Romney just cemented the Romney just cemented the votes of some of the people that were going to vote for him anyway, will lose some by choosing the creator of “ending medicare as we know it”, and at best may have guaranteed no more than a 50/50 split of undecided voters. A not very bold move for a candidate losing traction. Shot his wad before the convention.
spdrun
August 11, 2012 @
7:58 AM
F**k both running packs of F**k both running packs of assholes. I’m writing in Hillary Clinton’s name.
svelte
August 11, 2012 @
9:08 AM
SK in CV wrote:A not very [quote=SK in CV]A not very bold move for a candidate losing traction. Shot his wad before the convention.[/quote]
That right there tells you he is slipping. Otherwise he would have waited for the convention.
SK in CV
August 11, 2012 @
9:32 AM
svelte wrote:SK in CV wrote:A [quote=svelte][quote=SK in CV]A not very bold move for a candidate losing traction. Shot his wad before the convention.[/quote]
That right there tells you he is slipping. Otherwise he would have waited for the convention.[/quote]
Right, but it’s not the whole story. Romney was stuck between a rock and a hard place. The news cycle has just killed him for the last 3 weeks. The only news for him was bad. The only two issues being discussed were his taxes and unfounded accusations that a woman’s death was the result of what he did at Bain capital. (and before that, his disasterous trip.) Both were brilliant politics on the part of the Democrats. Both extreme claims that keep Romney looking bad in the news. His only choice was to change the news. Naming his VP running mate changes the news. It may stop the bleeding temporarily. But it doesn’t change the landscape.
paramount
August 11, 2012 @
10:51 AM
I’m a political atheist, but I’m a political atheist, but it seems clear to me that O is going to win fairly easily.
Romney’s vp choice was great for O, but Romney was losing anyway
And this despite the fact that O has been actively destroying liberty and freedom, expanded an occupation war and lied about lots of campaign promises.
svelte
August 11, 2012 @
11:13 AM
paramount wrote:And this [quote=paramount]And this despite the fact that O has been actively destroying liberty and freedom, expanded an occupation war and lied about lots of campaign promises.[/quote]
Perhaps they sense both sides aren’t completely honest when discussing what they can realistically accomplish, so the “liar” point is a wash.
Romney says he would reduce or eliminate many taxes. He would extend the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts, reduce individual income tax rates by 1/5 across the board, eliminate dividend and capital gains taxes, end the estate tax, repeal AMT.
Romney hasn’t said how he would accomplish this without making the deficit worse – probably because it is mathematically impossible, according to Bloomberg.
And after the last 12 months, we know for sure that reducing the deficit is a top priority with Republicans, don’t we? 🙂 Keep that in mind, because I predict that if Romney does win, the Reps will have a memory lapse on that point.
paramount
August 11, 2012 @
6:27 PM
svelte wrote:
Perhaps they [quote=svelte]
Perhaps they sense both sides aren’t completely honest when discussing what they can realistically accomplish, so the “liar” point is a wash.
[/quote]
A liar is a liar is a liar regardless of the context.
Perhaps they sense both sides aren’t completely honest when discussing what they can realistically accomplish, so the “liar” point is a wash.
[/quote]
A liar is a liar is a liar regardless of the context.[/quote]
??
Odd statement.
Anonymous
August 12, 2012 @
4:59 AM
I find it amusing that so I find it amusing that so many lefties are already calling the election for Obama based on the news they get from… wait for it… the left-wing media, which provides most of the news you see in this country.
NBC,CBS, ABC, CNN, NYT, Boston Globe, LA Times, San Fran whatever…: Obama rooters to a fault.
As a recovering Liberal, I am voting for Romney. We cannot tax our way to prosperity, and if it comes down to extremes, which lefties always think it does, I’d rather live in a country run by the rich than one run by the poor.
The poor are not more noble, dignified or honest than the rich. They just have less money.
briansd1
August 12, 2012 @
8:14 AM
Brutus wrote:
The poor are [quote=Brutus]
The poor are not more noble, dignified or honest than the rich. They just have less money.[/quote]
Yes the poor have less money. I just feel pity for the poor riff-raffs of the red states who vote for Romney. They are poor and stupid at the same time.
Anonymous
August 13, 2012 @
4:44 AM
Wow. I guess they just don’t Wow. I guess they just don’t know how stupid they are. Ignorance is bliss huh?
But then, that wouldn’t explain me. I don’t live in a red state and never have.
My wife and I both have Masters degrees.
I’m self-employed.
I was once a Liberal, when being a Liberal meant standing up for liberty, not killing the goose to dig out the last golden egg.
I believe that what’s good for me and what’s good for the country as a whole can often be different things. I vote for what I believe is good for the USA, not just my own self-interest.
And I believe that the people who pay most of the taxes should get to run the country, not the people who pay no taxes.
If I had my way, people who paid no Federal income tax would not be allowed to vote in Federal elections, and people who paid no State income tax would not be allowed to vote in State elections.
Poor people are generally too stupid to vote for anything but their own narrow self-interest.
CA renter
August 13, 2012 @
5:20 AM
Brutus wrote:Wow. I guess [quote=Brutus]Wow. I guess they just don’t know how stupid they are. Ignorance is bliss huh?
But then, that wouldn’t explain me. I don’t live in a red state and never have.
My wife and I both have Masters degrees.
I’m self-employed.
I was once a Liberal, when being a Liberal meant standing up for liberty, not killing the goose to dig out the last golden egg.
I believe that what’s good for me and what’s good for the country as a whole can often be different things. I vote for what I believe is good for the USA, not just my own self-interest.
And I believe that the people who pay most of the taxes should get to run the country, not the people who pay no taxes.
If I had my way, people who paid no Federal income tax would not be allowed to vote in Federal elections, and people who paid no State income tax would not be allowed to vote in State elections.
Poor people are generally too stupid to vote for anything but their own narrow self-interest.[/quote]
And I believe that the people who work (LABOR) and create the value that is then taxed — and which creates the capitalists’ “capital” in the first place — should be the only ones who run the country.
svelte
August 13, 2012 @
6:35 AM
Brutus wrote:
I was once a [quote=Brutus]
I was once a Liberal, when being a Liberal meant standing up for liberty, not killing the goose to dig out the last golden egg.
I believe that what’s good for me and what’s good for the country as a whole can often be different things. I vote for what I believe is good for the USA, not just my own self-interest.
[/quote]
With you 100% here. I feel the same way. I’m amazed at how I can predict how someone will vote based on how the vote will best serve them. It gets me angry, really.
[quote=Brutus]
And I believe that the people who pay most of the taxes should get to run the country, not the people who pay no taxes.
If I had my way, people who paid no Federal income tax would not be allowed to vote in Federal elections, and people who paid no State income tax would not be allowed to vote in State elections.
Poor people are generally too stupid to vote for anything but their own narrow self-interest.[/quote]
Wow. You’ve went off the deep end here. Rich does not equate to smart and it especially doesn’t equate to being fair and just in their outlook.
There are a number of very intelligent people who are poor. They don’t consider wealth a high priority in the grand scheme of things. And they just might be right.
Anonymous
August 14, 2012 @
4:25 AM
CA renter wrote:Brutus [quote=CA renter][quote=Brutus]Wow. I guess they just don’t know how stupid they are. Ignorance is bliss huh?
But then, that wouldn’t explain me. I don’t live in a red state and never have.
My wife and I both have Masters degrees.
I’m self-employed.
I was once a Liberal, when being a Liberal meant standing up for liberty, not killing the goose to dig out the last golden egg.
I believe that what’s good for me and what’s good for the country as a whole can often be different things. I vote for what I believe is good for the USA, not just my own self-interest.
And I believe that the people who pay most of the taxes should get to run the country, not the people who pay no taxes.
If I had my way, people who paid no Federal income tax would not be allowed to vote in Federal elections, and people who paid no State income tax would not be allowed to vote in State elections.
Poor people are generally too stupid to vote for anything but their own narrow self-interest.[/quote]
And I believe that the people who work (LABOR) and create the value that is then taxed — and which creates the capitalists’ “capital” in the first place — should be the only ones who run the country.[/quote]
Oh, great! A country run by the least educated and motivated. We already had a country like that. It was called the USSR.
Didn’t work then. Won’t work now.
As we have seen in the USSR, Cuba, Cambodia, N. Korea, and revolutionary China, the tyranny of the communists is much worse than the tyranny of the capitalists.
The capitalists just want your money.
The Communists demand that you surrender your soul.
CA renter
August 15, 2012 @
1:05 AM
Brutus wrote:CA renter [quote=Brutus][quote=CA renter][quote=Brutus]Wow. I guess they just don’t know how stupid they are. Ignorance is bliss huh?
But then, that wouldn’t explain me. I don’t live in a red state and never have.
My wife and I both have Masters degrees.
I’m self-employed.
I was once a Liberal, when being a Liberal meant standing up for liberty, not killing the goose to dig out the last golden egg.
I believe that what’s good for me and what’s good for the country as a whole can often be different things. I vote for what I believe is good for the USA, not just my own self-interest.
And I believe that the people who pay most of the taxes should get to run the country, not the people who pay no taxes.
If I had my way, people who paid no Federal income tax would not be allowed to vote in Federal elections, and people who paid no State income tax would not be allowed to vote in State elections.
Poor people are generally too stupid to vote for anything but their own narrow self-interest.[/quote]
And I believe that the people who work (LABOR) and create the value that is then taxed — and which creates the capitalists’ “capital” in the first place — should be the only ones who run the country.[/quote]
Oh, great! A country run by the least educated and motivated. We already had a country like that. It was called the USSR.
Didn’t work then. Won’t work now.
As we have seen in the USSR, Cuba, Cambodia, N. Korea, and revolutionary China, the tyranny of the communists is much worse than the tyranny of the capitalists.
The capitalists just want your money.
The Communists demand that you surrender your soul.[/quote]
Those countries were not run by workers, but by corrupt oligarchs. These oligarchs will destroy any economy; whether they go by “communist” or “capitalist” labels, it doesn’t matter one bit.
Corruption is what destroys countries and economies, and this level of corruption can only happen when money/power is so heavily concentrated into too few hands.
no_such_reality
August 15, 2012 @
8:42 AM
CA renter wrote:
Those [quote=CA renter]
Those countries were not run by workers, but by corrupt oligarchs. These oligarchs will destroy any economy; whether they go by “communist” or “capitalist” labels, it doesn’t matter one bit.
Corruption is what destroys countries and economies, and this level of corruption can only happen when money/power is so heavily concentrated into too few hands.[/quote]
This is true. But it requires one more piece. Ignorance.
And frankly, our country is becoming more and more ignorant and misinformed.
The Presidential campaign seems to sink to a new low every day on the misinformation, distortion and fear mongering level on both sides.
Corruption is steadily increasing and it’s well disguised. Let’s be honest, the High Speed Rail plan pushed through is about who’s going to make money.
Now get your baksheesh campaign contributions out.
briansd1
August 15, 2012 @
2:04 PM
Finally, we have a national Finally, we have a national leader who walks the walk.
But I was told by a reliable source that a straight man who cares that much about his body fat is a closet homosexual.[/quote]
LOL, brian … ;=D The first video was quite telling. I guess we’ll all have to use our imaginations on what PR looks like shirtless because he only seems to wear one that matches the nominee (if they appear together, that is)!
I’ve heard of that exercise program and took a couple of classes once of a similar exercise class. They are indeed hard to get through.
I’m sure PR is right. The P90X program WORKS! He used to work as a personal trainer so he should KNOW, right??
If your “reliable source” was this forum, brian, I would advise you to take it with a grain of salt. There’s nothing wrong with a male (or female) who is concerned about their body-fat percentage and keeping themselves in shape. The world would be a lot simpler (AND cheaper) place to live in if more people had these concerns.
Maybe I should change my answer in this poll to “Brilliant Choice.” I saw PR and “Mittens” (Allan’s reference) together on 60 Minutes Sunday in their matching blue-check shirts and thought Mitt’s choice of young-energetic-stud PR will infuse his campaign with as much excitement as he could ever hope for (at nearly the 11th hour). And it seems to be working now that Google is flooded with searches for topless PR, nude PR, photoshopped PR, cartoon-character PR and P90X. Maybe he will inspire more Gen Y’s to lay off the Doritos and get healthier!
Thanks for sharing, brian :=]
edit: I want to suggest to PR that he now take 20 mins out of the “campaign trail” to get himself a couple of syringes of Botox. It did wonders early on for Obama when he entered office looking “stressed” from his own campaign … and he seems to be keeping it up on a regular basis, now 🙂
Anonymous
August 15, 2012 @
3:31 PM
no_such_reality wrote:And [quote=no_such_reality]And frankly, our country is becoming more and more ignorant and misinformed.
[/quote]
Whaddaya mean? There’s quite a lot of people that have taken up an interest in history and the Constitution these days:
Brutus wrote:Wow. I guess [quote=Brutus]Wow. I guess they just don’t know how stupid they are. Ignorance is bliss huh?
But then, that wouldn’t explain me. I don’t live in a red state and never have.
My wife and I both have Masters degrees.
I’m self-employed.
I was once a Liberal, when being a Liberal meant standing up for liberty, not killing the goose to dig out the last golden egg.
I believe that what’s good for me and what’s good for the country as a whole can often be different things. I vote for what I believe is good for the USA, not just my own self-interest.
And I believe that the people who pay most of the taxes should get to run the country, not the people who pay no taxes.
If I had my way, people who paid no Federal income tax would not be allowed to vote in Federal elections, and people who paid no State income tax would not be allowed to vote in State elections.
Poor people are generally too stupid to vote for anything but their own narrow self-interest.[/quote]
People that pay the most taxes, aka the 1%, already rule by proxy. You just want to make it de jure. Ok, understood.
Actually, most of the poor can’t even vote for narrow self interest. They get swayed by by contrived issue of the day. For example, a poor white family in the Central Valley who depends on Medicare and benefits from illegal driven agricultural economy will vote against Medicare and the Dream Act.
If the poor who do not pay taxes can’t vote, the 1% can’t get elected.
briansd1
August 13, 2012 @
10:00 AM
ocrenter wrote:
Actually, [quote=ocrenter]
Actually, most of the poor can’t even vote for narrow self interest. They get swayed by by contrived issue of the day. For example, a poor white family in the Central Valley who depends on Medicare and benefits from illegal driven agricultural economy will vote against Medicare and the Dream Act.
If the poor who do not pay taxes can’t vote, the 1% can’t get elected.[/quote]
Well said, ocrenter. I’m going to steal your last sentence and use it later. 😉
Brutus is a little confused.
In reality, as a agregrate, Democrats tend to be more well-to-do, better educated than Republicans. Want the data? All we need to to is look at an election map. After the elections, we can look at the election map and drill down by county.
I personally know some people who don’t have health insurance but are vociforously anti Obama-Care.
On guy was around 60, and had a heart attack before he could qualify for Medicare at 65. He had to liquidate assets to pay for medical bills. He moved from La Jolla to Florida. Serves him right.
In America, the choices are stark when it comes to Medical expenses: 1) Either you don’t have assets and go to the emergency room when you get sick. Then you can default on your medical debt. 2) You get medical insurance out of pocket or through an employer.
As far as Nancy Pelosi, Al Gore, John Kerry being very rich, that’s all the better. Who says, you can’t be liberal and filthy rich? I admire rich liberals (like Warren Buffet, Steve Bezos, Hollywood and Silicon Valley executives) who would raise taxes on themselves much more than rich selfish conservatives.
afx114
August 13, 2012 @
10:01 AM
Wait, aren’t “Right wing of Wait, aren’t “Right wing of GOP has Mitt by the balls” and “Liberals are celebrating” the same answer?
an
August 13, 2012 @
10:46 AM
afx114 wrote:Wait, aren’t [quote=afx114]Wait, aren’t “Right wing of GOP has Mitt by the balls” and “Liberals are celebrating” the same answer?[/quote]
I think with Ryan as VP, everyone is happy. Both Liberal and Conservatives are happy by the nomination.
ocrenter
August 13, 2012 @
10:48 AM
AN wrote:afx114 wrote:Wait, [quote=AN][quote=afx114]Wait, aren’t “Right wing of GOP has Mitt by the balls” and “Liberals are celebrating” the same answer?[/quote]
I think with Ryan as VP, everyone is happy. Both Liberal and Conservatives are happy by the nomination.[/quote]
Finally, first the first time, everybody agrees! =)
an
August 13, 2012 @
10:56 AM
ocrenter wrote:AN [quote=ocrenter][quote=AN][quote=afx114]Wait, aren’t “Right wing of GOP has Mitt by the balls” and “Liberals are celebrating” the same answer?[/quote]
I think with Ryan as VP, everyone is happy. Both Liberal and Conservatives are happy by the nomination.[/quote]
Finally, first the first time, everybody agrees! =)[/quote]
Maybe there will be peace on earth for at least 2 more months :-D.
briansd1
August 13, 2012 @
10:56 AM
I don’t think that moderate I don’t think that moderate Republicans are happy with the Ryan pick. They would probably have preferred Huntsman or Portman.
The Tea Party is happy because they now control the agenda. Their hard work paid off.
ocrenter
August 13, 2012 @
11:53 AM
briansd1 wrote:I don’t think [quote=briansd1]I don’t think that moderate Republicans are happy with the Ryan pick. They would probably have preferred Huntsman or Portman.
