GOP Budget: No More Color Copies for the Pentagon

Republicans want to slash social programs to the bone, but barely touch the Pentagon
Politics • Views: 22,638

The GOP unveiled their vision for the future of America today.

It will be a place where there are virtually no social safety nets and no health care, tax cuts for the wealthiest, and endless funds for warfare: GOP’s Plan to Cut Defense: No More Color Copies!

As usual with today’s GOP, their budget also contains a hefty dose of magical thinking. (What some might call bullshit.)

The Republican budget’s economic projections are rosy, including growth rates of over 3 percent for the next three years. An analysis performed by the conservative Heritage Foundation at Ryan’s request found the unemployment rate would be reduced to 4 percent in 2015 by Ryan’s budget, an incredibly low number when many economists believe the economy will not return to so-called “full employment” of about 5 percent until years after that.

And they’re preparing to hold the entire country hostage to try to ram this nonsense through: House GOP to distribute shutdown plan.

Republican leaders are preparing the House for a government shutdown, as they plan to distribute a pamphlet about the mechanics of a partial congressional work-stoppage to all lawmakers’ offices Tuesday morning, according to several senior House aides.

It’s the strongest signal yet that House Speaker John Boehner believes the White House and Congress could fail to strike a deal on a long-term funding bill before the government’s authority to spend money runs out on Friday. Talks came to a standstill Monday, amid amplified partisan recriminations.

Jump to bottom

525 comments
1 HappyWarrior  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 10:05:40am

This isn't The Onion?

2 Killgore Trout  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 10:06:48am
No More Color Copies for the Pentagon


This is going to make Red vs Blue a lot more nuanced.

3 Lidane  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 10:07:43am

No color copies for the Pentagon? THAT'S their big cut for Defense?

They might as well tell the Joint Chiefs not to have their copies collated while they're at it, and to only use 1-ply toilet paper. That's about what their cuts entail anyway. =P

4 Iwouldprefernotto  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 10:08:10am

I really, really don't understand my country at times. It seems some of us would prefer to live in the 17th century.

Stuart

First post!!!!!

Been lurking awhile and would like to thank many of you for trying to keep me sane.

5 jamesfirecat  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 10:08:54am

re: #4 Iwouldprefernotto

I really, really don't understand my country at times. It seems some of us would prefer to live in the 17th century.

Stuart

First post!!!

Been lurking awhile and would like to thank many of you for trying to keep me sane.

Welcome hatchling.

6 NJDhockeyfan  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 10:09:59am

Re-post from the dead thread....

re: #257 Killgore Trout

Here comes the shutdown...
Boehner: No agreement with Obama on budget

Video release of the behind closed doors budget debate:

Youtube Video
7 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 10:10:54am

Well... at least they came up with something, problematic as it may or may not be. Beats the shit out of the nothing budget that came from the left. Oh... I'm sorry, that's right, they didn't have a budget... silly me.

8 S'latch  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 10:14:52am

Some interesting facts from CNNMoney:

The last federal government shutdown was for five days in November 1995 and then another 21 days, ending in January 1996, during the Clinton administration. They closed 368 National Park Service sites, along with national museums and monuments. 200,000 passport applications went unprocessed, and toxic waste cleanup work at 609 sites stopped. The National Institutes of Health stopped accepting new clinical research patients, and services for veterans, including health care, were curtailed. Hundreds of thousands of federal employees went on furlough, except for those needed for essential services like air traffic control, and the national security apparatus.

9 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 10:15:59am

But... on the flip side of this budget debate, there is no doubt in my mind that the GOP... well, the GOP and every other politician, on either side of the aisle, and the executive branch, needs to consider that programs like SS, Medicare and Medicare are programs that many good hearted Americans depend on later in life, and the government has made many promises to the public about these programs, which we have ultimately paid for, and moving the target is simply not fair.

We paid, we played, they need to come up with solutions. We didn't bust these programs, the politicians did.

10 NJDhockeyfan  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 10:16:02am

Frank says:
Whatever you have to do to have a good time, let's get on with it, so long as it doesn't cause a murder.

11 reloadingisnotahobby  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 10:16:42am

I'm official frightened I may be going NUTTS!!
Trump is making sense...running the country like a buisiness...
...Now where's my medication???
Happy Tuesday all!!

12 Targetpractice  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 10:17:13am

re: #9 Walter L. Newton

But... on the flip side of this budget debate, there is no doubt in my mind that the GOP... well, the GOP and every other politician, on either side of the aisle, and the executive branch, needs to consider that programs like SS, Medicare and Medicare are programs that many good hearted Americans depend on later in life, and the government has made many promises to the public about these programs, which we have ultimately paid for, and moving the target is simply not fair.

We paid, we played, they need to come up with solutions. We didn't bust these programs, the politicians did.

Hey now, the Ryan Plan doesn't throw ya'll out in the cold...it just throws you to the private insurance companies. Now if they throw you out in the cold, well, that's the "invisible hand" at work.

/

13 SpaceJesus  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 10:17:49am

re: #11 reloadingisnotahobby


if you consider a circus to be a business, then ok i guess

14 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 10:18:02am

It would be nice if the government would think a bit before they spent.

Years ago, a woman I worked with in a church group went and got a bunch of color copies at Kinko's. 60. At a dollar apiece.

Kinko's doesn't tell you how much something will cost before they do it. They do it and then tell you the cost, so she had ordered without knowing the cost.

She knew she had just spent about half of our entire budget. I think she didn't turn it in for reimbursement. We both felt bad about it.

My point here is that maybe there should be a budget. If the government is like business, they are producing reams of papers in power point presentations that are a waste of everyone's time, or at least ridiculously bloated. I see no problem in at least asking them to take a look at whether they are spending money that they don't need to.

(Then maybe they could take the savings and spend it on VA hospitals and better pay for our soldiers.)

15 reloadingisnotahobby  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 10:18:52am

re: #13 SpaceJesus

if you consider a circus to be a business, then ok i guess

That's why I need my meds....

16 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 10:19:39am

Hmmm. My first thoughts:

1. Perhaps they can get around this by hiring people to color in stuff with colored pencils before the analysts and Joint Chiefs and such get it. Very nineteenth-century. Hand-tinted defense reports.

2. As a teacher, I know the joys, as do many of my colleagues, of copying stuff on my own dime because I ran out of copy rations. I'm having an image of a four-star general at Office Max, copying reports out of his own pocket. It's a delightful image because, in my mind, he is wearing dress uniform, and cursing a lot when the machine jams, but it also makes my blood run a little cold.

17 Achilles Tang  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 10:19:40am

re: #11 reloadingisnotahobby

I'm official frightened I may be going NUTTS!!
Trump is making sense...running the country like a buisiness...
...Now where's my medication???
Happy Tuesday all!!

You are NUTTS if you don't recognize the difference between a country and a business within it.

18 blueraven  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 10:19:43am

re: #9 Walter L. Newton

But... on the flip side of this budget debate, there is no doubt in my mind that the GOP... well, the GOP and every other politician, on either side of the aisle, and the executive branch, needs to consider that programs like SS, Medicare and Medicare are programs that many good hearted Americans depend on later in life, and the government has made many promises to the public about these programs, which we have ultimately paid for, and moving the target is simply not fair.

We paid, we played, they need to come up with solutions. We didn't bust these programs, the politicians did.

To make these type of cuts in social safety nets while decreasing taxes on the wealthy is insane!
Lets do real tax reform and cut out the loopholes that allow big corporations and the super wealthy to pay no federal taxes.

19 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 10:20:07am

re: #10 NJDhockeyfan

Frank says:
Whatever you have to do to have a good time, let's get on with it, so long as it doesn't cause a murder.

Apropos.

20 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 10:20:48am

re: #11 reloadingisnotahobby

I'm official frightened I may be going NUTTS!!
Trump is making sense...running the country like a buisiness...
...Now where's my medication???
Happy Tuesday all!!

I have to tell you, I'd take more kindly to the notion of running the country like a business if it came from someone with a less checkered business history than the Donald.

21 SpaceJesus  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 10:21:13am

raise the damn taxes and end the wars overseas. there, voila.

22 blueraven  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 10:21:31am

re: #11 reloadingisnotahobby

I'm official frightened I may be going NUTTS!!
Trump is making sense...running the country like a buisiness...
...Now where's my medication???
Happy Tuesday all!!

Really? Are they in it for a profit motive? Government is NOT a business.

23 reloadingisnotahobby  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 10:22:05am

re: #20 SanFranciscoZionist

He hasn't a snowballs chance....even if I thought he was serious!

24 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 10:22:37am

Maybe the policy of restricting color copies should extend to the legislative branch as well.

25 Achilles Tang  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 10:23:55am

re: #22 blueraven

Really? Are they in it for a profit motive? Government is NOT a business.

Yeah, when was the last time these guys stood and recited a pledge to their private sector employer? (or perhaps they have had wet dreams of getting their employees to do it to them?)

26 Aceofwhat?  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 10:23:57am

I will defend the budget on one point - the economic projections are no more bullshit than Obama's were. We ought to complain about both or neither.

27 HappyWarrior  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 10:25:10am

re: #20 SanFranciscoZionist

I have to tell you, I'd take more kindly to the notion of running the country like a business if it came from someone with a less checkered business history than the Donald.

No kidding.

28 reloadingisnotahobby  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 10:25:19am

Well that'll teach me to remember the /// tag!
If you throw beer bottles please throw FULL ones!!
I just had a tooth extracted and I'm in need of ...ah..whatever
ya got!!
Thanks in advance!

29 Achilles Tang  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 10:26:24am

re: #28 reloadingisnotahobby

I suspected as much, but on this topic nuances are hard to recognize.

30 recusancy  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 10:27:27am

Basically, cutting back the military to pre-Bush levels, and reverting back to the Clinton-era tax rates is all you need to do to fix the deficit.
[Link: blogs.forbes.com...]

31 reloadingisnotahobby  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 10:28:22am

re: #29 Naso Tang

If he were serious...would he have gone on Comedy Central for a
roast??
What an asshat!

32 b_sharp  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 10:29:18am

re: #4 Iwouldprefernotto

I really, really don't understand my country at times. It seems some of us would prefer to live in the 17th century.

Stuart

First post!!!

Been lurking awhile and would like to thank many of you for trying to keep me sane.

How do you know you're sane?

33 lawhawk  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 10:30:37am

When you make completely unrealistic projections about growth, jobs, or other economic indicators, everything else that follows will be bogus.

Such was the case when states made revenue projections that simply couldn't be sustained into a recessionary economy - and the resulting deficits broke the bank for several states. Had those states held to much more conservative estimates of growth and tax revenues (instead of wishing for 8% - assuming 4% or less growth for instance), the budget situations in those states would not have gotten so bad - requiring the serious cuts in places like NY, CA, and NJ among others.

Rinse and repeat with the pension funding mess - assuming Wall Street growth ad infinitum and hoping those paper profits can eliminate the need for state contributions in some cases - (see NJ), and otherwise leading to even worse pension obligation shortfalls.

Now, you've go the House GOP making the same mistake that they claim the Democrats had been making on the economy - assuming unrealistic job and revenue growth which BTW, if it should come to pass would essentially seal an Obama reelection (because it's the ECONOMY, stupid) barring other international events like another major terror attack on the US, etc.

No, what we need is a reasonable - and conservative - estimates for job growth and revenue growth in coming years, and if that is indeed taken into consideration, the rosy projections made by the GOP fritter away.

Ugh.

34 reloadingisnotahobby  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 10:30:55am

re: #4 Iwouldprefernotto

I really, really don't understand my country at times. It seems some of us would prefer to live in the 17th century.

Stuart

First post!!!

Been lurking awhile and would like to thank many of you for trying to keep me sane.

It's the EFFORT...not the RESULT that's important!!
LOL

35 Aceofwhat?  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 10:31:03am

re: #32 b_sharp

How do you know you're sane?

Indeed. In fact, i'm pretty sure that i'm five jacks short of a full deck.

36 jamesfirecat  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 10:32:07am

re: #26 Aceofwhat?

I will defend the budget on one point - the economic projections are no more bullshit than Obama's were. We ought to complain about both or neither.

These economic predictions seemed to be based on the principle of lower taxes means more revenue in the long run.

This tends to be BS in a situation like ours (Americas income taxes are at some of the lowest rates they've ever been) and its doubly true when the tax is going to the wealthy who can afford to hoard their wealth rather than having to spend it like lower class people would...

37 simoom  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 10:33:45am

re: #3 Lidane

No color copies for the Pentagon? THAT'S their big cut for Defense?

Not quite:

As Cantor explained, "While paper copies are often necessary for mission accomplishment, DOD should be encouraged to reduce spending on high quality, glossy color prints."

"Could you consider using less color ink General, sir? Pretty-please?"

38 Achilles Tang  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 10:34:35am

What really puzzles me in this is that usually political directions tend to look for votes down the road. Now, I understand that the GOP has the big money votes and contributions, but for now we still have one person one vote.

Does it not seem to anyone else that just about every GOP action hurts one group or another, except the big money (corporate or otherwise)?

I don't know the statistics on this, but it sure seems to me that the GOP is making more enemies than friends overall. They aren't stupid when it comes to strategy at least, so what am I missing here?

39 b_sharp  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 10:35:19am

This can't possibly be true can it? Wouldn't this waste of money pay for colour copies? And maybe staplers too?


From Pharyngula:
"Wait—Liberty University gets half a billion dollars a year in federal aid? And they have almost 50,000 students? I feel a great disturbance in the Force, as if thousands of minds suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced"

.

40 Achilles Tang  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 10:35:23am

re: #32 b_sharp

How do you know you're sane?

Never mind that, how do WE know your sane?

41 Achilles Tang  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 10:35:36am

you're

42 Kragar  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 10:36:15am

re: #40 Naso Tang

Never mind that, how do WE know your sane?

you're

43 charlz  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 10:36:23am

re: #7 Walter L. Newton

Well... at least they came up with something, problematic as it may or may not be. Beats the shit out of the nothing budget that came from the left. Oh... I'm sorry, that's right, they didn't have a budget... silly me.

The President submitted the Administration's proposed FY2011 budget in February 2010. For a lot of reasons the Congress has failed to enact a budget, but it's not because the 'left' didn't propose one.

44 Achilles Tang  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 10:37:20am

re: #42 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

you're

slowpoke

45 b_sharp  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 10:37:22am

re: #40 Naso Tang

Never mind that, how do WE know your sane?

you're

46 Achilles Tang  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 10:38:03am

Gahhh!!

47 M. Dubious  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 10:38:04am

re: #40 Naso Tang

you're

48 b_sharp  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 10:38:13am

re: #40 Naso Tang

Never mind that, how do WE know your sane?

Because I tell you I am.

49 Achilles Tang  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 10:38:34am

Only 20 or so users to go

50 reloadingisnotahobby  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 10:39:22am

re: #49 Naso Tang

Only 20 or so users to go

DOGPILE!!!

51 b_sharp  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 10:39:28am

re: #49 Naso Tang

Only 20 or so users to go

Tell them to catch up.

52 M. Dubious  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 10:39:59am

re: #48 b_sharp

Because I tell you I am.

As long as everybody knows their sane, we're fine.

53 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 10:40:07am

No, I don't want to turn into my older sister.

54 Aceofwhat?  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 10:40:15am

re: #36 jamesfirecat

These economic predictions seemed to be based on the principle of lower taxes means more revenue in the long run.

This tends to be BS in a situation like ours (Americas income taxes are at some of the lowest rates they've ever been) and its doubly true when the tax is going to the wealthy who can afford to hoard their wealth rather than having to spend it like lower class people would...

1. The principle is unimportant; Obama's predictions assumed an average of 4% growth over the next four years, which isn't any more realistic than Ryan's assumptions.
2. What does "when the tax is going to the wealthy" mean?
3. We already tax our rich more than Europe does. Republicans like me aren't petrified of increasing taxes when there's benefit to be had - the rich can afford it, after all - but let's first remind ourselves that we already tax our rich more than most. Overreliance on the wealthiest is a recipe for a bumpy fiscal future. Just ask California.

55 Achilles Tang  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 10:41:08am

This is looking like pun thread with constipation.

56 makeitstop  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 10:41:41am

re: #38 Naso Tang

They aren't stupid when it comes to strategy at least, so what am I missing here?

Recent actions dictate otherwise.

57 Aceofwhat?  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 10:41:57am

re: #55 Naso Tang

This is looking like pun thread with constipation.

aw, crap

58 abolitionist  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 10:42:26am

re: #52 harald

As long as everybody knows their sane, we're fine.

They're you go. :)

59 blueraven  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 10:42:37am

re: #26 Aceofwhat?

I will defend the budget on one point - the economic projections are no more bullshit than Obama's were. We ought to complain about both or neither.

Well lets see what Bruce Bartlett (senior policy analyst in the Reagan White House; and deputy assistant secretary for economic policy at the Treasury Department during the George H.W. Bush administration) has to say about Obama's budget proposal vs what the republicans are seeking.

[Link: capitalgainsandgames.com...]

In fact, I recommend all of his articles.

[Link: capitalgainsandgames.com...]

60 M. Dubious  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 10:43:14am

re: #55 Naso Tang

This is looking like pun thread with constipation.

It'll be all shits and giggles.

61 reloadingisnotahobby  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 10:43:21am

re: #55 Naso Tang

This is looking like pun thread with constipation.

Thanks../I was about to try and eat some lunch!!
Guess I'll just stay here for the pun of it!

62 Targetpractice  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 10:44:20am

re: #55 Naso Tang

This is looking like pun thread with constipation.

You're so full of it.

/

63 recusancy  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 10:45:00am

re: #54 Aceofwhat?

1. The principle is unimportant; Obama's predictions assumed an average of 4% growth over the next four years, which isn't any more realistic than Ryan's assumptions.
2. What does "when the tax is going to the wealthy" mean?
3. We already tax our rich more than Europe does. Republicans like me aren't petrified of increasing taxes when there's benefit to be had - the rich can afford it, after all - but let's first remind ourselves that we already tax our rich more than most. Overreliance on the wealthiest is a recipe for a bumpy fiscal future. Just ask California.

1) Obama may have had a rosy projection but he wasn't trying to abolish Medicare and Medicaid.

2) Yeah I'm not sure.

3) Do you have numbers to back that up? They seem to all be in the 50% and 40% range. We're at 36%.

64 b_sharp  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 10:46:21am

re: #50 reloadingisnotahobby

DOGPILE!!!

LIZARDPILE!!!
[Link: www.beadtothebone.ca...]

65 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 10:46:23am

You know, the average American is not going to be able to grasp the details of the budget.

If we were all financial geniuses*, this country wouldn't be in the trouble that it currently is.

Hence, we will have big sweeping soundbites about cutting, without much attention to details, etc.

*"You know, Mr. Mortgage person, you're saying I could afford this house with this payment, but I ran the numbers myself, and there's no slack in the numbers. The first bump I hit I would be in trouble. Looks like I'll have to look for a less-expensive house."

66 Aceofwhat?  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 10:47:48am

re: #59 blueraven

Well lets see what Bruce Bartlett (senior policy analyst in the Reagan White House; and deputy assistant secretary for economic policy at the Treasury Department during the George H.W. Bush administration) has to say about Obama's budget proposal vs what the republicans are seeking.

[Link: capitalgainsandgames.com...]

In fact, I recommend all of his articles.

[Link: capitalgainsandgames.com...]

Very salient stuff. However, i am talking about the yearly projected GDP increases. Obama projected 4% growth (averaged) over the next four years. As Lawhawk said, both sides need to cut it out...but while i'm at it, i'd like a unicorn with pretty wings, too...

67 Gus  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 10:48:28am

Wile E. Coyote The Republican Party - super genius!

America, not minding its own business since 1846.

Batteries not included. Void where prohibited by law.

68 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 10:49:06am

re: #66 Aceofwhat?

...Carrying me to the room of eternal doughnuts, where there's all the doughnuts you ever want to eat, and they're all fat free.

Let's make this good while we're at it.

69 Bob Dillon  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 10:49:21am

re: #11 reloadingisnotahobby

I'm official frightened I may be going NUTTS!!
Trump is making sense...running the country like a buisiness...
...Now where's my medication???
Happy Tuesday all!!

Reading along these lines some weeks ago it was pointed out that while the US was run by politicians ... China was run by engineers. Interesting concept.

70 Gus  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 10:49:33am

Um. One would think that the Pentagon would need color copies. Surely these numbskulls could have... oh, nevermind.

71 jamesfirecat  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 10:49:46am

re: #54 Aceofwhat?

1. The principle is unimportant; Obama's predictions assumed an average of 4% growth over the next four years, which isn't any more realistic than Ryan's assumptions.
2. What does "when the tax is going to the wealthy" mean?
3. We already tax our rich more than Europe does. Republicans like me aren't petrified of increasing taxes when there's benefit to be had - the rich can afford it, after all - but let's first remind ourselves that we already tax our rich more than most. Overreliance on the wealthiest is a recipe for a bumpy fiscal future. Just ask California.

To my knowledge much of California's problems are related to actually how difficult it is to raise taxes properly in that state since I've heard it takes between 60 and 66% majority.

The issues of California's budget are many and complex to say the least.

