is to help the rich, the corporations and banks, the middle and lowers classes don't even exist to them.

92 webevintage  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:51:54am

re: #82 Bulworth

I'm waiting for the inevitable David Broder column saying this now forces Obama to be Very Serious about Bipartisanship.

Also, too, the deficit.

#4 on the Hack list:
[Link: www.salon.com...]
"The Dean" never met a problem that couldn't be solved by more serious calls for bipartisanship"

93 Kragar  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:51:59am

Fuck you GOP, just fuck you.

94 funky chicken  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:52:16am

re: #87 Gus 802

And it's not the tax "earners" that create jobs as much as the corporations. The corporate tax rate hasn't budged in years and there are no plans to raise the corporate tax. Jobs can also be created through investment and investors require capital and it's the banks that aren't releasing the credit since they're busy claiming uncertainty while setting record earnings and giving out record bonuses.

AMEN, AMEN, AMEN

with that, gotta go

95 Gus  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:52:24am

re: #86 funky chicken

Well, to be fair, it created jobs in 3rd world textile, shoe, and electronics factories.

Try finding shoes made in the USA anymore, even at an expensive store like Dillards.

Yeah, I know. They go to China where they can pay the factory workers 3000 USD a year. Then set up call centers in India where they can pay them 6000 a year. Then they sell stock on the US DOW and call themselves an "American" company.

96 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:52:31am

re: #60 SanFranciscoZionist

The President is so urban that his Christmas tree has an iron fence around it!

The POTUS is so urban, Air Force One has spinnin' rims.
/

97 lostlakehiker  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:52:41am

There are two issues that really must be addressed first:

(1) There must be a continuing resolution so that the government can carry on into next year, with the same spending as this year if no other legislation can be passed.

(2) There must be some sort of extension of the "Bush" tax cuts. Allowing tax law to default to rates that, through inflation, have become wholly unrealistic and unreasonable, is not an option.

The Republican leadership hasn't exactly said it won't work with the Democrats. Maybe it will come to that, and maybe it won't. For now, the R position is that nothing else will be dealt with in the current lame-duck session until these two top priorities have been addressed.

98 webevintage  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:53:47am

re: #90 funky chicken

Every mention of "death panels" makes me remember the "keep the government away from my Medicare" stuff. LOL

Looks like Arizona is gonna get them some "Death Panels" soon:
[Link: www.dailykos.com...]

99 Varek Raith  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:54:02am

re: #96 Slumbering Behemoth

The POTUS is so urban, Air Force One has spinnin' rims.
/

Youtube Video
100 Lidane  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:54:17am

re: #97 lostlakehiker

The Republican leadership hasn't exactly said it won't work with the Democrats.

Bullshit. The GOP position is that they will only work with Dems if the Dems drop what they want and give the GOP everything on their agenda. It's been that way for ages.

101 Four More Tears  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:54:22am

re: #96 Slumbering Behemoth

The POTUS is so urban, Air Force One has spinnin' rims.
/

Pres is so urban, he trained Bo to fight Michael Vick...

102 stevemcg  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:54:36am

re: #97 lostlakehiker

Inflation is meaningless when it comes to tax rates.

103 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:55:20am

re: #74 stevemcg

Can we PLEASE not go there?

It seems we have not met.

Hello, I am The Behemoth, and I live there. I'd shake your hand, but... you know.

104 Varek Raith  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:55:42am

re: #97 lostlakehiker

Why does the GOP care more about the wealthy 1% than the rest of the 99%?

105 webevintage  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:55:50am

Hi and Bye...my Kindle 2 just came to the door.
Gotta go play.

106 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:56:08am

re: #97 lostlakehiker

The GOP has said that they oppose any extension to the tax cuts that doesn't include the tax cut for the highest percentile.

Can you explain what inflation has to do with the rate of tax, given that tax rates are percentages?

107 cliffster  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:56:14am

re: #97 lostlakehiker

For almost every voter who voted Republican, their #1 priority is preventing tax increases. The Senate Republicans are listening to their voters. It's an interesting concept.

108 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:56:50am

re: #107 cliffster

Is their priority preventing tax increases for the top income bracket?

109 Talking Point Detective  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:56:58am

re: #97 lostlakehiker

There are two issues that really must be addressed first:

(1) There must be a continuing resolution so that the government can carry on into next year, with the same spending as this year if no other legislation can be passed.

(2) There must be some sort of extension of the "Bush" tax cuts. Allowing tax law to default to rates that, through inflation, have become wholly unrealistic and unreasonable, is not an option.

The Republican leadership hasn't exactly said it won't work with the Democrats. Maybe it will come to that, and maybe it won't. For now, the R position is that nothing else will be dealt with in the current lame-duck session until these two top priorities have been addressed.

Maybe I'm misreading your post?

Are you aware that most economists agree that the Bush tax cuts meant at least 100 billion less in revenues? And add to that the additional debt service.

Are you aware that most economists agree that unemployment benefits more than pay for themselves?

110 Gus  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:57:36am

Also. If you're a sole proprietor making the big money and creating jobs you're not filing taxes as an individual but through incorporation.

111 Varek Raith  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:57:49am

re: #107 cliffster

For almost every voter who voted Republican, their #1 priority is preventing tax increases. The Senate Republicans are listening to their voters. It's an interesting concept.



Poll: Most Americans Want Tax Cuts for the Rich to Expire

112 webevintage  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:58:31am

Opps, not gone yet...

Looks like Mike Pence has his priorities straight:
Pence Prioritizes Tax Breaks For Millionaires Over Extending Unemployment Benefits
[Link: thinkprogress.org...]

HALPERIN: If your leaders came to you and said ‘we have a deal with the White House. We’re going to extend unemployment benefits but the tax cuts for people making over a million dollars a year will not be extended, but that helps to pay for it,’ would you take that deal? Would you vote for that package?

PENCE: Look, I think the worst thing you could do for people that are struggling in this economy and looking for a job is raise taxes on any American. We don’t want to help with one hand and take away with the other.

HALPERIN: So would rather extend the tax cuts for every American, including those making over a million, or have the unemployment benefits extended, if that’s the choice?

PENCE: This isn’t a corner, but I feel the paint. I’m good. Nice move. I played chess with my son the other day and I lost, so I’m not good at this chess thing. Let me tell you, I think the minimum we have to do for Americans right now that are struggling in unemployment in this economy is make sure no American sees a tax increase.

113 Bulworth  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:58:38am

re: #97 lostlakehiker


And the deficit must be eliminated or cut or something.

114 albusteve  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:58:50am

re: #97 lostlakehiker

There are two issues that really must be addressed first:

(1) There must be a continuing resolution so that the government can carry on into next year, with the same spending as this year if no other legislation can be passed.

(2) There must be some sort of extension of the "Bush" tax cuts. Allowing tax law to default to rates that, through inflation, have become wholly unrealistic and unreasonable, is not an option.

The Republican leadership hasn't exactly said it won't work with the Democrats. Maybe it will come to that, and maybe it won't. For now, the R position is that nothing else will be dealt with in the current lame-duck session until these two top priorities have been addressed.

congress hasn't accomplished zip all summer and fall....Harry, Nancy and BO have just fallen off the radar, stunned and nearly disfunctional....to consider their lack of any progress the entire fault of the GOP is denial....govt is nearly disfunctional at this point

115 webevintage  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:59:12am

re: #107 cliffster

For almost every voter who voted Republican, their #1 priority is preventing tax increases. The Senate Republicans are listening to their voters. It's an interesting concept.

well not really...

116 blueraven  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 10:59:41am

re: #107 cliffster

For almost every voter who voted Republican, their #1 priority is preventing tax increases. The Senate Republicans are listening to their voters. It's an interesting concept.

Yet about 75% according to many polls agree that the tax cuts for those making over 250K should be allowed to expire.

117 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:00:05am

re: #107 cliffster

Yeah, and I suppose their voters also told them to obstruct everything else until the little babies get their way.

Jebus. Politics and governing is all about compromise. Period. Full stop.

This new batch has just declared that they will stamp their widdle feet and hold every gawt-damned thing up unless they get their way, no matter how hurtful it is to the American people.

They should just take their ball and go home, the spoiled brats. And send some fucking grown-up republicans next time.

118 Talking Point Detective  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:00:40am

re: #107 cliffster

For almost every voter who voted Republican, their #1 priority is preventing tax increases. The Senate Republicans are listening to their voters. It's an interesting concept.

Are you aware that most economists agree that the Bush tax cuts resulted in less tax revenue than would have been generated without them?

If Republican voters are concerned with the debt, then why are Republican politicians trying to extend the tax cuts?

119 cliffster  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:00:44am

re: #111 Varek Raith


Poll: Most Americans Want Tax Cuts for the Rich to Expire

Polls, as a rule, are not worth the disk space they're stored on. Interestingly, though, from your article:

Fifty-three percent of Americans agree with Mr. Obama that the tax cuts for the wealthy should be allowed to expire, while 38 percent do not, according to the poll, conducted Sept. 10-14.

Two of three Democrats think it is a good idea, and most independents (55 percent) agree. Most Republicans (57 percent) think it is a bad idea.

Listening to your voters.. interesting idea

120 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:01:20am

re: #116 blueraven

What we really need to do is to raise capital gains tax rates to match ordinary income rates, with deductions for sales of homes and other things that mainly affect the middle class. A lot of the highest income earners won't be touched at all by a rise in the ordinary income tax, since their income is unearned.

121 Jeff In Ohio  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:01:33am

re: #79 funky chicken

Speaking as an Air Force officer's spouse, I can tell you that DADT is a peripheral issue at best to most AF folks, active duty or dependent. The Marines are a different story, and I wouldn't ever want to tell them how they have to do their jobs because they are tasked with the worst of the worst stuff already, and forcing something upon them out of the blue when they're already bogged down in Afghanistan isn't fair, IMHO. However, I really don't think the repeal of DADT would result in a huge stampede of flamboyant homosexual men knocking down doors for the opportunity to participate in Marine boot camp, so it's probably a peripheral issue for the USMC too, to be honest :-).

A good compromise could be a trial period where DADT is repealed for the USAF and the Coast Guard for 5 years to see how it goes and study the situation before enacting a repeal for the Marines, Army, and full Navy.

Thanks to your husband for his service. I come from a long line of military, from the 7 years war to Afghanistan.

That said, it's about giving full rights of citizenship to a class of Americans. If congress doesn't do it and let Gates implement it, the courts will force it on the services. The time for studying is over.

122 albusteve  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:01:45am

did congress even pass a budget for this year?

123 Lidane  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:02:00am

re: #117 Slumbering Behemoth

This new batch has just declared that they will stamp their widdle feet and hold every gawt-damned thing up unless they get their way, no matter how hurtful it is to the American people.

They should just take their ball and go home, the spoiled brats. And send some fucking grown-up republicans next time.

BRB. Sending adult diapers and pacifiers to the current Republican leadership. If they're going to act like babies, they should at least look the part, no?

124 Four More Tears  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:02:36am

re: #79 funky chicken

Here's the thing...

The gays? They're already there.

125 lawhawk  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:03:24am

re: #106 Obdicut

The only place that inflation enters into the tax rate equation is where the tax brackets are adjusted annually for inflation (CPI). The AMT is also inflation sensitive but has to be annually adjusted because the enabling statute does not include a built-in CPI adjuster. The rates themselves are not changed, but the income thresholds are adjusted to account for inflation.

[Link: www.law.cornell.edu...]

126 Gus  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:03:35am

re: #119 cliffster

Polls, as a rule, are not worth the disk space they're stored on. Interestingly, though, from your article:

Listening to your voters.. interesting idea

Yep. Just like Mitch McConnel's state. Number 7 in the percentage of people living below the poverty level. This would be the state of Kentucky.

127 Talking Point Detective  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:03:43am

re: #119 cliffster

Polls, as a rule, are not worth the disk space they're stored on. Interestingly, though, from your article:

Listening to your voters.. interesting idea

Are you aware that most economists agree that Bush's tax cuts resulted in less tax revenue than would have been generated absent the tax cuts?

128 Kragar  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:03:50am

re: #124 JasonA

Here's the thing...

The gays? They're already there.

Rum, Sodomy and the Lash anyone?

129 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:03:51am

re: #119 cliffster

Wow. So you're really saying that a GOP elected official has no duty to attempt to serve those constituents who didn't vote for him. Or even those 43% of his constituents that did vote for him, but disagree with him on this issue.

That's really freaking weird.

But beyond that: the GOP has the duty to actually be fiscally responsible. Attempting to extend the top earners tax cuts, to block rises in the capital gains tax, to otherwise keep taxes at record lows, is not being fiscally responsible. Especially when they can't name jack shit they actually want cut from the budget.

130 Four More Tears  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:04:20am

re: #128 Kragar (proud to be kafir)

Rum, Sodomy and the Lash anyone?

How much is it going to cost me...?

131 funky chicken  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:05:13am

re: #112 webevintage

Opps, not gone yet...

Looks like Mike Pence has his priorities straight:
Pence Prioritizes Tax Breaks For Millionaires Over Extending Unemployment Benefits
[Link: thinkprogress.org...]

HALPERIN: If your leaders came to you and said ‘we have a deal with the White House. We’re going to extend unemployment benefits but the tax cuts for people making over a million dollars a year will not be extended, but that helps to pay for it,’ would you take that deal? Would you vote for that package?

PENCE: Look, I think the worst thing you could do for people that are struggling in this economy and looking for a job is raise taxes on any American. We don’t want to help with one hand and take away with the other.

HALPERIN: So would rather extend the tax cuts for every American, including those making over a million, or have the unemployment benefits extended, if that’s the choice?

PENCE: This isn’t a corner, but I feel the paint. I’m good. Nice move. I played chess with my son the other day and I lost, so I’m not good at this chess thing. Let me tell you, I think the minimum we have to do for Americans right now that are struggling in unemployment in this economy is make sure no American sees a tax increase.

Gawd, please, please please make the GOP become the face of stingy millionaires refusing to pay for extended unemployment right before Xmas.

Charles Dickens wrote a lovely story about this exact topic a while back, and it seems to still enjoy some popularity today....

bye for a while :-)

132 Stanghazi  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:06:08am

OT:

From Twitter

marcambinder

In statement, Lieberman says that Amazon informed him that they had taken down Wikileaks.....

133 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:06:27am

I have to get to work. I know I seem like a one topic poster at times. However, whenever we talk about GOP obstructionism, there is one, and only one issue that really matters.

There is simply nothing that trumps the end of our civilization as we know it and the deaths of billions.

OK?

I know it sucks to be told that no, really, in absolute fact, doom is hanging over your head. I know it sucks to be told that no, really, there is not going to be a second chance or a do-over. I know it sucks to be told that no, really, we won't be able to fix it if we let it happen, and that no really, it is unlikely we will adapt.

I know it is easier to put such things out of mind.

The problem is that the world as we know it really is ending. It really is. Game over, unless we can break through these GOP assholes and the others like them and prevent the disaster.

OK, I really don't care what else they suck on, or are hypocritical about, or stupid about. It doesn't fucking matter.

What matters is the murder of our civilization and billions of people by these assholes. The problem is real, and in comparison there is nothing else.

I repeat, we are going to hit 4 degrees by 2060-2070 at present course. To
only keep it at 2 degrees, we need an 80% reduction in total carbon emissions by 2050. Starting NOW

Business as usual up to say 2030, or 2040 guarantees a four degree world.

Business as usual up to 2050 almost guarantees a five degree world, and quite likely a six degree world by 2100.

Five degrees is game over for our civilization as we know it. Six degrees is game over for most of our species.

134 engineer cat  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:08:49am

AP-CNBC Poll conducted by GfK Roper Public Affairs & Corporate Communications. Nov. 18-22, 2010. N=1,000 adults nationwide

"The tax cuts that were passed in 2001 will expire this year if they are not continued. Which of the following best describes what you think Congress should do about the tax cuts? Allow the tax cuts to expire for everyone. Allow the tax cuts for people earning more than $250,000 to expire, but continue them for other people. Continue the tax cuts for everyone."

Expire for everyone 14%
Expire if earning over $250,000 50%
Continue for everyone 34%
Fish 2%

"As you may know, there is a cap on how much people have to pay in Social Security taxes each year, so that once people earn over a certain amount, currently just under $107,000, they don't have to pay any additional Social Security taxes. That's in part because the benefits that people can get from Social Security after retirement are also capped. Do you think that cap should be INCREASED so that higher-income earners pay more in Social Security taxes, even if they don't get more benefits after retirement, or STAY THE SAME, so that higher-income earners don't pay more in Social Security taxes?"

Be increased 49%
Stay the same 47%
Hey! The Game Is On! 3%.

"Please tell me if you would favor, oppose or neither favor nor oppose raising the age at which people can retire and receive their full benefits from Social Security to age 69?"