The Tea Party is happy because they now control the agenda. Their hard work paid off.[/quote]
the moderate Republicans do not matter, they lost their party years ago. Plus Washington is run by the extremists anyway.
Anonymous
August 14, 2012 @
4:16 AM
Yeah. Sure. They’d “raise Yeah. Sure. They’d “raise taxes on themselves” then get their lawyers and accountants to figure out how to avoid paying those taxes. Just Like John Kerry did when he parked his new yacht in RI.
I despise rich Liberals, rich socialists, and rich Communists (pretty much the same thing).
SK in CV
August 12, 2012 @
8:59 AM
Brutus wrote:I find it [quote=Brutus]I find it amusing that so many lefties are already calling the election for Obama based on the news they get from… wait for it… the left-wing media, which provides most of the news you see in this country.
NBC,CBS, ABC, CNN, NYT, Boston Globe, LA Times, San Fran whatever…: Obama rooters to a fault.
As a recovering Liberal, I am voting for Romney. We cannot tax our way to prosperity, and if it comes down to extremes, which lefties always think it does, I’d rather live in a country run by the rich than one run by the poor.
The poor are not more noble, dignified or honest than the rich. They just have less money.[/quote]
First, I’m not a lefty, I’m quite comfortable with capitalism, and I’m not calling the election. We’re still almost 90 days out, and a lot of things can change.
Interesting analysis of media bias in election coverage can be found here:
The data from the polling aggregators is pretty clear. Romney had a very bad few weeks and has dropped in the polls to trail by about 4% in the popular vote. They only way anyone can argue those numbers are biased is if Rasmussen is the only reliable polling outfit. And they’re not.
But worse for Romney, the state polling paints a very difficult path for him to win the election. As each week passes, those numbers firm up, and changing direction is difficult. Again, it’s not impossible, but the campaign is now down to a small handful of states, and Obama is leading in all but one of them.
Related to your comment that “we cannot tax our way to prosperity”, you’re right. And it makes for a good sound bite. But of course it’s a straw man argument. Nobody has ever made the argument that we can.
zk
August 12, 2012 @
9:38 AM
SK in CV wrote:
Interesting [quote=SK in CV]
Interesting analysis of media bias in election coverage can be found here:
The invention and propagation of the “liberal media” myth is the greatest political ploy of all time. Absolute genius on the part of the right-wing noise machine. The fact is that most people get most of their political information from the media. And if you can convince people that the media is biased against you, you can convince them that any news coverage of anything your side does that is lame/wrong/horrible has more to do with the media than anything that your side has done. And you can convince them the same about any favorable coverage of the other side.
Extremely powerful and absolutely brilliant.
SK in CV
August 12, 2012 @
9:46 AM
zk wrote:SK in CV [quote=zk][quote=SK in CV]
Interesting analysis of media bias in election coverage can be found here:
The invention and propagation of the “liberal media” myth is the greatest political ploy of all time. Absolute genius on the part of the right-wing noise machine. The fact is that most people get most of their political information from the media. And if you can convince people that the media is biased against you, you can convince them that any news coverage of anything your side does that is lame/wrong/horrible has more to do with the media than anything that your side has done. And you can convince them the same about any favorable coverage of the other side.
Extremely powerful and absolutely brilliant.[/quote]
The bias in media is towards incompetence. They rarely call lies, lies, because they’re too busy looking at their notes for the next question, without listening to what’s being said. When they do listen, they’re rarely well enough informed to know the truth. And they constantly search for equivalence when there is none. It’s not a pretty picture.
zk
August 12, 2012 @
9:56 AM
SK in CV wrote:
The bias in [quote=SK in CV]
The bias in media is towards incompetence. They rarely call lies, lies, because they’re too busy looking at their notes for the next question, without listening to what’s being said. When they do listen, they’re rarely well enough informed to know the truth. And they constantly search for equivalence when there is none. It’s not a pretty picture.[/quote]
Concur. I used to figure (up til my mid-twenties) that what I read in the paper was pretty much accurate. By my mid-twenties I had learned enough about the field that I’m in to know when errors were being made. And I was shocked and appalled when I saw that they were inaccurate as often as accurate. So, obviously, I have to figure the same applies to other fields about which I know little or nothing.
SK in CV
August 12, 2012 @
10:47 AM
zk wrote:
Concur. I used to [quote=zk]
Concur. I used to figure (up til my mid-twenties) that what I read in the paper was pretty much accurate. By my mid-twenties I had learned enough about the field that I’m in to know when errors were being made. And I was shocked and appalled when I saw that they were inaccurate as often as accurate. So, obviously, I have to figure the same applies to other fields about which I know little or nothing.[/quote]
Very astute observation. (i say that, maybe because it’s an observation I’ve made myself.) The breadth of subjects that I’m qualified to spot errors is pretty narrow, but they happen, in all news media, so often that it makes me question just about everything else I read. (I think that’s pretty much the same thing you said.) So it requires curiosity to verify or dispute things that just don’t sound right. Critical thinking skills are essential.
ocrenter
August 12, 2012 @
10:42 AM
zk wrote:SK in CV [quote=zk][quote=SK in CV]
Interesting analysis of media bias in election coverage can be found here:
The invention and propagation of the “liberal media” myth is the greatest political ploy of all time. Absolute genius on the part of the right-wing noise machine. The fact is that most people get most of their political information from the media. And if you can convince people that the media is biased against you, you can convince them that any news coverage of anything your side does that is lame/wrong/horrible has more to do with the media than anything that your side has done. And you can convince them the same about any favorable coverage of the other side.
Extremely powerful and absolutely brilliant.[/quote]
Through out history, evil doers also came up with plenty of false trumped up charges to justify their actions.
–The 18th century drug cartel, the British East India Company, in the name of free trade, forced China open so they can freely push their opium.
–the Spanish Missionaries, in the name of God and fighting against devil worship, destroyed the entirety of the Mayan written language.
–the Japanese, in the name protecting a Japanese owned railway against terrorist attacks, invaded and occupied Manchuria.
–the Germans, in the name of protecting discriminated ethnic Germans in Sudetenland, invaded czechoslovakia.
The list can go on and on.
Creating a story of overwhelming media bias against the Right and the Conservatives justifies the creation of the propaganda machine AKA FOX News. Now we see the Union Tribune going down the same path. These “news outlets” are no better than the good old People’s Daily and XinHua news agency from China.
dumbrenter
August 12, 2012 @
11:21 PM
ocrenter wrote:
–the [quote=ocrenter]
–the Germans, in the name of protecting discriminated ethnic Germans in Sudetenland, invaded czechoslovakia.
Creating a story of overwhelming media bias against the Right and the Conservatives justifies the creation of the propaganda machine AKA FOX News. Now we see the Union Tribune going down the same path. These “news outlets” are no better than the good old People’s Daily and XinHua news agency from China.[/quote]
While I agree with what you said, may I point out at the risk of thread going OT and at at the risk of being labeled you-know-what, that the ethnic Germans in the above case did have a genuine grievance? It was not “made up” of any sort as cited by your other examples.
Ethnic germans being discriminated against in eastern europe and being caught in the wave of ethnicity based nationalism is very similar to the situation of Kurds being split up across 4 or 5 states today.
ocrenter
August 13, 2012 @
6:39 AM
dumbrenter wrote:
While I [quote=dumbrenter]
While I agree with what you said, may I point out at the risk of thread going OT and at at the risk of being labeled you-know-what, that the ethnic Germans in the above case did have a genuine grievance? It was not “made up” of any sort as cited by your other examples.
Ethnic germans being discriminated against in eastern europe and being caught in the wave of ethnicity based nationalism is very similar to the situation of Kurds being split up across 4 or 5 states today.[/quote]
Point taken. While ethnic Germans did have legit grievance, the Nazis did take advantage of it as the pretext for an invasion. And in the end, the Germans were systematically cleansed from CZ. Which was probably what the Czechs wanted all along.
Every Democrat candidate wants to raise taxes, as if that one thing is the cure-all for every problem. They want to raise taxes on tobacco, the rich, hotel rooms, restaurants, DMV fees and on and on until it makes you sick.
But, like the “Honorable” Senator John Kerry, they will do whatever they can get away with to avoid paying the taxes they VOTED for.
Remember the nice, expensive, new yacht John Kerry parked in RI to avoid the taxes he would have had to pay by bringing it into Massachusetts? Is there a situation that is more illustrative of the Democratic mentality than THAT?
Is there, ANYWHERE, a Democrat that votes in lock-step with his Liberal constituents more than John Kerry? Is he the perfect definition of a hypocrite?
Yes, he is. Just like the rest of his fellow travelers. A rich, Brahmin holier-than-thou hypocrite.
He is disgusting.
Other than that, I have no opinions on the subject of Liberal hypocrisy.
EmilyHicks
August 12, 2012 @
11:36 AM
I also agree with you that I also agree with you that cutting spendings should be first priority. I also hated the bloated government but I think Obama is the far less evil than Romney/Ryan. The tax rate for the rich has fallen dramatically over the last 30 years to about 15% now. Mitt paid 14% last two years and probably far less for the previous years which why he refused to release his tax records. On the other hand, most middle class and upper middle class professionals pay well over 20% rates.
The tax cuts have disproportionately favored the rich. For example, if your income is $100 mil and you get a 5% tax cut, you saved $5 mil. If your income is $100,000 you saved $5k. However, with less government revenue the dramatic reduction of services in k-12, colleges, parks, libraries, Social Security, Medicare affected the middle class much more. The middle class ended up paying out of pocket more than the $5k that he/she saved in taxes through activity fees in k-12, higher college tuition, park fees, less Social Security received, high medical cost and dmv fees…etc. While the rich will most likely keep their $5 mil saved because they are much less likely to use these services.
The gap between rich and poor are ever widening and voting Rommney and Ryan will only make it worst. A strong country needs a strong middle class and a small income gap between the super rich and the middle class.
[quote=Brutus]
As a recovering Liberal, I am voting for Romney. We cannot tax our way to prosperity, and if it comes down to extremes, which lefties always think it does, I’d rather live in a country run by the rich than one run by the poor.
quote]
an
August 12, 2012 @
12:16 PM
EmilyHicks wrote:On the other [quote=EmilyHicks]On the other hand, most middle class and upper middle class professionals pay well over 20% rates.[/quote]
Really? I’ve NEVER paid >15% effective rate since I start working. Over the last few years after I bought my house, my effective rates were anywhere between 6-9%. The only way I can see you paying well over 20% effective rate is if you’re in the 28 or 33%, have 0 deduction and put your retirement in Roth 401k instead of traditional.
briansd1
August 12, 2012 @
12:43 PM
For better or for worse, the For better or for worse, the Tea Party has gained control of the Republican party.
It’s definitely a move by Romney to strenghten this ticket’s appeal with the Tea Party.
Good Economist article on the subject. Obama has recently outspent Romney on ad’s over 3-to-1 ($38m to $10m) to gain momentum. But that will soon change as Romney gets access to the war chest of cash after the convention.
Anyone (like Ryan) that has ideas to take on that “gigantic money sucking black hole entitlement program Asteroid” quickly headed for earth (called Medicare/Medicaid, that represents a huge chunk of the U.S. deficit), has some of my interest.
Good Economist article on the subject. Obama has recently outspent Romney on ad’s over 3-to-1 ($38m to $10m) to gain momentum. But that will soon change as Romney gets access to the war chest of cash after the convention.
Anyone (like Ryan) that has ideas to take on that “gigantic money sucking black hole entitlement program Asteroid” quickly headed for earth (called Medicare/Medicaid, that represents a huge chunk of the U.S. deficit), has some of my interest.[/quote]
Any $5 trillion over 10 year spending proposal (disguised as tax cut) also has some of my interest, as should yours.
livinincali
August 13, 2012 @
8:19 AM
AN wrote:EmilyHicks wrote:On [quote=AN][quote=EmilyHicks]On the other hand, most middle class and upper middle class professionals pay well over 20% rates.[/quote]
Really? I’ve NEVER paid >15% effective rate since I start working. Over the last few years after I bought my house, my effective rates were anywhere between 6-9%. The only way I can see you paying well over 20% effective rate is if you’re in the 28 or 33%, have 0 deduction and put your retirement in Roth 401k instead of traditional.[/quote]
Depends on what you include in your tax rate. Do you include or exclude California Income tax? Do you include or exclude Social Security Taxes? Do you include property taxes or exclude them? What about Sales Taxes? That’s the problem with measuring effective tax rates in our complex tax system. You can get your federal income effective tax rate pretty low but you’re probably paying taxes somewhere else to do it.
Federal by itself is probably around 15-20% for upper middle class with few deductions, but add in CA income and Social Security and you easily get over 20%.
an
August 13, 2012 @
9:12 AM
livinincali wrote:Depends on [quote=livinincali]Depends on what you include in your tax rate. Do you include or exclude California Income tax? Do you include or exclude Social Security Taxes? Do you include property taxes or exclude them? What about Sales Taxes? That’s the problem with measuring effective tax rates in our complex tax system. You can get your federal income effective tax rate pretty low but you’re probably paying taxes somewhere else to do it.
Federal by itself is probably around 15-20% for upper middle class with few deductions, but add in CA income and Social Security and you easily get over 20%.[/quote]
I didn’t add anything. Just straight up federal tax rate. I agree our tax code is complex. The richer you are, the more opportunity you have to take more deduction. I agree with you that our tax system is complex and set up in a way that richer people can take more deduction and pay less effective tax rate. But that’s what happen when you have all sorts of deductions and a very complex tax code. This is why I in full support of simplifying our tax code. Removing a lot of the deductions to “widen the base and lower the rates”. WRT to comparing capital gain vs ordinary income, over the last 60+ years, there were only two years where capital gain tax was equal to ordinary income tax. That was when Reagan slashes ordinary income rate to be equal capital gains rate. Not raises capital gains rate to match ordinary income rate.
What would you consider as upper middle class? Why would upper middle class people not take advantages of the various deductions? Someone who are in the upper middle class obviously have the opportunity to take numerous deductions. If one chooses to pay more taxes by not taking deduction, then that’s their choice. It’s not like you can’t. This is why people call the tax code as a mean for social engineering. If you’re fighting the government and not do what they want you to do, then, of course you’ll pay more. However, you don’t have to. Talking about using the tax code as a tool for social engineering, one example is why long term capital gains is taxed at a lower rate than short term capital gains.
livinincali
August 13, 2012 @
12:49 PM
AN wrote:livinincali [quote=AN][quote=livinincali]Depends on what you include in your tax rate. Do you include or exclude California Income tax? Do you include or exclude Social Security Taxes? Do you include property taxes or exclude them? What about Sales Taxes? That’s the problem with measuring effective tax rates in our complex tax system. You can get your federal income effective tax rate pretty low but you’re probably paying taxes somewhere else to do it.
Federal by itself is probably around 15-20% for upper middle class with few deductions, but add in CA income and Social Security and you easily get over 20%.[/quote]
What would you consider as upper middle class? Why would upper middle class people not take advantages of the various deductions? Someone who are in the upper middle class obviously have the opportunity to take numerous deductions. If one chooses to pay more taxes by not taking deduction, then that’s their choice. It’s not like you can’t. This is why people call the tax code as a mean for social engineering. If you’re fighting the government and not do what they want you to do, then, of course you’ll pay more. However, you don’t have to. Talking about using the tax code as a tool for social engineering, one example is why long term capital gains is taxed at a lower rate than short term capital gains.[/quote]
I’d consider upper middle class as the top 25% by income. I don’t buy the “$200K is barely middle class in San Fran, New York, etc.”. That’s a choice and the expectations are just different. Middle class in general has changed dramatically over the years. Middle class was once 1 car, maybe a couple TVs with an antenna on the roof, a home phone and maybe a computer. Now it’s flat screen TVs in every room, Cell Phones for everybody in the family, internet service provider, cable providers, multiple cars, etc. A lot more stuff and the costs associated with that stuff. The question becomes is our life really all that better with that stuff.
As for why don’t you take advantage of tax deductions, usually most tax advantages come with a significant cost. If I bought a house at the peak of the bubble my federal tax rate is pretty low but I’m not better off financially because of it. I know the government wants us to have children, get married, buy homes, and dump our money into the stock market, but I’m not going to rush into those major decision just to get a tax break. I feel bad for people that do.
briansd1
August 13, 2012 @
1:12 PM
livinincali wrote: I’d [quote=livinincali] I’d consider upper middle class as the top 25% by income.
[/quote]
That’s a pretty good definition.
Middle-class has always been a nebulous term.
In England, middle-class are professionals, and business people, but not nobility.
[quote=livinincali]
As for why don’t you take advantage of tax deductions, usually most tax advantages come with a significant cost. [/quote]
Yes, better to have neither expense nor deduction.
Anonymous
August 14, 2012 @
4:34 AM
Here’s an interesting article Here’s an interesting article on charity:
Even I gave more (on less income) to charity the Joe Biden, the self-righteous LIBERAL.
Typical hypocrisy, but what did you expect?[/quote]
Question for you, Brutus: Do you think there’s more hypocrisy among liberal politicians than among conservative ones?[/quote]
[quote=Brutus]
(swirling wind)
[/quote]
Good call not falling for that trap, Brutus. Unfortunately for you, mindless, Rush-Limbaughesque trashing of the other side doesn’t fly if your audience isn’t a bunch of dittoheads.