On point 2 I mean to say "when tax cuts are going to the wealthy"

I fail to see why tax cuts to the wealthy should be expected to stimulate the economy more than tax cuts to the poor who would typically be living hand to mouth and thus need to spend whatever money they have (if they could afford to save up money to any real degree they wouldn't really be "poor" would they?) and thus would be a more surefire way of stimulating the economy.

On point 1 The GOP budget fails in more ways than Obama's does so if one is wrong and ones is even more in many ways wrong, I don't think a paralelle can be drawn that say we can't deride one without equally diriding the other.

On point 3 I agree Overreliance on the rich is a bad thing. However this in turn begs the question what qualifies as "Overreliance" exactly?

I personally feel that we need to break down wealth into more tax brackets so that money over 50 mill can get taxed at 42 %-45% income rate at the very least, make of that what you will.

72 blueraven  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 10:50:52am

re: #66 Aceofwhat?

Very salient stuff. However, i am talking about the yearly projected GDP increases. Obama projected 4% growth (averaged) over the next four years. As Lawhawk said, both sides need to cut it out...but while i'm at it, i'd like a unicorn with pretty wings, too...

Yes, both sides present rosy scenarios. But one side is taking it all out of the hides of the elderly, the sick, the poor and the down trodden. The other side is giving more breaks to the wealthy and the most fortunate.

73 blueraven  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 10:52:35am

re: #72 blueraven

Yes, both sides present rosy scenarios. But one side is taking it all out of the hides of the elderly, the sick, the poor and the down trodden. The other side is giving while giving more breaks to the wealthy and the most fortunate.

PIMF

74 Bob Dillon  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 10:52:41am

re: #33 lawhawk

GIGO - one of the first concepts we were taught at IBM (early 60s). Garbage In = Garbage Out.

75 lostlakehiker  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 10:52:49am

Social safety nets as currently configured are unsustainable. They cast too wide a net, assuring an unreasonable degree of comfort for the already comfortable, as well as backstopping true distress.

While the federal govt can print any number of zeros behind a 1, and thus bail itself out of any debt, what it cannot do is so readily summon into existence physical resources.

These come from the bounty of nature and the work of the people. Nature will not become more bountiful on demand, and people need an incentive to work. So there are limits on how much the federal government can spend.

That which can't go on, won't go on. It's just a question of brakes now or smashup later.

There is so much wrong with the Republicans, but this forum is well aware of all that. The Democrats have some defects too, and chief among them is an unwillingness to face up to the fiscal music.

76 bubba zanetti  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 10:54:10am

NO BLOOD FOR TONER!!

77 Aceofwhat?  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 10:54:36am

re: #63 recusancy

1) Obama may have had a rosy projection but he wasn't trying to abolish Medicare and Medicaid.

2) Yeah I'm not sure.

3) Do you have numbers to back that up? They seem to all be in the 50% and 40% range. We're at 36%.

1. Yeah. IIRC, Obamacare is adding to, rather than reducing, future deficits. I give no more credit to that direction than a bold but questionable proposal regarding Medicare.

3. Brace yourself, it's a conservative site, but the table at the bottom (as far as I can tell) is accurately transcribed from the OECD data. Just skip the prose (i did) and check out the numbers. Interesting stuff.

78 Gus  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 10:54:37am

re: #76 bubba zanetti

NO BLOOD FOR TONER!!

OK. That's funny.

79 Achilles Tang  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 10:54:43am

re: #54 Aceofwhat?


3. We already tax our rich more than Europe does. Republicans like me aren't petrified of increasing taxes when there's benefit to be had - the rich can afford it, after all - but let's first remind ourselves that we already tax our rich more than most. Overreliance on the wealthiest is a recipe for a bumpy fiscal future. Just ask California.

If you mean corporate tax, there are so many loopholes that only the stupid pay the maximum rate.

If you mean income tax, I do not think we tax more, and even there the loopholes abound. In our present circumstances, tightening belts means less in the pocket or in services in one way or another. Whether that is achieved by taxing income or denying a benefit (or a job in a cutback), the net result of pain is the same is it not?

Corporate taxes are one issue, but I fail to see where the wealthiest are going to apply their personal income to job creation. If they have a business any such income will not be declared as personal income but as part of a business.

So what was that argument about not taxing the wealthy, again?

80 SidewaysQuark  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 10:54:43am

As long as it's not a COLOR pamphlet....

81 Gus  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 10:55:43am

This is what Frank Burns would come up with.

82 Aceofwhat?  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 10:55:57am

re: #68 EmmmieG

...Carrying me to the room of eternal doughnuts, where there's all the doughnuts you ever want to eat, and they're all fat free.

Let's make this good while we're at it.

Calorie-free Krispy Kremes > unicorn with pretty wings. As usual, you have the right of it-

83 Iwouldprefernotto  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 10:56:07am

re: #32 b_sharp

Not sure. Holding on as best as I can. Also, I think that Michelle Bachman and Sarah Palin make no sense when they speak.

84 Aceofwhat?  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 10:56:33am

re: #79 Naso Tang

income taxes. again, look at the table.

85 M. Dubious  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 10:56:58am

re: #69 Bobibutu

Reading along these lines some weeks ago it was pointed out that while the US was run by politicians ... China was run by engineers. Interesting concept.

A world run by ventilation engineers? Fuck me. They would turn the earth into Swiss cheese within 4 months, and when it all goes to hell, they will claim to have fulfilled the contract and ask for more money.

86 b_sharp  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 10:57:44am

re: #80 SidewaysQuark

As long as it's not a COLOR pamphlet...

Are you currently a wave or a particle?

Hey SWQuark.

87 jamesfirecat  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 10:57:54am

re: #84 Aceofwhat?

income taxes. again, look at the table.

My issue is that I'm not so much concerned with the top 10% (the people making 250K or more) as the top 1% (people making 250 Mill or more) do you have any charts that look at those numbers?

88 Michael McBacon  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 10:57:59am

Talk about shades of grey...

89 jamesfirecat  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 10:58:08am

re: #87 jamesfirecat

My issue is that I'm not so much concerned with the top 10% (the people making 250K or more) as the top 1% (people making 250 Mill or more) do you have any charts that look at those numbers?

The 250K and 250 Mill numbers are hyperbolic of course.

90 Aceofwhat?  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 10:59:01am

re: #79 Naso Tang

Oh, shoot, you're not recusancy. Sorry for the laconic reply. Check out the table on the link i provided in a reply to recusancy.

Most nations we consider to be more "progressive" WRT taxation and social policy are actually more progressive WRT social policy but regressive WRT taxes.

91 abolitionist  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 11:00:10am

re: #76 bubba zanetti

NO BLOOD FOR TONER!!

Have you compared prices lately?

92 b_sharp  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 11:01:17am

re: #91 abolitionist

Have you compared prices lately?

Laser printer prices are taking a nose dive but the toner prices remain strong. Cough, cough.

93 M. Dubious  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 11:01:27am

re: #76 bubba zanetti

NO BLOOD FOR TONER!!

Use blood for toner.

Now there's a savings plan for ya.

94 b_sharp  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 11:03:38am

Where'd everybody go?

95 b_sharp  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 11:04:50am

Now that I'm alone, I'm going to dance naked!

96 Charleston Chew  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 11:05:47am

re: #9 Walter L. Newton

We paid, we played, they need to come up with solutions. We didn't bust these programs, the politicians did.

I agree that it would be unfair to older people who've paid into SS all their life to not get the support they expected in return.

But they also played a roll in electing and re-electing the politicians, so nobody has clean hands in this situation.

97 Sheila Broflovski  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 11:06:01am

re: #95 b_sharp

Now that I'm alone, I'm going to dance naked!

Gaaaaaah!

98 Aceofwhat?  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 11:06:20am

re: #87 jamesfirecat

My issue is that I'm not so much concerned with the top 10% (the people making 250K or more) as the top 1% (people making 250 Mill or more) do you have any charts that look at those numbers?

Or better yet, how in the name of all that's holy did GE not pay any taxes last year???

You're just all lucky i'm not the sort of republican to launch into "Obama and Immelt just happen to be bestest buddies" theories...he says in a self-congratulatory tone

99 b_sharp  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 11:06:35am

re: #97 Alouette

Gaaah!

Oops!

WHERE ARE MY PANTS!!

100 Aceofwhat?  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 11:06:38am

re: #95 b_sharp

Now that I'm alone, I'm going to dance naked!

my avatar approves

101 b_sharp  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 11:07:43am

re: #98 Aceofwhat?

Or better yet, how in the name of all that's holy did GE not pay any taxes last year???

That's the $1,000,000,000 question.

102 Aceofwhat?  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 11:07:47am

re: #96 Charleston Chew

I agree that it would be unfair to older people who've paid into SS all their life to not get the support they expected in return.

But they also played a roll in electing and re-electing the politicians, so nobody has clean hands in this situation.

Yes. I agree with this. I would like to see sweeping changes to SS and Medicare. And they can start with folks born on my birthday. I'm volunteering.

103 jamesfirecat  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 11:08:25am

re: #98 Aceofwhat?

Or better yet, how in the name of all that's holy did GE not pay any taxes last year???

You're just all lucky i'm not the sort of republican to launch into "Obama and Immelt just happen to be bestest buddies" theories...he says in a self-congratulatory tone

This we can agree on, at the moment I'm not nearly as concerned about raising anybody's taxes as I am on the closing the loopholes that currently exist.

104 Aceofwhat?  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 11:08:54am

re: #96 Charleston Chew

I agree that it would be unfair to older people who've paid into SS all their life to not get the support they expected in return.

But they also played a roll in electing and re-electing the politicians, so nobody has clean hands in this situation.

also, role.

*cough*

that is all.

105 recusancy  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 11:09:28am

re: #102 Aceofwhat?

Yes. I agree with this. I would like to see sweeping changes to SS and Medicare. And they can start with folks born on my birthday. I'm volunteering.

You're volunteering for what? Getting your safety net cut?

106 blueraven  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 11:10:37am

re: #98 Aceofwhat?

Or better yet, how in the name of all that's holy did GE not pay any taxes last year???

You're just all lucky i'm not the sort of republican to launch into "Obama and Immelt just happen to be bestest buddies" theories...he says in a self-congratulatory tone

Because they took advantage of all the loopholes...just as many other large corporations did, and have been doing for years.

It is not illegal and it needs to be fixed

107 recusancy  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 11:11:43am

re: #77 Aceofwhat?

1. Yeah. IIRC, Obamacare is adding to, rather than reducing, future deficits. I give no more credit to that direction than a bold but questionable proposal regarding Medicare.

3. Brace yourself, it's a conservative site, but the table at the bottom (as far as I can tell) is accurately transcribed from the OECD data. Just skip the prose (i did) and check out the numbers. Interesting stuff.

1) The CBO says Obamacare will reduce deficits. Are they wrong?

3) It is interesting. I would like to see how he got his numbers. The only reference he gives links directly back to that page.

108 Achilles Tang  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 11:12:44am

re: #90 Aceofwhat?

Oh, shoot, you're not recusancy. Sorry for the laconic reply. Check out the table on the link i provided in a reply to recusancy.

Most nations we consider to be more "progressive" WRT taxation and social policy are actually more progressive WRT social policy but regressive WRT taxes.

OK. I looked at the table, but I have a problem with it. Several problems by omission.

Firstly most of those countries have more even (I hesitate to say equitable/) income distribution. Less poor and less super rich. That alone will skew the numbers in ways that make such simplistic statistics not very meaningful, except to a politician.

These countries also have things like health insurance paid for out of that tax revenue, whereas the US does not. That suggests that they (with lower rich taxation) have more efficient systems in some ways.

109 Charleston Chew  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 11:13:22am

re: #33 lawhawk

No, what we need is a reasonable - and conservative - estimates for job growth and revenue growth in coming years, and if that is indeed taken into consideration, the rosy projections made by the GOP fritter away.

Ugh.

Unfortunately, in both the public and private sector, underestimating success is rarely in anyone's self-interest. Of course, it's in all of our best interests in the long run, but it's not the sort of thing that gets raises and promotions.

110 lawhawk  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 11:14:22am

re: #98 Aceofwhat?

Or better yet, how in the name of all that's holy did GE not pay any taxes last year???

You're just all lucky i'm not the sort of republican to launch into "Obama and Immelt just happen to be bestest buddies" theories...he says in a self-congratulatory tone

GE has the best tax team in the world. That helps - as does it taking advantage of pretty much every available tax credit for R&D, investment, and other tax practices like depreciation, NOL carryovers/carryforwards, etc. and taking advantage of foreign and state and local tax practices - to maximize profits and reducing the tax burden.

Other tech businesses can achieve similar results using similar tax strategies. These strategies turn the tax departments in those companies into profit centers - without actually producing anything.

111 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 11:14:22am

re: #96 Charleston Chew

I agree that it would be unfair to older people who've paid into SS all their life to not get the support they expected in return.

But they also played a roll in electing and re-electing the politicians, so nobody has clean hands in this situation.

Hey Charleston... that's a big assumption on your part. You mean, every politician we ever voted for told us up front that they were going to trash these programs for us. You mean, they never lied, never flip-flopped, never obstructed, never cut deals... they whole bunch of them had big signs on their backs saying... "elect me and I promise to bankrupt SS, Medicare and Medicaid?"

Chew on that.

112 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 11:15:15am

SS was set up before the pill. I would like to think that if they had known that the population curve was going to taper off dramatically, they would have changed it somehow to not rely as much on having a really big worker base.

113 Charleston Chew  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 11:16:43am

re: #104 Aceofwhat?

also, role.

*cough*

that is all.

Wait, you mean to tell me that elections don't involve a 20-sided die?

114 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 11:16:54am

re: #30 recusancy

Basically, cutting back the military to pre-Bush levels, and reverting back to the Clinton-era tax rates is all you need to do to fix the deficit.
[Link: blogs.forbes.com...]

THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS

115 Aceofwhat?  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 11:17:06am

re: #105 recusancy

You're volunteering for what? Getting your safety net cut?

Or replaced with something evil (i.e. "private"). In fact, i'm dying to be able to switch my SS contributions to my 401k. My 401k is back above where it was in 2007-2008 already.

But...yes. I'm volunteering to be the first on the chopping block. Push back my retirement age, privatize my benefits.

116 Aceofwhat?  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 11:18:09am

crap, gotta run for a minute. bbiam

117 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 11:19:01am

re: #116 Aceofwhat?

crap, gotta run for a minute. bbiam

Use the bathroom.

118 Charleston Chew  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 11:19:26am

re: #111 Walter L. Newton

Hey Charleston... that's a big assumption on your part. You mean, every politician we ever voted for told us up front that they were going to trash these programs for us. You mean, they never lied, never flip-flopped, never obstructed, never cut deals... they whole bunch of them had big signs on their backs saying... "elect me and I promise to bankrupt SS, Medicare and Medicaid?"

Chew on that.

In a republic, everyone with the right to vote is responsible for those elected.

119 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 11:20:05am

re: #114 Fozzie Bear

THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS

To cut the military back, we will have to get our guys and gals out of a few countries.

120 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 11:20:30am

re: #118 Charleston Chew

In a republic, everyone with the right to vote is responsible for those elected.

Wow... you must be some sort of poly-sci major/master... I didn't know that?

121 McSpiff  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 11:20:32am

re: #115 Aceofwhat?

Or replaced with something evil (i.e. "private"). In fact, i'm dying to be able to switch my SS contributions to my 401k. My 401k is back above where it was in 2007-2008 already.

But...yes. I'm volunteering to be the first on the chopping block. Push back my retirement age, privatize my benefits.

As we've gone over about 10 million times here, we all know that's impossible. We aren't going to let you starve to death in the street at the age of 80 if you guess wrong. So the idea of privatizing all benefits is meaningless.

122 recusancy  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 11:21:04am

re: #115 Aceofwhat?

Or replaced with something evil (i.e. "private"). In fact, i'm dying to be able to switch my SS contributions to my 401k. My 401k is back above where it was in 2007-2008 already.

But...yes. I'm volunteering to be the first on the chopping block. Push back my retirement age, privatize my benefits.

That's just the thing. It's not a chopping block for you. You're not struggling to make it. You're volunteering other people your age, who are struggling. It's their skin in the game. Not yours.

123 McSpiff  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 11:21:26am

re: #120 Walter L. Newton

Wow... you must be some sort of poly-sci major/master... I didn't know that?

An expert at polymers? Or were you trying to for "poli-sci"

124 abolitionist  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 11:21:42am

re: #119 EmmmieG

To cut the military back, we will have to get our guys and gals out of a few countries.

And many would need ...civilian jobs.

125 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 11:21:59am

re: #123 McSpiff

An expert at polymers? Or were you trying to for "poli-sci"

No... I was stuck on poly.

126 McSpiff  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 11:22:22am

re: #124 abolitionist

And many would need ...civilian jobs.

US Military is the world's largest make-work-project, probably in history.

127 Varek Raith  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 11:22:45am

No color copies?
Yeah, that's a huge drain on the Pentagon.
Yep, not those weapons systems that the DoD doesn't want but Congress pushes on them. Nope.

128 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 11:22:49am

re: #118 Charleston Chew

In a republic, everyone with the right to vote is responsible for those elected.

I would disagree. In a republic, everyone with the right to vote must accept those elected.

I refuse to accept responsibility for David Wu. I've never voted for him, although I always voted.

129 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 11:23:05am

re: #125 Walter L. Newton

No... I was stuck on poly.

So get her a cracker already.

130 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 11:24:27am

re: #119 EmmmieG

To cut the military back, we will have to get our guys and gals out of a few countries.

I've been all for that since the war(s) started, so yeah, that's implied. We need to withdraw immediately.

131 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 11:24:43am

re: #112 EmmmieG

SS was set up before the pill. I would like to think that if they had known that the population curve was going to taper off dramatically, they would have changed it somehow to not rely as much on having a really big worker base.

More than the pill, I think it's that the whole reproductive history of the United States in the 20th century created a perfect storm. The birthrate was very low in the 1930s, rose somewhat in the 40s, and then the baby boom started, and the whole pig in the python profile was created. And THEN the baby boomers got birth control, women's lib, and the smaller nuclear family.

We would have been in a better place if the post-war prosperity had not led to such a craze for big families, or if the boomers had not mostly opted for small ones--but those are the breaks.

132 Varek Raith  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 11:25:15am

This is like using squirt guns to put out a house fire.

133 jamesfirecat  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 11:26:53am

re: #132 Varek Raith

This is like using squirt guns to put out a house fire.

Squirt guns filled with propane given what those GOP requested tax cuts will do to government revenue...

134 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 11:27:07am

You know what's a huge expense for the pentagon? Wars. They are really fucking expensive.

You know what else is really fucking expensive? Unfunded tax cuts.

This is shocking stuff, I know.

135 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 11:27:34am

re: #131 SanFranciscoZionist

More than the pill, I think it's that the whole reproductive history of the United States in the 20th century created a perfect storm. The birthrate was very low in the 1930s, rose somewhat in the 40s, and then the baby boom started, and the whole pig in the python profile was created. And THEN the baby boomers got birth control, women's lib, and the smaller nuclear family.

We would have been in a better place if the post-war prosperity had not led to such a craze for big families, or if the boomers had not mostly opted for small ones--but those are the breaks.

Yes, and the breaks will have to show up in the numbers. We're heading into the retirement of the Boomers in the middle of a horrible recession.

136 McSpiff  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 11:28:11am

re: #131 SanFranciscoZionist

More than the pill, I think it's that the whole reproductive history of the United States in the 20th century created a perfect storm. The birthrate was very low in the 1930s, rose somewhat in the 40s, and then the baby boom started, and the whole pig in the python profile was created. And THEN the baby boomers got birth control, women's lib, and the smaller nuclear family.

We would have been in a better place if the post-war prosperity had not led to such a craze for big families, or if the boomers had not mostly opted for small ones--but those are the breaks.

My parents both come from families of 12. My grand parents all came from families of 4-6. I'm an only child. I do have something like 36-40 first cousins. If the baby boom had continued I should have something 200. Just didn't happen

137 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 11:28:18am

re: #134 Fozzie Bear

You know what's a huge expense for the pentagon? Wars. They are really fucking expensive.

You know what else is really fucking expensive? Unfunded tax cuts.

This is shocking stuff, I know.

What if we only let them having black and white wars?

I'll bet if we go back and check the budgets for the wars from WWII and earlier, they cost less.

138 Varek Raith  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 11:29:41am

re: #137 EmmmieG

What if we only let them having black and white wars?

I'll bet if we go back and check the budgets for the wars from WWII and earlier, they cost less.

That's Nobel Prize material right there.
:)

139 Sheila Broflovski  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 11:30:11am

re: #136 McSpiff

My parents both come from families of 12. My grand parents all came from families of 4-6. I'm an only child. I do have something like 36-40 first cousins. If the baby boom had continued I should have something 200. Just didn't happen

I'm a one-woman population bomb. (Zedushka contributed some)

140 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 11:30:47am

re: #136 McSpiff

My parents both come from families of 12. My grand parents all came from families of 4-6. I'm an only child. I do have something like 36-40 first cousins. If the baby boom had continued I should have something 200. Just didn't happen

My grandparent's families ranged from 2-6. My parents both had 3 siblings (each, not combined). They had seven kids. I have 16-17 cousins on each side, combined with my six siblings.