Favor 28%
Oppose 64%
Neither 6%
I Want Cheetoes! 1%

i think this will be the first time that even a democratic administration might end up ignoring the clear wishes of the american people and fixing things up the way that the corporate masters want them

135 Fozzie Bear  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:09:01am

re: #64 NJDhockeyfan

Maybe they got that idea from NPR...

That Fat Lip Might Give Obama Some Street Cred

re: #68 cliffster

haha, oh those racists at NPR..

HURR HURR HURR

136 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:09:18am

re: #133 LudwigVanQuixote

I do think putting it in those terms-- which are completely accurate-- runs the risk of making people feel defeated, rather than energizing them to action. I'm not sure what method will actually work better, but I think focusing on China's leap in green technology is a very good one that will resonate with many Americans, including the older generation.

137 funky chicken  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:09:22am

re: #121 Jeff In Ohio

Thanks to your husband for his service. I come from a long line of military, from the 7 years war to Afghanistan.

That said, it's about giving full rights of citizenship to a class of Americans. If congress doesn't do it and let Gates implement it, the courts will force it on the services. The time for studying is over.

Maybe yes, maybe no, but it's a peripheral issue to most Americans. As such the democrats shouldn't get bogged down in it right now. They need to nail the tea party GOP to the wall on tax cuts for the wealthy and unemployment.

And removing the ban for the USAF would be a great way to allow gays to serve right away with very little opposition. The USMC could observe that the USAF had no issues (my prediction anyway) and feel better about the whole thing.

Ideological purity can backfire on both sides on lots of issues, I think.

OK, now I'm off :-)

138 Varek Raith  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:09:40am

re: #135 Fozzie Bear

re: #68 cliffster

HURR HURR HURR

Heh, they have to deflect from the topic of the tread with something...
;)

139 cliffster  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:10:04am

re: #126 Gus 802

Yep. Just like Mitch McConnel's state. Number 7 in the percentage of people living below the poverty level. This would be the state of Kentucky.

Strangely enough, Kentucky seems to go R a lot of the time.

140 blueraven  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:11:19am

re: #112 webevintage

Opps, not gone yet...

Looks like Mike Pence has his priorities straight:
Pence Prioritizes Tax Breaks For Millionaires Over Extending Unemployment Benefits
[Link: thinkprogress.org...]

HALPERIN: If your leaders came to you and said ‘we have a deal with the White House. We’re going to extend unemployment benefits but the tax cuts for people making over a million dollars a year will not be extended, but that helps to pay for it,’ would you take that deal? Would you vote for that package?

PENCE: Look, I think the worst thing you could do for people that are struggling in this economy and looking for a job is raise taxes on any American. We don’t want to help with one hand and take away with the other.

HALPERIN: So would rather extend the tax cuts for every American, including those making over a million, or have the unemployment benefits extended, if that’s the choice?

PENCE: This isn’t a corner, but I feel the paint. I’m good. Nice move. I played chess with my son the other day and I lost, so I’m not good at this chess thing. Let me tell you, I think the minimum we have to do for Americans right now that are struggling in unemployment in this economy is make sure no American sees a tax increase.

Mike Pence not ready for prime time...

141 funky chicken  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:11:35am

re: #124 JasonA

Here's the thing...

The gays? They're already there.

And, um, yes, I know that, as does my husband. He and other guys I know in the AF couldn't care less. That said, he's uncomfortable telling the USMC that they are wrong about an issue that could affect them.

142 Kragar  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:11:38am

US judge says lesbians can be ‘cured’ by male soldiers

An American judge has been accused of advocating corrective rape for lesbians.

Joe Rehyansky, a part-time magistrate and Vietnam veteran, wrote on conservative news site The Daily Caller that lesbians should be allowed to serve in the military because straight male soldiers could “convert” them.

The Daily Caller swiftly removed some of his remarks but not before they were picked up by other websites.

Mr Rehyansky, of Hamilton County, Tennessee, argued that men were naturally more promiscuous than women and “it fell to men to swing through the trees and scour the caves in search of as many women as possible to subdue and impregnate – a tough job but someone had to do it”.

Wow...I'm actually speachless.

143 Four More Tears  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:12:13am

re: #142 Kragar (proud to be kafir)

US judge says lesbians can be ‘cured’ by male soldiers

Wow...I'm actually speachless.

About friggin' time.

/

144 wrenchwench  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:12:52am

re: #126 Gus 802

Yep. Just like Mitch McConnel's state. Number 7 in the percentage of people living below the poverty level. This would be the state of Kentucky.

NM is #3. This may explain why I don't freak out after reading Ludwig's "End of Civilization" posts. Some of us have a lot less to lose.

145 Gus  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:13:11am

re: #139 cliffster

Strangely enough, Kentucky seems to go R a lot of the time.

I know. It seems odd. I can only assume that they're driven by social (read socon) issues. But, the current governor is Steve Beshear, a Democrat.

146 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:13:29am

re: #123 Lidane

BRB. Sending adult diapers and pacifiers to the current Republican leadership. If they're going to act like babies, they should at least look the part, no?

Considering some of the bizarre sex scandals that come from the "Family Values" types, that sort of thing probably happens more often then we'd care to know.

147 Kragar  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:14:24am

re: #143 JasonA

About friggin' time.

/

Come over here.

OVER HERE.

*SLAP*

Get back to work.

148 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:15:31am

re: #145 Gus 802

I know. It seems odd. I can only assume that they're driven by social (read socon) issues. But, the current governor is Steve Beshear, a Democrat.

And a blinkered creationist. So, there ya go.

149 Talking Point Detective  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:16:31am

re: #139 cliffster

Strangely enough, Kentucky seems to go R a lot of the time.

Just curious.

Is there a reason that you haven't responded to multiple posts pointing out that the Bush's tax cuts (and not extending unemployment benefits) are decidedly not "fiscally conservative?"

Or is it just a coincidence?

150 Gus  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:16:39am

re: #148 Slumbering Behemoth

And a blinkered creationist. So, there ya go.

Oh, for a second there I thought you meant Steve Beshear was a creationist. Maybe he is?

151 Fozzie Bear  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:16:40am

re: #136 Obdicut

I do think putting it in those terms-- which are completely accurate-- runs the risk of making people feel defeated, rather than energizing them to action. I'm not sure what method will actually work better, but I think focusing on China's leap in green technology is a very good one that will resonate with many Americans, including the older generation.

It's so sad that we have to resort to the basest of political motivations, nationalism, to get people to do what is right.

152 Fozzie Bear  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:17:42am

re: #149 Talking Point Detective

Don't assume he gives a shit about anything other than making sure liberals don't get anything they want. I wish I were kidding.

153 cliffster  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:18:31am

re: #145 Gus 802

I know. It seems odd. I can only assume that they're driven by social (read socon) issues. But, the current governor is Steve Beshear, a Democrat.

I spent the vast majority of my life up until now below the poverty level. My parents have never been above the poverty level for a day of their life. They vote Republican, despite their disagreement on social issues. They vote R because they don't believe that the rich should be taxed to support the poor, even though they, themselves, are poor. We're not from Kentucky, but if you go to Kentucky, you will find a lot of people who may not have much, but they don't ask for much either.

154 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:19:15am

re: #150 Gus 802

Oh, for a second there I thought you meant Steve Beshear was a creationist. Maybe he is?

Yeppers.

155 cliffster  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:19:38am

re: #149 Talking Point Detective

Just curious.

Is there a reason that you haven't responded to multiple posts pointing out that the Bush's tax cuts (and not extending unemployment benefits) are decidedly not "fiscally conservative?"

Or is it just a coincidence?

Don't feel bad - it's not you, it's me. Really.

156 albusteve  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:20:04am

re: #144 wrenchwench

NM is #3. This may explain why I don't freak out after reading Ludwig's "End of Civilization" posts. Some of us have a lot less to lose.

we'll likely be elbow to elbow tho

157 Talking Point Detective  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:20:24am

re: #152 Fozzie Bear

Don't assume he gives a shit about anything other than making sure liberals don't get anything they want. I wish I were kidding.

You mean he's ducking the point?

Go figure.

158 sizzleRI  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:20:30am

re: #142 Kragar (proud to be kafir)

Thats odd. It was sleeping with multiple men (no number here!) that made me realize I wanted to sleep with women. Heh.

159 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:21:13am

re: #136 Obdicut

I do think putting it in those terms-- which are completely accurate-- runs the risk of making people feel defeated, rather than energizing them to action. I'm not sure what method will actually work better, but I think focusing on China's leap in green technology is a very good one that will resonate with many Americans, including the older generation.

I think both messages need to be clear. We can avert the catastrophe. We can make a ton of money doing so and revitalize our economy doing so. We can vastly improve our national security by doing so.

All of that is true.

However, the penalty for not doing, what we should be doing anyway, is the utter collapse of our civilization and the deaths of billions. People need to see that no matter how they look at it, they must act, they must act now, they must be serious about acting as if the lives of their children and their very nation is at stake, because they are.

160 albusteve  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:21:51am

re: #149 Talking Point Detective

Just curious.

Is there a reason that you haven't responded to multiple posts pointing out that the Bush's tax cuts (and not extending unemployment benefits) are decidedly not "fiscally conservative?"

Or is it just a coincidence?

I've heard otherwise...where's your 'proof' if there is any

161 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:22:12am

re: #136 Obdicut

I do think putting it in those terms-- which are completely accurate-- runs the risk of making people feel defeated, rather than energizing them to action. I'm not sure what method will actually work better, but I think focusing on China's leap in green technology is a very good one that will resonate with many Americans, including the older generation.

You will note that the last two of my minipage posts were on both those points.

162 Gus  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:22:37am

re: #153 cliffster

I spent the vast majority of my life up until now below the poverty level. My parents have never been above the poverty level for a day of their life. They vote Republican, despite their disagreement on social issues. They vote R because they don't believe that the rich should be taxed to support the poor, even though they, themselves, are poor. We're not from Kentucky, but if you go to Kentucky, you will find a lot of people who may not have much, but they don't ask for much either.

Right. They might think that in places like Kentucky but it was Lyndon B. Johnson that initiated the "War on Poverty" which had a significant impact on slowing the growth of poverty in Appalachia.

163 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:23:40am

re: #158 sizzleRI

Thats odd. It was sleeping with multiple men (no number here!) that made me realize I wanted to sleep with women. Heh.

Now that is really odd.

It was multiple relationships with nasty, cruel women that made me realize that being gay is not a choice.

164 Fozzie Bear  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:23:51am

re: #160 albusteve

I've heard otherwise...where's your 'proof' if there is any

I think his point is, and he is correct, there has never been a shred of credible evidence for the oft-repeated GOP claim that lower taxes increase revenues. It's bullshit then, bullshit now, but it still gets parroted ad nauseum by people who definitely know better, to get the votes of people like Cliffster, who will believe literally anything if a good 'ol boy tells them so.

165 albusteve  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:24:38am

re: #159 LudwigVanQuixote

I think both messages need to be clear. We can avert the catastrophe. We can make a ton of money doing so and revitalize our economy doing so. We can vastly improve our national security by doing so.

All of that is true.

However, the penalty for not doing, what we should be doing anyway, is the utter collapse of our civilization and the deaths of billions. People need to see that no matter how they look at it, they must act, they must act now, they must be serious about acting as if the lives of their children and their very nation is at stake, because they are.

Bill Parcells used to say "you are what you are"....seems to me there is little long range interest in preserving our species....there is only next month, or next year....maybe we are actually incapable

166 cliffster  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:24:48am

re: #157 Talking Point Detective

You mean he's ducking the point?

Go figure.

you should read the book, "He's just not that into you"

167 blueraven  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:25:21am

re: #153 cliffster

I spent the vast majority of my life up until now below the poverty level. My parents have never been above the poverty level for a day of their life. They vote Republican, despite their disagreement on social issues. They vote R because they don't believe that the rich should be taxed to support the poor, even though they, themselves, are poor. We're not from Kentucky, but if you go to Kentucky, you will find a lot of people who may not have much, but they don't ask for much either.

How are the rich supporting the poor? Taxes pay for services. Unemployment is insurance. We have always had a progressive tax rate. Do you propose something different?

Cutting taxes in the midst of two wars was a mistake. Even the republicans had a hell of a hard time getting them passed. They only got the votes by agreeing to sun-set the cuts in ten years. They were fearful of exploding the deficit. Ironic...they cant see that now.

169 albusteve  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:26:42am

re: #164 Fozzie Bear

I think his point is, and he is correct, there has never been a shred of credible evidence for the oft-repeated GOP claim that lower taxes increase revenues. It's bullshit then, bullshit now, but it still gets parroted ad nauseum by people who definitely know better, to get the votes of people like Cliffster, who will believe literally anything if a good 'ol boy tells them so.

I suppose cuts and increases have different results in differing circumstance...I'm a bystander, waiting for a solution

170 Talking Point Detective  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:27:13am

re: #155 cliffster

Don't feel bad - it's not you, it's me. Really.

Tell me something I don't already know.

“Federal revenue is lower today than it would have been without the tax cuts,” Alan D. Viard of the conservative American Enterprise Institute told the Washington Post last October. Viard, who worked in the Treasury Department’s Office of Tax Analysis and the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers under President Bush, told FactCheck.org that “nobody can absolutely prove that.” Proof would require time travel and a reversal of tax policy. “But among economists, there’s no dispute.”

Tax cuts can be a sound economic move that spurs growth, says Viard. “But it doesn’t mean that [the cuts] gained revenue."

[...]

Federal agencies have published similar statements regarding the effect of tax cuts on federal receipts. From the Congressional Budget Office’s 2007 Budget Outlook: “The expiration of tax provisions as scheduled has a substantial impact on CBO’s projections, especially beyond 2010 when a number of revenue-reducing tax provisions enacted in the past several years are slated to expire,” the report says. “Almost all of the expiring provisions reduce revenues.”

The Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that the 2001 tax legislation (the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act) would cause government revenues to be 107.7 billion less than they would have been in the absence of the legislation in 2004, 107.4 billion less in 2005 and 135.2 billion less in 2006. The committee's estimates for the effect of the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 were that it would reduce otherwise projected revenues by 148.7 billion in 2004, 82.2 billion in 2005 and 20.7 billion in 2006. The JCT makes its comparisons against the Congressional Budget Office's receipts baselines.

[Link: www.factcheck.org...]

Let me know when you'd like to debate the economics.

No doubt, Republican politicians are no different than Democratic politicians in that they vote in accordance with what they think works to their electoral advantage. But that doesn't change the predominant economic analysis: unemployment benefits are "fiscally conservative." Tax cuts, when the rates are what they are currently, are not.

171 sizzleRI  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:27:16am

re: #163 Slumbering Behemoth

Oh, its not that the men were bad at all. I had relationships and loved and am still friends with many of them. But those relationships kind of stirred a part of me that realized I wanted something else, that the feelings I had for women were more than friendly. And I am closer to bi than gay, so the experiences of people who identify solely as gay are I am sure very different.

172 Fozzie Bear  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:28:19am

re: #165 albusteve

Bill Parcells used to say "you are what you are"...seems to me there is little long range interest in preserving our species...there is only next month, or next year...maybe we are actually incapable

Well, we didn't evolve to do anything other than reproduce successfully. Unfortunately, the feedback mechanism of natural selection can only function to prepare us for things that have happened before, not for fundamentally new threats.

We just aren't wired to think several generations down the road. We are wired to secure our next meal by hook or crook, and screw like rabbits.

173 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:28:34am

CNN: Battle of Christmas billboards

"They must be reading too much wikipedia or something..."
... says the bigoted howler monkey.

LOL WUT?

174 Gus  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:28:45am

Anyway. As an (I) it would be nice to see the (D) and (R) work together. Guess that's not going to happen for a long time.

175 Romantic Heretic  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:29:00am

re: #4 Varek Raith

The GOP doesn't want the government to work.
Nice, frakked up logic they got going.

This.

As Paul Krugman wrote a few years ago, "Government mustn't do anything good because then people wouldn't understand that government is bad."

The GOP, as it currently stands, is like the OKW running Operation Overlord. They intend to lose the battle and the war. But we're the ones who will suffer.

176 Talking Point Detective  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:29:00am

re: #160 albusteve

I've heard otherwise...where's your 'proof' if there is any

Proof isn't possible because you can't go back in time and run the tape forward without the tax cuts.

However, there is a pretty solid consensus among economists. If you need evidence of that, it can be easily provided. The link I just posted would be a good start.

177 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:30:57am

re: #171 sizzleRI

Oh, you were being serious. My bad. I thought you were joking, and figured I'd follow up with a "If I could be gay, I would. These damn women are driving me batty" kind of joke. :)

178 sizzleRI  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:32:17am

re: #177 Slumbering Behemoth

Hahaha, I was pretty much joking in the first comment, but than thought you were serious, so then I tried to craft a more thoughtful post. Internet tone failure!