Anonymous
August 16, 2012 @
10:33 AM
zk wrote:zk wrote:Brutus [quote=zk][quote=zk][quote=Brutus]Here’s an interesting article on charity:
Even I gave more (on less income) to charity the Joe Biden, the self-righteous LIBERAL.
Typical hypocrisy, but what did you expect?[/quote]
Question for you, Brutus: Do you think there’s more hypocrisy among liberal politicians than among conservative ones?[/quote]
[quote=Brutus]
(swirling wind)
[/quote]
Good call not falling for that trap, Brutus. Unfortunately for you, mindless, Rush-Limbaughesque trashing of the other side doesn’t fly if your audience isn’t a bunch of dittoheads.[/quote]
To the question above, I say:
Yes. But it’s a close race…
briansd1
August 16, 2012 @
10:59 AM
Close? Not even. It will be Close? Not even. It will be landslide for Obama especially in electoral votes.
The left and democrats missed it, but Chik-fil-a shows that even in California, the political right is motivated. The left, is demoralized.[/quote]
Going to Chik-fil-a is not necessarily a sign of being motivated, nor is not going a sign that you’re demoralized.
To me, going to Chik-fil-a is an easy way to voice your homophobia without having to defend it to those who would discuss it with you.
And you’re right, I missed it. What was it that showed the left is demoralized?
Anonymous
August 16, 2012 @
3:36 PM
zk wrote:Going to Chik-fil-a [quote=zk]Going to Chik-fil-a is not necessarily a sign of being motivated, nor is not going a sign that you’re demoralized.[/quote]
Yeah, people are trying to make way to much out of that thing.
Probably more a sign that one is hungry than anything else.
[quote]To me, going to Chik-fil-a is an easy way to voice your homophobia without having to defend it to those who would discuss it with you.[/quote]
That’s it. It’s about being part of a group so that you don’t have to stick out your neck as an individual. The Klan is based on the same approach.
The fact that the “the left” didn’t try very hard to stop anyone from going to a chicken restaurant for lunch really doesn’t tell us anything.
I don’t consider myself part of “the left” – just ask me about public pensions. But I do believe gays should be allowed to marry, I think there is overwhelming momentum in that direction, and I don’t think anyone eating a chicken sandwich is going to change that.
That’s why I stayed home. Not demoralized, just disinterested in an embarrassing display of hate.
svelte
August 16, 2012 @
3:42 PM
harvey wrote:
That’s why I [quote=harvey]
That’s why I stayed home. Not demoralized, just disinterested in an embarrassing display of hate.[/quote]
+1
briansd1
August 16, 2012 @
3:49 PM
What about the the kiss-in at What about the the kiss-in at Chik-fil-a?
If I were selling a product, I would not mess with gays. They will boycott for a long time.
All the corporations that voiced homophobia in the past have caved and made amends. It’s only a matter of time. I predict a Chik-fil-a float at the Gay parade in the future just like you have Coors and Target. If they want to grow beyond the Bible belt, they will have to do a 180.
Is there a Chik-fil-a in SD? I don’t even remember seeing one.
But Chik-fil-a is small potatoes compared to the “real capitalists” of the tech sector. Jeff Bezos just donated big bucks to support gay marriage.
The left and democrats missed it, but Chik-fil-a shows that even in California, the political right is motivated. The left, is demoralized.[/quote]
Going to Chik-fil-a is not necessarily a sign of being motivated, nor is not going a sign that you’re demoralized.
To me, going to Chik-fil-a is an easy way to voice your homophobia without having to defend it to those who would discuss it with you.
And you’re right, I missed it. What was it that showed the left is demoralized?[/quote]
Chik-fil-A is a sign of how awesome free advertising is for a business. Boycotts don’t work in part because once a boycott makes news, it just reminds people over and over again about that business. And although I don’t like their politics, Chik-Fil-A makes damn tasty food.
The left is *relatively* demoralized compared to 2008. There’s an enthusiasm gap, and new voter registrations for young voters are no where near what they were in ’08. But the electoral map is just ugly for Romney. Demographics just haven’t been kind to the Republicans nationally, and it’s starting to really show. If you use a 5% polling advantage as a cut-off, Obama currently has 243 safe electoral votes of the needed 270. (Romney has 191). If Obama wins FL, he wins, period. Romney has no route to the White House that doesn’t go through Ohio and Florida. The nice thing is we should know pretty early in the night if Obama will win. If he wins VA *or* NC, it’s over. If Obama wins Ohio it’s probably over too. Florida is notoriously slow in their results.
Mitt’s biggest hope now is a spending blitz, but it’s mid-August and a lot of voters have made up their minds. Barring a huge economic downswing in the next 4 months, Obama should smoothly sail back into the White House (although he may only pull ~51% of the popular vote). The Dems may lose the Senate though, which would make for at least 2 years of gridlock.
briansd1
August 17, 2012 @
10:04 PM
Chik-fil-a ought to study Chik-fil-a ought to study Coors Brewing, a company that is well-studied in business school. I studied that case myself.
The Coors family was well known for supporting anti-gay causes. They had to reverse course and actively court the gay community.
Boycotts do work. Once a company builds a bad reputation, it’s very hard to shake. There are good reasons for corporations to be progressive. Hence, plenty of companies support the gay parade, BofA, Wells Fargo, etc…
For example, Jeff Bezos of Amazon donating big bucks to support gay marriage is viewed as positive. Chik-fil-a faces the problem with being labeled archaic in popular culture and that’s not good for growth.
briansd1
August 17, 2012 @
10:32 PM
poorgradstudent wrote:
The [quote=poorgradstudent]
The left is *relatively* demoralized compared to 2008. There’s an enthusiasm gap, and new voter registrations for young voters are no where near what they were in ’08.
[/quote]
Demoralized is the wrong word. Yes, the left is less enthusiastic, but only because 2008 was special. We are now back to normal Democrat vs Republican politics.
[quote=poorgradstudent]
But the electoral map is just ugly for Romney. Demographics just haven’t been kind to the Republicans nationally, and it’s starting to really show.
[/quote]
We are well into the Internet Age. The “real capitalists” are the Internet billionaires.
In the minds of young voters, Republican ideas are old and archaic, especially the focus on guns, god and gays. Those archaic ideas are turning off educated young voters.
I would challenge conservatives to talk to their college educated friends and relatives to see what the prevailing attitudes towards gays is. Contrast that to the hateful rhetoric of right-wing Republicans.
Lifestyle wise, there is increasing urbanization. The suburbs will be fine, but any city of significance, even in the South, now has urban renewal and downtown living.
As a Democrat, I’d take the White House anytime instead of Congress. Congress with go back and forth between Democrats and Republicans. But a White House permanently painted blue would be just be too awesome.
I think that I’ll be a happy camper in the next few decades. But time will tell…
CA renter
August 19, 2012 @
1:10 AM
briansd1 [quote=briansd1][quote=poorgradstudent]
The left is *relatively* demoralized compared to 2008. There’s an enthusiasm gap, and new voter registrations for young voters are no where near what they were in ’08.
[/quote]
Demoralized is the wrong word. Yes, the left is less enthusiastic, but only because 2008 was special. We are now back to normal Democrat vs Republican politics.
[/quote]
Have to disagree with the reason the left is demoralized. Obama turned out to be an even better Republican than Bush. His campaign was focused on taking Wall Street’s “fat cats” to task, he promised investigations, and many people thought he was going to help reverse the direction of our economy and the growing gap between the rich and poor in this country. He talked a good talk, but once he was in office, all of that dropped off the agenda.
Many of us realize that they are ALL bought with the same money, and nobody that we are “allowed” to elect will ever represent the best interests of the American middle class. We only get to choose between the puppet on the left hand of our masters, or the puppet on the right. The puppet master is one and the same.
briansd1
August 19, 2012 @
7:53 PM
CA renter, here’s a good CA renter, here’s a good article about divisions within the parties.
I think the divisions within thr Republican party much greater.
If you support candidates like Elizabeth Warren, the choice is clear.[/quote]
Of course I support Elizabeth Warren, but note that she does not talk much about the “emotional” issues like abortion and gay marriage. It’s not that these things don’t matter, but that the government really needs to keep its nose out of people’s private affairs unless they are asked to intervene by the *immediately involved* parties.
My primary concern is with the distribution/concentration of power and money. If that is managed well, everything else will largely fall into place, IMHO. We need to stop bickering about fringe issues.
The PTB know that they can control the masses by keeping these emotionally-charged fringe issues in the spotlight, so instead of focusing on how they manage power and money, we focus on nonsense like gay marriage and abortion. We will end up losing EVERYTHING because we’ve allowed them to distract us; we’ve taken our eyes off the ball.
scaredyclassic
August 20, 2012 @
6:26 AM
i’m not eating chik-fil-a, i’m not eating chik-fil-a, and im not even sure why.
but iw asn’t eating it before. but i would have considered it.
i am concerned aboutt he oppression of chickens.
no_such_reality
August 20, 2012 @
8:11 AM
CA renter wrote:The PTB know [quote=CA renter]The PTB know that they can control the masses by keeping these emotionally-charged fringe issues in the spotlight, so instead of focusing on how they manage power and money, we focus on nonsense like gay marriage and abortion. We will end up losing EVERYTHING because we’ve allowed them to distract us; we’ve taken our eyes off the ball.[/quote]
Bread and circuses.
I have to agree with the above with a minor note, the masses are shackling themselves with debt to have their circuses.
Not national debt, that’s the blatant robbing of the nation’s wealth by the PTB. The debt of having to have a $400 iToy and the $70/month phone plan that goes with it. 500 channel of TV at $100/month. $200 Ugg boots as a teen fashion statement.
And the best one… student loans.
We’ve become a nation of 50 year old teenagers unable to control instant gratification.
CA renter
August 20, 2012 @
6:26 PM
no_such_reality wrote:CA [quote=no_such_reality][quote=CA renter]The PTB know that they can control the masses by keeping these emotionally-charged fringe issues in the spotlight, so instead of focusing on how they manage power and money, we focus on nonsense like gay marriage and abortion. We will end up losing EVERYTHING because we’ve allowed them to distract us; we’ve taken our eyes off the ball.[/quote]
Bread and circuses.
I have to agree with the above with a minor note, the masses are shackling themselves with debt to have their circuses.
Not national debt, that’s the blatant robbing of the nation’s wealth by the PTB. The debt of having to have a $400 iToy and the $70/month phone plan that goes with it. 500 channel of TV at $100/month. $200 Ugg boots as a teen fashion statement.
And the best one… student loans.
We’ve become a nation of 50 year old teenagers unable to control instant gratification.[/quote]
Yes, and they are told to shackle themselves to debt in order to live the life of an “average” American (as seen on TV), and they are told to go deep in debt in order to get the education that they supposedly need in order to survive and thrive in today’s society (I don’t agree that college is for everyone, and think it’s detrimental in many cases, especially where the debt is concerned).
Remember how we were told to “keep shopping” in order to beat the terrorists? And how about constantly being told that “inflation will melt away our debt,” so don’t worry about it. We are also being told that this is a recessionary dip, and we’ll be headed back to “normal” in due time. The truth is we have stretched the debt bubble as far as it can go, and unless we start shoveling money full-speed to those who most desperately need it and who are deepest in debt, we will not see the end of this “dip” until all the excess debt is taken out.
Inflation is one option, but it’s unlikely to help those who are deepest in debt and will be only make things worse unless they figure out a way to keep the money going toward the bottom of the pyramid, and keep it circulating at/near the bottom indefinitely. So far, it’s been directed at the top, and that’s part of our problem — too much “investment” money looking for returns, while workers at the bottom of the economic pyramid deal with steadily declining wages and rising costs of living.
briansd1
August 21, 2012 @
1:49 PM
CA renter, remember that CA renter, remember that abortion was settled by Roe v Wade. But Republicans want to conserve back to the past.
On gay rights, the advanced world has recognized gay marriage as a universal human right. Time to accept it and move on. It doesn’t have to be controversial at all.
CA renter
August 22, 2012 @
12:49 AM
Right, it shouldn’t be Right, it shouldn’t be controversial at all because it’s nobody’s business but the people who are **directly** involved. The government should keeps its nose out of everyone’s private affairs, period.
It’s so non-controversial in my book that we shouldn’t even be talking about it WRT elections and politics. People who don’t like abortions don’t have to have abortions, and people who don’t want to marry people of the same sex don’t have to do that, either. I just don’t see why there is any controversy, whatsoever.
Now, let’s focus on the #1 most important thing in all of human history: the distribution/concentration of power and money. Everything else is a distraction.
ocrenter
August 22, 2012 @
6:58 AM
CA renter wrote:
Now, let’s [quote=CA renter]
Now, let’s focus on the #1 most important thing in all of human history: the distribution/concentration of power and money. Everything else is a distraction.[/quote]
+1
if you look at the bunch of distracting issues we have in the US, most of the industrialized world are quite ahead of us and are no longer bothered by them. Things like abortion, evolution, global warming, gay rights, single payer health care, and gun control to name a few are all non-issues across the developed world.
so either we are really really smart and know something the rest of the world do not, or we are …something else…
Anonymous
August 22, 2012 @
7:07 AM
CA renter wrote:Right, it [quote=CA renter]Right, it shouldn’t be controversial at all because it’s nobody’s business but the people who are **directly** involved. The government should keeps its nose out of everyone’s private affairs, period.
It’s so non-controversial in my book that we shouldn’t even be talking about it WRT elections and politics. People who don’t like abortions don’t have to have abortions, and people who don’t want to marry people of the same sex don’t have to do that, either. I just don’t see why there is any controversy, whatsoever.
Now, let’s focus on the #1 most important thing in all of human history: the distribution/concentration of power and money. Everything else is a distraction.[/quote]
I agree that gay marriage should be allowed. But I wouldn’t say “I just don’t see why there is any controversy, whatsoever.” To say “The government should keeps its nose out of everyone’s private affairs, period” shows a lack of understanding of some of the issues.
There’s controversy because there are government benefits to getting married. So if the government kept its nose out of everyone’s private affairs and doesn’t care who’s married, those benefits would go away. If that’s what you want, then make that your argument. But I don’t think that’s what you want.
Let’s stand up for same-sex marriage. But let’s do it with an understanding of the issues so that we can make our points well.
As far as abortions go, saying, “people who don’t like abortions don’t have to have abortions” grossly oversimplifies the issue. You’re forgetting entirely about one of the people involved (the baby). Is the baby a person or isn’t she? If so, when? Is the mother responsible for creating that baby and therefore for protecting it? What about pregnancy resulting from rape? Etcetera. If you consider the fetus a person (and I’d be interested to hear your ideas on if/when that is the case), then you’d consider abortion to be murder. And you don’t have to be a right wingnut to be against murder.
Edit: Left myself signed on as “Willard” after my little joke last night. Oops.
zk
CA renter
August 22, 2012 @
11:51 PM
Willard wrote:CA renter [quote=Willard][quote=CA renter]Right, it shouldn’t be controversial at all because it’s nobody’s business but the people who are **directly** involved. The government should keeps its nose out of everyone’s private affairs, period.
It’s so non-controversial in my book that we shouldn’t even be talking about it WRT elections and politics. People who don’t like abortions don’t have to have abortions, and people who don’t want to marry people of the same sex don’t have to do that, either. I just don’t see why there is any controversy, whatsoever.
Now, let’s focus on the #1 most important thing in all of human history: the distribution/concentration of power and money. Everything else is a distraction.[/quote]
I agree that gay marriage should be allowed. But I wouldn’t say “I just don’t see why there is any controversy, whatsoever.” To say “The government should keeps its nose out of everyone’s private affairs, period” shows a lack of understanding of some of the issues.
There’s controversy because there are government benefits to getting married. So if the government kept its nose out of everyone’s private affairs and doesn’t care who’s married, those benefits would go away. If that’s what you want, then make that your argument. But I don’t think that’s what you want.
Let’s stand up for same-sex marriage. But let’s do it with an understanding of the issues so that we can make our points well.
As far as abortions go, saying, “people who don’t like abortions don’t have to have abortions” grossly oversimplifies the issue. You’re forgetting entirely about one of the people involved (the baby). Is the baby a person or isn’t she? If so, when? Is the mother responsible for creating that baby and therefore for protecting it? What about pregnancy resulting from rape? Etcetera. If you consider the fetus a person (and I’d be interested to hear your ideas on if/when that is the case), then you’d consider abortion to be murder. And you don’t have to be a right wingnut to be against murder.
Edit: Left myself signed on as “Willard” after my little joke last night. Oops.
zk[/quote]
Don’t want to take this too O/T, but regarding gay marriage, I think that any legally married couple/family should have the same legal protections. Whether they are gay, polygamists, etc., it doesn’t matter to me. The problem with the anti-gay marriage types (IMHO) is that they think they should be able to decide who can marry just based on their gender or family structure. They are not fighting over the legal issues or govt protections involved; they just don’t think that gay people should be allowed to marry strictly because of their sexual orientation. That is why I think the govt (and other people) need to stay out of other people’s business. If it doesn’t affect them, and if they are not asked to intervene by the people who are **directly** involved, it’s not their business.