There is no "bump" in my family. Although the next two oldest kids in the family (my parents were both oldests) delayed getting married and then had small families, resulting in the most boring family reunions (for me) that you can imagine.

141 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 11:30:54am

re: #131 SanFranciscoZionist

More than the pill, I think it's that the whole reproductive history of the United States in the 20th century created a perfect storm. The birthrate was very low in the 1930s, rose somewhat in the 40s, and then the baby boom started, and the whole pig in the python profile was created. And THEN the baby boomers got birth control, women's lib, and the smaller nuclear family.

We would have been in a better place if the post-war prosperity had not led to such a craze for big families, or if the boomers had not mostly opted for small ones--but those are the breaks.

My husband has just summed up the baby boom by quoting the end of Clue--the entire U.S. Armed Forces declared victory, and then announced, "I'm going home to make love to my wife!"

142 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 11:31:34am

re: #137 EmmmieG

What if we only let them having black and white wars?

I'll bet if we go back and check the budgets for the wars from WWII and earlier, they cost less.

More "value" evaporated in the past 3 years than WWII cost in it's entirety, in inflation-adjusted terms. Our finance industry, which produces nothing of tangible value, and consumes 1/3 of every dollar spent, is destroying our economy.

So what do we do? Try to defund planned parenthood and NPR.

Retards. A nation of retards.

143 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 11:31:42am

re: #135 EmmmieG

Yes, and the breaks will have to show up in the numbers. We're heading into the retirement of the Boomers in the middle of a horrible recession.

I've noticed...

Cringe.

144 Charleston Chew  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 11:32:06am

re: #120 Walter L. Newton

Wow... you must be some sort of poly-sci major/master... I didn't know that?

What I was trying to communicate was that politicians don't fall from the sky into office, they are elected by having the support of a great many people. Not everyone, of course, and they can be opposed by many people, but they do what they do in office because someone else wanted them to. They are conduits for the desires of others. And when they are deceptive, it is often because the people they represent have unrealistic, impossible, or incompatible desires. Solely blaming politicians makes them into a scapegoat.

145 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 11:32:26am

re: #137 EmmmieG

What if we only let them having black and white wars?

I'll bet if we go back and check the budgets for the wars from WWII and earlier, they cost less.

Of course, we also had a national mobilization for those, in a way we flatly refuse to today.

146 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 11:33:20am

re: #145 SanFranciscoZionist

Of course, we also had a national mobilization for those, in a way we flatly refuse to today.

I'd love to go back to rationing. Just love it. Seriously. I am smiling. Seriously. This is not a grimace.

147 dmon  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 11:33:39am

re: #115 Aceofwhat?

The process of moving SS funds to private is full of hazards, the market reaction to a huge influx of money would be skyrocketing share prices, another brand new bubble would be created, for those already in, this would be a windfall, sell your stocks at possibly double the price, then buy back in after all the suckers lose their shirts.

148 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 11:34:30am

re: #140 EmmmieG

My grandparent's families ranged from 2-6. My parents both had 3 siblings (each, not combined). They had seven kids. I have 16-17 cousins on each side, combined with my six siblings.

There is no "bump" in my family. Although the next two oldest kids in the family (my parents were both oldests) delayed getting married and then had small families, resulting in the most boring family reunions (for me) that you can imagine.

On my father's side, my grandmother was one of three, and my father one of two. Both of those would have been bigger families, I assume, if both my grandmother and great-grandmother had not gotten divorces fairly young.

On my mother's side, my grandmother was one of six--they kept trying until they got a boy, the same year my oldest great-aunt had her first. My mother was one of four, and once again, I suspect the family would have been bigger if not for the divorce.

I am an only.

149 b_sharp  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 11:34:45am

Countries should be convinced to play WoW to settle disputes.

150 RogueOne  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 11:34:48am

I think we're confusing budgets. The ryan budget proposal is for 2012, the shutdown talk is over the 2011 budget which was supposed to be passed by sept of last year.

Secondly, I don't think a projection of 3% growth is rosy or unrealistic. The average growth over the last 60 years is a hair over 3% and even in a lousy economic situation like last year we were real close to that number.

151 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 11:34:54am

re: #144 Charleston Chew

What I was trying to communicate was that politicians don't fall from the sky into office, they are elected by having the support of a great many people. Not everyone, of course, and they can be opposed by many people, but they do what they do in office because someone else wanted them to. They are conduits for the desires of others. And when they are deceptive, it is often because the people they represent have unrealistic, impossible, or incompatible desires. Solely blaming politicians makes them into a scapegoat.

We don't have any politicians in Washington anymore, we have a special dual class citizen, namely plutocrats and kleptocrats. And there is NOTHING we can do about it.

152 lawhawk  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 11:35:08am

re: #107 recusancy

CBO figures are always based on the law in existence at the time that the proposal is being scored. That includes things like never adjusting for AMT (it is adjusted annually in the annual budget dance), not reflecting future changes to the HCR - like the soon to be enacted law eliminating the 1099 provisions that would have generated several billion dollars, etc.

So, it's a useful metric, but it tends towards tea reading once you go more than a few years out. Since much of HCR doesn't take effect until 2014 and beyond, those long range projections are fuzzy at best. Moreover, it doesn't necessarily address the shifted costs when insurers try to pick up the cost for having to adopt mandates (like the coverage of dependents to age 26), that are then passed on to the health care consumer.

153 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 11:35:25am

re: #146 EmmmieG

I'd love to go back to rationing. Just love it. Seriously. I am smiling. Seriously. This is not a grimace.

It would help illustrate to the American people that war isn't something other people can wage on your behalf with absolutely no inconvenience to them. I would welcome it, because we would be out of the Middle East in 6 months, tops, if the economic costs of these wars were placed on the backs of the American people in such stark, impossible-to-ignore terms.

154 dmon  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 11:37:02am

re: #153 Fozzie Bear

Im all for an automatic tax increase to finance any military action.... make it automatic, and immediate

155 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 11:37:18am

re: #153 Fozzie Bear

It would help illustrate to the American people that war isn't something other people can wage on your behalf with absolutely no inconvenience to them. I would welcome it, because we would be out of the Middle East in 6 months, tops, if the economic costs of these wars were placed on the backs of the American people in such stark, impossible-to-ignore terms.

There are some ration tickets in a case at OMSI. (It's a display on the brain, and the point is that the elderly would recognize everything in the case, and the younger wouldn't.)

I had never seen some before. I'm not sure which would hit me harder--gasoline rationing or sugar rationing.

I can do without pantyhose.

156 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 11:37:50am

re: #154 dmon

Im all for an automatic tax increase to finance any military action... make it automatic, and immediate

I could get behind that kind of balanced budget amendment.

157 abolitionist  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 11:38:54am

re: #149 b_sharp

Countries should be convinced to play WoW to settle disputes.

Star Trek did at least one episode on something like that, but they were never clear on whether the disintegration chambers were net consumers or producers of energy.

158 recusancy  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 11:39:24am

re: #154 dmon

Im all for an automatic tax increase to finance any military action... make it automatic, and immediate

And a draft.

159 justaminute  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 11:39:45am

Republicans crack me up. They want to replace Medicare with an almost exact copy of the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) without the high risk pools. If they thought it was so great, why do they spend all their time trying to repeal it?

160 RogueOne  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 11:39:48am

re: #144 Charleston Chew

What I was trying to communicate was that politicians don't fall from the sky into office, they are elected by having the support of a great many people. Not everyone, of course, and they can be opposed by many people, but they do what they do in office because someone else wanted them to. They are conduits for the desires of others. And when they are deceptive, it is often because the people they represent have unrealistic, impossible, or incompatible desires. Solely blaming politicians makes them into a scapegoat.

Even now when most people understand the seriousness of our debt situation people still want their personal favorite programs left alone.

161 McSpiff  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 11:41:53am

So, my off the cuff calculation... it would take a B52 crew about 2 years to drop enough gold to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, assuming one Gold Bomb Run daily...

162 jamesfirecat  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 11:43:12am

re: #158 recusancy

And a draft.

The problem with a draft is that it would end up undermining the fighting strength of our army by including conscripts alongside those who honestly want to fight for America.

Raising taxes to pay for the war however while doubtlessly undermining support for most wars wouldn't directly harm the troops in the field.

163 b_sharp  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 11:43:19am

re: #161 McSpiff

So, my off the cuff calculation... it would take a B52 crew about 2 years to drop enough gold to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, assuming one Gold Bomb Run daily...

That would certainly decrease the population of Darwin Award candidates as people rushed to be under the gold as it fell.

164 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 11:44:05am

re: #161 McSpiff

So, my off the cuff calculation... it would take a B52 crew about 2 years to drop enough gold to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, assuming one Gold Bomb Run daily...

The part that just about everyone finds hard to swallow is how much of that was a direct payment to "leaders" in those countries.

165 Charleston Chew  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 11:44:28am

re: #160 RogueOne

Even now when most people understand the seriousness of our debt situation people still want their personal favorite programs left alone.

Exactly. I myself like the idea of reducing the deficit, and yet I took every penny of my tax refund, so I guess I didn't like the idea as much as I thought.

166 McSpiff  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 11:44:35am

re: #162 jamesfirecat

The problem with a draft is that it would end up undermining the fighting strength of our army by including conscripts alongside those who honestly want to fight for America.

Raising taxes to pay for the war however while doubtlessly undermining support for most wars wouldn't directly harm the troops in the field.

I've thought about this, but does anyone know what % of the military is actually combat forces? Would it really hurt readiness that much to have conscripts loading C-5s in Omaha?

167 RogueOne  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 11:44:42am

re: #161 McSpiff

So, my off the cuff calculation... it would take a B52 crew about 2 years to drop enough gold to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, assuming one Gold Bomb Run daily...

It took congress 3 weeks to pass a stimulus bill that spent more than we spent in both Iraq/Afghanistan for almost 10 years. Never doubt their ability to spend massive amounts of other peoples money.

168 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 11:45:04am

re: #160 RogueOne

Even now when most people understand the seriousness of our debt situation people still want their personal favorite programs left alone.

Except the situation is fixable by raising taxes to Clinton-era levels and reducing military expenditures to the same level. In other words, we need to pull out of the middle east, and raise taxes slightly. That's it.

The situation only seems so intractable because the most effective methods to fix it have effectively been taken off the table. It's like an obese man chopping off his leg to lose weight, instead of laying off the twinkies and going for a daily walk.

169 McSpiff  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 11:45:34am

re: #167 RogueOne

It took congress 3 weeks to pass a stimulus bill that spent more than we spent in both Iraq/Afghanistan for almost 10 years. Never doubt their ability to spend massive amounts of other peoples money.

Give me the number for that and I'll figure out a neat way to represent it, promise.

170 blueraven  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 11:49:07am

re: #150 RogueOne

I think we're confusing budgets. The ryan budget proposal is for 2012, the shutdown talk is over the 2011 budget which was supposed to be passed by sept of last year.

Secondly, I don't think a projection of 3% growth is rosy or unrealistic. The average growth over the last 60 years is a hair over 3% and even in a lousy economic situation like last year we were real close to that number.

There is not a lot of difference in the overall philosophy. Cut govt workers: teachers, firemen, police. Defund EPA, NPR, PP.
Now we have the added "benefit" of privatizing medicare and gutting medicaid. Reducing taxes even more.
The overused phrase..."we dont have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem" still applies. Which is ridiculous on its face; we have both.

171 RogueOne  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 11:49:55am

re: #168 Fozzie Bear

We cannot tax our way out of this. We're running a $1.5 trillion annual deficit. Right now we're hitting the debt ceiling at roughly $14T dollars and they want to raise it again. In 2010 the fortune 500 combined brought in ~$400Billion in profits. Even if Ryan manages to get his way (and he won't) it still won't come close to fixing the problem.

172 McSpiff  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 11:50:32am

re: #168 Fozzie Bear

Except the situation is fixable by raising taxes to Clinton-era levels and reducing military expenditures to the same level. In other words, we need to pull out of the middle east, and raise taxes slightly. That's it.

The situation only seems so intractable because the most effective methods to fix it have effectively been taken off the table. It's like an obese man chopping off his leg to lose weight, instead of laying off the twinkies and going for a daily walk.

I honestly think all this talk of budget is completely misleading. The GOP couldn't give a shit about the budget. What they do care about is the size of government in their eyes. Starve the beast and all that.

173 RogueOne  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 11:50:59am

re: #171 RogueOne

We cannot tax our way out of this. We're running a $1.5 trillion annual deficit. Right now we're hitting the debt ceiling at roughly $14T dollars and they want to raise it again. In 2010 2009 the fortune 500 combined brought in ~$400Billion in profits. Even if Ryan manages to get his way (and he won't) it still won't come close to fixing the problem.

174 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 11:52:28am

re: #171 RogueOne

We cannot tax our way out of this. We're running a $1.5 trillion annual deficit. Right now we're hitting the debt ceiling at roughly $14T dollars and they want to raise it again. In 2010 the fortune 500 combined brought in ~$400Billion in profits. Even if Ryan manages to get his way (and he won't) it still won't come close to fixing the problem.

That's because Ryan isn't taking a serious look at the causes of the problem. We absolutely cannot tax our way out of this. We also cannot trim our way out of this. Neither approach, by itself, is feasible. We need to both raise taxation, and decrease spending. There's no sane way to do this without doing both.

175 recusancy  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 11:52:33am

re: #167 RogueOne

It took congress 3 weeks to pass a stimulus bill that spent more than we spent in both Iraq/Afghanistan for almost 10 years. Never doubt their ability to spend massive amounts of other peoples money.

The stimulus was 700bill. Iraq and Afghanistan cost 1.1trillion.

176 RogueOne  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 11:52:49am

re: #170 blueraven


The overused phrase..."we dont have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem" still applies. Which is ridiculous on its face; we have both.

I'll agree with that 100%

177 reloadingisnotahobby  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 11:53:32am

Just in case anyone needs a visual aid....as I do on occasion!


[Link: www.pagetutor.com...]

178 RogueOne  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 11:54:19am

re: #174 Fozzie Bear

We need to both raise taxation, and decrease spending. There's no sane way to do this without doing both.

Absolutely agree. Ryan has staked out his position now it's time for the other side to start showing their numbers.

179 engineer cat  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 11:54:54am

re: #160 RogueOne

Even now when most people understand the seriousness of our debt situation people still want their personal favorite programs left alone.

unless the percentage of the federal budget that we spend on debt service goes over the 10% that it reached for a couple of years after reagan's large tax cuts and increases in military spending, i'm not going to accept that our "debt situation" is any more "serious" than it has been for the last few decades

180 goddamnedfrank  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 11:54:58am

re: #175 recusancy

The stimulus was 700bill. Iraq and Afghanistan cost 1.1trillion.

Not including prosthetics, rehab, traumatic brain injuries and lost revenue due to all of the above.

181 Killgore Trout  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 11:55:23am

Egypt eager to drag the entire region into war.....

ElBaradei: We'll fight back if Israel attacks Gaza

Former International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei, who had previously announced his intetions to run for the presidency of Egypt, said Monday that “if Israel attacked Gaza we would declare war against the Zionist regime."

In an interview with the Al-Watan newspaper he said: "In case of any future Israeli attack on Gaza - as the next president of Egypt – I will open the Rafah border crossing and will consider different ways to implement the joint Arab defense agreement."

182 recusancy  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 11:56:31am

re: #179 engineer dog

unless the percentage of the federal budget that we spend on debt service goes over the 10% that it reached for a couple of years after reagan's large tax cuts and increases in military spending, i'm not going to accept that our "debt situation" is any more "serious" than it has been for the last few decades

This.

183 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 11:56:42am

re: #174 Fozzie Bear

That's because Ryan isn't taking a serious look at the causes of the problem. We absolutely cannot tax our way out of this. We also cannot trim our way out of this. Neither approach, by itself, is feasible. We need to both raise taxation, and decrease spending. There's no sane way to do this without doing both.

So... I'm 59. I'm closer to SS and these other programs than some people. According to this proposed 2012 budget by the GOP, what kind of reductions and cuts can I expect to come up against in the near future. I'm concerned.

184 engineer cat  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 11:56:54am

re: #171 RogueOne

We cannot tax our way out of this

until the gop accepts that adults realize that the things they want must be paid for and agrees to raise taxes, we are not going to be able to have a rational conversation about the budget

185 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 11:57:33am

re: #181 Killgore Trout

Egypt eager to drag the entire region into war...

ElBaradei: We'll fight back if Israel attacks Gaza

Jesus H.

186 lawhawk  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 11:57:40am

re: #181 Killgore Trout

Nothing like catering to the Islamists and extremists to win votes (that's what he's doing). He's willing to throw out the Camp David Accords and a cold peace, so as to support Hamas and its ongoing war against Israel's existence because Israel has the audacity to defend itself against those same terrorists who refuse to accept Israel's right to exist.

In that respect, ElBaraedi is no different than any of the other despots, dictators, and thugs who use Israel as a convenient excuse for all that ails their own countries.

187 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 11:58:03am

re: #181 Killgore Trout

Egypt eager to drag the entire region into war...

ElBaradei: We'll fight back if Israel attacks Gaza

That's part of the new freedoms in Egypt that everyone was so happy to see them get... hurray for freedom.

188 blueraven  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 11:58:35am

re: #183 Walter L. Newton

So... I'm 59. I'm closer to SS and these other programs than some people. According to this proposed 2012 budget by the GOP, what kind of reductions and cuts can I expect to come up against in the near future. I'm concerned.

It should not affect those over 55, as I understand it.

189 recusancy  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 11:58:43am

Here's how to halve the deficit by doing nothing.

190 RogueOne  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 11:58:45am

re: #175 recusancy

The stimulus was 700bill. Iraq and Afghanistan cost 1.1trillion.

In 2009 the cost for both wars was under 900 billion and the Stimulus was 787. So in 3 weeks they came up with a way to spend just as much money as it cost us to run 2 wars for almost 8 years.

191 reloadingisnotahobby  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 11:59:17am

re: #184 engineer dog

Being "Rational" is over rated!
Ask my wife......
.....I was headed for the door anyway.../
Be nice ya'll...

192 Charles Johnson  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 11:59:18am

re: #181 Killgore Trout

Egypt eager to drag the entire region into war...

ElBaradei: We'll fight back if Israel attacks Gaza

Although I wouldn't be surprised if this is accurate, right now I'm skeptical that ElBaradei's statements are being correctly reported.

193 Killgore Trout  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 11:59:42am

re: #186 lawhawk

Nothing like catering to the Islamists and extremists to win votes (that's what he's doing). He's willing to throw out the Camp David Accords and a cold peace, so as to support Hamas and its ongoing war against Israel's existence because Israel has the audacity to defend itself against those same terrorists who refuse to accept Israel's right to exist.

In that respect, ElBaraedi is no different than any of the other despots, dictators, and thugs who use Israel as a convenient excuse for all that ails their own countries.


I have to wonder how the Egyptian military feels about this. Not only will they lose a lot of money from the US but what they have will be destroyed within a week or two and they'll die in huge numbers. They can't be excited about this.

194 RogueOne  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 11:59:46am

re: #181 Killgore Trout

Egypt eager to drag the entire region into war...

ElBaradei: We'll fight back if Israel attacks Gaza

Didn't he win a nobel peace prize?

195 lawhawk  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 11:59:59am

re: #187 Walter L. Newton

ElBaradei wasn't exactly at the forefront of those moving to send Mubarak packing - he was an opportunity who latched on to the opposition movement and was seen as palatable by foreign diplomats because of his years at the IAEA.

I was wary of him before, and this confirms my reasons for wariness.

He's nothing but bad jobu for Egypt and the region as a whole.

196 recusancy  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:00:46pm

re: #190 RogueOne

In 2009 the cost for both wars was under 900 billion and the Stimulus was 787. So in 3 weeks they came up with a way to spend just as much money as it cost us to run 2 wars for almost 8 years.

And if they didn't we'd be in dire straits.

197 Charles Johnson  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:01:01pm

The only source for that statement by ElBaradei is Ynet, and the article is a jumbled mess. Something doesn't smell right about this story.

198 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:01:16pm

re: #187 Walter L. Newton

That's part of the new freedoms in Egypt that everyone was so happy to see them get... hurray for freedom.

Well, just after Mubarak stepped down, some young asshole from Jewish Voice for Peace (not kidding), informed me that now Egyptians were free to hate me.

199 blueraven  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:01:47pm

re: #190 RogueOne

In 2009 the cost for both wars was under 900 billion and the Stimulus was 787. So in 3 weeks they came up with a way to spend just as much money as it cost us to run 2 wars for almost 8 years.

Yes, so? Are you saying investing in our country after such a devastating economic near collapse and recession, is not worth what we pay for invasion and a little nation building elsewhere?

200 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:02:06pm

re: #192 Charles

Although I wouldn't be surprised if this is accurate, right now I'm skeptical that ElBaradei's statements are being correctly reported.

Why? Other info, or just a feeling?

201 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:02:38pm

re: #193 Killgore Trout

I have to wonder how the Egyptian military feels about this. Not only will they lose a lot of money from the US but what they have will be destroyed within a week or two and they'll die in huge numbers. They can't be excited about this.