179 Talking Point Detective  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:32:32am

re: #169 albusteve

...I'm a bystander, waiting for a solution

We're all bystanders waiting for solutions. But, apparently, you're standing on the side that is opposition to the predominant economic analysis. That's your prerogative, but you should at least own up to it.

180 albusteve  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:33:02am

re: #172 Fozzie Bear

Well, we didn't evolve to do anything other than reproduce successfully. Unfortunately, the feedback mechanism of natural selection can only function to prepare us for things that have happened before, not for fundamentally new threats.

We just aren't wired to think several generations down the road. We are wired to secure our next meal by hook or crook, and screw like rabbits.

at some point the role of govt must be to step in and do the lifting, to jumpstart a new type of thinking....and disallowing nuclear energy for the most part is exactly the wrong road to take....nuke 'em

181 cliffster  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:33:31am

re: #167 blueraven

Actually, yes. Much fewer services provided at the federal level, for starters. Especially for non-infrastructure things. And I have never been big on cutting defense spending, but that seems to have gotten completely out of control as well. I personally don't like a progressive tax - even with a flat percentage, the richer you are the more taxes you pay. I believe that people have come to expect Washington to solve all sorts of problems that Washington should not be involved in.

182 Varek Raith  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:34:31am

re: #181 cliffster

Actually, yes. Much fewer services provided at the federal level, for starters. Especially for non-infrastructure things. And I have never been big on cutting defense spending, but that seems to have gotten completely out of control as well. I personally don't like a progressive tax - even with a flat percentage, the richer you are the more taxes you pay. I believe that people have come to expect Washington to solve all sorts of problems that Washington should not be involved in.

Specifics?

183 Gus  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:34:32am

re: #173 Slumbering Behemoth

CNN: Battle of Christmas billboards

"They must be reading too much wikipedia or something..."
... says the bigoted howler monkey.

LOL WUT?

Oh brother I just listened to the dolt. That's the Bill Donohue. He clearly doesn't believe in freedom of speech. Notice who get's to put up their billboard on the Jersey side and the other on the Manhattan side. The latter of course having more of the money -- the Catholic League.

184 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:34:52am

They wanna talk about jobs for Americans? Here's an idea. Offer unprecedented tax breaks and hiring incentives to companies doing the R&D on green energy solutions. It's a twofer. Or a threefer if you include a decrease in our revenue going towards making overseas oil ticks wealthy.

185 theheat  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:35:48am

re: #173 Slumbering Behemoth

Because atheists should only exist if they remain silent and in the closet, and religious preference and visibility is a given in this country.
//

Actually, the latter part of that isn't sarcasm, it's the truth. It's okay to be overtly religious, and it's also common. Not okay to be overtly atheist, agnostic, or non-religious.

186 Gus  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:35:58am

"Wadda dey wanna say we came from da big bang or sumtin?"

"Yes."

187 albusteve  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:36:00am

re: #174 Gus 802

Anyway. As an (I) it would be nice to see the (D) and (R) work together. Guess that's not going to happen for a long time.

from my view, govt is a mess....there are tons of blame to go around, but nothing seems to ever change so I don't get too riled up in partisanship...there are solutions but you have to buy off so many people along the way, they become too cumbersome to put in place....and term limits is part of the solution

188 Gus  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:37:22am

My stomach called to say he was hungry!

BBL

189 albusteve  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:37:24am

re: #179 Talking Point Detective

We're all bystanders waiting for solutions. But, apparently, you're standing on the side that is opposition to the predominant economic analysis. That's your prerogative, but you should at least own up to it.

I'm not a fan of any political group, party or caucus....I hate the feds

190 Varek Raith  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:37:56am

re: #183 Gus 802

Oh brother I just listened to the dolt. That's the Bill Donohue. He clearly doesn't believe in freedom of speech. Notice who get's to put up their billboard on the Jersey side and the other on the Manhattan side. The latter of course having more of the money -- the Catholic League.

Lol.
Who created the creator, Mr. Donohue???
Something can't come from nothing, as he believes.
Lol.

191 lawhawk  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:38:01am

re: #183 Gus 802

Not sure how much those billboards cost, but neither of the billboards involved are cheap precisely because of the traffic flow (and eyeballs stuck in traffic jams).

Anyway, that's a kerfuffle that I can be bemused with because they ignore that we're the Chosen Ones. /and no, I'm not referring to Harry Potter...

192 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:38:34am

re: #183 Gus 802

Oh brother I just listened to the dolt. That's the Bill Donohue. He clearly doesn't believe in freedom of speech. Notice who get's to put up their billboard on the Jersey side and the other on the Manhattan side. The latter of course having more of the money -- the Catholic League.

And if you recall, the atheist org approached a local christian org prior to their billboard going up, suggesting the christian org put up a competing billboard on the other side of the road.

The christian org declined, saying their money could be better spent elsewhere, presumably on charity to help the poor.

Apparently, the Catholic League doesn't share that christian org's sentiment.

193 Stanghazi  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:38:49am

The Guardian notes that WikiLeaks, bounced by Amazon, has already moved back to previous host, Sweden's Bahnhof.

194 Talking Point Detective  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:39:37am

re: #181 cliffster

Actually, yes. Much fewer services provided at the federal level, for starters. Especially for non-infrastructure things. And I have never been big on cutting defense spending, but that seems to have gotten completely out of control as well. I personally don't like a progressive tax - even with a flat percentage, the richer you are the more taxes you pay. I believe that people have come to expect Washington to solve all sorts of problems that Washington should not be involved in.

Non-interest spending in 1980 was 18.8 percent of GDP. Obama’s budget projects non-interest spending to be 18.6 percent of GDP in 2020.

195 Romantic Heretic  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:39:50am

re: #55 Killgore Trout

Agreed. Obama has already passed the most pressing parts of his agenda. Saving the economy and healthcare reform were very necessary. We'll see how committed the Republicans are to collapsing the country but when it comes right down to it I don't think they have the guts.

Who needs guts when you're insane? /

196 Fozzie Bear  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:40:01am

It's long past time the average atheist got a little more evangelical about things. I have to put up with all manner of absurd religious ritual in my daily life. What's so bad about a billboard?

Assholes.

197 cliffster  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:40:04am

re: #182 Varek Raith

Specifics?

Specifics on your request for specifics?

198 charlz  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:40:07am

re: #122 albusteve

did congress even pass a budget for this year?

Not yet. The government is operating under a Continuing Resolution, which is basically last year's budget.

199 celticdragon  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:40:45am

re: #133 LudwigVanQuixote

Mass extinction events (like the end Permian event...the real big one that just about killed off everything) really do suck. There is debate about whether we are now causing the sixth great mass extinction. I tend to leans towards "yes".

200 Varek Raith  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:41:05am

re: #197 cliffster

Specifics on your request for specifics?

Right, that might help...:)

Much fewer services provided at the federal level, for starters. Especially for non-infrastructure things

What, specifically, should the feds not be involved in?

201 albusteve  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:41:10am

re: #198 charlz

Not yet. The government is operating under a Continuing Resolution, which is basically last year's budget.

thought so

202 albusteve  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:41:56am

re: #200 Varek Raith

Right, that might help...:)

What, specifically, should the feds not be involved in?

public education

203 lostlakehiker  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:42:03am

re: #109 Talking Point Detective

Maybe I'm misreading your post?

Are you aware that most economists agree that the Bush tax cuts meant at least 100 billion less in revenues? And add to that the additional debt service.

Are you aware that most economists agree that unemployment benefits more than pay for themselves?

I didn't say anything about unemployment benefits, except, by implication, that they, along with everything else under the sun, have to take back seat to the first two items.

If there isn't a continuing resolution, come New Year's Day, everybody working for the federal government has to work for free. Everybody supplying goods and services to the federal government, supplies them for free. This just won't do.

If the current tax law expires, the tax code reverts to a law that was built around dollars worth quite a bit more than today's dollar. The alternative minimum tax, for instance, is not indexed against inflation. There was a time when it made some sort of sense to impose high rates on the wealthy, defined as those making $75K a year and up. That sort of law is sitting on the books, waiting in the wings. If there is no compromise on SOME SORT of extension of the current law, that old law, with all its unrealistic rates, will take over.

As to your question, am I aware that failing to increase tax rates above where they are now will mean failing to get revenue that could have been got with higher rates, I answer, yes, and no.

Income earned in 2010 has already been earned, pretty much. If the tax rates for income earned in 2010 go higher than anyone expected them to be, then everybody will have to cough up some extra dough. Of course the federal govt will collect more than it would have by not increasing rates.

But that's a one-time effect. Going forward, higher rates are no surprise. Everyone will know, at the beginning of the year, how much of any high-end income he or she will get to keep, and how much will go to taxes.

Taxation is a tricky business. The law of supply and demand applies to labor as well as to other economic goods. The higher taxes go on any sort of activity, the less will be supplied. Raising taxes on high earners will result in more revenue per dollar earned, but out of a smaller grand total of dollars earned. Then the math begins. Depending on HOW much higher tax rates go, the overall revenue could go up, or down. It's not an automatic thing, that raising rates results in more of a take.

Was Kennedy a Republican? No. Of course not. But he engineered a big tax cut and the economy did very well, and federal revenues ended up higher than they would otherwise have been, if you average over several years.

The current deficit is a long term problem. Tax rates need to be set with a view to the long term. Maybe they can go higher without undercutting revenues all that severely. Maybe economists know this to be the case.

They can't leap to the rates written into the old law that will take effect if no compromise is reached. At least, that's what I think. Averaged over the next several years, using that law rather than what we now have would probably result in reduced federal revenue.

204 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:42:40am

re: #196 Fozzie Bear

I don't really feel like atheists should get more evangelical, but I would really like it if it stopped being acceptable to shit on them and treat them like second class citizens.

205 blueraven  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:42:41am

re: #202 albusteve

public education

Right...we are all Texans now.

206 Talking Point Detective  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:42:52am

re: #189 albusteve

I'm not a fan of any political group, party or caucus...I hate the feds

OK. I'm not particularly driven by partisanship either. We could argue the wisdom of libertarianism versus limited federal involvement in the economy on another thread.

But in terms of the issue at hand, the predominant view of most economists is that ending Bush's tax cuts is not "fiscally conservative," where as extending unemployment benefits would be.

It is what it is.

207 Killgore Trout  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:43:01am

Drudge headlines today are a load of misleading and untrue crap. It's no wonder conservatives are living in an economic fantasy land.

208 Kronocide  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:43:18am

I was listening to Dennis Miller today and he had Steve Milloy on for a general gossipy trash talking segment of all scientists/leftists/Gore. While I've been wondering for a while how active energy industry interests are in funding and utilizing talk radio, it occurred to me that Milloy has probably purchased segments to talk to Miller, much as a new author/comic/TV show may purchase a segment to talk to Miller in advertising their product.

There is not doubt remaining that talk radio is a marketing department for climate deniers and the GOP. Now I just want the proof.

209 albusteve  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:44:06am

re: #204 Slumbering Behemoth

I don't really feel like atheists should get more evangelical, but I would really like it if it stopped being acceptable to shit on them and treat them like second class citizens.

you do not have to accept that....shit back

210 Talking Point Detective  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:45:01am

re: #202 albusteve

public education

You opinion is that the country would be better of economically if fewer children were educated?

Do you doubt that cutting federal support for education would result in fewer children educated?

Do you doubt that our system of public education was fundamental to our achieving global economic preeminence?

211 albusteve  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:45:55am

re: #205 blueraven

Right...we are all Texans now.

the SC could curtail creationism in schools in one simple fell swoop

212 lostlakehiker  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:46:20am

re: #14 LudwigVanQuixote

Who make anchor babies, will take your guns, kill your granny in death panels, fluoridate the water, convince you to masturbate and force you to be commies for their Kenyan born Muslim leader!

When gay illegal immigrants make anchor babies, pigs will really fly.

213 garhighway  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:46:46am

re: #25 Linden Arden

FWIW - the Fed has released the details of its emergency actions - what they did was incredible. Bernanke earned his Man of the Year award.

NYT

Now Ron Paul can STFU about his fake "audit" - every transaction from 2007- July 2010 is now public.

This quote from the article is particularly striking:

The crisis in the market for commercial paper, for example, the lifeblood of daily business, was more extensive and lasted longer than was previously known. Even bedrock corporations like Caterpillar, General Electric, Harley Davidson, McDonald’s, Verizon and Toyota relied on a Fed program that supported the market for commercial paper — the short-term i.o.u.’s that corporations rely upon to make payroll and pay their suppliers. During the worst moments of the crisis, in the fall of 2008, even creditworthy corporate borrowers found this source of financing had dried up, and had to turn to the Fed for help.

While most of the Fed’s commercial paper purchase were made in the first few weeks after the program opened on Oct. 27, 2008, the central bank had to buy nearly as much in January 2009 and only slightly less in March 2009. Indeed, the Fed was still supporting the market for commercial paper well into the summer of 2009 — even as the recession officially came to an end.

Well into 2009 the commercial paper markets were impaired. That, all by itself, gives a good idea of how close we were to a horrible set of financial outcomes, and why the recovery has been as tepid as it has.

214 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:47:28am

re: #208 BigPapa

I was listening to Dennis Miller today and he had Steve Milloy on for a general gossipy trash talking segment of all scientists/leftists/Gore. While I've been wondering for a while how active energy industry interests are in funding and utilizing talk radio, it occurred to me that Milloy has probably purchased segments to talk to Miller, much as a new author/comic/TV show may purchase a segment to talk to Miller in advertising their product.

There is not doubt remaining that talk radio is a marketing department for climate deniers and the GOP. Now I just want the proof.

You don't need any proof... just go with the meme... that's the popular way to debate an issue.

215 blueraven  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:47:29am

re: #211 albusteve

the SC could curtail creationism in schools in one simple fell swoop

Not this SC. Not gonna happen.

216 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:47:32am

re: #209 albusteve

I guess that's what's happening with these billboards. And it does seem like some progress has been made in that area.

I am still baffled by folks who start squawking to elevnty whenever an atheist or non-christian sentiment gets anything approaching "equal time".

217 garhighway  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:48:16am

re: #189 albusteve

I'm not a fan of any political group, party or caucus...I hate the feds

Which ones?

FBI?
DEA?
Secret Service?
The Marine Corps?

Please elaborate.

218 charlz  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:48:51am

re: #203 lostlakehiker

If there isn't a continuing resolution, come New Year's Day, everybody working for the federal government has to work for free. Everybody supplying goods and services to the federal government, supplies them for free. This just won't do.

Except for "essential personnel" (generally those identified as being in mission critical functions), anybody working for the federal government would be on unpaid leave of absence. Nobody could supply goods and services either because of antideficiency rules. The last time the government shut down, the Congress had to appropriate money to retroactively pay employees who were off.

219 cliffster  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:49:14am

re: #200 Varek Raith

Right, that might help...:)

What, specifically, should the feds not be involved in?

We're not going to see eye-to-eye on this one. You could make a list (probably 200 million rows in "government-spending.xls") and I would delete 90% of them.

220 celticdragon  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:49:56am

re: #203 lostlakehiker

The "tax cuts for the top 5 percent raise revenues" and "primes the economy" thing has been debunked ad infinitum, but the zombie shambles on.

Over the last thirty years, productivity has increased steadily while wages stagnated or even dropped, especially in the last ten years. In 1970, a single wage earner could typically pay the bills and afford reasonable recreation and investment. By 1980, it two wage earners to do the same thing. By 1990, two wage earners could not keep up, and by 2000, the middle class was being asked to take out additional mortgages on their homes to maintain the facade.

It is a stinking pile of propaganda bullshit, and I bought into it like most other Americans.

There has been no evidence for the middle class that tax cuts for the wealthy have helped in any form. Our wages have not reflected our work, and our jobs have gone to other countries along with the investment money from the tax cuts.

Fuck that. The rich can start pulling their goddamned share of the load.

221 Fozzie Bear  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:50:58am

re: #204 Slumbering Behemoth

I don't really feel like atheists should get more evangelical, but I would really like it if it stopped being acceptable to shit on them and treat them like second class citizens.

The ONLY way that will ever happen is if they actually attempt to publicly represent themselves. I get that it's just easier to smile politely and nod when people get all jesus-freaky on me, and that's generally my response, but it incences me that so many christians don't feel at all compelled to respond in kind if, to use a recent example from my life, I respond to a question asking what religion I am with "I'm not religious, I'm an atheist." In this case, the response was "i'll pray for you", as if that weren't the most condescending shitty thing you could say under the circumstances.

It's not a "nice gesture" to say you will pray for someone who just told you they are atheist. It's fucking rude. I don't say "I'll try to be even more reasonable to balance out your wacked out magical thinking" when someone tells me they're christian.

It's the sanctimonious self-righteousness. It manifests in so many things.
"I'll pray for you"
"Your life must be so hollow"
"I hope you find some meaning for your life"
"You burn in hell for all eternity unless you accept Jesus"
"Even if you don't love God, God loves you"

I have heard every single one of these things, said to my face. Is that something I should just accept.