Regarding abortions, I believe a fetus is a “legal person” when it can live on its own. Mind you, that’s just my subjective opinion. I don’t think that my opinion should determine what others should or shouldn’t do with their bodies…that is their business. On a personal/emotional level, I am 100% opposed to abortion, but I also know that people find themselves in situations that I haven’t had to be in, and it’s not my right to tell them that they have to do something that will affect their lives forever. They are the ones who have to live with their decisions, whether they get abortions or not; so they should be the only ones who get to decide what to do.
CardiffBaseball
August 24, 2012 @
8:46 PM
This thread is starting to This thread is starting to sound like a “keep your nose out of our social business” but when it comes to economic liberty “stick your nose as far as you can get it in and try to fix this”.
Equality of outcome the desire or equality of opportunity? I am all for the latter and removing all of this crony capitalism, but I surely don’t want progressive morals shoved down my throat anymore than I do the church lady’s morals.
Arraya
August 25, 2012 @
12:06 AM
CardiffBaseball wrote:This [quote=CardiffBaseball]This thread is starting to sound like a “keep your nose out of our social business” but when it comes to economic liberty “stick your nose as far as you can get it in and try to fix this”.
[/quote]
Economic processes effect every man, women and child on earth. Marriage ceremonies do not.
look, say, at the financial system, it’s extremely dramatic what happened. There was a crash in the 1920s,and in the 1930s,a huge depression. But then regulatory mechanisms were introduced. They were introduced as a result of massive popular pressure, but they were introduced. And throughout the whole period of very rapid and pretty egalitarian economic growth of the next couple of decades, there were no financial crises, because the regulatory mechanisms interfered with the market and prevented the market principles from operating. So therefore you could take account of externalities. That’s what the regulatory system does. It’s been systematically dismantled since the 1970s.
Meanwhile, the role of finance in the economy has exploded. The share of corporate profit by financial institutions has just zoomed since the 1970s. Kind of a corollary of that is the hollowing out of industrial production, sending it abroad. This all happened under the impact of a kind of fanatic religious ideology called economics—and that’s not a joke—based on hypotheses that have no theoretical grounds and no empirical support but are very attractive because you can prove theorems if you adopt them: the efficient market hypothesis, rational expectations hypothesis, and so on. The spread of these ideologies, which is very attractive to concentrated wealth and privilege, hence their success, was epitomized in Alan Greenspan, who at least had the decency to say it was all wrong when it collapsed. I don’t think there has ever been a collapse of an intellectual edifice comparable to this, maybe, in history, at least I can’t remember one. Interestingly, it has no effect. It just continues. Which tells you that it’s serviceable to power systems.
CA renter
August 25, 2012 @
1:19 AM
Thank you, Thank you, Arraya.
…………
Cardiff, the problem with “economic freedom,” as it’s often defined, is that it will always lead to crony capitalism (or any other “ism” that concentrates wealth). There is just no way around it.
Without safeguards and mechanisms that force (debt-free!!!) money back down to the bottom of the economic pyramid, we will always end up with a dangerous concentration of wealth, a loss of personal and economic freedoms for those on the bottom, and (eventually) bloody revolutions and wars. Personally, I’d rather avoid those things, and if that means I can’t make as much money as I want — irrespective of the damage it does to others — then so be it.
ocrenter
August 25, 2012 @
8:05 AM
Arraya wrote:CardiffBaseball [quote=Arraya][quote=CardiffBaseball]This thread is starting to sound like a “keep your nose out of our social business” but when it comes to economic liberty “stick your nose as far as you can get it in and try to fix this”.
[/quote]
Economic processes effect every man, women and child on earth. Marriage ceremonies do not.
look, say, at the financial system, it’s extremely dramatic what happened. There was a crash in the 1920s,and in the 1930s,a huge depression. But then regulatory mechanisms were introduced. They were introduced as a result of massive popular pressure, but they were introduced. And throughout the whole period of very rapid and pretty egalitarian economic growth of the next couple of decades, there were no financial crises, because the regulatory mechanisms interfered with the market and prevented the market principles from operating. So therefore you could take account of externalities. That’s what the regulatory system does. It’s been systematically dismantled since the 1970s.
Meanwhile, the role of finance in the economy has exploded. The share of corporate profit by financial institutions has just zoomed since the 1970s. Kind of a corollary of that is the hollowing out of industrial production, sending it abroad. This all happened under the impact of a kind of fanatic religious ideology called economics—and that’s not a joke—based on hypotheses that have no theoretical grounds and no empirical support but are very attractive because you can prove theorems if you adopt them: the efficient market hypothesis, rational expectations hypothesis, and so on. The spread of these ideologies, which is very attractive to concentrated wealth and privilege, hence their success, was epitomized in Alan Greenspan, who at least had the decency to say it was all wrong when it collapsed. I don’t think there has ever been a collapse of an intellectual edifice comparable to this, maybe, in history, at least I can’t remember one. Interestingly, it has no effect. It just continues. Which tells you that it’s serviceable to power systems.[/quote]
+1
ocrenter
August 25, 2012 @
8:10 AM
Arraya wrote:CardiffBaseball [quote=Arraya][quote=CardiffBaseball]This thread is starting to sound like a “keep your nose out of our social business” but when it comes to economic liberty “stick your nose as far as you can get it in and try to fix this”.
[/quote]
Economic processes effect every man, women and child on earth. Marriage ceremonies do not.
look, say, at the financial system, it’s extremely dramatic what happened. There was a crash in the 1920s,and in the 1930s,a huge depression. But then regulatory mechanisms were introduced. They were introduced as a result of massive popular pressure, but they were introduced. And throughout the whole period of very rapid and pretty egalitarian economic growth of the next couple of decades, there were no financial crises, because the regulatory mechanisms interfered with the market and prevented the market principles from operating. So therefore you could take account of externalities. That’s what the regulatory system does. It’s been systematically dismantled since the 1970s.
Meanwhile, the role of finance in the economy has exploded. The share of corporate profit by financial institutions has just zoomed since the 1970s. Kind of a corollary of that is the hollowing out of industrial production, sending it abroad. This all happened under the impact of a kind of fanatic religious ideology called economics—and that’s not a joke—based on hypotheses that have no theoretical grounds and no empirical support but are very attractive because you can prove theorems if you adopt them: the efficient market hypothesis, rational expectations hypothesis, and so on. The spread of these ideologies, which is very attractive to concentrated wealth and privilege, hence their success, was epitomized in Alan Greenspan, who at least had the decency to say it was all wrong when it collapsed. I don’t think there has ever been a collapse of an intellectual edifice comparable to this, maybe, in history, at least I can’t remember one. Interestingly, it has no effect. It just continues. Which tells you that it’s serviceable to power systems.[/quote]
the default throughout human history has always been money will eventually concentrate into the hands of the few. a system, not redistribution, but a system of fairness which uses tools such as regulations and enforcement and provide truly equal opportunities for advancement is necessary.
ocrenter
August 25, 2012 @
8:20 AM
CardiffBaseball wrote: but I [quote=CardiffBaseball] but I surely don’t want progressive morals shoved down my throat anymore than I do the church lady’s morals.[/quote]
that makes no sense at all.
take the morality of slavery. you can’t argue that the morality of emancipation was shoved down the throat of the Southern Whites.
or morality of paternalism. you can’t argue that the morality of women’s suffrage was shoved down the throat of men.
in both cases, the default morality in place elevated a group while simultaneously suppress that of another group. does the liberation of the suppressed group equal the suppression of the prior chosen group? I think not.
what type of progressive morals are being shoved down your throat? or mine? I would love to know.
SD Realtor
August 25, 2012 @
11:40 AM
Isn’t it safe to say that Isn’t it safe to say that what one person thnks is being shoved down his throat may be the same thing that is happily gulped down by another?
Isn’t it in all in the eye of the beholder?
CardiffBaseball
August 25, 2012 @
7:18 PM
1. Affirmative Action
2. The 1. Affirmative Action
2. The current progressive tax system, I prefer a flat tax with the first 50k not taxable, which is still progressive
3. Progressive thought on Social Justice and Equality of Outcomes
4. Making food choices, smoking choices etc. for others. Sin taxes on booze. They manage to get Neo-Cons to go along with sin taxes, because income is left alone but it’s still crap, cut some useless depts instead.
5. Those that seek to ban guns (though many, many libs I am friends with are fiercely pro-2nd amendment so it’s hard to put this on all progressives)
Now before I get into some long drawn out argument about why I am a classical liberal vs. a progressive liberal, let’s just cut to the chase. I am not naive enough to presume we would ever do what I’d like to see (slashing things like the EPA/Dept. of Ed etc.) and suddenly go back to small government. It just isn’t going to happen, and the crony capitalism that you bring up CA Renter is so far embedded into everything we do (on both sides of the aisle) that I am sure that ship has sailed.
I’d be happy just doing what I can to prevent the US from becoming more like a European style govt. So my kids are well-steeped in Ron Paul, and not BHO’s philosophy. That said I was a Clinton voter in ’92 having grown up in a Union Dem family so I totally understand your position and used to argue from it frequently. And deep down inside, although they will never admit this publicly I think I think WJC despises BHO with everything he’s got. Maybe I am wrong, but I don’t see GWB as being drastically different from WJC, whereas I think that with BHO his past associations are with some extremely shady characters. (being an old school guy I really do think socialists and marxists ideas are rotten to the core).
Where the American experience is different is that we pick and choose what types of social programs to implement, but we stop short of excessive theft of wealth, and that’s a good thing. I don’t think it’s all bad here. We all describe our Utopia, but I am not so dogmatic that I think my Utopia has to be implemented.
ocrenter
August 26, 2012 @
7:31 AM
CardiffBaseball wrote:1. [quote=CardiffBaseball]1. Affirmative Action
2. The current progressive tax system, I prefer a flat tax with the first 50k not taxable, which is still progressive
3. Progressive thought on Social Justice and Equality of Outcomes
4. Making food choices, smoking choices etc. for others. Sin taxes on booze. They manage to get Neo-Cons to go along with sin taxes, because income is left alone but it’s still crap, cut some useless depts instead.
5. Those that seek to ban guns (though many, many libs I am friends with are fiercely pro-2nd amendment so it’s hard to put this on all progressives)
[/quote]
agree with affirmative action. although I’m not quite sure if it is progressive or simply a liberal policy. certainly it IMHO ends up hurting the people it tries to help.
I think just as far as fiscal balance, we likely need some progression of tax rate. I do agree with you about the simplicity of flat tax. and with a flat tax it may get rid of the loopholes that allow the very rich to pay very little in taxes.
if by equality of outcomes you mean the welfare and social safety net. agree on that one. but same goes for corporate and agricultural welfare as well.
disagree with 4th and 5th point. will get back on this later.
SK in CV
August 26, 2012 @
8:39 AM
ocrenter wrote:
I think just [quote=ocrenter]
I think just as far as fiscal balance, we likely need some progression of tax rate. I do agree with you about the simplicity of flat tax. and with a flat tax it may get rid of the loopholes that allow the very rich to pay very little in taxes.
[/quote]
I’m gonna jump in here to address only this one issue of the flat tax. I’ve seen the term floated around for years, usually in a similar context to bring “simplicity” to the tax code, but rarely with any details. Assuming that a “flat tax” by itself, will make tax codes simpler is a fallacy. Over the last 50 years, we have gone from more than a dozen “tax brackets” down to less than half of that, but the code is no simpler. Making a single tax rate would not significantly simplify the code. The complexity in the code is in defining taxable income, not in the rates applied to that income. Simplifying that definition is a laudible goal. I’ve yet to see a single serious proposal which does this, irrespective of the political realities of actually getting reform like this passed into law.
Until there is a comprehensive flat-tax definition of income, there is no flat-tax proposal on the table. As a practical matter, it’s never happened.
ocrenter
August 26, 2012 @
10:11 AM
SK in CV wrote:ocrenter [quote=SK in CV][quote=ocrenter]
I think just as far as fiscal balance, we likely need some progression of tax rate. I do agree with you about the simplicity of flat tax. and with a flat tax it may get rid of the loopholes that allow the very rich to pay very little in taxes.
[/quote]
I’m gonna jump in here to address only this one issue of the flat tax. I’ve seen the term floated around for years, usually in a similar context to bring “simplicity” to the tax code, but rarely with any details. Assuming that a “flat tax” by itself, will make tax codes simpler is a fallacy. Over the last 50 years, we have gone from more than a dozen “tax brackets” down to less than half of that, but the code is no simpler. Making a single tax rate would not significantly simplify the code. The complexity in the code is in defining taxable income, not in the rates applied to that income. Simplifying that definition is a laudible goal. I’ve yet to see a single serious proposal which does this, irrespective of the political realities of actually getting reform like this passed into law.
Until there is a comprehensive flat-tax definition of income, there is no flat-tax proposal on the table. As a practical matter, it’s never happened.[/quote]
I’ve always taken flat-tax as simply complete removal of exemptions and write offs, which does simplify the tax code greatly. Given the amount of exemptions available especially as we climb the income ladder, I see the removal of exemptions and write offs as a great way to plug the huge fiscal hole of this country.
SK in CV
August 26, 2012 @
10:25 AM
ocrenter wrote:I’ve always [quote=ocrenter]I’ve always taken flat-tax as simply complete removal of exemptions and write offs, which does simplify the tax code greatly. Given the amount of exemptions available especially as we climb the income ladder, I see the removal of exemptions and write offs as a great way to plug the huge fiscal hole of this country.
[/quote]
What write-offs are you doing away with? (If you say “all of them”, you haven’t given it much thought.) Mortgage interest? Charitable contributions? State taxes?
How about deductions above the line? When computing capital gains, do you deduct the cost of the stock? How about businesses? Can they deduct the costs of the products they sell? Salaries and rent? IRA’s and other retirement plans? Medical insurance? Are the proceeds of home refinancing taxable? Depreciation deductions on real estate? Most of these are effectively “write-offs”.
poorgradstudent
August 26, 2012 @
12:59 PM
I can’t be bothered to find I can’t be bothered to find the old threads, so I’ll just put this here:
Is this week the week Ron Paul’s tidal wave of delegates hands Ron Paul the nomination? The Constitution demands Ron Paul Ron Paul the Ron Paul and gold standard the Ron Paul of Ron Paul President.
Ron Paul.
ocrenter
August 26, 2012 @
1:13 PM
SK in CV wrote:ocrenter [quote=SK in CV][quote=ocrenter]I’ve always taken flat-tax as simply complete removal of exemptions and write offs, which does simplify the tax code greatly. Given the amount of exemptions available especially as we climb the income ladder, I see the removal of exemptions and write offs as a great way to plug the huge fiscal hole of this country.
[/quote]
What write-offs are you doing away with? (If you say “all of them”, you haven’t given it much thought.) Mortgage interest? Charitable contributions? State taxes?
How about deductions above the line? When computing capital gains, do you deduct the cost of the stock? How about businesses? Can they deduct the costs of the products they sell? Salaries and rent? IRA’s and other retirement plans? Medical insurance? Are the proceeds of home refinancing taxable? Depreciation deductions on real estate? Most of these are effectively “write-offs”.[/quote]
in order for the flat tax idea to work, and for the promise of simplification of tax code to be true, it would have to be all-across-the-board complete elimination of all sacred cows. including all of the deductions you mentioned above.
this is why flat tax will never be implemented. lobbyist everywhere would essentially all have a coronary all at the same time.
SK in CV
August 26, 2012 @
1:55 PM
ocrenter wrote:
in order for [quote=ocrenter]
in order for the flat tax idea to work, and for the promise of simplification of tax code to be true, it would have to be all-across-the-board complete elimination of all sacred cows. including all of the deductions you mentioned above.
this is why flat tax will never be implemented. lobbyist everywhere would essentially all have a coronary all at the same time.[/quote]
Therin lies the problem. It sounds like a nice idea to just eliminate all deductions. But your neighborhood gas station operator, who has a gross margin of only a few pennies per gallon of gas sold, or the corner market who has a gross margin of maybe 25%, would end up with a tax liability far in excess of what they make every year. Do the same thing for corporations and reduce the tax rate from 35% to 15%? Ford would pay income taxes far in excess of its net income.
Flat tax sounds simple. It isn’t. Tax laws are not complicated because of the rate schedules. They’re complicated by the definition of income. Eliminating ALL deductions can’t work. It is impossible.
ocrenter
August 26, 2012 @
2:22 PM
SK in CV wrote:ocrenter [quote=SK in CV][quote=ocrenter]
in order for the flat tax idea to work, and for the promise of simplification of tax code to be true, it would have to be all-across-the-board complete elimination of all sacred cows. including all of the deductions you mentioned above.
this is why flat tax will never be implemented. lobbyist everywhere would essentially all have a coronary all at the same time.[/quote]
Therin lies the problem. It sounds like a nice idea to just eliminate all deductions. But your neighborhood gas station operator, who has a gross margin of only a few pennies per gallon of gas sold, or the corner market who has a gross margin of maybe 25%, would end up with a tax liability far in excess of what they make every year. Do the same thing for corporations and reduce the tax rate from 35% to 15%? Ford would pay income taxes far in excess of its net income.
Flat tax sounds simple. It isn’t. Tax laws are not complicated because of the rate schedules. They’re complicated by the definition of income. Eliminating ALL deductions can’t work. It is impossible.[/quote]
for businesses it would have to be net income. not gross.