If the military doesn't want it, it won't happen. Period. This is Egypt.

202 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:03:01pm

re: #190 RogueOne

In 2009 the cost for both wars was under 900 billion and the Stimulus was 787. So in 3 weeks they came up with a way to spend just as much money as it cost us to run 2 wars for almost 8 years.

Well, if you take a frank look at it, it took a lot more than 3 weeks to create the problem. It was a deferred payment arrangement, essentially, even though that's not how we look at it.

203 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:03:07pm

re: #194 RogueOne

Didn't he win a nobel peace prize?

Indeed he did. Then again, so did Barack Obama who is currently presiding over two wars and a 'kinetic action', so there you are.

204 engineer cat  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:03:28pm

re: #190 RogueOne

In 2009 the cost for both wars was under 900 billion and the Stimulus was 787. So in 3 weeks they came up with a way to spend just as much money as it cost us to run 2 wars for almost 8 years.

the stimulus was a one time thing, and the cost of the wars is ongoing

the stimulus was an attempt to counteract the idiocy of wall st by trying to employ americans, and the wars are an attempt to... what?

205 blueraven  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:03:37pm

re: #197 Charles

The only source for that statement by ElBaradei is Ynet, and the article is a jumbled mess. Something doesn't smell right about this story.

I thought the same, it just doesn't sound like his style to me.

206 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:03:48pm

re: #203 SanFranciscoZionist

Indeed he did. Then again, so did Barack Obama who is currently presiding over two wars and a 'kinetic action', so there you are.

A kinetic action?

We're so far into denial we're now coming up with nonsense names that sound like a physicas lecture?

207 Varek Raith  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:04:21pm

re: #206 EmmmieG

A kinetic action?

We're so far into denial we're now coming up with nonsense names that sound like a physicas lecture?

It's a military term that's been around for a long time.
;)

208 McSpiff  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:04:29pm

re: #190 RogueOne

In 2009 the cost for both wars was under 900 billion and the Stimulus was 787. So in 3 weeks they came up with a way to spend just as much money as it cost us to run 2 wars for almost 8 years.

If I spend $15,000 buying a new car to go to work one week, and burn $10,000 in my backyard the next, would you argue that the car was somehow worse for my finances? Because that's really what it seems like you're doing here.

209 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:05:06pm

re: #207 Varek Raith

It's a military term that's been around for a long time.
;)

Well yes, but it used to describe a catapult, not what we should properly call "battle."

210 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:05:16pm

re: #206 EmmmieG

A kinetic action?

We're so far into denial we're now coming up with nonsense names that sound like a physicas lecture?

We've been doing that for a long, long time. Now excuse my while I walk away from my desk to allow my office's sanitation engineer to vacuum around my desk.

211 Sheila Broflovski  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:05:32pm

re: #198 SanFranciscoZionist

Well, just after Mubarak stepped down, some young asshole from Jewish Voice for Peace (not kidding), informed me that now Egyptians were free to hate me.

JVP are a bunch of asshats.

212 Varek Raith  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:06:09pm

re: #209 EmmmieG

Well yes, but it used to describe a catapult, not what we should properly call "battle."

It's just a term that they use to differentiate between combat missions and non combat aid missions.

213 lawhawk  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:06:27pm

re: #205 blueraven

I think it was part of his attempt to woo the Islamists, who have been getting on his case about rumors his daughter marrying a Christian among other things.

214 Killgore Trout  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:06:44pm

re: #197 Charles

The only source for that statement by ElBaradei is Ynet, and the article is a jumbled mess. Something doesn't smell right about this story.

The arabic source of the interview is Donya Al-Watan and I don't see the story on their site.

215 abolitionist  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:08:23pm

re: #197 Charles

The only source for that statement by ElBaradei is Ynet, and the article is a jumbled mess. Something doesn't smell right about this story.


ElBaradei says if Israel attacks Gaza Egypt will counterattack: website
At the bottom of that article, source points to Tehran Times.

216 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:08:44pm

re: #207 Varek Raith

It's a military term that's been around for a long time.
;)

It still sounds ridiculous to me. Especially since I associate it with kinesthetic learning styles, and therefore visualize small children playing with math manipulables.

217 RogueOne  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:08:58pm

re: #179 engineer dog

unless the percentage of the federal budget that we spend on debt service goes over the 10% that it reached for a couple of years after reagan's large tax cuts and increases in military spending, i'm not going to accept that our "debt situation" is any more "serious" than it has been for the last few decades

We're at that point, worried yet? The last numbers I can find are for 2008 and the number was 8%. Currently our debt is running at almost 90% of GDP making Reagan (65%) look like a skin-flint.

218 RogueOne  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:11:12pm

re: #184 engineer dog

until the gop accepts that adults realize that the things they want must be paid for and agrees to raise taxes, we are not going to be able to have a rational conversation about the budget

Why is it only one parties responsibility? Do the dems have no part in any of this? If we agree that we have to raise taxes and cut spending then why aren't you holding the dems responsible for putting neither of those proposals on paper?

219 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:11:15pm

re: #217 RogueOne

We're at that point, worried yet? The last numbers I can find are for 2008 and the number was 8%. Currently our debt is running at almost 90% of GDP making Reagan (65%) look like a skin-flint.

Well, the fact remains that the deficit would fall to half of what it is if the Bush Tax cuts expire, leaving rates at Clinton-era levels. Just doing that one thing would make the problem FAR more manageable.

220 Charles Johnson  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:11:16pm

re: #214 Killgore Trout

The arabic source of the interview is Donya Al-Watan and I don't see the story on their site.

I can't find that interview with ElBaradei at the site, either.

221 blueraven  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:11:40pm

re: #215 abolitionist


ElBaradei says if Israel attacks Gaza Egypt will counterattack: website
At the bottom of that article, source points to Tehran Times.

Oh, well then, it must be true! ///

222 engineer cat  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:11:54pm

re: #183 Walter L. Newton

So... I'm 59. I'm closer to SS and these other programs than some people. According to this proposed 2012 budget by the GOP, what kind of reductions and cuts can I expect to come up against in the near future. I'm concerned.

i'm 56 and trying to arrange for some retirement, if possible. i hear republicans talk about how their plans to destroy social security won't affect people my age, but i don't believe it for a second

it should be clear that raising the cap on the amount of income that is subject to ss tax should solve ss's long term problem. the gop doesn't want to "fix" ss, it wants to kill it

223 jamesfirecat  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:12:40pm

re: #218 RogueOne

Why is it only one parties responsibility? Do the dems have no part in any of this? If we agree that we have to raise taxes and cut spending then why aren't you holding the dems responsible for putting neither of those proposals on paper?

Because the Dem's have shown that they're willing to both raise taxes (or at least let Bush Tax cuts expire) and decrease spending (they've offered the Republicans 33 Billion in cuts) wake me when the GOP starts talking about raising taxes...

225 RogueOne  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:13:16pm

re: #199 blueraven

Yes, so? Are you saying investing in our country after such a devastating economic near collapse and recession, is not worth what we pay for invasion and a little nation building elsewhere?

No, I'm saying the argument that our debt is due to our 2 wars is baloney. If we hadn't have gone to war in either place for the last 10 years we still wouldn't have saved enough money to make up for 75% of one years shortfall.

226 RogueOne  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:14:12pm

re: #203 SanFranciscoZionist

Indeed he did. Then again, so did Barack Obama who is currently presiding over two wars and a 'kinetic action', so there you are.

They're going to start their own club. Nobel Peace Prize Winners for War!

227 Kragar  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:14:25pm

My retirement plan is to live to excess now so I die before I'm stuck with a government plan for my retirement.

///

228 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:15:10pm

re: #225 RogueOne

No, I'm saying the argument that our debt is due to our 2 wars is baloney. If we hadn't have gone to war in either place for the last 10 years we still wouldn't have saved enough money to make up for 75% of one years shortfall.

Only about half the deficit is the result of the 2 wars. The other half is the result of the tax cuts. As for the debt, well, that's pretty much everybody's fault for the past 30 years or so. We can easily grow our way out of the debt if we tackle the deficit, however, so that's not a problem we ever have to directly tackle, if we can just fix the deficit.

229 abolitionist  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:15:24pm

re: #221 blueraven

Oh, well then, it must be true! ///

Sounds like "Let's you and him fight." That's a game I learned at age 7 not to play.

230 reloadingisnotahobby  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:15:46pm

re: #216 SanFranciscoZionist

My understanding of "Kenetics" is the movement/energy of one object
being tranfered to another object upon striking it at a high rate of speed.
..of course mass and speed of object one is variable!
IE...My brothers fist moving and striking the back of my head....
Which explains a great many questions.....Oooo!The Loritab are
kicking in !!
My Dentist rocks!!;-)

231 Charles Johnson  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:16:22pm

re: #225 RogueOne

No, I'm saying the argument that our debt is due to our 2 wars is baloney. If we hadn't have gone to war in either place for the last 10 years we still wouldn't have saved enough money to make up for 75% of one years shortfall.

The Iraq War costs about $200 million every single day. The total cost is estimated to be somewhere around $2 TRILLION dollars.

If you don't think that has a huge effect on the deficit, you're dreaming.

232 engineer cat  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:16:45pm

re: #217 RogueOne

We're at that point, worried yet? The last numbers I can find are for 2008 and the number was 8%. Currently our debt is running at almost 90% of GDP making Reagan (65%) look like a skin-flint.

and when ronald reagan put us in a worse financial situation than we are in now, republicans didn't yell and scream about a crisis, and, in the event, nothing really bad happened

so be consistent, please

the percentage of debt relative to gdp is an interesting number, but it is the debt service that we pay for. i don't know of any time in recent american history that the total debt has been paid down one penny - the only time this has been even discussed was after bill clinton's tax increases helped to put us in a position to think about it

233 recusancy  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:18:41pm

re: #232 engineer dog

and when ronald reagan put us in a worse financial situation than we are in now, republicans didn't yell and scream about a crisis, and, in the event, nothing really bad happened

so be consistent, please

the percentage of debt relative to gdp is an interesting number, but it is the debt service that we pay for. i don't know of any time in recent american history that the total debt has been paid down one penny - the only time this has been even discussed was after bill clinton's tax increases helped to put us in a position to think about it

And then we had Greenspan telling Bush to cut taxes because paying off the federal debt was not a good idea.

234 engineer cat  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:19:15pm

re: #225 RogueOne

No, I'm saying the argument that our debt is due to our 2 wars is baloney. If we hadn't have gone to war in either place for the last 10 years we still wouldn't have saved enough money to make up for 75% of one years shortfall.

you still are under the false impression that the biggest problem we face today is "the debt"

i repeat - "the debt" is not a bigger problem or threat now than it has been for at least since ronald reagan vastly expanded it back in the 80s

235 blueraven  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:19:16pm

re: #225 RogueOne

No, I'm saying the argument that our debt is due to our 2 wars is baloney. If we hadn't have gone to war in either place for the last 10 years we still wouldn't have saved enough money to make up for 75% of one years shortfall.

Well since we borrowed all that money, it was never added into the budget and then we reduced taxes at the same time and added a big new entitlement...I beg to differ.

236 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:19:34pm

re: #233 recusancy

And then we had Greenspan telling Bush to cut taxes because paying off the federal debt was not a good idea.

Ayn Rand sure had some effective little supplicants.

237 engineer cat  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:20:27pm

re: #233 recusancy

And then we had Greenspan telling Bush to cut taxes because paying off the federal debt was not a good idea.

that's right - i remember when clinton had nearly balanced the budget -

republican commentators began to say that if the budget was balanced, that must mean taxes are too high!!!

238 lawhawk  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:21:45pm

re: #215 abolitionist


ElBaradei says if Israel attacks Gaza Egypt will counterattack: website
At the bottom of that article, source points to Tehran Times.

It appears that the Tehran Times is also citing to al Watan.

239 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:21:52pm

re: #237 engineer dog

that's right - i remember when clinton had nearly balanced the budget -

republican commentators began to say that if the budget was balanced, that must mean taxes are too high!!!

We had a golden opportunity to actually pay down the debt, and we blew it. What a fucking shame.

240 RogueOne  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:22:08pm

re: #219 Fozzie Bear

Well, the fact remains that the deficit would fall to half of what it is if the Bush Tax cuts expire, leaving rates at Clinton-era levels. Just doing that one thing would make the problem FAR more manageable.

Two things,

1. The dems haven't made that proposal.

2. that's "hypothetical" money. Hypothetically if you raise taxes, and nothing at all changes, then you'll bring in the expected results. The problem is higher taxes puts a damper on activity. They never bring in as much money as they say when they raise taxes because people either stop participating or find a way around the higher taxes. (think cigarette and luxury tax increases)

I agree that we're going to have to find a way to increase revenue and part of that is going to have to be with increased taxes. The problem as I see it is our economy is still floundering and raising taxes on everyone is a sure way to keep unemployment hovering around 10%.

241 McSpiff  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:23:02pm

re: #240 RogueOne

Two things,

1. The dems haven't made that proposal.

2. that's "hypothetical" money. Hypothetically if you raise taxes, and nothing at all changes, then you'll bring in the expected results. The problem is higher taxes puts a damper on activity. They never bring in as much money as they say when they raise taxes because people either stop participating or find a way around the higher taxes. (think cigarette and luxury tax increases)

I agree that we're going to have to find a way to increase revenue and part of that is going to have to be with increased taxes. The problem as I see it is our economy is still floundering and raising taxes on everyone is a sure way to keep unemployment hovering around 10%.

So who would you suggest raising taxes on?

242 RogueOne  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:24:14pm

re: #223 jamesfirecat

Because the Dem's have shown that they're willing to both raise taxes (or at least let Bush Tax cuts expire) and decrease spending (they've offered the Republicans 33 Billion in cuts) wake me when the GOP starts talking about raising taxes...

The obama '12 budget rolled back the bush tax cuts? You sure about that? Second, can you post a link to the dem proposal to cut $33 billion? I keep hearing them say it but I haven't seen an actual proposal anywhere.

243 iossarian  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:24:19pm

re: #218 RogueOne

Why is it only one parties responsibility? Do the dems have no part in any of this? If we agree that we have to raise taxes and cut spending then why aren't you holding the dems responsible for putting neither of those proposals on paper?

The fundamental problem is that, over time, a lot of people in the US have been sold a big lie: that they are hard-working "real Americans", whose money is being stolen to support shiftless no-good "welfare queens". The reality, of course, as many people on this blog are aware, is that the majority of Americans will rely on social support programs at some point in their lives, and will be worse off under the current Republican proposals than they are now. Indeed, the majority of Americans have not benefitted much (if at all) from economic growth over the past 30 years. It's only the tiny percentage at the top that has really done well.

So we are now in a situation where, if any politician so much as suggests that taxes should be increased, there is an instant cacophony of JOB KILLING UNAMERICAN ANTI-BUSINESS ECONOMIC SUICIDE. I exaggerate, of course, but not much. So politicians who want to get elected do not talk about such things.

It's a very difficult situation. On the one hand I think the people who are "at fault" (if you want to assign blame) are those who consistently vote against their own best interests out of fear, or envy, or whatever the motivation is. On the other, they've been lied to so much by supposedly responsible people that it's difficult to say that it's solely their fault.

244 engineer cat  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:25:16pm

the thing is, when republicans talk about "the debt", it does NOT mean that they are serious about balancing the budget

when republicans talk about "the seriousness of the debt", in practice means that we should stop spending money helping poor children get proper health care and education, and that we should stop regulating wall street and industry, not that we should take an adult attitude about finances

republicans shouldn't think for a minute that americans are too stupid to see exactly what they are doing

245 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:25:28pm

re: #240 RogueOne

Gutting social programs, education, and public health also puts a damper on economic activity. Choose your poison. The fact is, while the GOP loves to say that slightly higher taxes will destroy the economy, there just isn't any data to support that assertion. It's just that: an assertion sans evidence.

246 Varek Raith  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:26:08pm

re: #243 iossarian

The fundamental problem is that, over time, a lot of people in the US have been sold a big lie: that they are hard-working "real Americans", whose money is being stolen to support shiftless no-good "welfare queens". The reality, of course, as many people on this blog are aware, is that the majority of Americans will rely on social support programs at some point in their lives, and will be worse off under the current Republican proposals than they are now. Indeed, the majority of Americans have not benefitted much (if at all) from economic growth over the past 30 years. It's only the tiny percentage at the top that has really done well.

So we are now in a situation where, if any politician so much as suggests that taxes should be increased, there is an instant cacophony of JOB KILLING UNAMERICAN ANTI-BUSINESS ECONOMIC SUICIDE. I exaggerate, of course, but not much. So politicians who want to get elected do not talk about such things.

It's a very difficult situation. On the one hand I think the people who are "at fault" (if you want to assign blame) are those who consistently vote against their own best interests out of fear, or envy, or whatever the motivation is. On the other, they've been lied to so much by supposedly responsible people that it's difficult to say that it's solely their fault.

The GOP reaps what it sows.
And, by extension, so do we.
Thanks GOP.

247 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:26:49pm

re: #223 jamesfirecat

Because the Dem's have shown that they're willing to both raise taxes (or at least let Bush Tax cuts expire) and decrease spending (they've offered the Republicans 33 Billion in cuts) wake me when the GOP starts talking about raising taxes...

You know we are talking about the 2012 budget... right? Not the continuing resolution which expires on Friday? No... I guess you don't know what we are talking about.

248 engineer cat  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:26:50pm

re: #240 RogueOne

. The problem is higher taxes puts a damper on activity. They never bring in as much money as they say when they raise taxes.

the fact that this theory has been shown in practice to be false has never made much of an impression on republicans

249 iossarian  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:28:03pm

re: #246 Varek Raith

The GOP reaps what it sows.
And, by extension, so do we.
Thanks GOP.

The larger point here is about "freedom of speech"*. America has chosen "freedom of speech" as its foundational quality. What we are seeing now is that, taken to its extreme, "freedom of speech" has anti-democratic effects.

* I use scare quotes because the current legalistic interpretation of "freedom of speech" is not something that I think is particularly close to a rational definition of the term.

250 jamesfirecat  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:28:34pm

re: #242 RogueOne

The obama '12 budget rolled back the bush tax cuts? You sure about that? Second, can you post a link to the dem proposal to cut $33 billion? I keep hearing them say it but I haven't seen an actual proposal anywhere.

I said that they were willing to do it, not that it happened. It didn't happen because when they tried to do it the Republicans in the Senate stood shoulder to shoulder and said nothing would get done until the rich got to keep their tax cut also.

As for the 30 Billion (Sorry was off by 3 billion my bad) dollar cuts...

Will this do?

[Link: thehill.com...]

251 RogueOne  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:29:13pm

re: #231 Charles

The Iraq War costs about $200 million every single day. The total cost is estimated to be somewhere around $2 TRILLION dollars.

If you don't think that has a huge effect on the deficit, you're dreaming.

According to the CRS the Iraq war is costing us $2 billion a week. That's $104 billion a year. Cutting it out entirely would drop our annual deficit down to $1.4 trillion. It amounts to less than 7% of our annual shortfall.

252 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:29:21pm

re: #247 Walter L. Newton

You know we are talking about the 2012 budget... right? Not the continuing resolution which expires on Friday? No... I guess you don't know what we are talking about.

Projected budgets always assume that current law will persist into the future. The Bush tax cuts, under current law, are due to expire in 2012. Thus, the 2012 budget assumes the Bush tax cuts will expire.

253 jamesfirecat  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:29:43pm

re: #247 Walter L. Newton

You know we are talking about the 2012 budget... right? Not the continuing resolution which expires on Friday? No... I guess you don't know what we are talking about.

Then explain it to me Walter.

254 Varek Raith  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:30:13pm

re: #252 Fozzie Bear

Projected budgets always assume that current law will persist into the future. The Bush tax cuts, under current law, are due to expire in 2012. Thus, the 2012 budget assumes the Bush tax cuts will expire.

And the GOP will fight tooth and nail to see that they don't.
Again.

255 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:30:21pm

re: #250 jamesfirecat

I said that they were willing to do it, not that it happened. It didn't happen because when they tried to do it the Republicans in the Senate stood shoulder to shoulder and said nothing would get done until the rich got to keep their tax cut also.

As for the 30 Billion (Sorry was off by 3 billion my bad) dollar cuts...

Will this do?

[Link: thehill.com...]

JAMES... the topic is the 2012 budget... you're referencing the budget cuts that the GOP and the left are trying to hack out for the end of this week... y

256 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:30:51pm

re: #253 jamesfirecat

Then explain it to me Walter.

I just did... you missed it again.

257 RogueOne  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:31:17pm

re: #232 engineer dog

and when ronald reagan put us in a worse financial situation than we are in now, republicans didn't yell and scream about a crisis, and, in the event, nothing really bad happened

so be consistent, please

the percentage of debt relative to gdp is an interesting number, but it is the debt service that we pay for. i don't know of any time in recent american history that the total debt has been paid down one penny - the only time this has been even discussed was after bill clinton's tax increases helped to put us in a position to think about it

I don't remember being around here during reagan but you're argument isn't holding water. Right now our debt is 50% higher (as a percentage of GDP) than under reagan. If people were mildly upset during reagan then they should be very upset right around now. I do seem to recall dems hammering reagan about the deficit, now who isn't being consistent?