Fuck Donahue. Fuck him sideways.

222 albusteve  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:51:08am

re: #210 Talking Point Detective

You opinion is that the country would be better of economically if fewer children were educated?

Do you doubt that cutting federal support for education would result in fewer children educated?

Do you doubt that our system of public education was fundamental to our achieving global economic preeminence?

who knows?...the feds have been into education up to their eyeballs my entire life....I consider it a local issue, if parents want stupid kids, so be it....in my family the kids brought home a few books and earned excellent grades

223 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:53:02am

re: #221 Fozzie Bear

It's the sanctimonious self-righteousness.

And often times, in such context, it is intended as an insult.

224 albusteve  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:53:13am

re: #217 garhighway

Which ones?

FBI?
DEA?
Secret Service?
The Marine Corps?

Please elaborate.

I have many times....I'm a huge fan of the Coasties, not so much for lawmakers and their associated ilk

225 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:54:23am

re: #221 Fozzie Bear

The ONLY way that will ever happen is if they actually attempt to publicly represent themselves. I get that it's just easier to smile politely and nod when people get all jesus-freaky on me, and that's generally my response, but it incences me that so many christians don't feel at all compelled to respond in kind if, to use a recent example from my life, I respond to a question asking what religion I am with "I'm not religious, I'm an atheist." In this case, the response was "i'll pray for you", as if that weren't the most condescending shitty thing you could say under the circumstances.

It's not a "nice gesture" to say you will pray for someone who just told you they are atheist. It's fucking rude. I don't say "I'll try to be even more reasonable to balance out your wacked out magical thinking" when someone tells me they're christian.

It's the sanctimonious self-righteousness. It manifests in so many things.
"I'll pray for you"
"Your life must be so hollow"
"I hope you find some meaning for your life"
"You burn in hell for all eternity unless you accept Jesus"
"Even if you don't love God, God loves you"

I have heard every single one of these things, said to my face. Is that something I should just accept.

Fuck Donahue. Fuck him sideways.

There are no atheist in foxholes... you'll come around, God's love is stronger than your ignorance.
//

226 cliffster  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:54:30am

re: #220 celticdragon


Fuck that. The rich can start pulling their goddamned share of the load.

would you like to take a guess at what percentage of taxes are paid by, say, the top 10% in income?

227 theheat  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:54:46am

re: #196 Fozzie Bear

Atheists = Bad.

In a group of people, the presumption is that everyone in the group is religious, almost always Christian, and is treated accordingly. Anything contrary to that assumption, or inconvenient to that assumption = bad.

Just the other day, I (atheist me) was helping get some Christmas (there I said the word) packages sent off to The Troops (I know, Sarah Palin owns the mf word). So, a few of us are standing around, signing cards, and I was at a loss of what to write.

"Just write God Bless."

"Yeah, just write God Bless you."

I know, it's totally harmless and not meant as anything other than goodly, but, again, the assumption is always, in a group of people, we (atheists) will be treated and be spoken to as if we're all religious. In a group, no one gives a shit whether that presumption of being religious is uncomfortable, or even maybe a little offensive, to atheists that have not publicly announced their atheism or non-belief.

I can't get any kind of upset about the atheist's billboard. If they haven't called anyone an asshole, or advocated killing some demographic, then I can't pretend to be concerned.

228 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:55:26am

re: #225 Walter L. Newton

There are no atheist in foxholes... you'll come around, God's love is stronger than your ignorance.
//

Heh. There are no atheists in prison, either. What's that tell you?
//D'oh!

229 recusancy  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:55:36am

re: #207 Killgore Trout

Drudge headlines today are a load of misleading and untrue crap. It's no wonder conservatives are living in an economic fantasy land.

Just today?

230 garhighway  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:55:40am

re: #224 albusteve

I have many times...I'm a huge fan of the Coasties, not so much for lawmakers and their associated ilk

What sort of governance do you envision that doesn't have "lawmakers"?

231 Fozzie Bear  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:55:54am

Oh and fuck the pope also, in his kid touching ass, sideways. He's also an incredible prick.

A catholic blames the holocaust on atheists.... when Hitler was a catholic. My fucking head wanted to explode.

232 albusteve  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:56:45am

re: #230 garhighway

What sort of governance do you envision that doesn't have "lawmakers"?

what are you suggesting?....fishing for some ridiculous assertion that we don't need a govt of lawmakers?

233 Four More Tears  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:56:51am

re: #228 Slumbering Behemoth

Heh. There are no atheists in prison, either. What's that tell you?
//D'oh!

They haven't caught me yet.

/

234 garhighway  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:57:06am

re: #226 cliffster

would you like to take a guess at what percentage of taxes are paid by, say, the top 10% in income?

And how that compares to their percentage of total income.

235 Talking Point Detective  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:57:17am

re: #203 lostlakehiker

I didn't say anything about unemployment benefits, except, by implication, that they, along with everything else under the sun, have to take back seat to the first two items.

OK - but unemployment benefits bring a net positive return. Why should improving the economy take a back seat to the setting of economic policy?

If the current tax law expires, the tax code reverts to a law that was built around dollars worth quite a bit more than today's dollar. The alternative minimum tax, for instance, is not indexed against inflation.

Agreed. The tax code should be modified, and responsibility for the failure to propose reasonable changes lies at the feet of politicians on both sides of the aisle.


Income earned in 2010 has already been earned, pretty much. If the tax rates for income earned in 2010 go higher than anyone expected them to be, then everybody will have to cough up some extra dough.

People in the top 2% of income earners can relatively easily absorb such a situation. Don't forget, their incomes have been increasing at a fast clip in recent decades - as opposed to the other 98% of Americans.

Raising taxes on high earners will result in more revenue per dollar earned, but out of a smaller grand total of dollars earned.

Where is the evidence for your statement of "a smaller grand total?"


Was Kennedy a Republican?

Have you compared top tax rates during Kennedy's administration to the current rates? Most economists agree that within a certain range, tax cuts would likely have a beneficial result.

The current deficit is a long term problem. Tax rates need to be set with a view to the long term.

Most economists agree that the Bush tax cuts lowered revenues relative to what they would have been without the cuts. More revenue over 9 years, assuming that at least some portion of that revenue would have gone to reducing debt and/or lowering the debt service, would have been a long-term policy.


Averaged over the next several years, using that law rather than what we now have would probably result in reduced federal revenue.

OK. No one knows for sure. But your opinion is in contrast to that of most economic analysis.

236 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:58:27am

re: #227 theheat

And it's not just atheists or the non-religious that get "the treatment". I've often seen some of my christian family members gently pressure their jewish friends. That kind of thing don't sit right with me either.

237 Talking Point Detective  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:59:33am

re: #219 cliffster

We're not going to see eye-to-eye on this one. You could make a list (probably 200 million rows in "government-spending.xls") and I would delete 90% of them.

Not bad. You can duck on multiple issues with multiple posters simultaneously.

238 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:59:37am

re: #235 Talking Point Detective

[snip]

Most economists agree that within a certain range, tax cuts would likely have a beneficial result.

[snip]

And what is that certain range... elaborate?

239 Fozzie Bear  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 11:59:41am

re: #236 Slumbering Behemoth

And it's not just atheists or the non-religious that get "the treatment". I've often seen some of my christian family members gently pressure their jewish friends. That kind of thing don't sit right with me either.

As if Christians haven't done enough to "help" the Jews. Ugh.

240 garhighway  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 12:00:21pm

re: #232 albusteve

what are you suggesting?...fishing for some ridiculous assertion that we don't need a govt of lawmakers?

I'm not suggesting anything. I am trying to figure out what you mean when you say you hate the Feds. When I ask for clarity, you say you aren't a fan of lawmakers. When I ask what you would substitute for them, you say I am putting words in your mouth.

If you are unable or unwilling to explain yourself, fine. Don't.

241 cliffster  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 12:00:44pm

re: #234 garhighway

And how that compares to their percentage of total income.

The top income earners pay a huge percentage of total taxes. That might be exactly how one thinks it should be, but it's absurd to talk about "the rich need to start pulling their share". They pay a much, much higher share. Higher now, in fact, than in decades past.. how does that mix with the complaining about "tax cuts for the rich"?

242 Fozzie Bear  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 12:00:46pm

re: #238 Walter L. Newton

And what is that certain range... elaborate?

The laffer curve peaks around 60-70 percent as a general rule of thumb. We are not even close to that, obviously.

243 theheat  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 12:00:58pm

re: #236 Slumbering Behemoth

And it's not just atheists or the non-religious that get "the treatment". I've often seen some of my christian family members gently pressure their jewish friends. That kind of thing don't sit right with me either.

In my business, there are very few Jews and even fewer atheists. I've seen my Jewish friends unintentionally shat on time and time again in Christian company.

244 Talking Point Detective  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 12:02:14pm

re: #222 albusteve

who knows?...the feds have been into education up to their eyeballs my entire life...I consider it a local issue, if parents want stupid kids, so be it...in my family the kids brought home a few books and earned excellent grades

Do you really think that on a societal scale, if a free public education hadn't been made available to American citizens, there wouldn't have been negative economic impact at the local level?

Do you really not think that having a better educated work force wasn't an important factor in building the American economy?

Really?

245 albusteve  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 12:02:31pm

re: #240 garhighway

I'm not suggesting anything. I am trying to figure out what you mean when you say you hate the Feds. When I ask for clarity, you say you aren't a fan of lawmakers. When I ask what you would substitute for them, you say I am putting words in your mouth.

If you are unable or unwilling to explain yourself, fine. Don't.

sorry you don't get the drift....I don't make long windy explanations for what seems obvious to me

246 blueraven  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 12:02:51pm

re: #241 cliffster

The top income earners pay a huge percentage of total taxes. That might be exactly how one thinks it should be, but it's absurd to talk about "the rich need to start pulling their share". They pay a much, much higher share. Higher now, in fact, than in decades past.. how does that mix with the complaining about "tax cuts for the rich"?

They pay a higher share because they earn a higher share of all income.

247 Amory Blaine  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 12:02:58pm

re: #241 cliffster


It is not absurd. They are not paying their fair share. They pay alot. Too bad.

248 Fozzie Bear  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 12:03:10pm

re: #243 theheat

In my business, there are very few Jews and even fewer atheists. I've seen my Jewish friends unintentionally shat on time and time again in Christian company.

Anti-semitism is so incredibly open and unveiled here. Nobody even tries to pretend they aren't anti-semitic. PA disgusts me. It's like what I imagine the worst parts of the deep south to be, but honestly, I can't imagine the bigotry being any worse there than it is here.

249 cliffster  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 12:03:34pm

re: #237 Talking Point Detective

Not bad. You can duck on multiple issues with multiple posters simultaneously.

You are not making me any more likely to respond to your questions. Maybe if you sent me flowers...

Varek on the other hand, I'm happy to respond to.. it's just that the negative is so much harder to show in this case. Send me that list, and I'll start crossing off.

250 Talking Point Detective  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 12:03:41pm

re: #226 cliffster

would you like to take a guess at what percentage of taxes are paid by, say, the top 10% in income?

Would you like to take a guess at what percentage of the country's economy is concentrated in the hands of the 10% of income-earners (let alone wealth-holders?)

251 albusteve  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 12:03:55pm

re: #244 Talking Point Detective

Do you really think that on a societal scale, if a free public education hadn't been made available to American citizens, there wouldn't have been negative economic impact at the local level?

Do you really not think that having a better educated work force wasn't an important factor in building the American economy?

Really?

no
no
no

252 blueraven  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 12:03:55pm

re: #246 blueraven

They pay a higher share because they earn a higher share of all income.

Much higher than decades ago, I might add.

253 Amory Blaine  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 12:04:26pm

Public education is a giant subsidy to business.

254 cliffster  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 12:04:30pm

re: #247 Amory Blaine

It is not absurd. They are not paying their fair share. They pay alot. Too bad.

They are paying more than their fair share. Maybe if we said "thank you" instead of "START PULLING YOUR DAMN WEIGHT", then our karma would go up and we'd get a little richer.

255 Amory Blaine  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 12:05:03pm

re: #254 cliffster

They are paying more than their fair share. Maybe if we said "thank you" instead of "START PULLING YOUR DAMN WEIGHT", then our karma would go up and we'd get a little richer.

HAHAHAHA sure thing. HAHAHAHA

256 albusteve  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 12:05:20pm

re: #248 Fozzie Bear

Anti-semitism is so incredibly open and unveiled here. Nobody even tries to pretend they aren't anti-semitic. PA disgusts me. It's like what I imagine the worst parts of the deep south to be, but honestly, I can't imagine the bigotry being any worse there than it is here.

spend a week in S Carolina rambling around....the overt racism will chill your bones

257 garhighway  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 12:05:36pm

re: #241 cliffster

The top income earners pay a huge percentage of total taxes. (Since they earn a "huge percentage" of overall income, that is exactly as it ought to be.) That might be exactly how one thinks it should be, but it's absurd to talk about "the rich need to start pulling their share". They pay a much, much higher share. (See below. I think you are wrong on the facts.) Higher now, in fact, than in decades past.. how does that mix with the complaining about "tax cuts for the rich"?

I don't have the figures at hand, but it is my recollection that when you calculate total tax burden from all sources, the highest brackets pay a lesser percentage of their income in taxes than the lower brackets.

I'll see if I can find those numbers.

258 recusancy  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 12:06:53pm

re: #254 cliffster

They are paying more than their fair share. Maybe if we said "thank you" instead of "START PULLING YOUR DAMN WEIGHT", then our karma would go up and we'd get a little richer.

Wow.

259 cliffster  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 12:07:35pm

re: #250 Talking Point Detective

Would you like to take a guess at what percentage of the country's economy is concentrated in the hands of the 10% of income-earners (let alone wealth-holders?)

See, that doesn't bother me. I'm happy for people when they are successful. When my neighbor got rich and sold his house to live in a much nicer neighborhood, I went to his new place to give him a house warming gift and say, "congratulations!". Not to demand money from him.

260 garhighway  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 12:08:13pm

re: #259 cliffster

See, that doesn't bother me. I'm happy for people when they are successful. When my neighbor got rich and sold his house to live in a much nicer neighborhood, I went to his new place to give him a house warming gift and say, "congratulations!". Not to demand money from him.

So this is a test of character.

Got it.

261 CarleeCork  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 12:09:14pm

Why should people earning interest and dividend income pay a lower percentage tax rate than people actually working for their income?

And how do they manage to convince the masses to support that line of insane reasoning?

262 Four More Tears  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 12:11:32pm

re: #261 CarleeCork

Why should people earning interest and dividend income pay a lower percentage tax rate than people actually working for their income?

And how do they manage to convince the masses to support that line of insane reasoning?

They scare them into thinking that people will stop investing.

263 Amory Blaine  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 12:12:56pm

re: #261 CarleeCork

Why should people earning interest and dividend income pay a lower percentage tax rate than people actually working for their income?

And how do they manage to convince the masses to support that line of insane reasoning?

Giant conservative think tanks will say that they are the job "producers" and it is bad to tax them.

264 Kronocide  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 12:12:57pm

re: #214 Walter L. Newton

You don't need any proof... just go with the meme... that's the popular way to debate an issue.

It's popular with Steven Milloy. I'd prefer to have some facts supporting my suspicions before I spout those suspicions as fact. But that and $1 won't get me a one hour Fox program or talk radio gig.

265 garhighway  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 12:13:09pm

re: #261 CarleeCork

Why should people earning interest and dividend income pay a lower percentage tax rate than people actually working for their income?

And how do they manage to convince the masses to support that line of insane reasoning?

They don't. They change the subject.

Gay marriage. "Law and order", aka scary black people. Abortion.

The GOP is all about using wedge issues to deliver the goods to their owners.

266 cliffster  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 12:14:21pm

re: #257 garhighway

I don't have the figures at hand, but it is my recollection that when you calculate total tax burden from all sources, the highest brackets pay a lesser percentage of their income in taxes than the lower brackets.

I'll see if I can find those numbers.

That's a very hairy statistic and it's easy to mislead in either direction with it. Either way, though, the fact is that they pay a much, much larger share of taxes.

267 recusancy  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 12:15:29pm

re: #266 cliffster

That's a very hairy statistic and it's easy to mislead in either direction with it. Either way, though, the fact is that they pay a much, much larger share of taxes.

And they have a much much much much larger share of the wealth.

268 garhighway  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 12:15:48pm

re: #266 cliffster

That's a very hairy statistic and it's easy to mislead in either direction with it. Either way, though, the fact is that they pay a much, much larger share of taxes.

No it's not a fact. You are wrong. As a percentage of their income, they DO NOT pay a "much, much larger share of taxes". That is a myth.

269 cliffster  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 12:16:25pm

re: #265 garhighway

now that I'll agree with you. it's a shame there's not more people running on the notion of providing across-the-board liberty.