SK in CV
August 26, 2012 @
2:42 PM
ocrenter wrote:
for [quote=ocrenter]
for businesses it would have to be net income. not gross.[/quote]
Right. Which means allowing many of the write-offs which I identified above. It’s not quite as simple as doing away with all write-offs.
CA renter
August 26, 2012 @
4:01 PM
SK in CV wrote:ocrenter [quote=SK in CV][quote=ocrenter]
I think just as far as fiscal balance, we likely need some progression of tax rate. I do agree with you about the simplicity of flat tax. and with a flat tax it may get rid of the loopholes that allow the very rich to pay very little in taxes.
[/quote]
I’m gonna jump in here to address only this one issue of the flat tax. I’ve seen the term floated around for years, usually in a similar context to bring “simplicity” to the tax code, but rarely with any details. Assuming that a “flat tax” by itself, will make tax codes simpler is a fallacy. Over the last 50 years, we have gone from more than a dozen “tax brackets” down to less than half of that, but the code is no simpler. Making a single tax rate would not significantly simplify the code. The complexity in the code is in defining taxable income, not in the rates applied to that income. Simplifying that definition is a laudible goal. I’ve yet to see a single serious proposal which does this, irrespective of the political realities of actually getting reform like this passed into law.
Until there is a comprehensive flat-tax definition of income, there is no flat-tax proposal on the table. As a practical matter, it’s never happened.[/quote]
Excellent post, SK. The “complexity” of the tax code has nothing to do with tax rates; those are pretty simple.
I would also argue that we could eliminate the “complexity” of the tax code by making all income equal: cap gains, interest, dividends, rents, earned income, etc. should all be taxed at the same rate.
One could also argue that a “flat tax” is extremely regressive, as the income earned by most workers goes almost entirely to basic living expenses, while the income earned by the highest income earners can go toward investments…(which are currently taxed at a lower rate, no less) which enables them to amass even more disposable income/wealth at a faster rate than the most productive people in our country (the workers who create all that “excess” value). There is something very wrong about that setup, which is why I favor steeply progressive tax rates.
All income should be taxed at the same, progressive rates — everyone’s income is treated the same at any given bracket. That’s as fair and just as it can possibly get.
CardiffBaseball
August 26, 2012 @
8:31 PM
SK I am not sure but it seems SK I am not sure but it seems to me some of the flat tax proposals out there are strictly covering the 1040. While this doesn’t negate your point, I don’t think it’s nearly as bad as you are making it out here. True deductions of business expenses wouldn’t change, and I don’t know that corporate changes were on the table.
In particular I refer to business investment where you must decide to expense or amortize over a depreciation table. I am not sure you can throw something like that into a flat tax scenario if you make a 50 million dollar investment in equipment a 50K income exclusion does no good. That investment will most likely still be depreciated over whatever the schedule allows. I’ll admit to not considering in the past how business income is treated under some of the flat tax proposals.
jstoesz
August 26, 2012 @
10:47 PM
The question is, what do we The question is, what do we want to incentivize? Progressive income taxes by their definition disincentivise more income creation. Consumption taxes disincentivize additional consumption.
From a business perspective, the two taxes have different effects. Consumption taxes increase the cost of investment, while income taxes reduce the profits of investments. So they are not so different on the bottom line.
I think the difference lies in incentives. consumption taxes encourage savings, but since money is no use in the bank, it must be spent eventually. While progressive income taxes discourage people to make additional moneys by removing the profit of doing so.
If all things being equal, I doubt much would change if we compared a progressive consumption tax with an equally progressive income tax. Money is no use sitting in the bank. The problem is the progressive nature of taxes today.
At least with consumption taxes, people who have already made their money (or more importantly inherited it) still pay the taxes that us poor worker bees pay.
CA renter
August 26, 2012 @
11:58 PM
jstoesz wrote:The question [quote=jstoesz]The question is, what do we want to incentivize? Progressive income taxes by their definition disincentivise more income creation. Consumption taxes disincentivize additional consumption.
From a business perspective, the two taxes have different effects. Consumption taxes increase the cost of investment, while income taxes reduce the profits of investments. So they are not so different on the bottom line.
I think the difference lies in incentives. consumption taxes encourage savings, but since money is no use in the bank, it must be spent eventually. While progressive income taxes discourage people to make additional moneys by removing the profit of doing so.
If all things being equal, I doubt much would change if we compared a progressive consumption tax with an equally progressive income tax. Money is no use sitting in the bank. The problem is the progressive nature of taxes today.
At least with consumption taxes, people who have already made their money (or more importantly inherited it) still pay the taxes that us poor worker bees pay.[/quote]
Consumption taxes are even more regressive than flat taxes. “Worker bees” spend most of their income on basic living expenses, so would be paying the greatest share of taxes, as a percentage of income.
Wealthy people do not spend most of their income on consumption, but on “investing”/speculating. By moving to a consumption-only tax system, rich people would be spending a tiny portion of their income on taxes while the poorest workers would be paying the max rate.
What ails our global economy isn’t the lack of people willing to work and make more money. What we lack is demand (consumption). We have surplus labor and a shortage of demand for the goods and services provided by that labor. This is at the root of our economic problems and our debt bubble.
The reason we have this excess labor/deficient demand problem is because all the wealth is concentrated into too few hands, and those people do NOT spend all of their income since they have so much disposable income which tends to be “invested” — mostly on existing assets which DO NOT grow the economy — or spent on luxury items which provide very little benefit to society at large (as opposed to workers who spend primarily on basic necessities). Since we do not discriminate between useful investing (investing in improving or creating productive capacity…and the riskiest type of investing) and speculating (buying existing assets — not productive and the least risky type of “investing”), we have “investors” scouring the earth looking for assets to invest in…like existing houses, agricultural commodities, and raw materials needed to build goods for sale. This pushes up the price of goods purchased by “worker bees” which exacerbates their already declining purchasing power. Too much money is concentrated at the top of the economic pyramid!
If we want to fix the root cause of our economic problems, we need to broaden the number of people who are able to consume (debt-free!), and reduce the supply of labor. We can do this by increasing marginal tax rates (steeply, IMO), closing tax loopholes, reducing the number of hours worked per person, AND allowing asset prices to fall so that workers’ purchasing power isn’t as greatly affected by the reduced hours worked. We need to encourage **real** investing that can expand productive capacity and raise the living standards of workers around the globe. Unfortunately, nobody is going to invest in increasing productive capacity for as long as there is too little demand; and that can only change if we reverse the flow of money and force it down to the greatest number of people possible. It is DEMAND that creates the incentive to increase supply capacity and grow the economy. Without increasing ***DEBT-FREE*** demand, we will continue down the path of economic destruction.
Cutting taxes for the wealthy is one of the primary reasons we are in this financial mess. We need to reverse these damaging trends, not accelerate them.
ocrenter
August 26, 2012 @
10:20 AM
CardiffBaseball wrote:
4. [quote=CardiffBaseball]
4. Making food choices, smoking choices etc. for others. Sin taxes on booze. They manage to get Neo-Cons to go along with sin taxes, because income is left alone but it’s still crap, cut some useless depts instead.
5. Those that seek to ban guns (though many, many libs I am friends with are fiercely pro-2nd amendment so it’s hard to put this on all progressives)
[/quote]
in regard to #4, as long as there’s Medicare and Medicaid, the government will have to be involved in trying to change behaviors with the sin tax and pretty soon the sugar tax. individual bad choices does not equal individual consequences in this country. it does in places like China where there is no social safety net and all health related cost is by the individual. completely remove Medicare and Medicaid, then I agree with your point.
gun right advocacy is so out of this world in this country. no where else in the developed world allow for such freedom and access. hence we have to deal with mass shootings every few months. sure, guns don’t kill people, people do. but people armed with a semi can kill 20 within 5 minutes, people armed with a pocket knife can kill one.
poorgradstudent
August 20, 2012 @
3:09 PM
briansd1 wrote:CA renter, [quote=briansd1]CA renter, here’s a good article about divisions within the parties.
I think the divisions within thr Republican party much greater.
If you support candidates like Elizabeth Warren, the choice is clear.[/quote]
Team Urban liberal![/quote]
Also, seriously, it looks like a full 17% of Republicans (the Window Shoppers) are just confused. It sounds like they are largely young women who were raised “Republican” even though they disagree with pretty much everything the Republican party stands for.
Of course, the “DIY Democrats” are also slightly confused. They probably are the true moderates?
briansd1
August 18, 2012 @
12:34 AM
poorgradstudent wrote: If you [quote=poorgradstudent] If you use a 5% polling advantage as a cut-off, Obama currently has 243 safe electoral votes of the needed 270. (Romney has 191). If Obama wins FL, he wins, period. Romney has no route to the White House that doesn’t go through Ohio and Florida. The nice thing is we should know pretty early in the night if Obama will win. If he wins VA *or* NC, it’s over. If Obama wins Ohio it’s probably over too. Florida is notoriously slow in their results.[/quote]
This is a good interactive map worth bookmarking.
For fun, make your prediction, do a screen grab and compare to the actual results, just to see how prescient you are.
Brutus wrote:
To the question [quote=Brutus]
To the question above, I say:
Yes. But it’s a close race…[/quote]
So if you think it’s a close race, why the outrage at Biden and Kerry, but not at any conservatives?
zk
August 17, 2012 @
1:28 PM
zk wrote:Brutus wrote:
To the [quote=zk][quote=Brutus]
To the question above, I say:
Yes. But it’s a close race…[/quote]
So if you think it’s a close race, why the outrage at Biden and Kerry, but not at any conservatives?[/quote]
Could it be you’ve been emotionally manipulated by Rush Limbaugh and his ilk?
Anonymous
August 16, 2012 @
10:29 AM
Yes. But it’s a close race. Yes. But it’s a close race.
poorgradstudent
August 14, 2012 @
10:15 AM
We all agree that donations We all agree that donations to the Mormon church don’t really count as charity, right? More like private club dues?
briansd1
August 14, 2012 @
10:33 AM
poorgradstudent wrote:We all [quote=poorgradstudent]We all agree that donations to the Mormon church don’t really count as charity, right? More like private club dues?[/quote]
Especially when nobody who’s not Mormon cannot enter the church.
Religious charity has social engineering involved. It’s like marketing and promotions.
an
August 13, 2012 @
2:32 PM
livinincali wrote:I’d [quote=livinincali]I’d consider upper middle class as the top 25% by income. I don’t buy the “$200K is barely middle class in San Fran, New York, etc.”. That’s a choice and the expectations are just different. Middle class in general has changed dramatically over the years. Middle class was once 1 car, maybe a couple TVs with an antenna on the roof, a home phone and maybe a computer. Now it’s flat screen TVs in every room, Cell Phones for everybody in the family, internet service provider, cable providers, multiple cars, etc. A lot more stuff and the costs associated with that stuff. The question becomes is our life really all that better with that stuff.
As for why don’t you take advantage of tax deductions, usually most tax advantages come with a significant cost. If I bought a house at the peak of the bubble my federal tax rate is pretty low but I’m not better off financially because of it. I know the government wants us to have children, get married, buy homes, and dump our money into the stock market, but I’m not going to rush into those major decision just to get a tax break. I feel bad for people that do.[/quote]
Alright, with that squared away. I would have to disagree with your statement that combined effective rate is easily well over 20%. I’m in the upper middle class you’re referring to. I’ve been in the upper middle class since the first day I got a job out of college. Yet, my combined effective tax rate was only over 20% when I was maxing out Roth 401k instead of traditional 401k AND I had no deduction. My Federal alone is FAR from the 15-20%.
Yes, tax advantages comes with a cost. Which is why it’s called a tax deduction and not a tax credit. When you choose to not buy a house or whatever it is that there are deduction for, that’s your choice. No one is forcing you to not buy and pay higher effective tax rate. If you choose to go against’s the government’s social engineering through the tax code, then be prepared to pony up and pay the taxes. With hind site, you’re being rewarded for going against the government’s social engineering. All I’m saying is, you don’t have to pay high tax rate if you don’t want to. Just like rich people can pony up and pay more taxes if they want to. But most people rather not. Even people who are proponents of higher taxes for people like themselves still try to find ways to pay the least tax as possible.
briansd1
August 13, 2012 @
2:45 PM
AN wrote:Even people who are [quote=AN]Even people who are proponents of higher taxes for people like themselves still try to find ways to pay the least tax as possible.[/quote]
No contradiction in that statement. Individual choices is not the same as economic for the country.
Higher rates may not be good for a person, but they may be the solution for the country. No need to make it personal when looking at policy.
an
August 13, 2012 @
2:55 PM
briansd1 wrote:AN wrote:Even [quote=briansd1][quote=AN]Even people who are proponents of higher taxes for people like themselves still try to find ways to pay the least tax as possible.[/quote]
No contradiction in that statement. Individual choices is not the same as economic for the country.
Higher rates may not be good for a person, but they may be the solution for the country. No need to make it personal when looking at policy.[/quote]
The solution for the country is to create a tax code where you can’t hide from taxes. Which is why I’m advocating for simpler tax code so there are less place to hide. There’s every reason to make it personal. If you yourself would find ways to hide from paying taxes AND find ways to hide, then we should remove that shelter so no one can hide. Then we all can see exactly how much everyone pay. However, with the tax code being the tool for social engineering, those who obey pay less and those who goes against the grain will have to fork over the taxes. If you don’t like to pay more than Mitt, then just obey the social engineering creator and you too can pay less in effective tax rate.
livinincali
August 13, 2012 @
3:24 PM
AN wrote: Yet, my combined [quote=AN] Yet, my combined effective tax rate was only over 20% when I was maxing out Roth 401k instead of traditional 401k AND I had no deduction. My Federal alone is FAR from the 15-20%.
[/quote]
The numbers are fairly simple for single standard deduction wage earners. The only real variable is how much do you contribute to a tax deferred 401K.
At 70K per year and 0 contribution you get a federal effective of 15.8%, at 6% gross (the standard 401K match plan) you get 14.3% and at the max contribution you get 9.8%. Everything works it’s way up from there. At 110K you get 19.1% with no contributions and 15.3% at the max contribution. So single or dual income married upper middle class falls pretty well into my range of 15-20%.
Dual income married on the standard deduction is slightly worse if combine income is in the 150K area.
I agree with you thoughts on the social engineering aspects of the tax code and would prefer it to be a more simplified approach.
an
August 13, 2012 @
4:47 PM
livinincali wrote:The numbers [quote=livinincali]The numbers are fairly simple for single standard deduction wage earners. The only real variable is how much do you contribute to a tax deferred 401K.
At 70K per year and 0 contribution you get a federal effective of 15.8%, at 6% gross (the standard 401K match plan) you get 14.3% and at the max contribution you get 9.8%. Everything works it’s way up from there. At 110K you get 19.1% with no contributions and 15.3% at the max contribution. So single or dual income married upper middle class falls pretty well into my range of 15-20%.
Dual income married on the standard deduction is slightly worse if combine income is in the 150K area.
I agree with you thoughts on the social engineering aspects of the tax code and would prefer it to be a more simplified approach.[/quote]
You’re assuming 0-6% 401k contribution. However, I’ve ALWAYS maxed out my 401k. Even when I started working. I just learn to live with less. So, my tax rates were always low, since my AGI was always low even when my GI always put me in the 25+% tax bracket (upper middle class by your definition). Again, $110k, if you max your contribution, you get 15%. That’s assume no other deduction. When you get to this level of income, I would expect you to have a few other deduction. You can also get married, have one of the spouse work part time (just enough to max out his/her 401k & IRA), max out your own 401k and IRA. Assuming you make $110k and your spouse make $40k, just by maxing out both retirement accounts, your effective rate would be 12.3%. If you add in a house, kids, etc. and your effective tax rate would be even lower. If you’re a couple making $250k, just by maxing out the retirement accounts, your effective rate is 18.1%. So, it’s not THAT hard to get your fed effective rate below 15%.
zk
August 13, 2012 @
10:10 AM
livinincali wrote:
Depends on [quote=livinincali]
Depends on what you include in your tax rate. Do you include or exclude California Income tax? Do you include or exclude Social Security Taxes? Do you include property taxes or exclude them? What about Sales Taxes? That’s the problem with measuring effective tax rates in our complex tax system. You can get your federal income effective tax rate pretty low but you’re probably paying taxes somewhere else to do it.
Federal by itself is probably around 15-20% for upper middle class with few deductions, but add in CA income and Social Security and you easily get over 20%.[/quote]
Do you know why you never hear about the total tax percentage (as opposed to the federal income tax percentage)? Because democrats are lame at marketing. If they had the noise machine that the right does, you can be sure that it would be out there. What’s the actual total tax paid as a percentage of income and who pays what percentage?
Any income over $110k is not taxed for social security. So a guy making 110k is taxed at 4.2%. But a guy making 110m is taxed (for social security) at 0.0042%.
Gasoline tax, sales tax, liquor tax etc. The rich, in almost all cases, pay a far lower percentage of their income for these taxes.
Overall, if you count all the taxes paid as a percentage of income instead of just federal income tax, the difference between what the rich pay and what the middle class pays looks different.