258 jamesfirecat  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:31:25pm

re: #255 Walter L. Newton

JAMES... the topic is the 2012 budget... you're referencing the budget cuts that the GOP and the left are trying to hack out for the end of this week... y

Its still proof that the democrats are willing to both raise taxes and reduce spending isn't it? I fail to see how what year the spending is reduced in maters, so please explain it to me....

259 palomino  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:31:26pm

re: #190 RogueOne

In 2009 the cost for both wars was under 900 billion and the Stimulus was 787. So in 3 weeks they came up with a way to spend just as much money as it cost us to run 2 wars for almost 8 years.

But that 787 was spent IN America. On projects, like roads, bridges, et al., that will continue to benefit Americans for generations.

260 Bob Dillon  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:31:27pm

re: #161 McSpiff

So, my off the cuff calculation... it would take a B52 crew about 2 years to drop enough gold to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, assuming one Gold Bomb Run daily...

60,000 lbs per run @ $1,452/oz for 2 years?

According to the Center for Defense Information, the estimated cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will reach $1.29 trillion by the end of fiscal year 2011.

Naaw - much less. ;-)

261 blueraven  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:31:54pm

re: #251 RogueOne

According to the CRS the Iraq war is costing us $2 billion a week. That's $104 billion a year. Cutting it out entirely would drop our annual deficit down to $1.4 trillion. It amounts to less than 7% of our annual shortfall.

And how much did the Bush tax cuts cost? and medicare part D? and lost tax revenue from the recession? This deficit didn't happen in a vacuum.

262 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:32:11pm

re: #257 RogueOne

I don't remember being around here during reagan but you're argument isn't holding water. Right now our debt is 50% higher (as a percentage of GDP) than under reagan. If people were mildly upset during reagan then they should be very upset right around now. I do seem to recall dems hammering reagan about the deficit, now who isn't being consistent?

I'm not sure if you are doing this on purpose, but you keep mixing up the debt and the deficit. Perhaps that is the source of the confusion.

263 Tiny Alien Kitties are Watching You  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:32:17pm

LOL, perhaps I would be interested if I gave a f*ck about this country anymore, since I am already making travel plans and don't anticipate coming back? Have fun guys, I honestly hope it somehow works out in the end is about all I can say.

Interesting note: I am still getting flak on being issued a passport, even though in the past the government found it useful to ignore my record and gave me passes to anywhere I wanted. I still have a slightly expired "No Armed Escort Required" pass to Elmendorf AFB's ammo dumps. I was flown out of there several times to do security installation work at other sites in and out of the state. (think bunkers that may or then again may not contain WMD's "We can neither confirm nor deny..." :p)

Now the State department is giving me grief on trying to get a current passport? Jesus, these people are vindictive, just because I want to leave they seem to think I might be some kind of security risk. (Ok, maybe they have a kind of point, maybe, but my past work has nothing to do my wanting to leave.)

264 RogueOne  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:32:23pm

re: #241 McSpiff

So who would you suggest raising taxes on?

I'm willing to compromise, I'm not willing to do their job for them.///

265 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:32:34pm

re: #211 Alouette

JVP are a bunch of asshats.

They're nasty, vicious, and have terrible taste in friends.

266 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:32:41pm

re: #231 Charles

By the way... you feeling any better today?

267 CuriousLurker  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:32:51pm

re: #220 Charles

I can't find that interview with ElBaradei at the site, either.

Nor can I, and I started out by searching for ElBaradei in Arabic, then translating the results afterwards.

268 jamesfirecat  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:33:10pm

re: #264 RogueOne

I'm willing to compromise, I'm not willing to do their job for them.///

Who would you compromise and accept a tax raise on then?

269 RogueOne  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:34:05pm

re: #243 iossarian

I agree. I'm easy. If we raise taxes people scream and if we cut services people scream therefore in order to get out from under all this debt we're going to have to make people scream.

270 recusancy  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:34:57pm

re: #267 CuriousLurker

Nor can I, and I started out by searching for ElBaradei in Arabic, then translating the results afterwards.

People like to quickly jump on things that confirm their biases.

271 justaminute  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:34:59pm

See, this is why government cannot be run like a business. It's not a democracy, we don't have all this infighting. A business is essentially a form of dictatorship. Coming to a consensus when you have a problem takes too long and by the time you come to an agreement what was just a small problem is now a huge one. Business closed.

272 RogueOne  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:35:48pm

re: #248 engineer dog

the fact that this theory has been shown in practice to be false has never made much of an impression on republicans

Not only is it's basic economics, it's also the reason they give whenever they raise sin taxes.

273 blueraven  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:36:00pm

re: #267 CuriousLurker

Nor can I, and I started out by searching for ElBaradei in Arabic, then translating the results afterwards.

I would really like to see the original interview, if one exists.

274 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:36:21pm

re: #269 RogueOne

I agree. I'm easy. If we raise taxes people scream and if we cut services people scream therefore in order to get out from under all this debt we're going to have to make people scream.

We don't even have to make any significant cuts to services. We just have to withdraw from the middle east, and the rest of the shortfall can be easily covered by reducing military spending to Clinton-era levels. (The difference between military spending in 1998 vs. 2008 is roughly half the 2008 deficit)

275 engineer cat  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:36:27pm

re: #257 RogueOne

I don't remember being around here during reagan but you're argument isn't holding water. Right now our debt is 50% higher (as a percentage of GDP) than under reagan. If people were mildly upset during reagan then they should be very upset right around now. I do seem to recall dems hammering reagan about the deficit, now who isn't being consistent?

yes, i was one of those people "hammering reagan ab out the deficit" back in the 80s

and the answer from the reagan apologists at that time was "reagan showed that deficits don't matter". and i watched the % of the budget going to debt service go up to 10% in about '92, and then go back down again

because, in an inflationary universe, fixed debt service payments become, effectively, smaller over time - just like a mortgage

so, unless you think ronald reagan was a irresponsible spendthrift that nearly destroyed our economy, then i call on YOU to be consistent and accept that the reagan administration proved that america is perfectly capable of managing a large debt

276 CuriousLurker  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:36:41pm

re: #270 recusancy

People like to quickly jump on things that confirm their biases.

Actually, I just found it.

[Link: www.alwatanvoice.com...]

278 Killgore Trout  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:38:01pm

re: #263 ausador

Where are you moving to?

279 recusancy  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:38:05pm

re: #271 justaminute

See, this is why government cannot be run like a business. It's not a democracy, we don't have all this infighting. A business is essentially a form of dictatorship. Coming to a consensus when you have a problem takes too long and by the time you come to an agreement what was just a small problem is now a huge one. Business closed.

Another reason Government is not a business is because it should be counteracting bad and overly good. If there's a bubble building it should be tightening it's belt. If there's a recession it should be loosening it's belt.

The exact wrong time to belt tighten is when actual businesses and families are doing just that.

280 Aceofwhat?  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:38:10pm

re: #122 recusancy

That's just the thing. It's not a chopping block for you. You're not struggling to make it. You're volunteering other people your age, who are struggling. It's their skin in the game. Not yours.

Eh, no. Rather - I am volunteering other people my age because we still have 35 years to get our shizniggity together. It's all of our skin in the game.

281 RogueOne  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:38:12pm

re: #261 blueraven

And how much did the Bush tax cuts cost? and medicare part D? and lost tax revenue from the recession? This deficit didn't happen in a vacuum.

If you're asking me to defend medicare part d or any of the bush spending habits you're barking up the wrong tree//

I've never said the debt/deficit is the fault of one party over the other. It's our fault, every voter in the country shares the blame.

282 engineer cat  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:38:13pm

re: #272 RogueOne

Not only is it's basic economics, it's also the reason they give whenever they raise sin taxes.

basic economics?

"if you laid all the economists in the world end to end, they still wouldn't reach a conclusion"

283 RogueOne  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:38:38pm

re: #262 Fozzie Bear

I'm not sure if you are doing this on purpose, but you keep mixing up the debt and the deficit. Perhaps that is the source of the confusion.

yeah, that should have read deficit.

284 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:39:18pm

re: #281 RogueOne

If you're asking me to defend medicare part d or any of the bush spending habits you're barking up the wrong tree//

I've never said the debt/deficit is the fault of one party over the other. It's our fault, every voter in the country shares the blame.

The debt is absolutely a shared responsibility; it's everybody's fault. The current deficit, however, was almost entirely caused by republican policies.

285 engineer cat  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:40:39pm

can the republicans here explain to me what they think the effect is of "the debt" being a larger or smaller percentage of the gdp?

i repeat, the debt service is the amount that we pay for, since no american administration has ever attempted to pay down the debt

286 blueraven  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:41:40pm

re: #281 RogueOne

If you're asking me to defend medicare part d or any of the bush spending habits you're barking up the wrong tree//

I've never said the debt/deficit is the fault of one party over the other. It's our fault, every voter in the country shares the blame.

No, you are trying to blame it all on the stimulus package.

287 CuriousLurker  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:42:18pm

re: #270 recusancy

re: #273 blueraven

It's a pretty cruddy translation. Wish there was a better one and the full interview, as blueraven said.

Anyway, I have work to do. Later, lizards.

288 recusancy  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:43:45pm

re: #287 CuriousLurker

re: #273 blueraven

It's a pretty cruddy translation. Wish there was a better one and the full interview, as blueraven said.

Anyway, I have work to do. Later, lizards.

He wants to redistribute the wealth! Commy!

289 lawhawk  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:44:36pm

Budget process is two fold. There's an annual budget, and then there's the long term budget and its deficit.

You can create a balanced budget for a given year, but still see the long term deficit grow. The issue is whether the long term debt is a problem, and if so, how to generate sufficient revenue and reduce expenditures to bring them into balance.

That's the situation facing the US and it's further complicated by the fact that to achieve a balanced budget for a given year, one must factor in the debt servicing on the long term debt as well (interest on debt). That means that as the long term debt continues rising, it will become a higher percentage of the annual budget - crowding out other vital services and programs.

For states, the problem is more acute because of constitutional requirements to achieve a balanced budget - and to do so, many engage in all sorts of financial chicanery, including not paying pension obligations, and one-shots to avoid having to cut programs while fulfilling their debt obligations.

290 Aceofwhat?  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:44:42pm

re: #248 engineer dog

the fact that this theory has been shown in practice to be false has never made much of an impression on republicans

what theory?

because Pigovian taxation effects are as real as apple pie. unless that's not the theory you mean...

291 Kragar  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:44:54pm

Looking for Huckabee's records from when he was governor? Sorry, they were erased.

Send a public records request seeking documents from his 12-year stint as Arkansas governor, as Mother Jones did recently, and an eyebrow-raising reply will come back: The records are unavailable, and the computer hard drives that once contained them were erased and physically destroyed by the Huckabee administration as the governor prepared to leave office and launch a presidential bid.

In 2007, during Huckabee's campaign for the GOP presidential nomination, the issue of the eradicated hard drives surfaced briefly, but it was never fully examined, and key questions remain. Why had Huckabee gone to such great lengths to wipe out his own records? What ever happened to a backup collection that was provided to a Huckabee aide?

Huckabee is now considering another presidential run, and if he does enter the race, he would do so as a frontrunner. Which would make the case of the missing records all the more significant. These records would shed light on Huckabee's governorship—and could provide insight into how a President Huckabee might run the country. Meanwhile, observers of Arkansas' political scene—including one of Huckabee's former GOP allies—say the episode is characteristic of a politician who was distrustful and secretive by nature.

292 Amory Blaine  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:45:05pm

Paul Ryan knows how to fix America, yet his Janesville district has been an economic ghost town for his entire tenure. Maybe he should concentrate on a small yet significant victory first in his district, then he can unroll his "winning recipes" on the nation after he's proven to have any track record whatsoever on "prosperity". All I see is another GOP marionette.

293 RogueOne  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:45:54pm

re: #286 blueraven

No, you are trying to blame it all on the stimulus package.

i didn't do that either. If we didn't spend a dollar on either war or the stimulus we would have erased the deficit for less than 2 years. keep in mind that the stimulus package didn't even count towards the deficit.

294 recusancy  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:46:18pm

Looks like the govt is going to be shut down.
[Link: tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com...]

295 wrenchwench  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:47:35pm

re: #291 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Looking for Huckabee's records from when he was governor? Sorry, they were erased.

If those were public records, didn't he break a law of some sort?

296 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:47:55pm

re: #291 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Looking for Huckabee's records from when he was governor? Sorry, they were erased.

Why isn't this a HUGE controversy? What the fuck happened to our media? This absolutely disgusts me.

297 RogueOne  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:48:39pm

K. I have to run. A hose on my wife's car split and sprayed coolant everywhere. She called me freaking out that "THE CAR IS ON FIRE!".....

If I'm not back later, enjoy the day people.

298 engineer cat  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:49:13pm

re: #290 Aceofwhat?

what theory?

because Pigovian taxation effects are as real as apple pie. unless that's not the theory you mean...

in the 90s, clinton raised taxes significantly, and republican theorists predicted economic disaster. in fact, the 90s saw a powerful economic expansion

in the 00s, bush passed a significant tax cut in order to "stimulate the economy", but in fact the economy of the 00s was lukewarm at best

QED, the theory of 'taxes up, economy down - taxes down, economy up' has been shown to be false

[x]

299 lostlakehiker  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:49:19pm

re: #168 Fozzie Bear

Except the situation is fixable by raising taxes to Clinton-era levels and reducing military expenditures to the same level. In other words, we need to pull out of the middle east, and raise taxes slightly. That's it.

The situation only seems so intractable because the most effective methods to fix it have effectively been taken off the table. It's like an obese man chopping off his leg to lose weight, instead of laying off the twinkies and going for a daily walk.

Telling people there's plenty of gain with no pain gets you updings, but it doesn't make you right.

Restoring the tax law, letter by letter, to what it was in 1998 might, on paper, yield the needed revenues. Assuming that projections for Obamacare work out as projected, which everyone knows they will not.

But that tax law was written when dollars were bigger than today's dollars. Imposing the same percentage hit on what were then robust incomes, and are now modest, is not really a restoration of previous tax rates.

Reducing military expenditures to Clinton-era levels requires that our wars go away. This doesn't seem to be in the offing, since Obama just added another one to the menu. Now I think he was right to act, but still, there it is.

In the Clinton era, social security tax receipts could be, and were, used to cover the day to day expenses of government. Now, either social security taxes have to be raised, or benefits have to be trimmed, or other tax revenue has to be diverted to covering the cost of social security benefits.

Medicare is blowing another hole in the budget, and the storm has just begun. We can no more get past this budget storm with incremental tweaks than we can manage AGW by each turning down the thermostat one degree in winter and up in summer, and properly inflating our tires.

300 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:49:29pm

re: #297 RogueOne

K. I have to run. A hose on my wife's car split and sprayed coolant everywhere. She called me freaking out that "THE CAR IS ON FIRE!"...

If I'm not back later, enjoy the day people.

Ah crap. i hope she's ok.

301 Amory Blaine  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:49:44pm

re: #297 RogueOne

K. I have to run. A hose on my wife's car split and sprayed coolant everywhere. She called me freaking out that "THE CAR IS ON FIRE!"...

If I'm not back later, enjoy the day people.

Well at least it's just a hose. Good luck!!

302 justaminute  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:49:57pm

re: #292 Amory Blaine

Ryan's father died when he was young. His siblings and he lived and went to college on Social Security death benefits. He wants to take that away now. How Randian, I got mine, too bad about you.

303 Page 3 in the Binder of Women  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:50:47pm

re: #302 justaminute

Ryan's father died when he was young. His siblings and he lived and went to college on Social Security death benefits. He wants to take that away now. How Randian, I got mine, too bad about you.

Amazing.

304 abolitionist  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:50:51pm

re: #276 CuriousLurker

Actually, I just found it.

[Link: www.alwatanvoice.com...]

The Tehran Times site offers a pdf download, but I get an "invalid" msg on trying to open it. Download All Page(.zip) --on right side.

305 Charles Johnson  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:50:52pm

re: #276 CuriousLurker

Actually, I just found it.

[Link: www.alwatanvoice.com...]

Yes, that's the article, and it's titled "ElBaradei: We will declare war on Israel if it attacked Gaza". But there's no quote in the article from ElBaradei where he actually says those words. This isn't smelling any better.

306 Kragar  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:51:44pm

re: #304 abolitionist

The Tehran Times site offers a pdf download, but I get an "invalid" msg on trying to open it. Download All Page(.zip) --on right side.

DO NOT DOWNLOAD ANYTHING FROM AN IRANIAN SOURCE!

Unless you like virus and such that it.

307 sattv4u2  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:51:59pm

It's not only at Wal Mart do we have to dodge Chinese junk!!

[Link: news.yahoo.com...]

Thank God the threat has passed

There were several anxiuos moments between ground control and the International Space station

308 engineer cat  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:52:45pm

A Pigovian tax (also spelled Pigouvian tax) is a tax levied on a market activity that generates negative externalities. (wiksterpedia)

we are talking about income taxes, not "taxes levied on a market activity"

309 Killgore Trout  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:52:55pm

re: #306 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

DO NOT DOWNLOAD ANYTHING FROM AN IRANIAN SOURCE!

Unless you like virus and such that it.

Stuxnet!

310 sattv4u2  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:53:02pm

re: #306 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

DO NOT DOWNLOAD ANYTHING FROM AN IRANIAN SOURCE!

Unless you like virus and such that it.

But it's okany to give a Nigerean Prince my bank account routing numbers, right ??

311 Varek Raith  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:53:16pm

re: #307 sattv4u2

It's not only at Wal Mart do we have to dodge Chinese junk!!

[Link: news.yahoo.com...]

Thank God the threat has passed

There were several anxiuos moments between ground control and the International Space station

See my 277 for orbital debris maps.
Now, go clean that up!
;)

312 Kragar  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:54:13pm

re: #311 Varek Raith

See my 277 for orbital debris maps.
Now, go clean that up!
;)

Just realign the deflector array.

313 sattv4u2  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:54:24pm

re: #311 Varek Raith

See my 277 for orbital debris maps.
Now, go clean that up!
;)

I know

Can't tell you how many alerts we get on a weekly basis

314 justaminute  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:54:46pm

The Tehran Times? Ha ha ha

315 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:54:58pm

re: #299 lostlakehiker

Telling people there's plenty of gain with no pain gets you updings, but it doesn't make you right.

Restoring the tax law, letter by letter, to what it was in 1998 might, on paper, yield the needed revenues. Assuming that projections for Obamacare work out as projected, which everyone knows they will not.

But that tax law was written when dollars were bigger than today's dollars. Imposing the same percentage hit on what were then robust incomes, and are now modest, is not really a restoration of previous tax rates.

Reducing military expenditures to Clinton-era levels requires that our wars go away. This doesn't seem to be in the offing, since Obama just added another one to the menu. Now I think he was right to act, but still, there it is.

In the Clinton era, social security tax receipts could be, and were, used to cover the day to day expenses of government. Now, either social security taxes have to be raised, or benefits have to be trimmed, or other tax revenue has to be diverted to covering the cost of social security benefits.

Medicare is blowing another hole in the budget, and the storm has just begun. We can no more get past this budget storm with incremental tweaks than we can manage AGW by each turning down the thermostat one degree in winter and up in summer, and properly inflating our tires.

A. It's absurd to imply that I feel a tax hike involves "no pain, all gain". It's the very definition of economic sacrifice.
B. Obamacare has nothing to do with those projections. It's a separate issue. If you assume Obamacare has a negative or positive net cost, in either case, the resulting deficit/surplus could be dealt with separately.
C. Yes, I think we need to withdraw from the Middle East immediately. I also believe it was a terrible mistake to occupy two countries in the first place, but that's me. The fact is, either way, that is exactly the tradeoff. We can either have the wars, or we have to massively cut spending elsewhere. That it was never framed as such only show how poor a leader Bush was.
D. These projections factor in SS and medicare expense growth. Yes, they will cost more in the future than they do now, but once the pig passes from the gut of the snake, the problem solves itself. We just have to make it another 30 years or so, and the boomers will be mostly dead.

316 engineer cat  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:55:57pm

re: #299 lostlakehiker

Medicare is blowing another hole in the budget

do you have any idea how many doctors, nurses, hospitals, medical equipment manufacturers and drug manufacturers owe their living to the fact that the federal government funnels billions of dollars to help senior citizens get medical care?

317 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:57:11pm

re: #316 engineer dog

do you have any idea how many doctors, nurses, hospitals, medical equipment manufacturers and drug manufacturers owe their living to the fact that the federal government funnels billions of dollars to help senior citizens get medical care?

Those doctors aren't real Americans. Neither are their patients. /

318 Aceofwhat?  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:57:16pm

re: #298 engineer dog

in the 90s, clinton raised taxes significantly, and republican theorists predicted economic disaster. in fact, the 90s saw a powerful economic expansion

in the 00s, bush passed a significant tax cut in order to "stimulate the economy", but in fact the economy of the 00s was lukewarm at best

QED, the theory of 'taxes up, economy down - taxes down, economy up' has been shown to be false

[x]

Then why not tax everyone above, say, $250k at 100%?