270 Talking Point Detective  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 12:18:00pm

re: #238 Walter L. Newton

And what is that certain range... elaborate?

I don't have anything right at my fingertips - but from Wikipedia:

Estimates of revenue-maximizing tax rates have varied widely with some studies suggesting midpoint ranges around 70%.[1]

[1] Don Fullerton (2008). "Laffer curve," The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, 2nd Edition. Abstract.

Even if you're a believer in the Laffer curve, there is a curve there. Obviously, opinions might differ as to where the apex of the curve would lie - but comparing Kennedy's tax cuts to the current situation ignores the basic principles of even supply-side economics.

271 cliffster  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 12:18:25pm

re: #268 garhighway

No it's not a fact. You are wrong. As a percentage of their income, they DO NOT pay a "much, much larger share of taxes". That is a myth.

I didn't say that, and I'm pretty sure you know it. Regarding the total amount of tax revenue brought in, the upper income pay a much, much higher percentage of it. Irrespective of the percentage of their own income, they pay a vastly higher percentage of the total tax revenue.

272 Talking Point Detective  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 12:19:38pm

re: #241 cliffster

They pay a much, much higher share.

Not as a percentage of their income and/or wealth. Certainly not as a percentage of their expendable income.

273 garhighway  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 12:19:43pm

re: #271 cliffster

I didn't say that, and I'm pretty sure you know it. Regarding the total amount of tax revenue brought in, the upper income pay a much, much higher percentage of it. Irrespective of the percentage of their own income, they pay a vastly higher percentage of the total tax revenue.

Would you agree that the top 1% ought to at least pay as much in taxes, as a percentage of their income, as, say, the bottom 10%?

274 Talking Point Detective  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 12:20:52pm

re: #249 cliffster

You are not making me any more likely to respond to your questions. Maybe if you sent me flowers...

Varek on the other hand, I'm happy to respond to.. it's just that the negative is so much harder to show in this case. Send me that list, and I'll start crossing off.

No matter how you try to dress it up, your ducking is obvious. What's hilarious is that the third post you've addressed to the issue of your ducking.

275 Spocomptonite  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 12:21:47pm

Of course they won't compromise. If they can't put their name and their name only on an accomplishment, there's no personal reward of glory and fame for themselves. People can't compromise if they have an inflated ego, because doing so would require them to deflate it and share credit with people who, in their eyes, aren't as worthy of it as they are.

276 Talking Point Detective  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 12:24:08pm

re: #259 cliffster

See, that doesn't bother me. I'm happy for people when they are successful. When my neighbor got rich and sold his house to live in a much nicer neighborhood, I went to his new place to give him a house warming gift and say, "congratulations!". Not to demand money from him.

I'm also happy for people who are successful. Why wouldn't I be?

The problem is when people have a sense of entitlement about their success. Not all rich people are like that, of course, but some seem to believe that "success" is necessarily caused by someone being "smarter" or "working harder."

Do you know what factor is the most predictive of future "success" when a child is born?

277 recusancy  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 12:26:48pm

re: #259 cliffster

See, that doesn't bother me. I'm happy for people when they are successful. When my neighbor got rich and sold his house to live in a much nicer neighborhood, I went to his new place to give him a house warming gift and say, "congratulations!". Not to demand money from him.

Who the hell shows up at their friends door asking for money? Red herring.

278 Talking Point Detective  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 12:28:35pm

re: #271 cliffster

I didn't say that, and I'm pretty sure you know it. Regarding the total amount of tax revenue brought in, the upper income pay a much, much higher percentage of it. Irrespective of the percentage of their own income, they pay a vastly higher percentage of the total tax revenue.

Do you know what the effective tax rates of the richest 400 American income earners is?

279 HappyWarrior  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 12:28:39pm

I don't want to hear Republicans crying when there's a Republican president and congressional Democrats pull similiar stunts. Seriously if the GOP wants to act this way fine but they're trending on thin ice here. They got more seats not because people liked their ideas but because they were fed up with the Dems. If they act like this, they will be victims of a similiar backlash.

280 garhighway  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 12:28:45pm

re: #277 recusancy

Who the hell shows up at their friends door asking for money? Red herring.

Oh, come on. Don't you know that's what liberals do?

/

281 Lidane  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 12:29:00pm

re: #254 cliffster

Youtube Video
282 cliffster  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 12:29:02pm

re: #273 garhighway

Would you agree that the top 1% ought to at least pay as much in taxes, as a percentage of their income, as, say, the bottom 10%?

I could get behind that. The problem is that with a tax code that is 40 million pages long, there are all sorts of crazy ways for people to hide their money. (A lot of them could be used by middle class folks, but they don't know about them) This fact alone makes it impossible to know what percentage the rich/middle class/poor are actually "paying".

283 Talking Point Detective  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 12:30:53pm

re: #271 cliffster

I didn't say that, and I'm pretty sure you know it. Regarding the total amount of tax revenue brought in, the upper income pay a much, much higher percentage of it. Irrespective of the percentage of their own income, they pay a vastly higher percentage of the total tax revenue.

Do you realize how low the tax rate would have to be on someone making one million dollars to put his/her income tax payments at the same absolute value as someone paying 33% on $75k of income?

284 recusancy  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 12:31:34pm

re: #282 cliffster

I could get behind that. The problem is that with a tax code that is 40 million pages long, there are all sorts of crazy ways for people to hide their money. (A lot of them could be used by middle class folks, but they don't know about them) This fact alone makes it impossible to know what percentage the rich/middle class/poor are actually "paying".

No. There are records of what they are "paying". It's quite easy to know what they are paying. Also, now you are changing the issue to the tired line about how the code is too long.

285 cliffster  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 12:32:59pm

re: #283 Talking Point Detective

Do you realize how low the tax rate would have to be on someone making one million dollars to put his/her income tax payments at the same absolute value as someone paying 33% on $75k of income?

And you completely miss the point I made, and then clarified. And it's a simple point. And you wonder why I don't feel compelled to address the points you make. Keep on with your "ducking" bit, though, if it makes you feel better.

286 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 12:33:14pm

re: #271 cliffster

This is not true, because capital gains tax is so much lower than ordinary income tax.

Warren Buffett has explained this several times; he pays a smaller share of his income as tax than his secretary does.

287 garhighway  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 12:34:05pm

re: #282 cliffster

I could get behind that. The problem is that with a tax code that is 40 million pages long, there are all sorts of crazy ways for people to hide their money. (A lot of them could be used by middle class folks, but they don't know about them) This fact alone makes it impossible to know what percentage the rich/middle class/poor are actually "paying".

It's deeper than that. A lot of taxes are very regressive, hitting lower earners much harder, on a percentage of income basis, than they do higher earners. Sales tax, real estate tax, medicare withholding all are designed to hit lower brackets harder.

And it isn't that hard to know what the various brackets are paying. That data is out there. It is just that some in the conversation don't want to look at it, and prefer to feign confusion. Because it isn't helpful.

288 Talking Point Detective  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 12:36:27pm

re: #251 albusteve

no
no
no

OK. If you really think that it's a coincidence that the country with the best educated workforce also had the most economic success, you're entitled.

289 cliffster  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 12:38:27pm

re: #286 Obdicut

This is not true, because capital gains tax is so much lower than ordinary income tax.

Warren Buffett has explained this several times; he pays a smaller share of his income as tax than his secretary does.

Look, you have X, which is the total amount of scratch brought in by the federal government in the form of taxes. The highest income earners pay an overwhelming percentage of X. How much more clear can I make it that I am referring to percentage of federal tax revenue, not a percentage of your own income?

290 recusancy  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 12:41:27pm

re: #289 cliffster

Look, you have X, which is the total amount of scratch brought in by the federal government in the form of taxes. The highest income earners pay an overwhelming percentage of X. How much more clear can I make it that I am referring to percentage of federal tax revenue, not a percentage of your own income?

And you have Y, which is the total amount of wealth in the US. The highest income earners own an even more overwhelming percentage of Y. Do you not believe that the people with the most Y should also contribute the most X?

291 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 12:41:27pm

re: #289 cliffster

Look, you have X, which is the total amount of scratch brought in by the federal government in the form of taxes. The highest income earners pay an overwhelming percentage of X. How much more clear can I make it that I am referring to percentage of federal tax revenue, not a percentage of your own income?

Oh, okay.

So why is that an important figure, though? No matter what the tax rate is, that is always going to be true, whether it's a flat tax or a progressive tax. Only a regressive tax would make that untrue.

So I'm just at a total loss as to what your point: Yes, someone who pays a million dollars in taxes pays more than someone who pays ten dollars in taxes. You're simply stating a truism.

If anything, that shows how great the income and wealth disparity in this country has gotten.

So what were you attempting to prove by that?

292 Four More Tears  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 12:42:15pm

re: #288 Talking Point Detective

OK. If you really think that it's a coincidence that the country with the best educated workforce also had the most economic success, you're entitled.

We Americans are magical.

293 Amory Blaine  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 12:43:07pm

re: #292 JasonA

We Americans are magical.

Yes. Just bow down to the rich and karma will reward you./

294 Talking Point Detective  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 12:43:09pm

re: #285 cliffster

And you completely miss the point I made, and then clarified. And it's a simple point. And you wonder why I don't feel compelled to address the points you make. Keep on with your "ducking" bit, though, if it makes you feel better.

So - your point is that on average rich people pay a smaller tax (effective) tax rate than many middle class people, and obviously pay a much smaller percentage of their discretionary income in taxes. And the trend in terms of the percentage of their income they pay in taxes is decreasing, even as they are the only segment of the society whose median income has been increasing.

Thanks for the clarification.

295 recusancy  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 12:44:26pm

re: #292 JasonA

We Americans are magical.

American exceptionalism is a disease producing apathy, ignorance and eventually failure.

296 cliffster  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 12:45:11pm

re: #291 Obdicut

I'm not trying to prove anything. Someone made an emotional cry of, "The rich need to start pulling their weight for a change!!!". That statement is a little silly, considering that the very rich actually pay a much, much higher percentage of the tax revenue. Which, as I said, might be the way one thinks it ought to be, but it's silly to say that they NEED TO START PULLING THEIR WEIGHT!!

297 garhighway  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 12:46:05pm

re: #291 Obdicut

Oh, okay.

So why is that an important figure, though? No matter what the tax rate is, that is always going to be true, whether it's a flat tax or a progressive tax. Only a regressive tax would make that untrue.

So I'm just at a total loss as to what your point: Yes, someone who pays a million dollars in taxes pays more than someone who pays ten dollars in taxes. You're simply stating a truism.

If anything, that shows how great the income and wealth disparity in this country has gotten.

So what were you attempting to prove by that?

I'm struggling with that, too. The guys with most of the money pay most of the taxes. Duh. But that doesn't mean that the tax rates we have now are the right ones. Nor does it mean that the higher earners are owed some sort of giant thank you from everyone else, unless we think they achieved that status for us.

298 recusancy  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 12:46:54pm

re: #296 cliffster

I'm not trying to prove anything. Someone made an emotional cry of, "The rich need to start pulling their weight for a change!!!". That statement is a little silly, considering that the very rich actually pay a much, much higher percentage of the tax revenue. Which, as I said, might be the way one thinks it ought to be, but it's silly to say that they NEED TO START PULLING THEIR WEIGHT!!

Who made that emotional cry?

299 jamesfirecat  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 12:47:03pm

re: #296 cliffster

I'm not trying to prove anything. Someone made an emotional cry of, "The rich need to start pulling their weight for a change!!!". That statement is a little silly, considering that the very rich actually pay a much, much higher percentage of the tax revenue. Which, as I said, might be the way one thinks it ought to be, but it's silly to say that they NEED TO START PULLING THEIR WEIGHT!!

Maybe they need to pull their weight in ratio to how much they have not how much they're currently giving?

300 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 12:47:15pm

re: #296 cliffster

No, it's not. They do need to start pulling their weight. Thanks to capital gains tax-- plus many instruments of tax avoidance-- those making huge amounts from unearned income pay a lower percentage of their income than a hardworking sandhog does.

I'm not sure why you think that the total amount they pay means that they're 'pulling their weight'. In this case, the 'weight' would be their level of income-- and that is precisely what they're not contributing as great a portion of as the sandhog is.

Do you understand?

301 b_sharp  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 12:47:35pm

re: #296 cliffster

I'm not trying to prove anything. Someone made an emotional cry of, "The rich need to start pulling their weight for a change!!!". That statement is a little silly, considering that the very rich actually pay a much, much higher percentage of the tax revenue. Which, as I said, might be the way one thinks it ought to be, but it's silly to say that they NEED TO START PULLING THEIR WEIGHT!!

It's about time the rich start pulling their weight, the poor have supported their excesses for too long, the lazy fat-asses.

302 garhighway  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 12:47:35pm

re: #296 cliffster

I'm not trying to prove anything. Someone made an emotional cry of, "The rich need to start pulling their weight for a change!!!". That statement is a little silly, considering that the very rich actually pay a much, much higher percentage of the tax revenue. Which, as I said, might be the way one thinks it ought to be, but it's silly to say that they NEED TO START PULLING THEIR WEIGHT!!

I would respectfully suggest that "pulling their weight" means paying an equal share of their income in taxes. And no, they are not, by that definition, pulling their weight.

303 Talking Point Detective  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 12:48:27pm

re: #285 cliffster

And you completely miss the point I made, and then clarified. And it's a simple point. And you wonder why I don't feel compelled to address the points you make. Keep on with your "ducking" bit, though, if it makes you feel better.

I also love the "clarification" when you point out that the super rich are shouldering a higher percentage of the tax burden -- without mentioning that their income levels are growing at a considerably faster rate.

The reason why they're paying a higher percentage of the overall tax burden is because they're the only ones who are making more money.

304 cliffster  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 12:48:38pm

re: #294 Talking Point Detective

re: #301 b_sharp

It's about time the rich start pulling their weight, the poor have supported their excesses for too long, the lazy fat-asses.

hehe, nice work

305 Varek Raith  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 12:50:28pm

re: #304 cliffster

Why is it that middle class wages have stagnated since the 70's while the rich get richer?

306 recusancy  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 12:51:10pm

re: #305 Varek Raith

Why is it that middle class wages have stagnated since the 70's while the rich get richer?

Reaganism.

307 Four More Tears  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 12:52:12pm

This could get fun.

Democrats Look To Call GOP's Bluff With Bush Tax Cuts Vote

308 Stanghazi  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 12:52:45pm

re: #307 JasonA

This could get fun.

Democrats Look To Call GOP's Bluff With Bush Tax Cuts Vote

Oooh, tomorrow is a C-Span day! Politico's rejoice!

309 Four More Tears  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 12:52:46pm

re: #306 recusancy

Reaganism.

Yeah, they're trickling all over me all right...

310 jamesfirecat  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 12:53:43pm

re: #309 JasonA

Yeah, they're trickling all over me all right...

Trickle down economics insures golden showers for all!

311 Amory Blaine  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 12:54:49pm

re: #307 JasonA

This could get fun.

Democrats Look To Call GOP's Bluff With Bush Tax Cuts Vote

Yeah. A real riot. The way the Dems bully on the floor, the only tax cuts that will survive are the ones for the rich.

312 cliffster  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 12:55:48pm

re: #300 Obdicut

If 10% of the people are paying 85% of the tax burden, then they are already pulling weight. Maybe you think they should pull more, but it's silly to say they are not.

I'll agree with you on "tax instruments" in general. Get rid of all that shit. If you make $X, you pay Y%. It does get tricky with capital gains, because lower capital gains do directly encourage investment. Real investment - not day-trader investment.

And with that, I'm off to run a mile or 6.

313 b_sharp  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 12:56:42pm

re: #297 garhighway

I'm struggling with that, too. The guys with most of the money pay most of the taxes. Duh. But that doesn't mean that the tax rates we have now are the right ones. Nor does it mean that the higher earners are owed some sort of giant thank you from everyone else, unless we think they achieved that status for us.

They achieved that status from us, by buying cheap and selling dear, including labour.

The American/Canadian dream is that anyone with a special, high demand talent or skill can become a member of the rich elite, but what they forget is that there is a limit to how many can have that special talent before it ceases being high demand. Labour is nothing more than a commodity subject to the same rules and vagaries as corn.

314 jamesfirecat  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 12:57:08pm

re: #312 cliffster

If 10% of the people are paying 85% of the tax burden, then they are already pulling weight. Maybe you think they should pull more, but it's silly to say they are not.

I'll agree with you on "tax instruments" in general. Get rid of all that shit. If you make $X, you pay Y%. It does get tricky with capital gains, because lower capital gains do directly encourage investment. Real investment - not day-trader investment.

And with that, I'm off to run a mile or 6.

If 10% of the people pay 5% of their income and that ends up being 85% of the tax burden, while the remaining 90% all pay something more like 25% of their income, then no, that 10% is point of fact not pulling their weight in regards to their income...