I say this not to suggest that they should pay a different percentage than they do. I say it to further illustrate the manipulation of the discussion by the right. If the left had a noise machine like the right, you’d have hundreds of blowhards on the radio and tv screaming about how unfair that is. And you’d have millions of people buying it, whether their point was valid or not. Just like has been happening on the right for over a decade now.
zk
August 11, 2012 @
7:05 PM
paramount wrote:I’m a [quote=paramount]I’m a political atheist, but it seems clear to me that O is going to win fairly easily.
Romney’s vp choice was great for O, but Romney was losing anyway
And this despite the fact that O has been actively destroying liberty and freedom, expanded an occupation war and lied about lots of campaign promises.[/quote]
I laughed out loud when I read this.
Political atheists don’t believe that “O has been actively destroying liberty and freedom.” Only right wingers do.
briansd1
August 11, 2012 @
7:26 PM
In sports that’s what you In sports that’s what you call a sore loser. It’s a version of “my team sucks so we deserve to lose. But your team sucks also so your win has no significance anyway.”
poorgradstudent
August 11, 2012 @
9:04 PM
zk wrote:
Political atheists [quote=zk]
Political atheists don’t believe that “O has been actively destroying liberty and freedom.” Only right wingers do.[/quote]
Not necessarily. A true Libertarian might feel that way, even if they support things like gay rights and pot legalization. And many on the far LEFT are disappointed by Obama’s record on civil liberties… they may not think Romney or McCain would have been any better, which is why they don’t necessarily support either party.
zk
August 11, 2012 @
9:15 PM
poorgradstudent wrote:zk [quote=poorgradstudent][quote=zk]
Political atheists don’t believe that “O has been actively destroying liberty and freedom.” Only right wingers do.[/quote]
Not necessarily. A true Libertarian might feel that way, even if they support things like gay rights and pot legalization. And many on the far LEFT are disappointed by Obama’s record on civil liberties… they may not think Romney or McCain would have been any better, which is why they don’t necessarily support either party.[/quote]
Being disappointed that he hasn’t done enough on gay rights and pot legalization is a long way from thinking he’s “actively destroying” liberty and freedom.
briansd1
August 11, 2012 @
2:23 PM
Mitt was never the Mitt was never the independent boss he claims to be. On every issue, he will cave to the extremes in his party, who now control the agenda.
Allan said that an Obama win would be the best thing to happen to the Republicans who will then repudiate the extremes and move towards the center, to leaders like Huntsman.
I believe the opposite of Allan’s prediction will happen. A Romney loss will entail recriminations by the far right and move to more even extremes. The reasoning is that if a governor from MA can’t win, then the Republicans ought to nominate someone from Mississippi.
I’m really confused by the I’m really confused by the timing of the announcement. Saturday morning is when people make announcements they want to be buried. Companies announce good news on Monday morning and bad news on Friday afternoons.
Because the VP has so little impact on the overall election I’m leaning towards calling Ryan a wash, overall. I think he will help with fundraising, as the mega rich LOVE Paul Ryan, and these days they drive the money game. I don’t think he can deliver Wisconsin; he’s not a Senator or Governor who has shown he can carry a statewide election, and his name recognition is far from 100% in Wisconsin.
I think Ryan is “safer” than Palin was, but he’s still a gutsy pick. He’s a smart guy with a strong command of domestic policy issues, and there’s not gonna be another Katie Couric interview. The big danger is the pick means there’s going to be a lot more talk about tax policy and social security rather than jobs. Romney either has to criticize the Ryan Plan while praising Ryan, or defend the Ryan Plan, for all its warts.
Romney’s biggest opening against Obama is the high unemployment rate. He needs to hit obama on Jobs, jobs, jobs if he wants to win. I know the Republican party believes in trickle down, but I’m not sure the american public, especially those in rust-belt swing states would agree that tax cuts for their bosses mean more money in their pockets. Bottom line, this election is going to come down to the Obama Plan vs. the RomneyRyan Plan.
ocrenter
August 11, 2012 @
9:56 PM
poorgradstudent wrote:I’m [quote=poorgradstudent]I’m really confused by the timing of the announcement. Saturday morning is when people make announcements they want to be buried. Companies announce good news on Monday morning and bad news on Friday afternoons.
Because the VP has so little impact on the overall election I’m leaning towards calling Ryan a wash, overall. I think he will help with fundraising, as the mega rich LOVE Paul Ryan, and these days they drive the money game. I don’t think he can deliver Wisconsin; he’s not a Senator or Governor who has shown he can carry a statewide election, and his name recognition is far from 100% in Wisconsin.
I think Ryan is “safer” than Palin was, but he’s still a gutsy pick. He’s a smart guy with a strong command of domestic policy issues, and there’s not gonna be another Katie Couric interview. The big danger is the pick means there’s going to be a lot more talk about tax policy and social security rather than jobs. Romney either has to criticize the Ryan Plan while praising Ryan, or defend the Ryan Plan, for all its warts.
Romney’s biggest opening against Obama is the high unemployment rate. He needs to hit obama on Jobs, jobs, jobs if he wants to win. I know the Republican party believes in trickle down, but I’m not sure the american public, especially those in rust-belt swing states would agree that tax cuts for their bosses mean more money in their pockets. Bottom line, this election is going to come down to the Obama Plan vs. the RomneyRyan Plan.[/quote]
+1
Actually the news did come Friday night, so the CEO did deliver the news at its appropriate deserving spot.
SK in CV
August 11, 2012 @
10:05 PM
poorgradstudent wrote:I’m [quote=poorgradstudent]I’m really confused by the timing of the announcement. Saturday morning is when people make announcements they want to be buried. Companies announce good news on Monday morning and bad news on Friday afternoons.
[/quote]
His campaign was in panic mode. They had to go on offense, they couldn’t risk another bad weekend.
paramount
August 12, 2012 @
1:30 AM
Either way, O and Romney are Either way, O and Romney are bought, sold and paid for by the same elite/global corps.
CA renter
August 12, 2012 @
3:05 AM
paramount wrote:Either way, O [quote=paramount]Either way, O and Romney are bought, sold and paid for by the same elite/global corps.[/quote]
At the very least, can we all agree on this?
………..
For those who don’t already know this…
Rep. Paul Ryan, the GOP’s most outspoken advocate for cutting and privatizing Social Security, has already benefited from Social Security himself, in the form of survivor benefits he received after his father’s untimely death.
From the age of 16, when his 55-year-old father died of a heart attack, until he was 18, Ryan received Social Security payments, which, according to a lengthy profile in WI Magazine, he put away for college. The eventual budget czar attended Miami University in Ohio to earn a B.A. in economics and political science, and landed a congressional internship as a junior.
Ryan’s congressional ascent, all the way to the top spot on the Budget Committee, began with his Social Security-funded college education.
“Ryan credits his father’s death and the care of his grandmother as giving him first-hand experience as to how social service programs work,” WI Magazine wrote, referencing his Alzheimer’s-stricken grandmother, also a beneficiary of the social programs Ryan now opposes, who moved in with Ryan and his mother after his father died.
Rich liberals are noble and Rich liberals are noble and generous. They are people with a sense of responsibility and noblesse oblige.
Rich conservatives are just plain selfish.
Poor conservatives are uneducated and ignorant.
an
August 14, 2012 @
11:54 AM
briansd1 wrote:Rich liberals [quote=briansd1]Rich liberals are noble and generous. They are people with a sense of responsibility and noblesse oblige.
Rich conservatives are just plain selfish.
Poor conservatives are uneducated and ignorant.[/quote]
LOL
ocrenter
August 14, 2012 @
12:19 PM
briansd1 wrote:Rich liberals [quote=briansd1]Rich liberals are noble and generous. They are people with a sense of responsibility and noblesse oblige.
Rich conservatives are just plain selfish.
Poor conservatives are uneducated and ignorant.[/quote]
we have to morph this with the other side’s opinion too:
Rich liberals are noble and generous but lack values, are immoral, and unpatrotic.
Rich conservatives are plain selfish job creating, moral patriots.
Poor conservatives are uneducated and ignorant. But can be re-educated by the selfish job creating patriots.
briansd1
August 14, 2012 @
1:23 PM
I think that Ryan is more I think that Ryan is more likable than Romney.
Just talked to a friend who said that Mitt Romney and Al Gore are just boring guys whom he equally despises. This is a plain spoken Real American talking — someone who watches Fox News but isn’t much into politics.
He said that Ryan is OK and likable enough. Did not mind listening to Ryan.
I think that people vote for who they like and Romney is apparently very unlikable. I can’t really tell because I like Al Gore just fine. I like Romney more than I liked Bush because Bush sounded just so stupid all the time. But, apparently, Bush’s likability factor was pretty good.
poorgradstudent
August 14, 2012 @
1:42 PM
briansd1 wrote:I think that [quote=briansd1]I think that Ryan is more likable than Romney.
Just talked to a friend who said that Mitt Romney and Al Gore are just boring guys whom he equally despises. This is a plain spoken Real American talking — someone who watches Fox News but isn’t much into politics.
He said that Ryan is OK and likable enough. Did not mind listening to Ryan.
I think that people vote for who they like and Romney is apparently very unlikable. I can’t really tell because I like Al Gore just fine. I like Romney more than I liked Bush because Bush sounded just so stupid all the time. But, apparently, Bush’s likability factor was pretty good.[/quote]
Ryan definitely seems more affable and less like a Robot than Romney. I’ve been saying since 2008 that Romney just reminds me a lot of John Kerry. Zero charisma, good at parroting the party line but awkward. Al Gore is a special case onto himself; he ran a poor campaign and should have used more of his real personality that came out in An Inconvenient Truth, although he also is prone to seem aloof and robotic.
The more likable candidate often wins Presidential elections, because we elect people and not parties and swing voters in particular are often pretty torn on the issues and just go with the candidate that seems more likable.
SK in CV
August 14, 2012 @
9:33 PM
poorgradstudent wrote:
The [quote=poorgradstudent]
The more likable candidate often wins Presidential elections, because we elect people and not parties and swing voters in particular are often pretty torn on the issues and just go with the candidate that seems more likable.[/quote]
That pretty much has been the case for the last 40 years. Or at least 36. In ’72, George McGovern and Sargent Shriver were two of the most well liked to ever work in DC. McGovern rarely said a bad word about anyone, and vice versa. Shriver was a friggen saint until the day he died. Nixon and Agnew were assholes, and everyone knew it. Changing VP candidates when Tom Eagleton withdrew didn’t help much but election wasn’t even close. The assholes won in a landslide.
svelte
August 15, 2012 @
9:40 PM
Herman and Eddie [img_assist|nid=16570|title=Herman and Eddie|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=468|height=480]
bearishgurl
August 16, 2012 @
9:18 AM
svelte wrote:Herman and [quote=svelte][img_assist|nid=16570|title=Herman and Eddie|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=468|height=480][/quote]
The Mitten/Ryan team has an uncanny resemblance to the Munsters! Will little Eddie/Ryan start wearing shorts for all his new “fans?” And I wonder if Mitten’s spouse looks like Morticia? And does Mitt really have those bolt-holes in his neck which he hides behind plaid shirts??
Only his hairdresser knows for sure …
briansd1
August 16, 2012 @
1:16 AM
Ryan’s pronouced widow’s peak Ryan’s pronouced widow’s peak is kinda weird and evil looking.
And I agree with you, BG. Ryan could use some botox. In fact his face is kinda wrinkly like a Shar Pei. My bro who’s a maxillofacial would be happy to give him a facelift.
I didn’t know that Obama used botox. He could use a facelift to take care of the cheek folds and the mole though.
ocrenter
August 16, 2012 @
6:14 AM
where’s raise taxes and [img_assist|nid=16572|title=where’s raise taxes and reduce spending???|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=466|height=97]
so I was somehow directed to NewsMax Media’s right wing propaganda news site. they had an “urgent poll” including the above question.
of course, the most logical and reasonable and the only solution is missing: raise taxes and cut spending.
CA renter
August 16, 2012 @
10:18 PM
ocrenter wrote:where’s raise [quote=ocrenter][img_assist|nid=16572|title=where’s raise taxes and reduce spending???|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=466|height=97]
so I was somehow directed to NewsMax Media’s right wing propaganda news site. they had an “urgent poll” including the above question.
of course, the most logical and reasonable and the only solution is missing: raise taxes and cut spending.[/quote]
It’s like someone mentioned up above: they are preying on the huge swath of ignorant people in the U.S.
What’s sad, and scary, is that many people will read this poll and think that all of the options are listed there.
bearishgurl
August 16, 2012 @
9:09 AM
briansd1 wrote: . . . I [quote=briansd1] . . . I didn’t know that Obama used botox. He could use a facelift to take care of the cheek folds and the mole though.[/quote]
brian, take a look at Obama’s pics and videos from very early in his presidency. You will see he used to have a permanent deep furrow between his eyebrows before his people suggested (and rightly so) that Botox should become his friend. He doesn’t really need a facelift. Juvederm injections would take care of the cheek folds and a good dermatologist could remove the mole.
bearishgurl
August 16, 2012 @
9:13 AM
That young stud-muffin Ryan That young stud-muffin Ryan now has me inspired to step up my workout a little. I’m going to begin to incorporate different things to create “muscle confusion.” :=]
briansd1
August 16, 2012 @
1:04 PM
bearishgurl wrote:That young [quote=bearishgurl]That young stud-muffin Ryan now has me inspired to step up my workout a little. I’m going to begin to incorporate different things to create “muscle confusion.” :=][/quote]
As much as I don’t want Ryan to be right, he has the results to prove it.
Most people work out go for bulk and bragging rights, not real health and fitness.
Muscle confusion makes a lot of sense. That’s why skiers or horsemen, or farmers who work out all their muscles are more fit.
6’2, 163 is “skinny” compared to most the population, but it’s a good BMI of 20.
svelte
August 16, 2012 @
3:37 PM
Lilly not Morticia Lilly not Morticia
svelte
August 16, 2012 @
7:53 PM
yes there is a CF in SM. yes there is a CF in SM. Don’t eat there – food is terrible.
The problem is there are waaaay more Christians in this country than gays. Gays trying the boycott things is likely to backfire quite often.
On the other hand, I think the Christians will eat there once and drive up sales for that month. Then they’ll forget about it while the gays, they’ll never come back.
all
August 20, 2012 @
8:05 AM
svelte wrote:yes there is a [quote=svelte]yes there is a CF in SM. Don’t eat there – food is terrible.
[/quote]
There is also one in Carmel Mountain. Nordstrom Rack as well, just like San Marcos.
Anonymous
August 20, 2012 @
6:36 AM
I don’t want a President who I don’t want a President who is “likable.” I want an asshole that gets the country back on the track to prosperity.
If I wanted a likable president I would have voted for Obama.
When you examine conservative charitable giving, you’ll see they give as much or more than the Liberals. They just don’t brag about it as much.
all
August 20, 2012 @
8:01 AM
Brutus wrote:
When you [quote=Brutus]
When you examine conservative charitable giving, you’ll see they give as much or more than the Liberals. They just don’t brag about it as much.[/quote]
Maybe they are donating to religious organizations in an attempt to reduce the likelihood of extended stay in the hot place (Texas, Arizona)? If that is the case it sounds like buying insurance with pre-tax money.
ninaprincess
August 22, 2012 @
9:20 AM
Giving money to your church Giving money to your church is not entirely charitable giving. How much of that money is going to help the poor and unfortunates? How much is going to the child molesting defense fund?
[quote=Brutus]When you examine conservative charitable giving, you’ll see they give as much or more than the Liberals. They just don’t brag about it as much.[/quote]
ocrenter
August 22, 2012 @
10:51 AM
ninaprincess wrote:Giving [quote=ninaprincess]Giving money to your church is not entirely charitable giving. How much of that money is going to help the poor and unfortunates? How much is going to the child molesting defense fund?
[quote=Brutus]When you examine conservative charitable giving, you’ll see they give as much or more than the Liberals. They just don’t brag about it as much.[/quote][/quote]
and how much of that goes to fight gay marriage?
zk
August 22, 2012 @
7:16 AM
All that said, I do concur, All that said, I do concur, CAR, that there are vastly more important issues out there than gay marriage. And with homophobics being crowded out by the young and enlightened (on that issue), it won’t be an issue much longer.
svelte
August 22, 2012 @
7:41 AM
zk wrote:All that said, I do [quote=zk]All that said, I do concur, CAR, that there are vastly more important issues out there than gay marriage. And with homophobics being crowded out by the young and enlightened (on that issue), it won’t be an issue much longer.[/quote]
It sounds like you are not gay. Because if you were, gay marriage just might be pretty important to you.
zk
August 22, 2012 @
7:59 AM
svelte wrote:zk wrote:All [quote=svelte][quote=zk]All that said, I do concur, CAR, that there are vastly more important issues out there than gay marriage. And with homophobics being crowded out by the young and enlightened (on that issue), it won’t be an issue much longer.[/quote]
It sounds like you are not gay. Because if you were, gay marriage just might be pretty important to you.[/quote]
I didn’t say gay marriage wasn’t important. I said there are vastly more important issues out there. Meaning for the country as a whole. Changing the city permit rules to allow me to build the outbuilding I want would affect me personally more than gay marriage or most other issues. But it’s not that important to the country as a whole, and it would be a shame if we as a country wasted time debating my outbuilding when there are more important issues out there.