319 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:57:39pm

re: #317 Fozzie Bear

Those doctors aren't real Americans. Neither are their patients. /

And of course, the money we spend on them is immediately burned, never to be spent again. /

320 Varek Raith  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:58:06pm

re: #318 Aceofwhat?

Then why not tax everyone above, say, $250k at 100%?

Strawman.

321 lawhawk  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:58:09pm

re: #296 Fozzie Bear

It was brought up in 2007, but never really pursued. I think this is a huge story - particularly because pretty much everything have to do with his time as governor is now unavailable. He's hoping no one finds a stray copy - although the article points out that his former chief of staff may have backup copies.

What is he hiding?

322 recusancy  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:58:10pm

re: #318 Aceofwhat?

Then why not tax everyone above, say, $250k at 100%?

How does that contribute to the debate?

323 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:58:11pm

re: #318 Aceofwhat?

Then why not tax everyone above, say, $250k at 100%?

Because absurd straw man arguments are ridiculous, and reveal nothing about the real world?

324 jamesfirecat  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:58:44pm

re: #318 Aceofwhat?

Then why not tax everyone above, say, $250k at 100%?

Way to strawman his argument.

325 Killgore Trout  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:58:45pm

re: #318 Aceofwhat?

Then why not tax everyone above, say, $250k at 100%?

Because that would be stupid and economically disastrous.

326 Varek Raith  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:59:37pm

If tax cuts cause economic growth, why not have 0% taxes?! INFINITE GROWTH!!!
/Derp

327 Kragar  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:59:58pm

re: #326 Varek Raith

If tax cuts cause economic growth, why not have 0% taxes?! INFINITE GROWTH!!!
/Derp

umad?

328 blueraven  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 12:59:59pm

re: #318 Aceofwhat?

Then why not tax everyone above, say, $250k at 100%?

Way to frame the debate! /

329 Winny Spencer  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:00:27pm

re: #326 Varek Raith

If tax cuts cause economic growth, why not have 0% taxes?! INFINITE GROWTH!!!
/Derp

Ron Paul.

330 sattv4u2  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:00:44pm

re: #325 Killgore Trout

Because that would be stupid and economically disastrous.


Granted

So, how about 90%,,,, 75%,,,, 60%,,???
Whats the number where the threshold is from "stupid" and "economically disastrous" to acceptable?

331 Interesting Times  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:00:48pm

re: #320 Varek Raith

Strawman.

re: #323 Fozzie Bear

Because absurd straw man arguments are ridiculous, and reveal nothing about the real world?

re: #324 jamesfirecat

Way to strawman his argument.

Image: 418-strawman.jpg

332 Aceofwhat?  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:01:08pm

re: #308 engineer dog


we are talking about income taxes, not "taxes levied on a market activity"

gotcha. thanks.

333 darthstar  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:01:10pm

Peter King got a letter!

King and his staff haven’t seen the package, but a congressional source told POLITICO that the pig’s foot was bloody and that the letter was “a rambling type” of message conveying anti-Semitic sentiments. At one point, it refers to King as a “Jew,” though he is Catholic.

“Somewhere in the message it says ‘all the babies in America will be named Mohammed,’” the source said. The letter also says “kiss my black Muslim ass.”
The source said: “I guess you have to interpret it as a threat. It’s certainly not a sign of affection.”

Meanwhile, Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Council on American Islamic Relations and a frequent King critic, said his group often receives pig-themed hate mail. “My guess is it was an anti-Muslim bigot, and bigots not being brain surgeons they probably got their signals crossed,”

Read more: [Link: www.politico.com...]

334 lawhawk  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:01:35pm

re: #305 Charles

The headline may be hyperbole, but the text does tend to support it - when it claims that he would support joint Arab defense agreements and stand against Israel's aggression against Gaza.

That would run counter to the Camp David Accords, and it would further support that he's trying to curry favor with the Islamists and those Egyptians who want to end the CDA. It also posits that he values supporting Hamas over continuing peace with Israel.

I'd say that it is extremely troublesome.

335 engineer cat  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:01:42pm

re: #318 Aceofwhat?

Then why not tax everyone above, say, $250k at 100%?

from the 40s to the 60s, top income earners were taxed at an outrageous rate of 90%, yet somehow people were still motivated to start companies, invest, and otherwise be ambitious and "grow the economy"

yet again, QED, the theory of 'taxes up, economy down - taxes down, economy up' is shown to be false [x]

however, i would never suggest raising income taxes back up to the levels they were under eisenhower, much less accede to this straw man of 100% taxes for anybody

336 jamesfirecat  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:01:50pm

re: #330 sattv4u2

Granted

So, how about 90%,,, 75%,,, 60%,,???
Whats the number where the threshold is from "stupid" and "economically disastrous" to acceptable?

Does a 43% income tax above 50 milllion sound like a reasonable place to start?

337 Varek Raith  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:01:51pm

re: #327 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

umad?

Yes.
My D&D buddies completely ruined the current game we were playing.
Damn munchkins.
:)

338 recusancy  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:03:04pm

re: #330 sattv4u2

Granted

So, how about 90%,,, 75%,,, 60%,,???
Whats the number where the threshold is from "stupid" and "economically disastrous" to acceptable?

I say around 45%-50%. Surely not 39% which is what ending the Bush cuts would do. What's your threshold?

339 Aceofwhat?  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:03:31pm

re: #320 Varek Raith

re: #328 blueraven

re: #324 jamesfirecat

wait. someone says "higher taxes don't affect X" and i reply with a simple "what happens if we turn the knob up to 10" and it's a strawman?

no. just a simple point - at some level, high taxes stifle things. the question is at which level, not whether the phenomenon exists.

this 'strawman' - idonotthinkitmeanswhatyouthinkitmeans.

340 jamesfirecat  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:04:11pm

re: #331 publicityStunted

re: #323 Fozzie Bear

re: #324 jamesfirecat

Image: 418-strawman.jpg

NO, NOT THE BEES!

341 sattv4u2  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:04:34pm

re: #336 jamesfirecat

Does a 43% income tax above 50 milllion sound like a reasonable place to start?

Not really

I wouldn't want to see anybody, regardless of the income, have a tax rate that even approaches half of what they earn, ESPECIALLY when you factor in that above the 43% fed they are also still kicking into state, county and/or city taxes

342 Aceofwhat?  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:04:43pm

re: #335 engineer dog

however, i would never suggest raising income taxes back up to the levels they were under eisenhower, much less accede to this straw man of 100% taxes for anybody

just setting an upper bound. no need to fret.

so why wouldn't you suggest raising income taxes that high again?

343 sattv4u2  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:05:13pm

re: #338 recusancy

see 341

Perhaps 33% , MAX

344 Kragar  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:05:30pm

re: #337 Varek Raith

Yes.
My D&D buddies completely ruined the current game we were playing.
Damn munchkins.
:)

"Dude, a Paladin does not sever the heads of his enemies and impale them onto spiked shoulder pads as a warning to others of what would happen if they stray from the path of light."

"Why not?"

/facepalm

345 Varek Raith  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:05:34pm

re: #339 Aceofwhat?

re: #328 blueraven

re: #324 jamesfirecat

wait. someone says "higher taxes don't affect X" and i reply with a simple "what happens if we turn the knob up to 10" and it's a strawman?

no. just a simple point - at some level, high taxes stifle things. the question is at which level, not whether the phenomenon exists.

this 'strawman' - idonotthinkitmeanswhatyouthinkitmeans.

A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

346 jamesfirecat  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:05:37pm

re: #339 Aceofwhat?

re: #328 blueraven

re: #324 jamesfirecat

wait. someone says "higher taxes don't affect X" and i reply with a simple "what happens if we turn the knob up to 10" and it's a strawman?

no. just a simple point - at some level, high taxes stifle things. the question is at which level, not whether the phenomenon exists.

this 'strawman' - idonotthinkitmeanswhatyouthinkitmeans.

We already know that taxes taken up to logical extremes stifle things, restating this fact adds nothing to the discussion.

Can you address Fonzzi's point in some other manner?

347 recusancy  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:05:52pm

re: #343 sattv4u2

see 341

Perhaps 33% , MAX

Ok. What should the corporate income rate be?

348 justaminute  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:05:55pm

Did you know that all the wealthy fled the US during the Clinton administration? The Obama tax proposals are going to make them all move, where are they going? Thirty thousand more and my husband I are almost there at the increase. If we're moving, I need to pack.

349 Varek Raith  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:06:47pm

re: #344 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

"Dude, a Paladin does not sever the heads of his enemies and impale them onto spiked shoulder pads as a warning to others of what would happen if they stray from the path of light."

"Why not?"

/facepalm

Lol.
Pretty much.
Last time I let any of them be DM.

350 jamesfirecat  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:06:51pm

re: #341 sattv4u2

Not really

I wouldn't want to see anybody, regardless of the income, have a tax rate that even approaches half of what they earn, ESPECIALLY when you factor in that above the 43% fed they are also still kicking into state, county and/or city taxes


It's 36% right now and 39% when Bush tax cut's expire.

Is there any gap between 39% and "approaching half of what they earn?"?

351 sattv4u2  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:07:37pm

re: #347 recusancy

Ok. What should the corporate income rate be?

As low as humanly possible, considering that the lower they are the more monies they have for investment in equipment, advertising, HIRING, etc

All of which gets taxed at THAT level

352 engineer cat  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:07:41pm

re: #339 Aceofwhat?

re: #328 blueraven

re: #324 jamesfirecat at some level, high taxes stifle things.

at any level, failing to do whatever we can to make sure that every child in america gets the best possible education, nutrition, and medical care is going to damage this country much more than a raising tax rates on wealthy people back up to what it was in the 90s to help pay for what we need

353 Varek Raith  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:07:47pm

re: #345 Varek Raith

Oy, quote fail!

354 jamesfirecat  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:07:54pm

re: #343 sattv4u2

see 341

Perhaps 33% , MAX

So you want to give the top tax earners another 3 percent cut?

Yeah, that'll be good for the deficit....

355 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:08:06pm

re: #330 sattv4u2

Granted

So, how about 90%,,, 75%,,, 60%,,???
Whats the number where the threshold is from "stupid" and "economically disastrous" to acceptable?

Good question. The laffer curve peaks, in theory, at about 60%-70% total taxation. Anything to the right of the peak would be destructive policy. Considering we have a bracketed income tax system, that means that rates (for the top brackets) could be around that number, or even above it, without pushing past the peak of the laffer curve. During the 60's, the top bracket was in the 90%+ range, and we experienced strong growth, for example.

Now, keep in mind that this is total taxation, so you have to factor in state & local taxes, property taxes, etc.

356 Aceofwhat?  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:08:21pm

re: #345 Varek Raith

A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

refutation was not the point. it is helpful to set upper and lower bounds during an attempt to understand where someone is coming from. once the limits of a thing are agreed upon, it's easier to debate the details.

perhaps i am being less confrontational than we have been used to lately...? how lame have the trolls been if we thought that was a refutation=P

357 engineer cat  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:08:56pm

re: #342 Aceofwhat?

just setting an upper bound. no need to fret.

so why wouldn't you suggest raising income taxes that high again?

if you want to suggest going back to the tax rates we lived with under eisenhower, be my guest

358 recusancy  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:09:15pm

re: #356 Aceofwhat?

refutation was not the point. it is helpful to set upper and lower bounds during an attempt to understand where someone is coming from. once the limits of a thing are agreed upon, it's easier to debate the details.

perhaps i am being less confrontational than we have been used to lately...? how lame have the trolls been if we thought that was a refutation=P

What is your upper bound?

359 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:09:23pm

re: #343 sattv4u2

see 341

Perhaps 33% , MAX

So you think we need to cut taxes? lol

360 sattv4u2  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:10:38pm

re: #354 jamesfirecat

So you want to give the top tax earners another 3 percent cut?

Yeah, that'll be good for the deficit...

So will bumping up their rate. See the exodus of high earners from New York and New Jersey

361 Kragar  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:11:13pm

re: #349 Varek Raith

Lol.
Pretty much.
Last time I let any of them be DM.

DM: "Ok, fighter, what do you do?"
Fighter: "I rush the troll"
DM: "OK, mage, what do you do?"
Mage: "I cast fireball on the Troll."
Fighter: "WTF DUDE!"

362 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:11:53pm

re: #360 sattv4u2

So will bumping up their rate. See the exodus of high earners from New York and New Jersey

That won't apply to federal taxes, unless you are suggesting a mass exodus of people from the US will occur. (In which case I say good riddance, we can replace you with Mexicans)

363 Aceofwhat?  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:12:00pm

re: #352 engineer dog

at any level, failing to do whatever we can to make sure that every child in america gets the best possible education, nutrition, and medical care is going to damage this country much more than a raising tax rates on wealthy people back up to what it was in the 90s to help pay for what we need

a very noble, and quite impossible goal.

we need to do whatever we can to make sure that every child in america gets the best possible opportunity.

364 jamesfirecat  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:12:11pm

re: #360 sattv4u2

So will bumping up their rate. See the exodus of high earners from New York and New Jersey

Okay tell you what, how about we lower to 33% but get serious about closing tax loopholes in return?

365 sattv4u2  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:12:15pm

re: #355 Fozzie Bear

Now, keep in mind that this is total taxation, so you have to factor in state & local taxes, property taxes, etc.

Thats what I stated in 341

Thats why I wouldn't want to see the fed portion anywhere near 50%

366 sattv4u2  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:12:57pm

re: #364 jamesfirecat

Okay tell you what, how about we lower to 33% but get serious about closing tax loopholes in return?

100% agree

367 blueraven  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:13:56pm

re: #360 sattv4u2

So will bumping up their rate. See the exodus of high earners from New York and New Jersey

Right, all those high paid wall street fund managers and bank CEO's are headed for the hills.

Do you think there might be other reasons people are moving? Like losing their jobs or something?

368 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:14:02pm

re: #363 Aceofwhat?

a very noble, and quite impossible goal.

we need to do whatever we can to make sure that every child in america gets the best possible opportunity.

So was reaching the moon, abolishing slavery, and defeating the Axis powers. All these things have been done, and they were a hell of a lot harder to do than what you are suggesting is "impossible".

369 engineer cat  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:14:16pm

why aren't republicans as obsessed with the education of american children as they are about the deficit and the tax rates of wealthy people? why aren't republicans so concerned with the health care of american children? why aren't republicans concerned with the nutrition of american children?

where are our priorities?

370 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:14:51pm

re: #365 sattv4u2

Now, keep in mind that this is total taxation, so you have to factor in state & local taxes, property taxes, etc.

Thats what I stated in 341

Thats why I wouldn't want to see the fed portion anywhere near 50%

I agree. 60% at the million+ per annum mark makes much more sense. 50% is way too low for a top tax bracket.

371 sattv4u2  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:15:03pm

re: #362 Fozzie Bear

That won't apply to federal taxes, unless you are suggesting a mass exodus of people from the US will occur. (In which case I say good riddance, we can replace you with Mexicans)

No,, but a mass exodus of their investments will and they'll just divert their incomes from those to offshore/ ghost accounts

372 recusancy  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:15:17pm

re: #369 engineer dog

why aren't republicans as obsessed with the education of american children as they are about the deficit and the tax rates of wealthy people? why aren't republicans so concerned with the health care of american children? why aren't republicans concerned with the nutrition of american children?

where are our priorities?

Where are our priorities indeed. That's what the debate boils down too.

373 recusancy  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:15:52pm

re: #371 sattv4u2

No,, but a mass exodus of their investments will and they'll just divert their incomes from those to offshore/ ghost accounts

Those that can already have.

374 engineer cat  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:16:15pm

re: #363 Aceofwhat?

a very noble, and quite impossible goal.

we need to do whatever we can to make sure that every child in america gets the best possible opportunity.

being obsessed with cutting money for their education, health care, and safety so that wealthy people can have lower taxes ain't gonna give them no "opportunity", buster

375 Varek Raith  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:16:21pm

re: #372 recusancy

Where are our priorities indeed. That's what the debate boils down too.

Poison control centers, NPR, PP, Abortion.
Abortion.
Abortion.
NPR.
Nascar.
Color photo copies.
Oh, and abortion.

376 KingKenrod  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:17:14pm

re: #352 engineer dog

at any level, failing to do whatever we can to make sure that every child in america gets the best possible education, nutrition, and medical care is going to damage this country much more than a raising tax rates on wealthy people back up to what it was in the 90s to help pay for what we need

"Best possible" doesn't acknowledge the law of diminishing returns. If you double money spent on education, you don't get people that are twice as smart, capable, or even competent. You have to find the right point, not the best point...and maybe if a system is failing, the best remedy is a different system & policies, not more money. Corporation squander their profits on bad investments all the time, there's no reason why government doesn't do it either....

377 Buck  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:17:17pm

re: #318 Aceofwhat?

Then why not tax everyone above, say, $250k at 100%?

Where do you think you are? Canada?

378 sattv4u2  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:17:23pm

re: #367 blueraven

Right, all those high paid wall street fund managers and bank CEO's are headed for the hills.

Do you think there might be other reasons people are moving? Like losing their jobs or something?

or not

[Link: online.wsj.com...]

379 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:17:44pm

re: #371 sattv4u2

No,, but a mass exodus of their investments will and they'll just divert their incomes from those to offshore/ ghost accounts

Investments don't make wealth. Labor does. Investment capital is only needed up to the point where all good investments can be covered. Capital accumulation past that point destabilizes currencies. This is the most common single misconception regarding market economics, and unfortunately, people refuse to get it.

380 b_sharp  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:17:45pm

re: #339 Aceofwhat?

re: #328 blueraven

re: #324 jamesfirecat

wait. someone says "higher taxes don't affect X" and i reply with a simple "what happens if we turn the knob up to 10" and it's a strawman?

no. just a simple point - at some level, high taxes stifle things. the question is at which level, not whether the phenomenon exists.

this 'strawman' - idonotthinkitmeanswhatyouthinkitmeans.

You are technically right, it isn't a strawman, but it is a poor Reductio Ad Absurdum and you've simply shown the argument is not valid in all cases, not that it is invalid in all cases.

381 sattv4u2  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:18:22pm

re: #373 recusancy

Those that can already have.

So then the question is how to lure them back

382 engineer cat  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:18:38pm

re: #376 KingKenrod

"Best possible" doesn't acknowledge the law of diminishing returns. If you double money spent on education, you don't get people that are twice as smart, capable, or even competent. You have to find the right point, not the best point...and maybe if a system is failing, the best remedy is a different system & policies, not more money. Corporation squander their profits on bad investments all the time, there's no reason why government doesn't do it either...

if you spend less money on education, it ain't a gonna help

383 Varek Raith  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:19:13pm

re: #381 sattv4u2

So then the question is how to lure them back

Race to the bottom!

384 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:20:07pm

re: #376 KingKenrod

"Best possible" doesn't acknowledge the law of diminishing returns. If you double money spent on education, you don't get people that are twice as smart, capable, or even competent. You have to find the right point, not the best point...and maybe if a system is failing, the best remedy is a different system & policies, not more money. Corporation squander their profits on bad investments all the time, there's no reason why government doesn't do it either...

This argument assumes that we are already spending sufficient amounts, too much for additional dollars to be maximally effective. If we aren't, it doesn't apply.

385 b_sharp  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:20:08pm

re: #377 Buck

Where do you think you are? Canada?

Go back to your cuddling with Harper.

386 recusancy  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:20:24pm

re: #376 KingKenrod

"Best possible" doesn't acknowledge the law of diminishing returns. If you double money spent on education, you don't get people that are twice as smart, capable, or even competent. You have to find the right point, not the best point...and maybe if a system is failing, the best remedy is a different system & policies, not more money. Corporation squander their profits on bad investments all the time, there's no reason why government doesn't do it either...

Government is not a corporation and kids are not just investments to be dropped when we don't like our return rate.

387 jamesfirecat  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:20:36pm

re: #381 sattv4u2

So then the question is how to lure them back

//Make unions illegal, do away with child labor laws, and the EPA. Oh and abolish the minimum wage, let the invisible hand of the market determine what people's wages should be!

388 Aceofwhat?  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:20:36pm

re: #358 recusancy

What is your upper bound?

That's a great question. On one hand, it'd be really nice to stay here, or even lower rates.

On the other hand, i'm fond of compromise in the search for solutions. I'd support 90's-era tax rates in return for major SS and Medicare overhauls. Any takers?

I will say this: anyone who says that cutting taxes automatically raises revenue, in this country at this time, is not telling the truth. You heard it from a republican.

Hope that helps put out the straw fire i accidentally lit up above.

389 recusancy  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:20:55pm

re: #381 sattv4u2

So then the question is how to lure them back

Lowering the tax rate 3% ain't gonna do it.

390 sattv4u2  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:20:59pm

re: #379 Fozzie Bear

Investments don't make wealth. Labor does. Investment capital is only needed up to the point where all good investments can be covered. Capital accumulation past that point destabilizes currencies. This is the most common single misconception regarding market economics, and unfortunately, people refuse to get it.

So once that "good investment" is "covered", the coproration never goes back to a bank/ investor to get MORE capital to exapnd?

I did not know that !! (probably because it doesn't work that way!!)