315 Talking Point Detective  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 12:59:32pm

re: #107 cliffster

For almost every voter who voted Republican, their #1 priority is preventing tax increases. The Senate Republicans are listening to their voters. It's an interesting concept.

And BTW - you're still ducking.

Most economists agree that the Bush tax cuts resulted in less tax revenue. Most also agree that unemployment benefits more than pay for themselves.

What are those voters saying that the Republicans are "listening to?"

Are they saying that the deficit should be reduced? Because if they are, then the Senate Republicans are, actually, not listening to their voters.

316 garhighway  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 1:01:11pm

re: #312 cliffster

If 10% of the people are paying 85% of the tax burden, then they are already pulling weight. Maybe you think they should pull more, but it's silly to say they are not.

I'll agree with you on "tax instruments" in general. Get rid of all that shit. If you make $X, you pay Y%. It does get tricky with capital gains, because lower capital gains do directly encourage investment. Real investment - not day-trader investment.

And with that, I'm off to run a mile or 6.

The goalposts appear to be moving, from "pulling their weight" to just "pulling weight". (By which I think you mean "pulling (some) weight".)

But to be clear, and using your numbers, if 10% of the people make 90% of the income and pay 85% of the taxes, they are NOT pulling their weight. They are slackers. Freeloaders. Bums.

317 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 1:01:20pm

re: #312 cliffster

If 10% of the people are paying 85% of the tax burden, then they are already pulling weight. Maybe you think they should pull more, but it's silly to say they are not.

Why are you simply ignoring what I'm writing? Do you not understand it, or do you disagree with it? I'm fine with you disagreeing, but you're simply ignoring it. That's not productive.

If you have three animals chained to pull something, a half-ton draft horse, a hundred pound dog, and a ferret, it is not 'pulling its weight' if the horse does four times as much work as the dog. He's not pulling his weight.

And even then, the scale isn't actually right. Many of the top income earners are like elephants in terms of their weight.

Does this help you understand what 'pulling your weight' means?

318 recusancy  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 1:02:03pm

re: #315 Talking Point Detective

He went to go run. AKA not produce anything and therefore remain a lazy low income earner.

319 Stormageddon, Dark Lord of All  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 1:02:15pm

re: #97 lostlakehiker

There are two issues that really must be addressed first:

(1) There must be a continuing resolution so that the government can carry on into next year, with the same spending as this year if no other legislation can be passed.

Ok, and you expect the Republicans to pass this and why? They've shown no interest in any compromise the last 2 years, why would they even let this happen? You realize that if the Republicans think they can gain an electoral advantage by blowing the government up, they would, and this could be a perfect opportunity to do so.

(2) There must be some sort of extension of the "Bush" tax cuts. Allowing tax law to default to rates that, through inflation, have become wholly unrealistic and unreasonable, is not an option.

Wait? What? I'm sorry, that's one of the most inane pieces of piffle I've read in a very long time. Inflation has nothing to do with how much a tax rate affects a person, going from 35 percent back to 39% above 373K a year is NOT going to make a massive dent. I'm sorry but a 39% marginal tax rate (which is what it will revert back to) is NOT some massive increase.

and inflation in the last 10 years? the total inflation from January 2000 to January 2010 is 28.37%

Considering the highest tax bracket has also moved from 288K to 373K, I think inflation has been compensated for quite well.

The Republican leadership hasn't exactly said it won't work with the Democrats. Maybe it will come to that, and maybe it won't. For now, the R position is that nothing else will be dealt with in the current lame-duck session until these two top priorities have been addressed.

Shorter Republican: We must fluff our high income corporate executives, before we go back to screwing over everyone else but distracting everyone by inciting a populist uprising using shiny regressive catch phrases and lies.

And people still fall for it.

320 Amory Blaine  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 1:02:18pm

re: #315 Talking Point Detective

Paying for the wars should be their "priority". Any real fiscal conservative knows you don't cut taxes when war wages on at least two front. Real fiscal conservatives knows it will take more revenue to get out of the hole. They are pushing the same lies that have gotten us into this mess.

321 garhighway  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 1:04:10pm

re: #319 bloodstar

Shorter Republican: We must fluff our high income corporate executives, before we go back to screwing over everyone else but distracting everyone by inciting a populist uprising using shiny regressive catch phrases and lies.

Fluffers.

Gotta love 'em.

322 b_sharp  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 1:11:41pm

re: #321 garhighway

Fluffers.

Gotta love 'em.

Loose lips sink tight ships, or something like that.

323 lostlakehiker  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 1:13:02pm

re: #120 Obdicut

What we really need to do is to raise capital gains tax rates to match ordinary income rates, with deductions for sales of homes and other things that mainly affect the middle class. A lot of the highest income earners won't be touched at all by a rise in the ordinary income tax, since their income is unearned.

Taxation of capital gains is very much intertwined with inflation rates.

In a high inflation setting, taxes on capital gains amount to taxes on principle. A person wishing to put aside enough money to buy a typical week's worth of groceries invests $100, say. Ten years later, the investment is still enough to buy a week's groceries, but now, that's $200. The investor then pays capital gains taxes on the $100 "gain", and winds up the poorer for the deal.

The investor might manage to triple his money in nominal terms, for a real gain of 50%, spread over ten years. That's far better than is normally possible, but let's explore what happens: $100 invested, $300 cashed out, $200 taxable income, $70 tax, $130 to keep. Original investment, 1 week groceries. Ten years later? $Eight days groceries. Barely ahead of the game.


If tax law is going to treat investment income the same as earned income, capital gains should be scored on an inflation-adjusted basis. Otherwise, once inflation gets rolling, investment becomes effectively impossible. No one can hope to reap the fantastic real returns needed to cover the tax that will be levied on the imaginary gains the tax law treats as real.

Your proposal, to tax capital gains the same as earned income, makes much more sense in a low-inflation economy than it does in a high-inflation economy. Conversely, once your proposal is enacted, the government has an enormous incentive to inflate: what is nominally an income tax would then be in a position to collect a big yearly share of all savings.

324 garhighway  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 1:15:14pm

re: #323 lostlakehiker


Your proposal, to tax capital gains the same as earned income, makes much more sense in a low-inflation economy than it does in a high-inflation economy.

Which are we in now?

325 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 1:15:18pm

re: #199 celticdragon

Mass extinction events (like the end Permian event...the real big one that just about killed off everything) really do suck. There is debate about whether we are now causing the sixth great mass extinction. I tend to leans towards "yes".

Yes, yes it does. I really wish people understood that.

326 Talking Point Detective  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 1:15:32pm

re: #312 cliffster

If 10% of the people are paying 85% of the tax burden, then they are already pulling weight. Maybe you think they should pull more, but it's silly to say they are not.


Let's extend this logic. Apparently, if everyone pays the same amount in taxes, then everyone is "pulling their weight." No need for progressive taxation.

If someone makes $40k, they should pay, say, $10k in taxes. And so then, someone making $400 million should also pay, say, 10k. They'd both be "pulling their weight."

One person pays 25% of their income in taxes.
The other person pays 0.000000025% of their income in taxes.

But they're both "pulling their weight."

“Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is toexempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometric progression as they rise”

Thomas Jefferson

327 garhighway  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 1:16:40pm

re: #326 Talking Point Detective

Let's extend this logic. Apparently, if everyone pays the same amount in taxes, then everyone is "pulling their weight." No need for progressive taxation.

If someone makes $40k, they should pay, say, $10k in taxes. And so then, someone making $400 million should also pay, say, 10k. They'd both be "pulling their weight."

One person pays 25% of their income in taxes.
The other person pays 0.000000025% of their income in taxes.

But they're both "pulling their weight."

Thomas Jefferson

Everybody knows Jefferson was a commie.

328 Talking Point Detective  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 1:17:49pm

re: #320 Amory Blaine

Paying for the wars should be their "priority". Any real fiscal conservative knows you don't cut taxes when war wages on at least two front. Real fiscal conservatives knows it will take more revenue to get out of the hole. They are pushing the same lies that have gotten us into this mess.

The notion that the GOP is "fiscally conservative" is a complete and total fabrication.

329 Amory Blaine  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 1:18:20pm

re: #327 garhighway

The Virginian Candidate..

330 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 1:18:47pm

re: #323 lostlakehiker

You weren't talking about capital gains when you made your first reference to inflation, and it's dishonest to pretend you were. You were talking about the Bush tax cuts, which are not capital gains tax cuts.

The investor might manage to triple his money in nominal terms, for a real gain of 50%, spread over ten years. That's far better than is normally possible, but let's explore what happens: $100 invested, $300 cashed out, $200 taxable income, $70 tax, $130 to keep. Original investment, 1 week groceries. Ten years later? $Eight days groceries. Barely ahead of the game.

If you assume 100% inflation, which is not something that we have in the US.

If tax law is going to treat investment income the same as earned income, capital gains should be scored on an inflation-adjusted basis.

Sure. Not a big problem with that, since inflation doesn't reach the insane levels you're claiming in the US.

Your proposal, to tax capital gains the same as earned income, makes much more sense in a low-inflation economy than it does in a high-inflation economy.

Which is probably why I'm making it in a low-inflation economy.

331 garhighway  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 1:19:38pm

re: #329 Amory Blaine

The Virginian Candidate..

Starring Doug McClure and Angela Lansbury.

332 lostlakehiker  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 1:21:51pm

re: #314 jamesfirecat

If 10% of the people pay 5% of their income and that ends up being 85% of the tax burden, while the remaining 90% all pay something more like 25% of their income, then no, that 10% is point of fact not pulling their weight in regards to their income...

re: #317 Obdicut

Why are you simply ignoring what I'm writing? Do you not understand it, or do you disagree with it? I'm fine with you disagreeing, but you're simply ignoring it. That's not productive.

If you have three animals chained to pull something, a half-ton draft horse, a hundred pound dog, and a ferret, it is not 'pulling its weight' if the horse does four times as much work as the dog. He's not pulling his weight.

And even then, the scale isn't actually right. Many of the top income earners are like elephants in terms of their weight.

Does this help you understand what 'pulling your weight' means?

You'd have a point if the facts were anything like your metaphor suggests. But they aren't. The draft horse here is doing all the pulling. The dog and the ferret don't pay any federal income tax at all. Limiting discussion to individual federal income tax, because that's the federal tax that isn't really a pension program or a road use fee or something---we have this:

The richest ten percent get something like 30 percent of the income and pay 50 percent of the taxes; the richest 20 percent get 50 percent of the income and pay 80 percent of the taxes, and so on. [No, I don't have a link. But we all know this is more or less how things stand.] As a general rule, high incomes pay higher tax rates per dollar. That's just a fact.

What is your word for someone who puts up a post that is contrary to fact, knowing that it runs counter to fact, in an effort to win an argument?

333 Talking Point Detective  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 1:23:09pm

re: #326 Talking Point Detective

er. A little loose with the decimal places there. That should have been one pays 25% and the other pays 0.0025%.

334 Stormageddon, Dark Lord of All  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 1:23:13pm

re: #323 lostlakehiker

Taxation of capital gains is very much intertwined with inflation rates.

In a high inflation setting, taxes on capital gains amount to taxes on principle. A person wishing to put aside enough money to buy a typical week's worth of groceries invests $100, say. Ten years later, the investment is still enough to buy a week's groceries, but now, that's $200. The investor then pays capital gains taxes on the $100 "gain", and winds up the poorer for the deal.

The investor might manage to triple his money in nominal terms, for a real gain of 50%, spread over ten years. That's far better than is normally possible, but let's explore what happens: $100 invested, $300 cashed out, $200 taxable income, $70 tax, $130 to keep. Original investment, 1 week groceries. Ten years later? $Eight days groceries. Barely ahead of the game.

If tax law is going to treat investment income the same as earned income, capital gains should be scored on an inflation-adjusted basis. Otherwise, once inflation gets rolling, investment becomes effectively impossible. No one can hope to reap the fantastic real returns needed to cover the tax that will be levied on the imaginary gains the tax law treats as real.

Your proposal, to tax capital gains the same as earned income, makes much more sense in a low-inflation economy than it does in a high-inflation economy. Conversely, once your proposal is enacted, the government has an enormous incentive to inflate: what is nominally an income tax would then be in a position to collect a big yearly share of all savings.

this post makes sense, even if I disagree with some of the conclusions.

We aren't going to solve the world problems, but I would argue that the easiest way to adjust capital gains taxes would be to make all inflation adjustments tax free. If you have a 25% gain in your investment over 10 years, and the inflation is 20%, then 20 of that 25% is not taxed. Then count the rest as income at a standard rate.

To prevent gaming of the system, Losses cannot be deducted from capital gains. So if investment A gains 50% and investment B loses 20% you still have to pay taxes on investment A.

335 lostlakehiker  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 1:26:16pm

re: #330 Obdicut

You weren't talking about capital gains when you made your first reference to inflation, and it's dishonest to pretend you were. You were talking about the Bush tax cuts, which are not capital gains tax cuts.

If you assume 100% inflation, which is not something that we have in the US.

Sure. Not a big problem with that, since inflation doesn't reach the insane levels you're claiming in the US.

Which is probably why I'm making it in a low-inflation economy.

100% inflation over the course of a DECADE is quite different from 100% inflation in one year. You just forgot that, right?

We do not NOW have 100% inflation per decade. We've had it before, though, with Carter. Looking forward, and keeping in mind how sharply the money supply has been increased, it's not unreasonable to think we may see it again. Hence, the need to index capital gains for inflation when moving away from current law to instead treat capital gains the same as other income.

336 garhighway  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 1:28:28pm

re: #332 lostlakehiker

re: #317 Obdicut

The richest ten percent get something like 30 percent of the income and pay 50 percent of the taxes; the richest 20 percent get 50 percent of the income and pay 80 percent of the taxes, and so on. [No, I don't have a link. But we all know this is more or less how things stand.] As a general rule, high incomes pay higher tax rates per dollar. That's just a fact.

No it is not. Not if you look at total tax burden, which is the only sensible way to look at it. Higher income individuals pay a lower percentage of their income in total taxes than do lower income individuals.

See the Warren Buffett quote upthread. He'd know.

337 Talking Point Detective  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 1:28:46pm

re: #332 lostlakehiker

re: #317 Obdicut

The richest ten percent get something like 30 percent of the income and pay 50 percent of the taxes;

Do you realize how far off those stats are?

The top 5% earn half of all wealth. The top 300,000 Americans earn as much as 150 million Americans at the other end of the spectrum.

338 lostlakehiker  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 1:30:26pm

re: #330 Obdicut

You weren't talking about capital gains when you made your first reference to inflation, and it's dishonest to pretend you were. You were talking about the Bush tax cuts, which are not capital gains tax cuts.

If you assume 100% inflation, which is not something that we have in the US.

Sure. Not a big problem with that, since inflation doesn't reach the insane levels you're claiming in the US.

Which is probably why I'm making it in a low-inflation economy.

I "pretended" no such thing. My point then, and now, was that the alternative minimum tax is not indexed for inflation. Restoring its rates and trigger income levels to what they were a decade or more ago is unreasonable because of the inflation that has occurred in the meantime.

Again, I made no claim that we NOW see inflation rates of 100% per decade, and I certainly made no claim that we have ever seen inflation rates of 100% per year. You have a bad habit of putting words in my mouth, then calling me the liar.

339 lostlakehiker  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 1:32:01pm

re: #337 Talking Point Detective

Do you realize how far off those stats are?

The top 5% earn half of all wealth. The top 300,000 Americans earn as much as 150 million Americans at the other end of the spectrum.

You seriously assert that half of all income, in any given year, goes to the top five percent? Link? Evidence? That's an extraordinary assertion.

340 jamesfirecat  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 1:32:11pm

re: #332 lostlakehiker

re: #317 Obdicut

You'd have a point if the facts were anything like your metaphor suggests. But they aren't. The draft horse here is doing all the pulling. The dog and the ferret don't pay any federal income tax at all. Limiting discussion to individual federal income tax, because that's the federal tax that isn't really a pension program or a road use fee or something---we have this:

The richest ten percent get something like 30 percent of the income and pay 50 percent of the taxes; the richest 20 percent get 50 percent of the income and pay 80 percent of the taxes, and so on. [No, I don't have a link. But we all know this is more or less how things stand.] As a general rule, high incomes pay higher tax rates per dollar. That's just a fact.

What is your word for someone who puts up a post that is contrary to fact, knowing that it runs counter to fact, in an effort to win an argument?

"[No, I don't have a link. But we all know this is more or less how things stand.] "

You all may be so smart, but I'm... Dim!

Citations or I'd argue you're just pulling things out of your rear end.

341 garhighway  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 1:35:48pm

re: #339 lostlakehiker

You seriously assert that half of all income, in any given year, goes to the top five percent? Link? Evidence? That's an extraordinary assertion.

Here's a partial answer: the top 1% earned about 18% of all the income in 2005. I think it's higher now.