Obviously same-sex marriage is more important than my outbuilding. It’s personally important to a lot of people. And it’s important to me as a matter of social justice. But its importance to the nation has been blown out of proportion by politicians using the issue to incite/excite their base. Pretty soon, there won’t be enough homophobes around that appealing to them will make political sense. I’d like to fix the problem before that. But for the issue to be near the forefront of the national debate seems out of proportion to me.
svelte
August 22, 2012 @
9:08 AM
I’d agree with that – cheers! I’d agree with that – cheers!
August 11, 2012 @ 7:32 AM
Romney just cemented the
Romney just cemented the votes of some of the people that were going to vote for him anyway, will lose some by choosing the creator of “ending medicare as we know it”, and at best may have guaranteed no more than a 50/50 split of undecided voters. A not very bold move for a candidate losing traction. Shot his wad before the convention.
August 11, 2012 @ 7:58 AM
F**k both running packs of
F**k both running packs of assholes. I’m writing in Hillary Clinton’s name.
August 11, 2012 @ 9:08 AM
SK in CV wrote:A not very
[quote=SK in CV]A not very bold move for a candidate losing traction. Shot his wad before the convention.[/quote]
That right there tells you he is slipping. Otherwise he would have waited for the convention.
August 11, 2012 @ 9:32 AM
svelte wrote:SK in CV wrote:A
[quote=svelte][quote=SK in CV]A not very bold move for a candidate losing traction. Shot his wad before the convention.[/quote]
That right there tells you he is slipping. Otherwise he would have waited for the convention.[/quote]
Right, but it’s not the whole story. Romney was stuck between a rock and a hard place. The news cycle has just killed him for the last 3 weeks. The only news for him was bad. The only two issues being discussed were his taxes and unfounded accusations that a woman’s death was the result of what he did at Bain capital. (and before that, his disasterous trip.) Both were brilliant politics on the part of the Democrats. Both extreme claims that keep Romney looking bad in the news. His only choice was to change the news. Naming his VP running mate changes the news. It may stop the bleeding temporarily. But it doesn’t change the landscape.
August 11, 2012 @ 10:51 AM
I’m a political atheist, but
I’m a political atheist, but it seems clear to me that O is going to win fairly easily.
Romney’s vp choice was great for O, but Romney was losing anyway
And this despite the fact that O has been actively destroying liberty and freedom, expanded an occupation war and lied about lots of campaign promises.
August 11, 2012 @ 11:13 AM
paramount wrote:And this
[quote=paramount]And this despite the fact that O has been actively destroying liberty and freedom, expanded an occupation war and lied about lots of campaign promises.[/quote]
Perhaps they sense both sides aren’t completely honest when discussing what they can realistically accomplish, so the “liar” point is a wash.
Romney says he would reduce or eliminate many taxes. He would extend the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts, reduce individual income tax rates by 1/5 across the board, eliminate dividend and capital gains taxes, end the estate tax, repeal AMT.
Romney hasn’t said how he would accomplish this without making the deficit worse – probably because it is mathematically impossible, according to Bloomberg.
And after the last 12 months, we know for sure that reducing the deficit is a top priority with Republicans, don’t we? 🙂 Keep that in mind, because I predict that if Romney does win, the Reps will have a memory lapse on that point.
August 11, 2012 @ 6:27 PM
svelte wrote:
Perhaps they
[quote=svelte]
Perhaps they sense both sides aren’t completely honest when discussing what they can realistically accomplish, so the “liar” point is a wash.
[/quote]
A liar is a liar is a liar regardless of the context.
August 12, 2012 @ 3:26 AM
paramount wrote:svelte
[quote=paramount][quote=svelte]
Perhaps they sense both sides aren’t completely honest when discussing what they can realistically accomplish, so the “liar” point is a wash.
[/quote]
A liar is a liar is a liar regardless of the context.[/quote]
??
Odd statement.
August 12, 2012 @ 4:59 AM
I find it amusing that so
I find it amusing that so many lefties are already calling the election for Obama based on the news they get from… wait for it… the left-wing media, which provides most of the news you see in this country.
NBC,CBS, ABC, CNN, NYT, Boston Globe, LA Times, San Fran whatever…: Obama rooters to a fault.
As a recovering Liberal, I am voting for Romney. We cannot tax our way to prosperity, and if it comes down to extremes, which lefties always think it does, I’d rather live in a country run by the rich than one run by the poor.
The poor are not more noble, dignified or honest than the rich. They just have less money.
August 12, 2012 @ 8:14 AM
Brutus wrote:
The poor are
[quote=Brutus]
The poor are not more noble, dignified or honest than the rich. They just have less money.[/quote]
Yes the poor have less money. I just feel pity for the poor riff-raffs of the red states who vote for Romney. They are poor and stupid at the same time.
August 13, 2012 @ 4:44 AM
Wow. I guess they just don’t
Wow. I guess they just don’t know how stupid they are. Ignorance is bliss huh?
But then, that wouldn’t explain me. I don’t live in a red state and never have.
My wife and I both have Masters degrees.
I’m self-employed.
I was once a Liberal, when being a Liberal meant standing up for liberty, not killing the goose to dig out the last golden egg.
I believe that what’s good for me and what’s good for the country as a whole can often be different things. I vote for what I believe is good for the USA, not just my own self-interest.
And I believe that the people who pay most of the taxes should get to run the country, not the people who pay no taxes.
If I had my way, people who paid no Federal income tax would not be allowed to vote in Federal elections, and people who paid no State income tax would not be allowed to vote in State elections.
Poor people are generally too stupid to vote for anything but their own narrow self-interest.
August 13, 2012 @ 5:20 AM
Brutus wrote:Wow. I guess
[quote=Brutus]Wow. I guess they just don’t know how stupid they are. Ignorance is bliss huh?
But then, that wouldn’t explain me. I don’t live in a red state and never have.
My wife and I both have Masters degrees.
I’m self-employed.
I was once a Liberal, when being a Liberal meant standing up for liberty, not killing the goose to dig out the last golden egg.
I believe that what’s good for me and what’s good for the country as a whole can often be different things. I vote for what I believe is good for the USA, not just my own self-interest.
And I believe that the people who pay most of the taxes should get to run the country, not the people who pay no taxes.
If I had my way, people who paid no Federal income tax would not be allowed to vote in Federal elections, and people who paid no State income tax would not be allowed to vote in State elections.
Poor people are generally too stupid to vote for anything but their own narrow self-interest.[/quote]
And I believe that the people who work (LABOR) and create the value that is then taxed — and which creates the capitalists’ “capital” in the first place — should be the only ones who run the country.
August 13, 2012 @ 6:35 AM
Brutus wrote:
I was once a
[quote=Brutus]
I was once a Liberal, when being a Liberal meant standing up for liberty, not killing the goose to dig out the last golden egg.
I believe that what’s good for me and what’s good for the country as a whole can often be different things. I vote for what I believe is good for the USA, not just my own self-interest.
[/quote]
With you 100% here. I feel the same way. I’m amazed at how I can predict how someone will vote based on how the vote will best serve them. It gets me angry, really.
[quote=Brutus]
And I believe that the people who pay most of the taxes should get to run the country, not the people who pay no taxes.
If I had my way, people who paid no Federal income tax would not be allowed to vote in Federal elections, and people who paid no State income tax would not be allowed to vote in State elections.
Poor people are generally too stupid to vote for anything but their own narrow self-interest.[/quote]
Wow. You’ve went off the deep end here. Rich does not equate to smart and it especially doesn’t equate to being fair and just in their outlook.
There are a number of very intelligent people who are poor. They don’t consider wealth a high priority in the grand scheme of things. And they just might be right.
August 14, 2012 @ 4:25 AM
CA renter wrote:Brutus
[quote=CA renter][quote=Brutus]Wow. I guess they just don’t know how stupid they are. Ignorance is bliss huh?
But then, that wouldn’t explain me. I don’t live in a red state and never have.
My wife and I both have Masters degrees.
I’m self-employed.
I was once a Liberal, when being a Liberal meant standing up for liberty, not killing the goose to dig out the last golden egg.
I believe that what’s good for me and what’s good for the country as a whole can often be different things. I vote for what I believe is good for the USA, not just my own self-interest.
And I believe that the people who pay most of the taxes should get to run the country, not the people who pay no taxes.
If I had my way, people who paid no Federal income tax would not be allowed to vote in Federal elections, and people who paid no State income tax would not be allowed to vote in State elections.
Poor people are generally too stupid to vote for anything but their own narrow self-interest.[/quote]
And I believe that the people who work (LABOR) and create the value that is then taxed — and which creates the capitalists’ “capital” in the first place — should be the only ones who run the country.[/quote]
Oh, great! A country run by the least educated and motivated. We already had a country like that. It was called the USSR.
Didn’t work then. Won’t work now.
As we have seen in the USSR, Cuba, Cambodia, N. Korea, and revolutionary China, the tyranny of the communists is much worse than the tyranny of the capitalists.
The capitalists just want your money.
The Communists demand that you surrender your soul.
August 15, 2012 @ 1:05 AM
Brutus wrote:CA renter
[quote=Brutus][quote=CA renter][quote=Brutus]Wow. I guess they just don’t know how stupid they are. Ignorance is bliss huh?
But then, that wouldn’t explain me. I don’t live in a red state and never have.
My wife and I both have Masters degrees.
I’m self-employed.
I was once a Liberal, when being a Liberal meant standing up for liberty, not killing the goose to dig out the last golden egg.
I believe that what’s good for me and what’s good for the country as a whole can often be different things. I vote for what I believe is good for the USA, not just my own self-interest.
And I believe that the people who pay most of the taxes should get to run the country, not the people who pay no taxes.
If I had my way, people who paid no Federal income tax would not be allowed to vote in Federal elections, and people who paid no State income tax would not be allowed to vote in State elections.
Poor people are generally too stupid to vote for anything but their own narrow self-interest.[/quote]
And I believe that the people who work (LABOR) and create the value that is then taxed — and which creates the capitalists’ “capital” in the first place — should be the only ones who run the country.[/quote]
Oh, great! A country run by the least educated and motivated. We already had a country like that. It was called the USSR.
Didn’t work then. Won’t work now.
As we have seen in the USSR, Cuba, Cambodia, N. Korea, and revolutionary China, the tyranny of the communists is much worse than the tyranny of the capitalists.
The capitalists just want your money.
The Communists demand that you surrender your soul.[/quote]
Those countries were not run by workers, but by corrupt oligarchs. These oligarchs will destroy any economy; whether they go by “communist” or “capitalist” labels, it doesn’t matter one bit.
Corruption is what destroys countries and economies, and this level of corruption can only happen when money/power is so heavily concentrated into too few hands.
August 15, 2012 @ 8:42 AM
CA renter wrote:
Those
[quote=CA renter]
Those countries were not run by workers, but by corrupt oligarchs. These oligarchs will destroy any economy; whether they go by “communist” or “capitalist” labels, it doesn’t matter one bit.
Corruption is what destroys countries and economies, and this level of corruption can only happen when money/power is so heavily concentrated into too few hands.[/quote]
This is true. But it requires one more piece. Ignorance.
And frankly, our country is becoming more and more ignorant and misinformed.
The Presidential campaign seems to sink to a new low every day on the misinformation, distortion and fear mongering level on both sides.
Corruption is steadily increasing and it’s well disguised. Let’s be honest, the High Speed Rail plan pushed through is about who’s going to make money.
Now get your baksheesh campaign contributions out.
August 15, 2012 @ 2:04 PM
Finally, we have a national
Finally, we have a national leader who walks the walk.
The latest edition to the presidential ticket may pack a hefty punch on the policy side, but at 162 pounds and 6 to 8 percent body fat, Paul Ryan is as fit and trim as his budget plan.
http://bcove.me/lz0g59ci
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/rumors-paul-ryans-pac-abs-make-internet-swoon/story?id=17004598#.UCwKTamPVa4
http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_c3#/video/politics/2012/08/14/tsr-moos-shirtless-paul-ryan.cnn
But I was told by a reliable source that a straight man who cares that much about his body fat is a closet homosexual.
August 15, 2012 @ 3:12 PM
briansd1 wrote:Finally, we
[quote=briansd1]Finally, we have a national leader who walks the walk.
The latest edition to the presidential ticket may pack a hefty punch on the policy side, but at 162 pounds and 6 to 8 percent body fat, Paul Ryan is as fit and trim as his budget plan.
http://bcove.me/lz0g59ci
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/rumors-paul-ryans-pac-abs-make-internet-swoon/story?id=17004598#.UCwKTamPVa4
http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_c3#/video/politics/2012/08/14/tsr-moos-shirtless-paul-ryan.cnn
But I was told by a reliable source that a straight man who cares that much about his body fat is a closet homosexual.[/quote]
LOL, brian … ;=D The first video was quite telling. I guess we’ll all have to use our imaginations on what PR looks like shirtless because he only seems to wear one that matches the nominee (if they appear together, that is)!
I’ve heard of that exercise program and took a couple of classes once of a similar exercise class. They are indeed hard to get through.
I’m sure PR is right. The P90X program WORKS! He used to work as a personal trainer so he should KNOW, right??
If your “reliable source” was this forum, brian, I would advise you to take it with a grain of salt. There’s nothing wrong with a male (or female) who is concerned about their body-fat percentage and keeping themselves in shape. The world would be a lot simpler (AND cheaper) place to live in if more people had these concerns.
Maybe I should change my answer in this poll to “Brilliant Choice.” I saw PR and “Mittens” (Allan’s reference) together on 60 Minutes Sunday in their matching blue-check shirts and thought Mitt’s choice of young-energetic-stud PR will infuse his campaign with as much excitement as he could ever hope for (at nearly the 11th hour). And it seems to be working now that Google is flooded with searches for topless PR, nude PR, photoshopped PR, cartoon-character PR and P90X. Maybe he will inspire more Gen Y’s to lay off the Doritos and get healthier!
Thanks for sharing, brian :=]
edit: I want to suggest to PR that he now take 20 mins out of the “campaign trail” to get himself a couple of syringes of Botox. It did wonders early on for Obama when he entered office looking “stressed” from his own campaign … and he seems to be keeping it up on a regular basis, now 🙂
August 15, 2012 @ 3:31 PM
no_such_reality wrote:And
[quote=no_such_reality]And frankly, our country is becoming more and more ignorant and misinformed.
[/quote]
Whaddaya mean? There’s quite a lot of people that have taken up an interest in history and the Constitution these days:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/area-man-passionate-defender-of-what-he-imagines-c,2849/
(Old one, but continues to be far too relevant.)
August 13, 2012 @ 6:52 AM
Brutus wrote:Wow. I guess
[quote=Brutus]Wow. I guess they just don’t know how stupid they are. Ignorance is bliss huh?
But then, that wouldn’t explain me. I don’t live in a red state and never have.
My wife and I both have Masters degrees.
I’m self-employed.
I was once a Liberal, when being a Liberal meant standing up for liberty, not killing the goose to dig out the last golden egg.
I believe that what’s good for me and what’s good for the country as a whole can often be different things. I vote for what I believe is good for the USA, not just my own self-interest.
And I believe that the people who pay most of the taxes should get to run the country, not the people who pay no taxes.
If I had my way, people who paid no Federal income tax would not be allowed to vote in Federal elections, and people who paid no State income tax would not be allowed to vote in State elections.
Poor people are generally too stupid to vote for anything but their own narrow self-interest.[/quote]
People that pay the most taxes, aka the 1%, already rule by proxy. You just want to make it de jure. Ok, understood.
Actually, most of the poor can’t even vote for narrow self interest. They get swayed by by contrived issue of the day. For example, a poor white family in the Central Valley who depends on Medicare and benefits from illegal driven agricultural economy will vote against Medicare and the Dream Act.
If the poor who do not pay taxes can’t vote, the 1% can’t get elected.
August 13, 2012 @ 10:00 AM
ocrenter wrote:
Actually,
[quote=ocrenter]
Actually, most of the poor can’t even vote for narrow self interest. They get swayed by by contrived issue of the day. For example, a poor white family in the Central Valley who depends on Medicare and benefits from illegal driven agricultural economy will vote against Medicare and the Dream Act.
If the poor who do not pay taxes can’t vote, the 1% can’t get elected.[/quote]
Well said, ocrenter. I’m going to steal your last sentence and use it later. 😉
Brutus is a little confused.
In reality, as a agregrate, Democrats tend to be more well-to-do, better educated than Republicans. Want the data? All we need to to is look at an election map. After the elections, we can look at the election map and drill down by county.
I personally know some people who don’t have health insurance but are vociforously anti Obama-Care.
On guy was around 60, and had a heart attack before he could qualify for Medicare at 65. He had to liquidate assets to pay for medical bills. He moved from La Jolla to Florida. Serves him right.
In America, the choices are stark when it comes to Medical expenses: 1) Either you don’t have assets and go to the emergency room when you get sick. Then you can default on your medical debt. 2) You get medical insurance out of pocket or through an employer.
As far as Nancy Pelosi, Al Gore, John Kerry being very rich, that’s all the better. Who says, you can’t be liberal and filthy rich? I admire rich liberals (like Warren Buffet, Steve Bezos, Hollywood and Silicon Valley executives) who would raise taxes on themselves much more than rich selfish conservatives.
August 13, 2012 @ 10:01 AM
Wait, aren’t “Right wing of
Wait, aren’t “Right wing of GOP has Mitt by the balls” and “Liberals are celebrating” the same answer?