391 Aceofwhat?  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:21:49pm

re: #368 Fozzie Bear

So was reaching the moon, abolishing slavery, and defeating the Axis powers. All these things have been done, and they were a hell of a lot harder to do than what you are suggesting is "impossible".

bullshit. saving people from themselves...there ain't anything harder. ask God.

392 Daniel Ballard  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:21:59pm

Okay those of you who advocate higher income taxes-I'll presume you all want the Bush tax cuts removed.
What about the Reagan income tax cut?
How many want the Kennedy income tax cut removed, go back to that late 50's level of personal income taxation?

Would anyone agree the 50's level would do more harm than good?

393 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:22:14pm

re: #381 sattv4u2

So then the question is how to lure them back

We don't need to lure capital. We have more than enough capital. We need to maximize the liquidity of currency and maximize productivity while ensuring that the resulting gains don't simply accumulate more capital.

When people forget the purpose of money, they very quickly begin ascribing it magical powers.

394 Varek Raith  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:22:14pm

Stone Exonerated

Police in Wisconsin have ruled that a stone, first alleged to have struck the windshield of Wisconsin state senator Dan Kapanke's (R) car in an act of vandalism, was most likely kicked up by the tire of another car.
395 sattv4u2  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:22:31pm

re: #389 recusancy

Lowering the tax rate 3% ain't gonna do it.

You're right (and the "lowering of 3%" was about individuals, not corporations)

As I stated upthread, I would lower corp rates even lower

I would make them close to if not THE lowest on the planet

396 Killgore Trout  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:22:55pm

re: #378 sattv4u2

or not

[Link: online.wsj.com...]

Ah, the Murdoch owned WSJ. I bet there's a bogus Rassmussen poll you could link to as well.

397 CuriousLurker  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:23:01pm

re: #305 Charles

Yes, that's the article, and it's titled "ElBaradei: We will declare war on Israel if it attacked Gaza". But there's no quote in the article from ElBaradei where he actually says those words. This isn't smelling any better.

Yeah, I hear you. I know nothing about the reliability or political/religious leanings of any of the Egyptian news sources, and it doesn't help not knowing the language fluently or having context.

398 recusancy  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:23:17pm

re: #395 sattv4u2

You're right (and the "lowering of 3%" was about individuals, not corporations)

As I stated upthread, I would lower corp rates even lower

I would make them close to if not THE lowest on the planet

We're already among the 10 lowest on the planet.

399 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:23:56pm

re: #391 Aceofwhat?

bullshit. saving people from themselves...there ain't anything harder. ask God.

I'm not interested in God's opinion, or the tooth fairy or Santa, for that matter. Have you ever wondered where all those productivity gains from the past 30 years went? Has it ever occurred to you to wonder?

400 Aceofwhat?  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:24:06pm

re: #380 b_sharp

You are technically right, it isn't a strawman, but it is a poor Reductio Ad Absurdum and you've simply shown the argument is not valid in all cases, not that it is invalid in all cases.

no, it was an upper bound. a place to find agreement, from which to explore where we disagreed.

i don't understand this insistence that i not be taken at my word.

401 b_sharp  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:24:10pm

re: #388 Aceofwhat?

That's a great question. On one hand, it'd be really nice to stay here, or even lower rates.

On the other hand, i'm fond of compromise in the search for solutions. I'd support 90's-era tax rates in return for major SS and Medicare overhauls. Any takers?

I will say this: anyone who says that cutting taxes automatically raises revenue, in this country at this time, is not telling the truth. You heard it from a republican.

Hope that helps put out the straw fire i accidentally lit up above.

You have to be pretty convinced lowering taxes for the top 'whatever'% will directly improve the countries economy. What information, what empirical evidence do you have that gives you that confidence. Keep in mind that observed evidence is more convincing than hypothesis and/or philosophy.

402 b_sharp  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:25:01pm

re: #392 Rightwingconspirator

Okay those of you who advocate higher income taxes-I'll presume you all want the Bush tax cuts removed.
What about the Reagan income tax cut?
How many want the Kennedy income tax cut removed, go back to that late 50's level of personal income taxation?

Would anyone agree the 50's level would do more harm than good?

You just repeated the Ace argument.

403 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:25:20pm

re: #400 Aceofwhat?

no, it was an upper bound. a place to find agreement, from which to explore where we disagreed.

i don't understand this insistence that i not be taken at my word.

I reject your uppoer bound. 150% for people over 250k, or nothing.

(Seriously, setting the upper bound at the maximum meaningful value is the very definition of an absurd argument)

404 recusancy  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:25:30pm

I like that for once, here, we're having an actual discussion about domestic policies. It almost got thrown off course by the shiny object in Egypt but it got back on track.

405 jamesfirecat  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:25:57pm

re: #392 Rightwingconspirator

Okay those of you who advocate higher income taxes-I'll presume you all want the Bush tax cuts removed.
What about the Reagan income tax cut?
How many want the Kennedy income tax cut removed, go back to that late 50's level of personal income taxation?

Would anyone agree the 50's level would do more harm than good?

I'll agree to that.

At the moment I want to see the creation of a new tax bracket for people making more than a 10 million dollars and tax it at a 42% rate.

Lets do that and see how revenues react before we worry about doing anything else. (Though of course before we do that we should focus on closing all obvious tax loopholes)

406 Aceofwhat?  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:26:19pm

re: #399 Fozzie Bear

I'm not interested in God's opinion, or the tooth fairy or Santa, for that matter. Have you ever wondered where all those productivity gains from the past 30 years went? Has it ever occurred to you to wonder?

Productivity? Huh? Not following.

407 jamesfirecat  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:27:28pm

re: #395 sattv4u2

You're right (and the "lowering of 3%" was about individuals, not corporations)

As I stated upthread, I would lower corp rates even lower

I would make them close to if not THE lowest on the planet

Still won't bring businesses back to America what with how our workers want a minimum wage and a benefits.

Do you honestly think that we can make it cheaper to run a business hear than anywhere else in the world?

408 Varek Raith  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:28:26pm

re: #407 jamesfirecat

Still won't bring businesses back to America what with how our workers want a minimum wage and a benefits.

Do you honestly think that we can make it cheaper to run a business hear than anywhere else in the world?

Don't forget all those pesky safety laws and environmental regulations they don't have to follow in, say, China.

409 jamesfirecat  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:28:47pm

re: #400 Aceofwhat?

no, it was an upper bound. a place to find agreement, from which to explore where we disagreed.

i don't understand this insistence that i not be taken at my word.

Then maybe you should have phrased it as a suggestion rather than a question.

410 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:28:52pm

re: #406 Aceofwhat?

Productivity? Huh? Not following.

Are you aware that use-value (not monetary exchange value, but rather actual usable value) per unit of labor has increased several thousand percent in the past century, and several dozen percent in the past 30 years? Has the standard of living of laborers increased similarly? (the answer is no)

Do you understand why?

411 Daniel Ballard  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:28:59pm

re: #405 jamesfirecat

Define "loophole" Or are we to have no more tax break incentives to push money where we want it to go? A tax break related to hiring new people or equipment for expansion might not be a loophole.

412 Aceofwhat?  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:29:09pm

re: #401 b_sharp

You have to be pretty convinced lowering taxes for the top 'whatever'% will directly improve the countries economy. What information, what empirical evidence do you have that gives you that confidence. Keep in mind that observed evidence is more convincing than hypothesis and/or philosophy.

as i've said before, i'd have taken the Simpson-Bowles compromises en masse.

413 Kragar  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:29:29pm

Irony Alert:

Single mother Bristol Palin earned $262,500 as the face of abstinence

414 recusancy  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:30:12pm

re: #411 Rightwingconspirator

Define "loophole" Or are we to have no more tax break incentives to push money where we want it to go? A tax break related to hiring new people or equipment for expansion might not be a loophole.

Yeah I don't like the broad talk about "loopholes" as well. It means nothing unless you get to specifics.

415 sattv4u2  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:30:15pm

re: #396 Killgore Trout

Ah, the Murdoch owned WSJ. I bet there's a bogus Rassmussen poll you could link to as well.

re: #396 Killgore Trout

Ah, the Murdoch owned WSJ. I bet there's a bogus Rassmussen poll you could link to as well.


from the article


The Partnership for New York City, comprised of business leaders, says the state’s “Millionaire’s Tax” has forced some of the state’s most valuable earners and tax-payers to other states.

Is The Partnership for New York City tied to Murdoch also?

416 Mocking Jay  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:31:05pm

re: #413 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Irony Alert:

Single mother Bristol Palin earned $262,500 as the face of abstinence

The Palins could sell ice to an Eskimo. Hell, they probably already have.

417 sattv4u2  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:31:33pm

re: #398 recusancy

We're already among the 10 lowest on the planet.

So we still have a way to go!

418 Buck  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:31:34pm

re: #413 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Irony Alert:

Single mother Bristol Palin earned $262,500 as the face of abstinence

Dancing all the way to the bank.

419 jamesfirecat  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:31:41pm

re: #411 Rightwingconspirator

Define "loophole" Or are we to have no more tax break incentives to push money where we want it to go? A tax break related to hiring new people or equipment for expansion might not be a loophole.

First of all though its not really a "loop hole" lets get rid of subsidies to companies that are turning large profits (Oil industry looking at you)

Then lets investigate how GM can make several billion in profit and pay no taxes, something tells me we're going to find some tax loop holes in the process.

So you're right what might be one man's tax loop hole is another man's valid economic incentive, in which case we might want to cap the maximum amount of tax credits a company can get in a year relative to their total profit...

420 recusancy  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:32:26pm

re: #415 sattv4u2

re: #396 Killgore Trout

from the article


The Partnership for New York City, comprised of business leaders, says the state’s “Millionaire’s Tax” has forced some of the state’s most valuable earners and tax-payers to other states.

Is The Partnership for New York City tied to Murdoch also?

Partnership for New York City is an American investment fund whose president and CEO is Kathy Wylde.[1] Nine of its board members are billionaires including Rupert Murdoch.[2

421 b_sharp  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:33:06pm

re: #400 Aceofwhat?

no, it was an upper bound. a place to find agreement, from which to explore where we disagreed.

i don't understand this insistence that i not be taken at my word.

Perhaps this was posted before I saw your upper bound comment?
Did you determine an upper bound?

422 Buck  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:33:13pm

re: #419 jamesfirecat

Then lets investigate how GM can make several billion in profit and pay no taxes, something tells me we're going to find some tax loop holes in the process.

I think it was GE, but hey don't stop you are on a roll.

424 jamesfirecat  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:33:59pm

re: #422 Buck

I think it was GE, but hey don't stop you are on a roll.

Damn straight I am!

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

425 sattv4u2  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:34:36pm

re: #420 recusancy

Partnership for New York City is an American investment fund whose president and CEO is Kathy Wylde.[1] Nine of its board members are billionaires including Rupert Murdoch.[2

wonder who the other 8 are?

AND ,, how does any of that alter the fact that rich people fed NYC due to taxes

426 blueraven  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:34:40pm

re: #378 sattv4u2

or not

[Link: online.wsj.com...]

First of all, you cited NY and NJ. Then you come up with a lame ass opinion piece about Maryland in the WSJ that contains no facts or sources.

427 Winny Spencer  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:35:02pm

re: #424 jamesfirecat

Damn straight I am!

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

I LOL:ed.

Later.

428 Killgore Trout  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:35:24pm

re: #415 sattv4u2

re: #396 Killgore Trout

from the article


The Partnership for New York City, comprised of business leaders, says the state’s “Millionaire’s Tax” has forced some of the state’s most valuable earners and tax-payers to other states.

Is The Partnership for New York City tied to Murdoch also?

Since you asked: Partnership for New York City


Directors:
K. Rupert Murdoch -
429 Killgore Trout  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:35:51pm

re: #423 Varek Raith

Image: roflcopter-54627.jpg

lol

430 Daniel Ballard  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:36:03pm

re: #402 b_sharp

Kind of. What if we got rid of the Reagan era cuts? Would that help or hurt the economy?

432 Killgore Trout  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:37:16pm

re: #425 sattv4u2

AND ,, how does any of that alter the fact that rich people fed NYC due to taxes


Who's living in all those multimillion dollar apartments around Central Park?

433 jamesfirecat  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:37:47pm

re: #432 Killgore Trout

Who's living in all those multimillion dollar apartments around Central Park?

Welfare hobos?

434 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:38:27pm

re: #430 Rightwingconspirator

Kind of. What if we got rid of the Reagan era cuts? Would that help or hurt the economy?

If you define the economy's health as the ability of capital to maximize profit on investments, then it would hurt the economy.

If, however, you define the economy's health as the ability for any individual laborer to afford the products and services they need to thrive, then it would help.

A huge part of the problem here is that we aren't all talking about the same thing.

435 sattv4u2  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:39:05pm

re: #432 Killgore Trout

Who's living in all those multimillion dollar apartments around Central Park?

The ones that are now selling/ renting/ leasing for a fraction of what they were 5 years ago?

436 Daniel Ballard  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:39:30pm

re: #434 Fozzie Bear

Labor does well in an expanding economy, in a declining economy, not so much.

437 Aceofwhat?  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:40:14pm

re: #410 Fozzie Bear

Are you aware that use-value (not monetary exchange value, but rather actual usable value) per unit of labor has increased several thousand percent in the past century, and several dozen percent in the past 30 years? Has the standard of living of laborers increased similarly? (the answer is no)

Do you understand why?

So there's an incentive to become more than just a laborer? I'm down with that. Evolution is good. Don't go creationist on me...

438 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:40:55pm

re: #435 sattv4u2

The ones that are now selling/ renting/ leasing for a fraction of what they were 5 years ago?

Yes, those. (This is a perfect example of people mistaking use-value for exchange-value. One could just as easily make the argument that the value of the tenants' dollars increased as a result of this change.)

439 Varek Raith  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:41:01pm

re: #437 Aceofwhat?

So there's an incentive to become more than just a laborer? I'm down with that. Evolution is good. Don't go creationist on me...

Huh, I thought the free market was supposed to compensate workers for their, you know, HARD WORK???

440 lawhawk  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:41:02pm

re: #426 blueraven

It is undeniable that the Wall Street meltdown blew a huge hole in the NYC and NYS budgets in the past couple of years, and to a lesser extent NJ and CT budgets. The massive loss of revenues resulted in huge budget shortfalls for various NY and NYC taxes - that are primarily paid by the big Wall Street firms and those in their employ. It includes various taxes on stock transactions, as well as personal income taxes on the wealthy - both before and after the NYS surcharge kicked in.

Without that revenue, the city and state were forced to look elsewhere for revenues - and that included finding ways to raise taxes and fees to widen the tax base on which the government operates. It also forced the city to reduce spending; NYS should have reduced spending, but instead used stimulus transfer payments to ease the blow (but still increased state spending over the prior year).

441 Our Precious Bodily Fluids  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:41:23pm

re: #277 Varek Raith

NASA: Piece of space junk not a threat to station crew

Space debris map
Space debris map 2

all I've been able to think about today thanks to this story

Youtube Video
442 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:41:40pm

re: #437 Aceofwhat?

So there's an incentive to become more than just a laborer? I'm down with that. Evolution is good. Don't go creationist on me...

Do you believe that capital creates wealth directly, or that wealth is created via production and services?

443 recusancy  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:42:35pm

re: #437 Aceofwhat?

That's pretty damn insulting to laborers. One might even call it elitist.

444 Killgore Trout  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:43:21pm

re: #435 sattv4u2

The ones that are now selling/ renting/ leasing for a fraction of what they were 5 years ago?

WSJ sez.,...
New York Has the Most Millionaires

Here are the tallies of millionaires for the top 10, along with the percentage growth:

New York – 667,200, +18.7%

Los Angeles – 235,800, +13.3%

Chicago – 198,100, +15.1%

Washington, D.C. – 152,400 +19.3%

San Francisco – 138,300 +14.5%

Philadelphia – 104,100, +20.1%

Boston – 102,300, + 14.4%

Detroit – 89,100, +12.1%

Houston –- 88,200, +28.9%

San Jose — 86,500, +24.5%


The number of millionaires in New York is increasing. That's quite a feat in such a bad economy.

445 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:43:22pm

re: #443 recusancy

That's pretty damn insulting to laborers. One might even call it elitist.

It also reveals that he understands that capital doesn't actually produce anything.

446 jamesfirecat  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:43:40pm

re: #437 Aceofwhat?

So there's an incentive to become more than just a laborer? I'm down with that. Evolution is good. Don't go creationist on me...

The incentive might be there... but do you know anything about how easy it is for everyone to do it (I don't off the top of my head I'll admit)? Would you support government programs to help people who can't afford to move beyond being hand to mouth laborers?

447 Killgore Trout  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:44:31pm

re: #444 Killgore Trout

WSJ sez.,...
New York Has the Most Millionaires


The number of millionaires in New York is increasing. That's quite a feat in such a bad economy.

Look at those cities on the list. Why do millionaires love liberal cities so much?

448 moderatelyradicalliberal  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:44:37pm

re: #218 RogueOne

Why is it only one parties responsibility? Do the dems have no part in any of this? If we agree that we have to raise taxes and cut spending then why aren't you holding the dems responsible for putting neither of those proposals on paper?

This is just a guess because I'm not sure the Democrats are this smart, but here goes. Pretty much any proposal to reform the social safety net and defends spending will be unpopular enough with enough people to be problematic. I think the Democrats (meaning the POTUS) waited until the GOP showed their hand first because they didn't trust the GOP not to tear apart their proposals like they usually do. Noe they are in a position to put forward their own proposal with some things that would normally be unpopular, but preferable to what they GOP is proposing. For example, means testing and raising the age when a person is eligible for SS and Medicare as opposed to the GOP's plan to give them a "voucher" to go hunting for insurance on the private market which totally undercuts the idea of a "safety net". Another example would be raising taxes on the rich to Clinton era levels(which a majority of Americans are in favor of) instead of the GOP plan to reduce rates on the rich from 35% to 25% in exchange for getting rid of loop holes that most people don't even understand. Also they could included Sec. Gates' plan for reducing defense spending and keeping the draw down for Afghanistan on schedule.

The Democrats (and again. I'm not sure they are this smart) could put together a plan with a lot of ideas that would be unpopular if theirs was the only plan out there. But in comparison to the GOP plan to rip apart the social safety net and privatize it, these ideas would be much more preferable to most Americans IMHO.

449 b_sharp  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:45:52pm

re: #412 Aceofwhat?

as i've said before, i'd have taken the Simpson-Bowles compromises en masse.

That isn't exactly what I asked. I asked what evidence exists that the primary thrust of Simpson-Bowles would work.

450 Aceofwhat?  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:46:10pm

re: #421 b_sharp

Perhaps this was posted before I saw your upper bound comment?
Did you determine an upper bound?

yes, engineer dog said he wouldn't go back to Eisenhower rates. so we had a place to work from.

i have this habit of trying to find a place to start from with someone, and then inch along until we figure out exactly where we disagree. i always thought it was a nice way to have a chat.

451 Kragar  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:46:56pm

re: #447 Killgore Trout

Look at those cities on the list. Why do millionaires love liberal cities so much?

Hookers and blow.

452 jamesfirecat  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:47:44pm

re: #451 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Hookers and blow.

Bathroom stalls big enough that a man can really stretch out his legs when he sits down.

453 Aceofwhat?  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:47:59pm

re: #443 recusancy

That's pretty damn insulting to laborers. One might even call it elitist.

and yet in the same breath you'll bemoan the state of our education. color me puzzled.

and it's not an insult. there is pride to be taken in an honest day's work.

454 blueraven  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:48:06pm

re: #444 Killgore Trout

WSJ sez.,...
New York Has the Most Millionaires


The number of millionaires in New York is increasing. That's quite a feat in such a bad economy.

Especially impressive amid such a "Mass Exodus"

455 recusancy  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:48:35pm

re: #453 Aceofwhat?

and yet in the same breath you'll bemoan the state of our education. color me puzzled.

and it's not an insult. there is pride to be taken in an honest day's work.

What??

456 jamesfirecat  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:49:13pm

re: #453 Aceofwhat?

there is pride to be taken in an honest day's work.

Pride, and an incentive to get out of that sucker's game as soon as possible.

457 moderatelyradicalliberal  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:49:19pm

Also too, on the Ryan Plan. Cutting taxes for the top 2% and social services/programs for the bottom 98% is not very popular in places were these kinds of budget plans have been passed by the GOP at the state level. OH, WI, MI and FL to name a few.

458 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:49:31pm

re: #453 Aceofwhat?

and yet in the same breath you'll bemoan the state of our education. color me puzzled.

and it's not an insult. there is pride to be taken in an honest day's work.

Pride sure, but if they ask for increases in pay which are consistent with increases in productivity, they are being greedy. /

459 recusancy  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:49:36pm

re: #453 Aceofwhat?

and it's not an insult. there is pride to be taken in an honest day's work.

It's an insult to say "just laborers" and imply they are not "evolved".

460 Killgore Trout  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:51:55pm

re: #454 blueraven

Especially impressive amid such a "Mass Exodus"

Correlation and causation: Millionaires love to be taxed!
/Exodus!