Image: Share_top_1%25.jpg

342 MinisterO  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 1:37:23pm

re: #323 lostlakehiker

Bickering aside this is a really good point. The current 15% long-term capital gains tax amounts to about a 25% tax on real gains over a 10 year period, assuming 4% real growth and 4% inflation.

The funny thing is that this is really regressive. Those who can afford to hold investments for long periods - say 30 years - only pay a little more than 15% tax on real gains because by that point the real cost basis is an insignificant fraction of the value of the investment.

343 Talking Point Detective  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 1:39:17pm

re: #339 lostlakehiker

You seriously assert that half of all income, in any given year, goes to the top five percent? Link? Evidence? That's an extraordinary assertion.

Sorry - that would be wealth. With income, it is the top 10%

The top 10 percent of the population carried away some 48.5 percent of all reported income in the US in 2005—

[Link: www.wsws.org...]

344 Talking Point Detective  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 1:46:31pm

re: #339 lostlakehiker

You seriously assert that half of all income, in any given year, goes to the top five percent? Link? Evidence? That's an extraordinary assertion.

Sorry - I was wrong again. Looking for a less biased source than perhaps the World Socialist website (not too hard to find), the US census bureau has it at the top 20% of income earners earned 50%, 29% earned by the top 8%. So, your original number was not that far off.

345 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 1:49:13pm

re: #332 lostlakehiker

The richest ten percent get something like 30 percent of the income and pay 50 percent of the taxes; the richest 20 percent get 50 percent of the income and pay 80 percent of the taxes, and so on. [No, I don't have a link. But we all know this is more or less how things stand.] As a general rule, high incomes pay higher tax rates per dollar. That's just a fact.

I love how you say 'that's just a fact' when you were throwing out spitball numbers you had no confidence in.

What a joke.

Here's the actual numbers:

The richest ten percent get something like 30 percent of the income and pay 50 percent of the taxes;

Nope. They get 41.6% of the income, and pay 55.4% of the federal taxes, with an effective tax rate of 27.5%. If you're counting just income tax, in order to distort the scale, they pay 72.8% of the income taxes. And that includes everyone making $98,100 and up.


the richest 20 percent get 50 percent of the income and pay 80 percent of the taxes, and so on.

Much closer, though still very off. They get 55.7% of the income, and pax 69.3% of all federal taxes. At an effective rate of 25.8%.

This stuff is really, really, really easy to find. Why not take the time go to find it?

[Link: www.cbo.gov...]

But moreover, you're-- either on purpose or not, I don't know-- willingly missing the large point of that. 10% of the population is holding 41.6% of the income. That's more than the next 20% combined.

What is your word for someone who puts up a post that is contrary to fact, knowing that it runs counter to fact, in an effort to win an argument?

I'm pointing out that, thanks to capital gains taxes, someone who makes three hundred million dollars on the sale of stock will pay an effective tax rate of less than 15% on that. Are you disputing that?

346 lostlakehiker  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 1:49:21pm

re: #340 jamesfirecat

"[No, I don't have a link. But we all know this is more or less how things stand.] "

You all may be so smart, but I'm... Dim!

Citations or I'd argue you're just pulling things out of your rear end.

According to Wikipedia, the Gini coefficient for the U.S. economy in 2009 was 46.8. That means that the area under the total income curve was 53.2 percent of what it would have been if everyone had the same income.

If the curve is fairly smooth and nice and fits Wikipedia's data, then the top 17 percent of earners collect 50 percent of the income, while the top 9 percent collect 30 percent of the income. I said 20 percent and 10 percent. That's fairly good agreement.

Technical details: income curve would be y=x^(2.7594). In reality, income distributions are more complicated. Some people take a loss in some years. A tiny few make a bundle. At the lower end, do we count in-kind income such as food stamps and free medical care? For purposes of the Gini index, I think we don't.

347 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 1:50:07pm

re: #336 garhighway

This isn't true in general for the upper tax brackets, but only true in particular cases. But it's really beside the point.

348 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 1:54:16pm

re: #338 lostlakehiker

You have a really, really, really, really bad habit of saying I've called you a liar when I haven't. Nearly every time you do so, well, it's a lie. Think about that for while, would you? This is reaching obsessive levels with you.

I "pretended" no such thing. My point then, and now, was that the alternative minimum tax is not indexed for inflation. Restoring its rates and trigger income levels to what they were a decade or more ago is unreasonable because of the inflation that has occurred in the meantime.

Inflation has been roughly 30% over the past decade. You did not mention the alternative minimum tax in your original post; we were talking about capital gains. Your argument was that capital gains taxes don't account for inflation, which is certainly true. However, you went on to say

Your proposal, to tax capital gains the same as earned income, makes much more sense in a low-inflation economy than it does in a high-inflation economy.

Are we in a high-inflation or low-inflation economy?

349 lostlakehiker  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 1:55:49pm

re: #342 MinisterO

Bickering aside this is a really good point. The current 15% long-term capital gains tax amounts to about a 25% tax on real gains over a 10 year period, assuming 4% real growth and 4% inflation.

The funny thing is that this is really regressive. Those who can afford to hold investments for long periods - say 30 years - only pay a little more than 15% tax on real gains because by that point the real cost basis is an insignificant fraction of the value of the investment.

I'm afraid you're missing the main point. A conservative investor who buys a stock worth 1 week's grocery in 1980, at a price of $30, and sees the price of the stock drift gradually upward to where it's now worth $100, has for all practical purposes made no real gain. He's still got enough money to buy a week's groceries.

Now it's time to pay taxes. Uh-oh. He has $70 capital gains. Fork over $25, (assuming we treat cap gains the same as other income) and he has $75, which is less than a week's groceries. It's an infinitely progressive tax: the investor loses money and pays taxes anyhow.

A wheeler-dealer may be able to dodge in and out, and if he's really smart or has friends in high places [dishonest but in ways the law cannot reach] then he may achieve gains that far outpace inflation. But he won't be sitting in the same stock for thirty years. He'll pay capital gains taxes repeatedly, as he dodges and weaves the ups and downs of the market.

350 Talking Point Detective  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 1:57:19pm

re: #345 Obdicut

10% of the population is holding 41.6% of the income. That's more than the next 20% combined.

Wealth distribution is even more skewed than income distribution.

351 lostlakehiker  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 1:59:55pm

re: #348 Obdicut

You have a really, really, really, really bad habit of saying I've called you a liar when I haven't. Nearly every time you do so, well, it's a lie. Think about that for while, would you? This is reaching obsessive levels with you.

Inflation has been roughly 30% over the past decade. You did not mention the alternative minimum tax in your original post; we were talking about capital gains. Your argument was that capital gains taxes don't account for inflation, which is certainly true. However, you went on to say

Are we in a high-inflation or low-inflation economy?

Any tax law we write is going to be in force not over the past, but over the future. What do you think? I expect some formidable inflation over the next decade. I don't mind taxing income. That's the whole point of an income tax. I do object to word games in which the "dollar" is, by official decree, a thing of fixed value whether it really is or not. Taxing "gains" which are not gains is not a tax on income.

352 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 2:00:10pm

re: #335 lostlakehiker

By the way:

We do not NOW have 100% inflation per decade. We've had it before, though, with Carter.

Yes. For an anomalous 3 year period, we had it. We didn't actually have it for an entire decade, of course, so, this is a rather misleading comment.

Anyway, I already said that I was fine with capital gains being adjusted for inflation, so I'm really confused if you just missed me saying that, or you don't care, or what.

353 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 2:00:50pm

re: #351 lostlakehiker

Please stop pretending that I haven't already said that I'm absolutely fine with inflation-adjusted capital gains tax.

354 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 2:02:02pm

Here's a good way of looking at share of income versus effective tax rates:

Image: taxbyquintiles.jpg

Anything seem off about that?

355 Stormageddon, Dark Lord of All  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 2:06:43pm

re: #352 Obdicut

By the way:

Yes. For an anomalous 3 year period, we had it. We didn't actually have it for an entire decade, of course, so, this is a rather misleading comment.

Anyway, I already said that I was fine with capital gains being adjusted for inflation, so I'm really confused if you just missed me saying that, or you don't care, or what.

I have to disagree with the idea that the time frame was only 3 years since the rate from the early 70s into the mid 80s would have been over 100% for a 10 year period for most or all of those years. It was a pretty nasty period.

356 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 2:07:19pm

re: #355 bloodstar

That's not true.

[Link: inflationdata.com...]

357 lostlakehiker  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 2:08:22pm

re: #345 Obdicut

I love how you say 'that's just a fact' when you were throwing out spitball numbers you had no confidence in.

What a joke.

Here's the actual numbers:

Nope. They get 41.6% of the income, and pay 55.4% of the federal taxes, with an effective tax rate of 27.5%. If you're counting just income tax, in order to distort the scale, they pay 72.8% of the income taxes. And that includes everyone making $98,100 and up.

Much closer, though still very off. They get 55.7% of the income, and pax 69.3% of all federal taxes. At an effective rate of 25.8%.

This stuff is really, really, really easy to find. Why not take the time go to find it?

[Link: www.cbo.gov...]

But moreover, you're-- either on purpose or not, I don't know-- willingly missing the large point of that. 10% of the population is holding 41.6% of the income. That's more than the next 20% combined.

I'm pointing out that, thanks to capital gains taxes, someone who makes three hundred million dollars on the sale of stock will pay an effective tax rate of less than 15% on that. Are you disputing that?

Well, thank you for getting the numbers. But they do make my point. My point was, and remains, that at the top end, the top X percent gets Y percent of the income, and pays more than Y percent of the federal income tax. Quite a bit more. In other words, this top X percent is in fact pulling its weight, tax wise.

The reason I used rough numbers was that I didn't have the exact ones, and I knew I didn't have them, but even rough numbers would be sufficient to make the point.

Now we can argue over whether it would be desirable or feasible to move Y up still higher, and shift the tax burden more completely onto those who make a lot.

I think that as part of a deal to cut the federal deficit, a deal which included spending cuts, this could and should win political support from both sides. It's not a distortion to say that the top 10 percent of earners pay 72 percent of the individual federal income tax, if that is the truth and we're talking federal income tax. That's just what the number is. And maybe it should be 75 percent. It can't be 144 percent, and realistically speaking, it can't be 90 percent. The rest of us are going to have to ante up and kick in something comparable to the 28 percent that we now contribute.

358 MinisterO  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 2:08:40pm

According to Piketty and Saez, the top 10% of taxpayers in 2008 re: #349 lostlakehiker

I'm afraid you're missing the main point.

I get the point, I'm just better at the math. If inflation beats your investment then you lose twice. I get it, see?

Even if your investment beats inflation, you pay more than the nominal 15% (or whatever it happens to be) on real gains and you could still be a net loser to inflation.

If you're secure enough to hold for a long period, and if your investment beats inflation, then you more or less pay the 15% (or whatever it happens to be) rate on real income.

359 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 2:09:27pm

re: #357 lostlakehiker

Quite a bit more. In other words, this top X percent is in fact pulling its weight, tax wise.

When was I ever talking about the top X percent? I was talking about people who derived their income from unearned income. How did you manage to miss that?

360 lostlakehiker  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 2:09:43pm

re: #353 Obdicut

Please stop pretending that I haven't already said that I'm absolutely fine with inflation-adjusted capital gains tax.

I make no such charge. I hope nobody read it that way. It wasn't intended to suggest that.

361 MinisterO  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 2:11:59pm

To continue my previous thought:

According to Piketty and Saez, the top 10% of taxpayers in 2008 got 45.6% of all gross income excluding capital gains and government transfers (48.23% including capital gains).

362 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 2:12:30pm

re: #349 lostlakehiker

You realize, right, that $30 in 1980, adjusted for inflation to 2010, isn't $100, but is about $79? Or do you just not care about actual numbers at all?

363 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 2:18:10pm

Hell, I'd like to see capital gains be adjusted for income just so that companies would start having a longer-term plan for stock prices. It wouldn't be enough on its own, but it'd help.

364 Stormageddon, Dark Lord of All  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 2:20:55pm

re: #356 Obdicut

That's not true.

[Link: inflationdata.com...]

Keep in mind inflation compounds, just like interest.

so an inflation rate of 7% a year yields 100% total inflation over a decade. so when you look at 10 year time frames it adds up really quick. which is why that entire time frame had some pretty massive inflation.

(for example when you look at 1980, and extrapolate those out to a decade, you're looking at inflation rates of ~300%

365 lostlakehiker  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 2:25:17pm

re: #362 Obdicut

You realize, right, that $30 in 1980, adjusted for inflation to 2010, isn't $100, but is about $79? Or do you just not care about actual numbers at all?


The logic would be the same in either case. I didn't mean to imply that the numbers were exact. re: #354 Obdicut

Here's a good way of looking at share of income versus effective tax rates:

Image: taxbyquintiles.jpg

Anything seem off about that?

That looks reasonable if you're counting social security etc. along with federal income taxes. I don't see social security taxes as being general revenue taxes. Like the federal tax on gasoline, they're a proxy for an economic exchange. In the one case, when I buy gasoline I'm effectively paying a road toll. Fair enough, I used the road. In the other case, when I pay social security tax, I'm effectively buying into a pension system. Fair enough, again. Now maybe social security benefits are too high, and I'll be getting more than I should when I retire, where younger workers will then be getting less. But in broad brush strokes, both those taxes aren't exactly 'taxes'. Federal income tax is just a tax. If I pay more of that, I don't have any claim on more of anything, roads or pensions.

But with your own numbers, and taking these non-tax taxes into account which I think is not all that logical a way to look at it, what I notice is that higher income cohorts pay a higher effective tax rate. This is as it should be.

The implicit claim in the bar graphs, and the suggestion that they're out of whack, seems to me to be that tax rates ought to yet higher on those higher cohorts, so that effective rates were directly proportional to cohort sizes, might lead to some paradoxical tax rates.

Those with very, very high incomes would have to pay more than 100 percent to keep the two bar graphs lined up.

366 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 2:25:19pm

re: #364 bloodstar

I'm not sure what you're saying. That site has a calculator, if you want to pick any ten year range and extrapolate out from it for a ten year rate. If you're talking about years during which we could extrapolate out to 100% if we treated those years as the rate for each year, there are 6 between 1970 and 1980 that are such.

What I'm saying is that there is only a three year time period where, if you use that calculator to figure out inflation rates, it reaches above 100%.

367 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 2:31:30pm

re: #365 lostlakehiker

Why not actually be accurate? It takes like ten seconds to find the numbers. Why say '1980' if you don't really mean 1980?

Social security tax is a tax. Your reasoning for why it's not is a familiar meme. It is a tax that is used to fund something that's in some ways similar to a pension system. That doesn't make it not a tax, and nothing you've said has, in any way, supported that contention.


But with your own numbers, and taking these non-tax taxes into account which I think is not all that logical a way to look at it, what I notice is that higher income cohorts pay a higher effective tax rate. This is as it should be.

Do you notice a gigantic, enormous disparity in the final ten percent compared to everyone else, in terms of income vs. effective tax rate?

Those with very, very high incomes would have to pay more than 100 percent to keep the two bar graphs lined up.

That's perfectly true. That would be when a progressive tax system went beyond 100% tax. Which is, obviously foolish. I'm not sure why you're bringing that up, since I never said that the bar graphs should be 'lined up'.

There are a lot of other ways that the bars could be 'lined up', however, since you bring it up; if the upper 10% had a lower share of the overall income, and the other quintiles had a higher share. That would help to line it up quite a lot. And that is the main point; it is incredibly, incredibly dangerous for our economy and our society for the income disparity to be what it is.

I started out simply talking about capital gains-- which you alternately ignored that I was doing, or didn't engage with the fact that I immediately said I was fine with inflation-adjusting capital gains-- but when it comes to talking about the income disparity, it is mind-boggling to me that anyone can look at that and not think it represents something incredibly goddamn dangerous to the economy and the nation.

368 funky chicken  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 2:39:56pm

re: #142 Kragar (proud to be kafir)

US judge says lesbians can be ‘cured’ by male soldiers

An American judge has been accused of advocating corrective rape for lesbians.

Joe Rehyansky, a part-time magistrate and Vietnam veteran, wrote on conservative news site The Daily Caller that lesbians should be allowed to serve in the military because straight male soldiers could “convert” them.

The Daily Caller swiftly removed some of his remarks but not before they were picked up by other websites.

Mr Rehyansky, of Hamilton County, Tennessee, argued that men were naturally more promiscuous than women and “it fell to men to swing through the trees and scour the caves in search of as many women as possible to subdue and impregnate – a tough job but someone had to do it”.

Neanderthal alert. Anyhow, out lesbians serve without any problems at every AF base we've seen. The guys don't care, and the straight women get hit on by men more than they do by lesbians, so they don't care either. I'd guess that 99.9% of military men would have zero problems sharing a foxhole with a lesbian. Some of them become very uncomfortable with the gay male though, which just makes me think they don't like being ogled the way they ogle women.

I can understand their not wanting to constantly walk in on sex acts in the close quarters they inhabit...but that's possibly because I'm a female.

369 MinisterO  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 2:55:44pm

It actually seems pretty reasonable for the top 20% who earn more than 50% of the income to pay 80% of the taxes. Those who have more have more to lose and benefit more from the government's primary purpose of maintaining the status quo.

370 Four More Tears  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 3:01:55pm

re: #369 MinisterO

It actually seems pretty reasonable for the top 20% who earn more than 50% of the income to pay 80% of the taxes. Those who have more have more to lose and benefit more from the government's primary purpose of maintaining the status quo.

Bingo. Really, the whole point of the law is to protect our stuff from other people who want our stuff. He has the most stuff has the most to lose.

371 lostlakehiker  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 3:06:06pm

re: #352 Obdicut

By the way:

Yes. For an anomalous 3 year period, we had it. We didn't actually have it for an entire decade, of course, so, this is a rather misleading comment.

Anyway, I already said that I was fine with capital gains being adjusted for inflation, so I'm really confused if you just missed me saying that, or you don't care, or what.

consumer price index history

1974 to 1984, consumer price index January to January moves from 46.6 to 101.9, a 119 percent inflation over those ten years. Or if you want a decade beginning and ending on a ten-year mark, 1970: 37.8, 1980, 77.8, 106 percent inflation during that decade.

Or if we take Jimmy Carter's time in office, from 58.5 to 87. That's 49 percent in just four years.

My comment wasn't misleading. It was cautious, understating what had actually happened. Just to be on the safe side.

372 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 3:08:25pm

re: #371 lostlakehiker

1974 to 1984 is eleven years, not ten. But yes, there actually was a decade that had 100% period. You're right.

That is still anomalous.

And it still doesn't fucking matter, since I already said I'm fine with inflation-adjusted capital gains tax.

Can you please goddamn grasp that?

373 lostlakehiker  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 3:14:14pm

re: #368 funky chicken

Neanderthal alert. Anyhow, out lesbians serve without any problems at every AF base we've seen. The guys don't care, and the straight women get hit on by men more than they do by lesbians, so they don't care either. I'd guess that 99.9% of military men would have zero problems sharing a foxhole with a lesbian. Some of them become very uncomfortable with the gay male though, which just makes me think they don't like being ogled the way they ogle women.

I can understand their not wanting to constantly walk in on sex acts in the close quarters they inhabit...but that's possibly because I'm a female.

I really have no idea what would happen in the barracks and in the field, if DADT were rescinded. The air force, navy, and coast guard seem to think it wouldn't be much of a problem. They're judging from their experience with today's heteros and today's semi-closeted non-heteros, I guess.

The army seems to think it would be workable. There's an obvious upside; closeted folk can come out without fear, and you can recruit talent you'd not otherwise get. So the downside would have to be more than a minor inconvenience to outweigh the upside.

The marines aren't so sure. Their misgivings should be given some weight. Rescinding DADT might best be done on a service by service basis, to see how it goes in those sectors where a good outcome seems most likely. If a good outcome materializes, then move to the next service. Reality has a habit of differing from expectations, which is why we have science, for instance. Some humility is in order. We don't actually know what the outcome would be until we try it and see.

374 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 3:15:25pm

re: #373 lostlakehiker

What about civil rights?

375 lostlakehiker  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 3:20:10pm

re: #372 Obdicut

1974 to 1984 is eleven years, not ten. But yes, there actually was a decade that had 100% period. You're right.

That is still anomalous.

And it still doesn't fucking matter, since I already said I'm fine with inflation-adjusted capital gains tax.

Can you please goddamn grasp that?

January to January is ten years, and I took the numbers from January to January.

I am NOT CLAIMING you object to indexing capital gains for inflation. I already said as much. More than once, I think, and I never said you were against it. In your first post, you just called for treating capital gains like any other income, and you didn't qualify that by saying the gains should be indexed, so I brought it up. And now we're back and forth.

We rub each other the wrong way. A bit of a shame, really, since when all is said and done, you're a decent enough chap. Let's just write the bill and report it from committee: cap gains are income, pure and simple, but you calculate them by indexing against the CPI.

376 lostlakehiker  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 3:28:14pm

re: #374 Obdicut

What about civil rights?

We're in a war. Civil rights are a secondary question. In civil society, nobody can order you to go get killed, or to try something that will probably have that result. In civil society, the State cannot distinguish between men and women, conscripting one but not the other. [While we don't have a draft now, we reserve the right to reinstate it.] In civil society, age discrimination is illegal; in the military, it's institutionalized.

In civil society, IQ tests cannot be used to decide who gets hired, or who gets trained for what specialty. In the military, it's institutionalized; the test has a different name but that's what it is.

All this is because the military has to put effectiveness first, second, and third. Get it wrong and people die.

The military may, or may not, be able to operate effectively in a post DADT world. We could go ahead and rescind the law across the board right now and see how it goes. If it works, we've done the right thing and we can be proud. If it doesn't work, the meaning in the military of "doesn't work" is "people die". Can we still be proud?

That's why we should put it to the test and see if in fact it works.

377 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 3:29:34pm

re: #375 lostlakehiker

You don't 'rub me the wrong way'. You say things that are factually inaccurate all the time, you rarely make the effort to spend ten second on Google to actually achieve accuracy, and you get offended beyond belief when I point out that you repeatedly, over and over again, say things that are flat out wrong. It takes you goddamn forever to admit any mistake, as well.

And you say stupid, evil, unamerican shit like "Civil rights are a secondary question".

378 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 3:30:53pm

re: #376 lostlakehiker

The military may, or may not, be able to operate effectively in a post DADT world.

For fuck's sake. Tons of other militaries can. Why would ours be any different?

What makes any of your arguments about this different than arguments about integration in the military?

379 Talking Point Detective  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 3:48:13pm

re: #365 lostlakehiker

So I'm trying to understand your main point.

Do you think that it is unjust for someone making more money than 90% of his/her fellow citizens - and who enjoys a lifestyle in excess, materially, to probably 99% of the people who have ever walked the planet - to pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes?

It seems from your posts that you don't think it would be more just for someone making $400,000 to pay a same percentage of their income as someone making 40K.

So, at some point, you have to reach a decision point in the real world. Given that there is a broad consensus that Bush's tax cuts reduced revenue overall, and given that during a period of his tax cuts the income of the top income earners grew disproportionate to everyone else's income, it seems that the current Republican policy platform is neither fiscally conservative nor "just."

Do you disagree?

380 Talking Point Detective  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 4:12:50pm

re: #376 lostlakehiker


All this is because the military has to put effectiveness first, second, and third. Get it wrong and people die.

You're creating a false dichotomy.

You can't simply measure military effectiveness on the basis of how many people die. If you did, then there would be no military engagement that could be deemed effective. At some point, you need to look at a military policy in the larger context - what effect does it have on the larger "war?" What effect does it have on the military long term? What effect does it have on the society?

If you set back the advancement of civil rights, how "effective" is DADT when judged along all three criteria.

381 lostlakehiker  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 4:45:27pm

re: #377 Obdicut

You don't 'rub me the wrong way'. You say things that are factually inaccurate all the time, you rarely make the effort to spend ten second on Google to actually achieve accuracy, and you get offended beyond belief when I point out that you repeatedly, over and over again, say things that are flat out wrong. It takes you goddamn forever to admit any mistake, as well.

And you say stupid, evil, unamerican shit like "Civil rights are a secondary question".

It is not factually inaccurate that the military operates in ways that would be illegal with civilian employers. So when I'm saying civil rights are secondary, I'm making a factual point: the military does in fact do all these things that by the standards of civil society are violations of civil rights.

And when I say why they do it, it's also why they're allowed to do it. Because lives are on the line. And you can perfectly well measure military effectiveness by counting how many people must die to accomplish the mission.

The military did as it was told, some time back, and advanced a number of women pilots to carrier duty despite their not having met the allegedly "objective" standards that carrier pilots had to meet. It turned out that the standards were very real indicators of carrier proficiency. The women were in fact having a lot of trouble sticking their landings. Too many were getting killed in the process, and the carriers took damage as well. The policy HAD to be revoked.

If DADT is revoked and the new policy doesn't work out, the results, by definition, will be either that the policy gets put back to how it is now, or that the new DoAskDoTell military suffers in its combat effectiveness, suffers unnecessary casualties, and sometimes loses fights it would have won.

As I was saying earlier, the reason we do experiments is because we do not actually know how a proposed policy will play out in the real world.
Maybe the change will work just fine. I think it more likely than not that it will. But since there are some in the military who think otherwise, and since I'm not the one who knows everything and they're not the ones who know nothing, I'm inclined to take it one step at a time.

382 lostlakehiker  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 4:53:51pm

re: #379 Talking Point Detective

So I'm trying to understand your main point.

Do you think that it is unjust for someone making more money than 90% of his/her fellow citizens - and who enjoys a lifestyle in excess, materially, to probably 99% of the people who have ever walked the planet - to pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes?

It seems from your posts that you don't think it would be more just for someone making $400,000 to pay a same percentage of their income as someone making 40K.

So, at some point, you have to reach a decision point in the real world. Given that there is a broad consensus that Bush's tax cuts reduced revenue overall, and given that during a period of his tax cuts the income of the top income earners grew disproportionate to everyone else's income, it seems that the current Republican policy platform is neither fiscally conservative nor "just."

Do you disagree?

I don't see how my posts can be read to say that those making more should pay only the same percentage. I said the exact opposite in one post above. I agree entirely with the basic point that higher incomes should pay a higher percentage.

I think tax rates will have to go up some, along with cuts in spending. We cannot go on as we are, spending much and collecting much less. I'm OK with stacking the tax deck yet more heavily against the high end earners. To a point.

Somewhere, there's a limit. Putting the tax law back where it was before the Bush cuts, word for word, puts it back to where it never was, in real terms, because in the meantime, prices have gone up, while the provisions of the alternative minimum tax are not indexed in that law. They would go into force against incomes that today are not at all exceptional.

Surely we can agree that tax rates against any particular income level ought not exceed the rate at which maximum revenue will be collected once people have adjusted their economic strategies to whatever the new tax law is? After that, higher taxes are a lose lose game where nobody benefits.

383 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 5:03:54pm

re: #381 lostlakehiker

It is not factually inaccurate that the military operates in ways that would be illegal with civilian employers.

That's not what I was referring to. I was referring to the many, many, many times you say things that are just plain wrong. Often when you really, really should know better. Like when you claimed no other nation had used a stimulus in response to the economic crisis. You know. Bullshit like that.

So when I'm saying civil rights are secondary, I'm making a factual point: the military does in fact do all these things that by the standards of civil society are violations of civil rights.

No, you're mixing two classes of civil rights. The right to be open about sexuality exists in the military. At the moment, it exists only for heterosexuals. That is an uneven application of civil rights-- an entirely different thing than when the civil rights of all soldiers are suppressed for effectiveness in the same way.

All your other crap about military effectiveness: The pentagon compelted it's study already. They recommend dropping DADT. Second-guessing them is asinine. Especially when we have the examples of many other military services where gays serve openly.

384 MinisterO  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 5:13:38pm

re: #382 lostlakehiker

Surely we can agree that tax rates against any particular income level ought not exceed the rate at which maximum revenue will be collected once people have adjusted their economic strategies to whatever the new tax law is? After that, higher taxes are a lose lose game where nobody benefits.

Yes. What level of taxation maximizes revenue? The rational discussion is drowned out by noise. I blame the GOP for convincing people that whatever their taxes are, they're too high.

385 funky chicken  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 5:54:24pm

re: #373 lostlakehiker

I really have no idea what would happen in the barracks and in the field, if DADT were rescinded. The air force, navy, and coast guard seem to think it wouldn't be much of a problem. They're judging from their experience with today's heteros and today's semi-closeted non-heteros, I guess.

The army seems to think it would be workable. There's an obvious upside; closeted folk can come out without fear, and you can recruit talent you'd not otherwise get. So the downside would have to be more than a minor inconvenience to outweigh the upside.

The marines aren't so sure. Their misgivings should be given some weight. Rescinding DADT might best be done on a service by service basis, to see how it goes in those sectors where a good outcome seems most likely. If a good outcome materializes, then move to the next service. Reality has a habit of differing from expectations, which is why we have science, for instance. Some humility is in order. We don't actually know what the outcome would be until we try it and see.

I agree.

386 Talking Point Detective  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 7:16:35pm

re: #382 lostlakehiker

I don't see how my posts can be read to say that those making more should pay only the same percentage. I said the exact opposite in one post above. I agree entirely with the basic point that higher incomes should pay a higher percentage.

Right. And I said that's how I was reading your opinion: you didn't think it was just hat people with much greater income would pay the same percentage of their income in taxes.


Somewhere, there's a limit. Putting the tax law back where it was before the Bush cuts, word for word, puts it back to where it never was, in real terms, because in the meantime, prices have gone up, while the provisions of the alternative minimum tax are not indexed in that law. They would go into force against incomes that today are not at all exceptional.

You referred earlier to the tax cuts under Kennedy, saying that (1) the economy did very well nonetheless and that (2), more revenue was generated along with that tax cut than would have been generated otherwise. That's not really a very serious comparison. Kennedy reduced the top marginal rate from 91% to 70%.

Also:

--snip--
real income tax revenues did go up sharply (54.6%) from 1965 to 1969. However, nearly half of that increase (25.5% of the 54.6%) occurred in 1969 after the Revenue and Expenditure Control Act of 1968 created a temporary 10% income tax surcharge through 6/30/69. Furthermore, real income tax revenues then stagnated for the next 8 years, not surpassing their 1969 level until 1977.
--snip--

Image: reccon09.jpg

When you make that kind of comparison, it undermines your statements that support the notion of progressive income taxes.

Surely we can agree that tax rates against any particular income level ought not exceed the rate at which maximum revenue will be collected once people have adjusted their economic strategies to whatever the new tax law is? After that, higher taxes are a lose lose game where nobody benefits.

Which brings us back to the real world discussion. Yes, theoretically there is a point where increasing taxes will lead to lower revenue in return; but even conservative economic theorists agree we aren't close to that level at this point. The current batch of Republican politicians are cynically exploiting the ideal of "fiscal conservatism" for the purpose of political expediency (appealing to hatred of taxes) and political expediency (appealing to wealthy campaign donors).

387 Talking Point Detective  Wed, Dec 1, 2010 7:33:44pm

re: #381 lostlakehiker

And you can perfectly well measure military effectiveness by counting how many people must die to accomplish the mission.

So then, the more casualties the less effective the mission? No matter what the objectives/payoffs are? No matter what other costs are associated with the mission? That makes no sense.

The military did as it was told, some time back, and advanced a number of women pilots to carrier duty despite their not having met the allegedly "objective" standards that carrier pilots had to meet. It turned out that the standards were very real indicators of carrier proficiency. The women were in fact having a lot of trouble sticking their landings. Too many were getting killed in the process, and the carriers took damage as well. The policy HAD to be revoked.

Apparently they were promoted without being qualified. How is that analogous? In fact, women are quite capable of being carrier pilots. The failure of that policy was not in promoting women to be pilots, but in promoting unqualified personnel to be pilots.


If DADT is revoked and the new policy doesn't work out, the results, by definition, will be either that the policy gets put back to how it is now, or that the new DoAskDoTell military suffers in its combat effectiveness, suffers unnecessary casualties, and sometimes loses fights it would have won.

If DADT isn't revoked, then the military and the country as a whole is standing up and announcing that we support discrimination. This will continue to cripple the military in its recruitment process. It will continue to prevent the military from accessing qualified personnel. It will continue to promote the image of the US as hypocritical, and the military as out of touch with the majority of the country. It will continue to deliver the message to millions of gay Americans that the are second class citizens. And it will continue to empower homophobes in our military and in our political processes.

These are costs that you neglect to account for in your tidy equations.

388 Neo_  Thu, Dec 2, 2010 7:32:49am

What happened on May 23, 2005 ?

389 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Thu, Dec 2, 2010 1:49:45pm

re: #383 Obdicut

That's not what I was referring to. I was referring to the many, many, many times you say things that are just plain wrong. Often when you really, really should know better. Like when you claimed no other nation had used a stimulus in response to the economic crisis. You know. Bullshit like that.

.

Wow, he said that?

390 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Thu, Dec 2, 2010 1:50:51pm

re: #373 lostlakehiker

remember kids, give bigotry more weight

fuck that, the marines can man up and enter the 21st century and stop whining


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
The Pandemic Cost 7 Million Lives, but Talks to Prevent a Repeat Stall In late 2021, as the world reeled from the arrival of the highly contagious omicron variant of the coronavirus, representatives of almost 200 countries met - some online, some in-person in Geneva - hoping to forestall a future worldwide ...
Cheechako
4 days ago
Views: 130 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
2 weeks ago
Views: 294 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1