461 moderatelyradicalliberal  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:52:36pm

re: #447 Killgore Trout

Look at those cities on the list. Why do millionaires love liberal cities so much?

Because they are elitist snobs who don't want to live around the rubes who keep voting for politicians who think giving them tax cuts is the most important job of the federal government?

462 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:52:46pm

re: #459 recusancy

It's an insult to say "just laborers" and imply they are not "evolved".

There is an implied feeling that "work is for suckers", and that the ultimate goal is to escape the need for labor by investing accumulated capital, and reaping profits from the investment.

And people say we are a classless society, even while making arguments that absolutely depend on a working class too poor to live on investments. Otherwise, why can't we all just move little green pieces of paper around, and somehow, that will make cars for us and grow food?

463 Linden Arden  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:54:10pm

re: #231 Charles

The Iraq War costs about $200 million every single day. The total cost is estimated to be somewhere around $2 TRILLION dollars.

If you don't think that has a huge effect on the deficit, you're dreaming.

Or, 1/7 of our total accumulated debt as of 2011.

Or, 1/5 of the public debt (public = all Treasuries owned by individuals, funds, and other countries).

464 b_sharp  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:54:49pm

re: #430 Rightwingconspirator

Kind of. What if we got rid of the Reagan era cuts? Would that help or hurt the economy?

Are we discussing the deficit, the overall economy, some combination or do we assume they're one and the same?

The deficit would be helped by increasing income and decreasing spending, the economy is a chaotic system affected by both domestic and international events. The former can be affected by changes to policy more than the latter.

465 recusancy  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:55:05pm

re: #460 Killgore Trout

Correlation and causation: Millionaires love to be taxed!
/Exodus!

I noticed he's been quite after being shown actual factual statistics. If only how we felt was always the truth.

466 b_sharp  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:57:09pm

I have to start my 2 hour trip home, just as the convo gets really interesting.
BBL

467 Charles Johnson  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:57:09pm

re: #334 lawhawk

The headline may be hyperbole, but the text does tend to support it - when it claims that he would support joint Arab defense agreements and stand against Israel's aggression against Gaza.

That would run counter to the Camp David Accords, and it would further support that he's trying to curry favor with the Islamists and those Egyptians who want to end the CDA. It also posits that he values supporting Hamas over continuing peace with Israel.

I'd say that it is extremely troublesome.

I agree - it is troublesome. However, there's a big difference between saying he would support Arab defense agreements, and saying he would "declare war on Israel." If he didn't actually say those words (and so far I haven't seen any indication that he did), then this story is a blatant exaggeration.

Again, I wouldn't be surprised if he DID say this, but I also wouldn't be surprised if the story has been distorted.

468 Varek Raith  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:57:12pm

re: #460 Killgore Trout

Correlation and causation: Millionaires love to be taxed!
/Exodus!

Of course!
They love the public services provided in larger cities.
;)

469 Killgore Trout  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:57:15pm

re: #465 recusancy

I noticed he's been quite after being shown actual factual statistics. If only how we felt was always the truth.

It's a problem. Fiscal conservatives are armed with bogus talking points. I'm a reformed fiscal conservative but I eventually figured out it's a hoax. The plight of the wealthy is one of the biggest lies among many.

470 Our Precious Bodily Fluids  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:57:35pm

re: #458 Fozzie Bear

Pride sure, but if they ask for increases in pay which are consistent with increases in productivity, they are being greedy. /

A million people making $25 an hour have a far greater positive impact on the economy than one guy making $25 million an hour. And any time I've ever listened to an employer explain why they have to cut staff, never once has anyone said anything about their taxes. They never say, "maybe if our taxes go down, we can hire more people". They always say, "maybe if the demand for our goods and services increases, we can hire more people." Supply-side economics can kiss my ass (for a price).

471 blueraven  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:57:39pm

re: #453 Aceofwhat?

and yet in the same breath you'll bemoan the state of our education. color me puzzled.

and it's not an insult. there is pride to be taken in an honest day's work.

Oh good grief, we need both. We need trained plumbers, electricians, carpenters, mechanics and yes, every day laborers.
Some will be more suited to, and happier doing this work.

We also need science, math, business, sociology, teachers, doctors, lawyers...
Though they might not be able to change a spark plug, or plant a crop.

Diversity is good.

472 Linden Arden  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:57:41pm

re: #444 Killgore Trout

And which city has the most billionaires?

Seventy-nine of Russia's billionaires live in Moscow. New York has only 58.

473 Killgore Trout  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 1:59:00pm

re: #472 Linden Arden

And which city has the most billionaires?

Seventy-nine of Russia's billionaires live in Moscow. New York has only 58.

Damn, I never would have guessed that.

474 CuriousLurker  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 2:00:08pm

Drive-by comment - Speaking of the budget, i have a hard time wrapping my head around some of the ginormous numbers that get thrown around. This illustration of the "Budget Pie" came across the Twitter wire last night and clarified things for me pretty darned well:

Image: RAMclrfnl-040511-pie.jpg

475 recusancy  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 2:00:11pm

Damn. There's a lot of billionaires in the world.

476 Kragar  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 2:01:16pm

re: #469 Killgore Trout

It's a problem. Fiscal conservatives are armed with bogus talking points. I'm a reformed fiscal conservative but I eventually figured out it's a hoax. The plight of the wealthy is one of the biggest lies among many.

How dare you make light of the rich man's burden?

"Hey! You call this slop? Real slop has got chunks in it! This is more like gruel! And this Château le Blanc '68 is supposed to be served slightly chilled! This is room temperature! What do you think we are, animals?"

477 iossarian  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 2:02:20pm

re: #475 recusancy

Damn. There's a lot of billionaires in the world.

They are that rich because they are a lot more hard-working than you and I.

We deserve our lowly fate.

On that note, I'm off to joyfully re-apply my nose to the grindstone.

478 moderatelyradicalliberal  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 2:02:21pm

re: #475 recusancy

Damn. There's a lot of billionaires in the world.

The world is full of money, it's just most of us will see very little of it in our lifetimes. But we can't talk about how wealth is distributed because that's socialism or something.

479 Killgore Trout  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 2:03:03pm

re: #476 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Baby You're a Rich Man

Youtube Video
480 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 2:05:30pm

re: #478 moderatelyradicalliberal

The world is full of money, it's just most of us will see very little of it in our lifetimes. But we can't talk about how wealth is distributed because that's socialism or something.

And absolutely, under no circumstances, should we ever attempt to delve too deep into thinking about what money actually is, lest we be forced to re-examine our most basic assumptions about labor and capital.

481 HappyWarrior  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 2:06:46pm

Saying I've heard: "When I gave to the poor, they called me a saint but when I asked why are they poor, they called me a Communist." I think its origins are in Latin America but I've always liked that since it's true. Outside hardcore Ayn Rand fans, people who give to the poor are lauded but if you ask why income disaprites exist, you get labeled with the "S" or ""C word.

482 Linden Arden  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 2:07:09pm

re: #478 moderatelyradicalliberal

But a remarkable number of them took the Billionaire's Pledge recently (to give the bulk of their money away to the public after death).


I find that most of the Fuck Everyone Else rhetoric comes from social conservatives who despise secular progress.

483 moderatelyradicalliberal  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 2:07:28pm

re: #480 Fozzie Bear

And absolutely, under no circumstances, should we ever attempt to delve too deep into thinking about what money actually is, lest we be forced to re-examine our most basic assumptions about labor and capital.

One of the funniest lines in True Blood is when the red headed vampire queen referred to money and human morals as "imaginary".

484 moderatelyradicalliberal  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 2:09:29pm

re: #481 HappyWarrior

Saying I've heard: "When I gave to the poor, they called me a saint but when I asked why are they poor, they called me a Communist." I think its origins are in Latin America but I've always liked that since it's true. Outside hardcore Ayn Rand fans, people who give to the poor are lauded but if you ask why income disaprites exist, you get labeled with the "S" or ""C word.

On that point, someone else once said that charity is a wonderful thing, but it's no substitute for GDP.

485 moderatelyradicalliberal  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 2:10:47pm

re: #482 Linden Arden

But a remarkable number of them took the Billionaire's Pledge recently (to give the bulk of their money away to the public after death).

I find that most of the Fuck Everyone Else rhetoric comes from social conservatives who despise secular progress.

Yeah, but those Warren Buffet/Bill Gates types are kinda liberal or something so they don't count. They advocated for paying more taxes, for goodness sake.

486 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 2:11:02pm

Ok, it's 5:15, so I have been free to leave work for 15 minutes now, and I never even noticed.

Have a good night everybody. I hope sometime we can have another good conversation about why fiscal conservatism (as conceived in American politics anyway) is intellectually and morally bankrupt. This is a fascinating topic, and incredibly important, imo.

The lies we choose to believe reveal as much about us as the truths we discover.

487 Daniel Ballard  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 2:12:41pm

re: #464 b_sharp

I mean would the economy grow or shrink, as in GDP as a result?

488 prairiefire  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 2:13:30pm

re: #486 Fozzie Bear

"The lies we choose to believe reveal as much about us as the truths we discover."

Have a good night.

489 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 2:16:54pm

re: #333 darthstar

Peter King got a letter!

Oh, GREAT.

Meanwhile, Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Council on American Islamic Relations and a frequent King critic, said his group often receives pig-themed hate mail.

For some reason, this cracks me up, although I've worked for agencies where we get hate mail, and it's never fun.

490 prairiefire  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 2:18:28pm

It looks like the shut down might really happen. This will be interesting.

491 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 2:18:50pm

re: #348 justaminute

Did you know that all the wealthy fled the US during the Clinton administration? The Obama tax proposals are going to make them all move, where are they going? Thirty thousand more and my husband I are almost there at the increase. If we're moving, I need to pack.

The wealthy are always just about to leave, and whoever's candidate lost the last election is always about to leave, but mostly they don't.

492 moderatelyradicalliberal  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 2:20:53pm

re: #490 prairiefire

It looks like the shut down might really happen. This will be interesting.

What better way for the GOP to remind people of the importance of government and the services it provides than to deprive them of them? This is why shutdowns produce a backlash against the GOP.

493 goddamnedfrank  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 2:21:13pm

re: #485 moderatelyradicalliberal

Yeah, but those Warren Buffet/Bill Gates types are kinda liberal or something so they don't count. They advocated for paying more taxes, for goodness sake.

What the fuck do they know anyway, having earned the vast majority of their wealth on their own. They didn't earn their money the old fashioned way, by inheriting it.

494 HappyWarrior  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 2:21:14pm

re: #484 moderatelyradicalliberal

On that point, someone else once said that charity is a wonderful thing, but it's no substitute for GDP.

Never heard that one before. What I tire of honestly is people who act like it's somehow wrong to question why some individuals are worth billions of dollars and why others live well below the poverty line.

495 Kragar  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 2:21:34pm

re: #491 SanFranciscoZionist

The wealthy are always just about to leave, and whoever's candidate lost the last election is always about to leave, but mostly they don't.

I swear if you guys rip on me 13 or 14 more times... I'm outta here!

496 moderatelyradicalliberal  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 2:22:10pm

re: #491 SanFranciscoZionist

The wealthy are always just about to leave, and whoever's candidate lost the last election is always about to leave, but mostly they don't.

Any country that's worth fleeing to is really socialist anyway so they may as well stay here.

497 Kragar  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 2:23:52pm

re: #494 HappyWarrior

Never heard that one before. What I tire of honestly is people who act like it's somehow wrong to question why some individuals are worth billions of dollars and why others live well below the poverty line.

I continually wonder why the ability to throw a ball equates to being a multimillionaire.

498 moderatelyradicalliberal  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 2:25:16pm

re: #494 HappyWarrior

Never heard that one before. What I tire of honestly is people who act like it's somehow wrong to question why some individuals are worth billions of dollars and why others live well below the poverty line.

Americans are adverse to talking about class, or at least we have been for the last 30 years. I think you can talk about the way that wealth has been so dramatically shifted upward over the last 30 years without being accuses of being a commie.

499 Obdicut  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 2:25:35pm

re: #493 goddamnedfrank

What the fuck do they know anyway, having earned the vast majority of their wealth on their own. They didn't earn their money the old fashioned way, by inheriting it.

Too many things GOP people say these days sounds like its from the Onion. That dude is actually celebrating inheriting money without having worked in the least?

What an asshole.

500 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 2:27:42pm

re: #413 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Irony Alert:

Single mother Bristol Palin earned $262,500 as the face of abstinence

Well, we all gotta have a hobby.

501 HappyWarrior  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 2:27:47pm

re: #497 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

I continually wonder why the ability to throw a ball equates to being a multimillionaire.

Ha, I used to be a little league pitcher myself. I have a baseball book copyright 1980 and there are numerous interviews with Hall of Famers now deceased who were around the same age of Babe Ruth and many of these guys were in awe when it came to guys like Nolan Ryan being millionaires. And bear in mind that in 1980 that Ryan had only recently became baseball's first player to get an annual salary of 1 million plus. Now the average salary is somewhere between 2-3 million. Backup catchers & relief pitchers make more money than the superstars of the past generation. I've also read that many players in the offseason had to have second jobs.

502 zora  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 2:29:08pm

OT: daily show segment on jews who don't want orthodox jews to have an eruv around west hampton beach.

Comedy Central Video
503 BongCrodny  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 2:30:00pm

To be fair, it is the Pentagon, so they're probably spending $43 per photocopy.

/snark

504 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 2:30:46pm

re: #447 Killgore Trout

Look at those cities on the list. Why do millionaires love liberal cities so much?

Well, it can't be our high taxes and vicious class warfare, so I suppose they're here for the symphony.

505 HappyWarrior  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 2:31:30pm

re: #498 moderatelyradicalliberal

Americans are adverse to talking about class, or at least we have been for the last 30 years. I think you can talk about the way that wealth has been so dramatically shifted upward over the last 30 years without being accuses of being a commie.

I have no idea how it was before but it just seems there exists a mentality that thinks we shouldn't question economic inequalities in our own country. It's frustrating since I've researched and written on poverty in places like Appalachia and it's frankly mindnumbing to see people with that level of income and then see millionaires bitch abotu their taxes. Not saying tax increases are always necessary but I do get annoyed with people whose livelihoods won't be hurt by tax hikes acting like a tax hike is the second coming of Soviet Russia.

506 Killgore Trout  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 2:32:55pm

re: #504 SanFranciscoZionist

Well, it can't be our high taxes and vicious class warfare, so I suppose they're here for the symphony.

Socialism!

507 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 2:33:37pm

re: #496 moderatelyradicalliberal

Any country that's worth fleeing to is really socialist anyway so they may as well stay here.

It's a pity, that.

508 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 2:34:28pm

re: #502 zora

OT: daily show segment on jews who don't want orthodox jews to have an eruv around west hampton beach.

[Link: www.thedailyshow.com...]

Oy. I'll watch later. People who get their panties in a twist about eruvs irritate me.

509 jaunte  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 2:34:30pm

re: #447 Killgore Trout

Their aren't as many people in the country to see ones high status.

510 jaunte  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 2:34:43pm

There.. pimf

511 BongCrodny  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 2:34:47pm

re: #444 Killgore Trout

WSJ sez.,...
New York Has the Most Millionaires


The number of millionaires in New York is increasing. That's quite a feat in such a bad economy.

Houston –- 88,200, +28.9%


Oil is recession-proof.

512 Kragar  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 2:36:19pm

I talked to some of the military people we have in our office. They've all switched their windows themes to "High Contrast White" so they'll use less color when operating their computers.

513 moderatelyradicalliberal  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 2:42:29pm

re: #507 SanFranciscoZionist

It's a pity, that.

I had a wingnut classmate who said that he would move to Costa Rica is Obama won because he was a "socialist". So I told him that he wouldn't like it there because they have universal health care, they all speak Spanish and their president is brown with a funny name. He never said anything to me again, I wonder why?

514 moderatelyradicalliberal  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 2:44:03pm

re: #502 zora

OT: daily show segment on jews who don't want orthodox jews to have an eruv around west hampton beach.

[Link: www.thedailyshow.com...]

Would this be considered Jew on Jew crime? Oy vey!

515 wrenchwench  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 2:44:36pm

re: #502 zora

OT: daily show segment on jews who don't want orthodox jews to have an eruv around west hampton beach.

[Link: www.thedailyshow.com...]

That guy's mood ring looks like a violation of something... not to mention the glasses he's twirling around.

516 HappyWarrior  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 2:45:57pm

re: #513 moderatelyradicalliberal

I had a wingnut classmate who said that he would move to Costa Rica is Obama won because he was a "socialist". So I told him that he wouldn't like it there because they have universal health care, they all speak Spanish and their president is brown with a funny name. He never said anything to me again, I wonder why?

Your classmate is Limbaugh? Heh just joking around. I remember reading a screed about Obama's health care plan by some wingnut. Guy basically said he'd take his bags and move to Germany because I guess he assumed because Angela Merkel was a member of Germany's right of center party, that meant Germany did not have the welfare state anymore.

517 zora  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 2:46:02pm

re: #514 moderatelyradicalliberal

no crimes. just alot a huffing and puffing about what amounts to fishing line encircling the area and located above existing utility lines. it's virtually invisible.

518 Renaissance_Man  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 3:00:24pm

re: #362 Fozzie Bear

That won't apply to federal taxes, unless you are suggesting a mass exodus of people from the US will occur. (In which case I say good riddance, we can replace you with Mexicans)

Apparently, as we've already been told in this thread, we tax our rich more than Europe does. Which would mean that our rich should already be fleeing to Europe. Depriving us of the producers.

519 SidewaysQuark  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 3:43:16pm

re: #86 b_sharp


Are you currently a wave or a particle?

Hey SWQuark.

I'm both, as always, and have "color" myself. :-)

520 Achilles Tang  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 3:55:11pm

re: #490 prairiefire

It looks like the shut down might really happen. This will be interesting.

Buy some Chinese stocks as an alternative to gold.

521 kirkspencer  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 3:55:53pm

re: #497 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

I continually wonder why the ability to throw a ball equates to being a multimillionaire.

Because the guy paying him to throw a ball will get billions from others who want to see him throw a ball.

Seriously. Millions will pay hundreds of dollars to see that guy throw a ball. That money is either going to end up in someone's pocket - why shouldn't some of it end up in the pocket of the guy they're all paying to see?

(It's the willlingness to pay the money in the first place that boggles me, but Wadda Ino?)

522 Achilles Tang  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 4:19:52pm

re: #518 Renaissance_Man

Apparently, as we've already been told in this thread, we tax our rich more than Europe does. Which would mean that our rich should already be fleeing to Europe. Depriving us of the producers.

No we haven't been told that. It has been slyly suggested.

The maximum personal tax rate in the USA is 28%. In Sweden, for example, it is something like 48%, yet the top 10% of wealthy people in the USA pay considerably more of the total tax than the top 10% do in Sweden, or any European country.

In fact the USA personal tax rate is lower than ALL European countries by a big margin.

Why is that?

It is because the rich have accumulate control of more of the national wealth in the USA than in other countries and the poor are poorer than in other countries.

523 Sheila Broflovski  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 4:39:55pm

re: #502 zora

OT: daily show segment on jews who don't want orthodox jews to have an eruv around west hampton beach.

[Link: www.thedailyshow.com...]

That's awesome!

524 Tsuga  Tue, Apr 5, 2011 9:56:45pm

What will the Republicans do when future reality fails to conform to their magical thinking even after they fully implement their policies? They'll blame sabotage by liberals. Something along the lines of: 'Our patriotic, pro-freedom policies would have restored prosperity and freedom to America, but the liberals don't want Americans to be prosperous or free so they sabotaged our policies.'

You'll see news stories on Fox where they will quote politicians or anonymous "critics" as saying just that, without any need for logic or documentation. The rank and file conservatives will just lap it up because the allegation will totally conform to how they have been trained to view their opponents.

Mark my words.

525 Spocomptonite  Wed, Apr 6, 2011 10:28:05am

re: #38 Naso Tang

What really puzzles me in this is that usually political directions tend to look for votes down the road. Now, I understand that the GOP has the big money votes and contributions, but for now we still have one person one vote.

Does it not seem to anyone else that just about every GOP action hurts one group or another, except the big money (corporate or otherwise)?

I don't know the statistics on this, but it sure seems to me that the GOP is making more enemies than friends overall. They aren't stupid when it comes to strategy at least, so what am I missing here?

The rampant populism via the Tea Party that government=bad, social programs=SOCIALISTIC COMMUNISTIC STALINISM, and unregulated capitalism is the answer to everything.

With viewpoints like that, it's easy to reach the conclusion that things like the EPA and DSHS is out to enslave us all, but big corporations are the good guys looking out for us all.

On that note, I'd like to deplore the state of education in this country... or the state of the people's ability in this country to be educated, I'm not sure which.


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 Good Liars at Miami Trump Rally [VIDEO] Jason and Davram talk with Trump supporters about art, Mike Lindell, who is really president and more! SUPPORT US: herohero.co SEE THE GOOD LIARS LIVE!LOS ANGELES, CA squadup.com SUBSCRIBE TO OUR AUDIO PODCAST:Apple Podcasts: podcasts.apple.comSpotify: open.spotify.comJoin this channel to ...
teleskiguy
3 weeks ago
Views: 737 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0