August 13, 2012 @ 10:46 AM
afx114 wrote:Wait, aren’t
[quote=afx114]Wait, aren’t “Right wing of GOP has Mitt by the balls” and “Liberals are celebrating” the same answer?[/quote]
I think with Ryan as VP, everyone is happy. Both Liberal and Conservatives are happy by the nomination.
August 13, 2012 @ 10:48 AM
AN wrote:afx114 wrote:Wait,
[quote=AN][quote=afx114]Wait, aren’t “Right wing of GOP has Mitt by the balls” and “Liberals are celebrating” the same answer?[/quote]
I think with Ryan as VP, everyone is happy. Both Liberal and Conservatives are happy by the nomination.[/quote]
Finally, first the first time, everybody agrees! =)
August 13, 2012 @ 10:56 AM
ocrenter wrote:AN
[quote=ocrenter][quote=AN][quote=afx114]Wait, aren’t “Right wing of GOP has Mitt by the balls” and “Liberals are celebrating” the same answer?[/quote]
I think with Ryan as VP, everyone is happy. Both Liberal and Conservatives are happy by the nomination.[/quote]
Finally, first the first time, everybody agrees! =)[/quote]
Maybe there will be peace on earth for at least 2 more months :-D.
August 13, 2012 @ 10:56 AM
I don’t think that moderate
I don’t think that moderate Republicans are happy with the Ryan pick. They would probably have preferred Huntsman or Portman.
The Tea Party is happy because they now control the agenda. Their hard work paid off.
August 13, 2012 @ 11:53 AM
briansd1 wrote:I don’t think
[quote=briansd1]I don’t think that moderate Republicans are happy with the Ryan pick. They would probably have preferred Huntsman or Portman.
The Tea Party is happy because they now control the agenda. Their hard work paid off.[/quote]
the moderate Republicans do not matter, they lost their party years ago. Plus Washington is run by the extremists anyway.
August 14, 2012 @ 4:16 AM
Yeah. Sure. They’d “raise
Yeah. Sure. They’d “raise taxes on themselves” then get their lawyers and accountants to figure out how to avoid paying those taxes. Just Like John Kerry did when he parked his new yacht in RI.
I despise rich Liberals, rich socialists, and rich Communists (pretty much the same thing).
August 12, 2012 @ 8:59 AM
Brutus wrote:I find it
[quote=Brutus]I find it amusing that so many lefties are already calling the election for Obama based on the news they get from… wait for it… the left-wing media, which provides most of the news you see in this country.
NBC,CBS, ABC, CNN, NYT, Boston Globe, LA Times, San Fran whatever…: Obama rooters to a fault.
As a recovering Liberal, I am voting for Romney. We cannot tax our way to prosperity, and if it comes down to extremes, which lefties always think it does, I’d rather live in a country run by the rich than one run by the poor.
The poor are not more noble, dignified or honest than the rich. They just have less money.[/quote]
First, I’m not a lefty, I’m quite comfortable with capitalism, and I’m not calling the election. We’re still almost 90 days out, and a lot of things can change.
Interesting analysis of media bias in election coverage can be found here:
http://www.4thestate.net/liberal-media-bias/
The data from the polling aggregators is pretty clear. Romney had a very bad few weeks and has dropped in the polls to trail by about 4% in the popular vote. They only way anyone can argue those numbers are biased is if Rasmussen is the only reliable polling outfit. And they’re not.
But worse for Romney, the state polling paints a very difficult path for him to win the election. As each week passes, those numbers firm up, and changing direction is difficult. Again, it’s not impossible, but the campaign is now down to a small handful of states, and Obama is leading in all but one of them.
Related to your comment that “we cannot tax our way to prosperity”, you’re right. And it makes for a good sound bite. But of course it’s a straw man argument. Nobody has ever made the argument that we can.
August 12, 2012 @ 9:38 AM
SK in CV wrote:
Interesting
[quote=SK in CV]
Interesting analysis of media bias in election coverage can be found here:
http://www.4thestate.net/liberal-media-bias/
[/quote]
The invention and propagation of the “liberal media” myth is the greatest political ploy of all time. Absolute genius on the part of the right-wing noise machine. The fact is that most people get most of their political information from the media. And if you can convince people that the media is biased against you, you can convince them that any news coverage of anything your side does that is lame/wrong/horrible has more to do with the media than anything that your side has done. And you can convince them the same about any favorable coverage of the other side.
Extremely powerful and absolutely brilliant.
August 12, 2012 @ 9:46 AM
zk wrote:SK in CV
[quote=zk][quote=SK in CV]
Interesting analysis of media bias in election coverage can be found here:
http://www.4thestate.net/liberal-media-bias/
[/quote]
The invention and propagation of the “liberal media” myth is the greatest political ploy of all time. Absolute genius on the part of the right-wing noise machine. The fact is that most people get most of their political information from the media. And if you can convince people that the media is biased against you, you can convince them that any news coverage of anything your side does that is lame/wrong/horrible has more to do with the media than anything that your side has done. And you can convince them the same about any favorable coverage of the other side.
Extremely powerful and absolutely brilliant.[/quote]
The bias in media is towards incompetence. They rarely call lies, lies, because they’re too busy looking at their notes for the next question, without listening to what’s being said. When they do listen, they’re rarely well enough informed to know the truth. And they constantly search for equivalence when there is none. It’s not a pretty picture.
August 12, 2012 @ 9:56 AM
SK in CV wrote:
The bias in
[quote=SK in CV]
The bias in media is towards incompetence. They rarely call lies, lies, because they’re too busy looking at their notes for the next question, without listening to what’s being said. When they do listen, they’re rarely well enough informed to know the truth. And they constantly search for equivalence when there is none. It’s not a pretty picture.[/quote]
Concur. I used to figure (up til my mid-twenties) that what I read in the paper was pretty much accurate. By my mid-twenties I had learned enough about the field that I’m in to know when errors were being made. And I was shocked and appalled when I saw that they were inaccurate as often as accurate. So, obviously, I have to figure the same applies to other fields about which I know little or nothing.
August 12, 2012 @ 10:47 AM
zk wrote:
Concur. I used to
[quote=zk]
Concur. I used to figure (up til my mid-twenties) that what I read in the paper was pretty much accurate. By my mid-twenties I had learned enough about the field that I’m in to know when errors were being made. And I was shocked and appalled when I saw that they were inaccurate as often as accurate. So, obviously, I have to figure the same applies to other fields about which I know little or nothing.[/quote]
Very astute observation. (i say that, maybe because it’s an observation I’ve made myself.) The breadth of subjects that I’m qualified to spot errors is pretty narrow, but they happen, in all news media, so often that it makes me question just about everything else I read. (I think that’s pretty much the same thing you said.) So it requires curiosity to verify or dispute things that just don’t sound right. Critical thinking skills are essential.
August 12, 2012 @ 10:42 AM
zk wrote:SK in CV
[quote=zk][quote=SK in CV]
Interesting analysis of media bias in election coverage can be found here:
http://www.4thestate.net/liberal-media-bias/
[/quote]
The invention and propagation of the “liberal media” myth is the greatest political ploy of all time. Absolute genius on the part of the right-wing noise machine. The fact is that most people get most of their political information from the media. And if you can convince people that the media is biased against you, you can convince them that any news coverage of anything your side does that is lame/wrong/horrible has more to do with the media than anything that your side has done. And you can convince them the same about any favorable coverage of the other side.
Extremely powerful and absolutely brilliant.[/quote]
Through out history, evil doers also came up with plenty of false trumped up charges to justify their actions.
–The 18th century drug cartel, the British East India Company, in the name of free trade, forced China open so they can freely push their opium.
–the Spanish Missionaries, in the name of God and fighting against devil worship, destroyed the entirety of the Mayan written language.
–the Japanese, in the name protecting a Japanese owned railway against terrorist attacks, invaded and occupied Manchuria.
–the Germans, in the name of protecting discriminated ethnic Germans in Sudetenland, invaded czechoslovakia.
The list can go on and on.
Creating a story of overwhelming media bias against the Right and the Conservatives justifies the creation of the propaganda machine AKA FOX News. Now we see the Union Tribune going down the same path. These “news outlets” are no better than the good old People’s Daily and XinHua news agency from China.
August 12, 2012 @ 11:21 PM
ocrenter wrote:
–the
[quote=ocrenter]
–the Germans, in the name of protecting discriminated ethnic Germans in Sudetenland, invaded czechoslovakia.
Creating a story of overwhelming media bias against the Right and the Conservatives justifies the creation of the propaganda machine AKA FOX News. Now we see the Union Tribune going down the same path. These “news outlets” are no better than the good old People’s Daily and XinHua news agency from China.[/quote]
While I agree with what you said, may I point out at the risk of thread going OT and at at the risk of being labeled you-know-what, that the ethnic Germans in the above case did have a genuine grievance? It was not “made up” of any sort as cited by your other examples.
Ethnic germans being discriminated against in eastern europe and being caught in the wave of ethnicity based nationalism is very similar to the situation of Kurds being split up across 4 or 5 states today.
August 13, 2012 @ 6:39 AM
dumbrenter wrote:
While I
[quote=dumbrenter]
While I agree with what you said, may I point out at the risk of thread going OT and at at the risk of being labeled you-know-what, that the ethnic Germans in the above case did have a genuine grievance? It was not “made up” of any sort as cited by your other examples.
Ethnic germans being discriminated against in eastern europe and being caught in the wave of ethnicity based nationalism is very similar to the situation of Kurds being split up across 4 or 5 states today.[/quote]
Point taken. While ethnic Germans did have legit grievance, the Nazis did take advantage of it as the pretext for an invasion. And in the end, the Germans were systematically cleansed from CZ. Which was probably what the Czechs wanted all along.
August 13, 2012 @ 5:08 AM
The
The latest:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll/
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/
Every Democrat candidate wants to raise taxes, as if that one thing is the cure-all for every problem. They want to raise taxes on tobacco, the rich, hotel rooms, restaurants, DMV fees and on and on until it makes you sick.
But, like the “Honorable” Senator John Kerry, they will do whatever they can get away with to avoid paying the taxes they VOTED for.
Remember the nice, expensive, new yacht John Kerry parked in RI to avoid the taxes he would have had to pay by bringing it into Massachusetts? Is there a situation that is more illustrative of the Democratic mentality than THAT?
Is there, ANYWHERE, a Democrat that votes in lock-step with his Liberal constituents more than John Kerry? Is he the perfect definition of a hypocrite?
Yes, he is. Just like the rest of his fellow travelers. A rich, Brahmin holier-than-thou hypocrite.
He is disgusting.
Other than that, I have no opinions on the subject of Liberal hypocrisy.
August 12, 2012 @ 11:36 AM
I also agree with you that
I also agree with you that cutting spendings should be first priority. I also hated the bloated government but I think Obama is the far less evil than Romney/Ryan. The tax rate for the rich has fallen dramatically over the last 30 years to about 15% now. Mitt paid 14% last two years and probably far less for the previous years which why he refused to release his tax records. On the other hand, most middle class and upper middle class professionals pay well over 20% rates.
The tax cuts have disproportionately favored the rich. For example, if your income is $100 mil and you get a 5% tax cut, you saved $5 mil. If your income is $100,000 you saved $5k. However, with less government revenue the dramatic reduction of services in k-12, colleges, parks, libraries, Social Security, Medicare affected the middle class much more. The middle class ended up paying out of pocket more than the $5k that he/she saved in taxes through activity fees in k-12, higher college tuition, park fees, less Social Security received, high medical cost and dmv fees…etc. While the rich will most likely keep their $5 mil saved because they are much less likely to use these services.
The gap between rich and poor are ever widening and voting Rommney and Ryan will only make it worst. A strong country needs a strong middle class and a small income gap between the super rich and the middle class.
[quote=Brutus]
As a recovering Liberal, I am voting for Romney. We cannot tax our way to prosperity, and if it comes down to extremes, which lefties always think it does, I’d rather live in a country run by the rich than one run by the poor.
quote]
August 12, 2012 @ 12:16 PM
EmilyHicks wrote:On the other
[quote=EmilyHicks]On the other hand, most middle class and upper middle class professionals pay well over 20% rates.[/quote]
Really? I’ve NEVER paid >15% effective rate since I start working. Over the last few years after I bought my house, my effective rates were anywhere between 6-9%. The only way I can see you paying well over 20% effective rate is if you’re in the 28 or 33%, have 0 deduction and put your retirement in Roth 401k instead of traditional.
August 12, 2012 @ 12:43 PM
For better or for worse, the
For better or for worse, the Tea Party has gained control of the Republican party.
It’s definitely a move by Romney to strenghten this ticket’s appeal with the Tea Party.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/12/ryan-brings-the-tea-party-to-the-ticket/?hp
So much for the likes of Rubio, Portman and Hunstman in the Republican party. I said that when they picked Palin 4 years ago.
August 12, 2012 @ 5:42 PM
http://www.economist.com/node
http://www.economist.com/node/21560261
Good Economist article on the subject. Obama has recently outspent Romney on ad’s over 3-to-1 ($38m to $10m) to gain momentum. But that will soon change as Romney gets access to the war chest of cash after the convention.
Anyone (like Ryan) that has ideas to take on that “gigantic money sucking black hole entitlement program Asteroid” quickly headed for earth (called Medicare/Medicaid, that represents a huge chunk of the U.S. deficit), has some of my interest.
August 12, 2012 @ 10:02 PM
ctr70
[quote=ctr70]http://www.economist.com/node/21560261
Good Economist article on the subject. Obama has recently outspent Romney on ad’s over 3-to-1 ($38m to $10m) to gain momentum. But that will soon change as Romney gets access to the war chest of cash after the convention.
Anyone (like Ryan) that has ideas to take on that “gigantic money sucking black hole entitlement program Asteroid” quickly headed for earth (called Medicare/Medicaid, that represents a huge chunk of the U.S. deficit), has some of my interest.[/quote]
Any $5 trillion over 10 year spending proposal (disguised as tax cut) also has some of my interest, as should yours.
August 13, 2012 @ 8:19 AM
AN wrote:EmilyHicks wrote:On
[quote=AN][quote=EmilyHicks]On the other hand, most middle class and upper middle class professionals pay well over 20% rates.[/quote]
Really? I’ve NEVER paid >15% effective rate since I start working. Over the last few years after I bought my house, my effective rates were anywhere between 6-9%. The only way I can see you paying well over 20% effective rate is if you’re in the 28 or 33%, have 0 deduction and put your retirement in Roth 401k instead of traditional.[/quote]
Depends on what you include in your tax rate. Do you include or exclude California Income tax? Do you include or exclude Social Security Taxes? Do you include property taxes or exclude them? What about Sales Taxes? That’s the problem with measuring effective tax rates in our complex tax system. You can get your federal income effective tax rate pretty low but you’re probably paying taxes somewhere else to do it.
Federal by itself is probably around 15-20% for upper middle class with few deductions, but add in CA income and Social Security and you easily get over 20%.
August 13, 2012 @ 9:12 AM
livinincali wrote:Depends on
[quote=livinincali]Depends on what you include in your tax rate. Do you include or exclude California Income tax? Do you include or exclude Social Security Taxes? Do you include property taxes or exclude them? What about Sales Taxes? That’s the problem with measuring effective tax rates in our complex tax system. You can get your federal income effective tax rate pretty low but you’re probably paying taxes somewhere else to do it.
Federal by itself is probably around 15-20% for upper middle class with few deductions, but add in CA income and Social Security and you easily get over 20%.[/quote]
I didn’t add anything. Just straight up federal tax rate. I agree our tax code is complex. The richer you are, the more opportunity you have to take more deduction. I agree with you that our tax system is complex and set up in a way that richer people can take more deduction and pay less effective tax rate. But that’s what happen when you have all sorts of deductions and a very complex tax code. This is why I in full support of simplifying our tax code. Removing a lot of the deductions to “widen the base and lower the rates”. WRT to comparing capital gain vs ordinary income, over the last 60+ years, there were only two years where capital gain tax was equal to ordinary income tax. That was when Reagan slashes ordinary income rate to be equal capital gains rate. Not raises capital gains rate to match ordinary income rate.
What would you consider as upper middle class? Why would upper middle class people not take advantages of the various deductions? Someone who are in the upper middle class obviously have the opportunity to take numerous deductions. If one chooses to pay more taxes by not taking deduction, then that’s their choice. It’s not like you can’t. This is why people call the tax code as a mean for social engineering. If you’re fighting the government and not do what they want you to do, then, of course you’ll pay more. However, you don’t have to. Talking about using the tax code as a tool for social engineering, one example is why long term capital gains is taxed at a lower rate than short term capital gains.
August 13, 2012 @ 12:49 PM
AN wrote:livinincali
[quote=AN][quote=livinincali]Depends on what you include in your tax rate. Do you include or exclude California Income tax? Do you include or exclude Social Security Taxes? Do you include property taxes or exclude them? What about Sales Taxes? That’s the problem with measuring effective tax rates in our complex tax system. You can get your federal income effective tax rate pretty low but you’re probably paying taxes somewhere else to do it.
Federal by itself is probably around 15-20% for upper middle class with few deductions, but add in CA income and Social Security and you easily get over 20%.[/quote]
What would you consider as upper middle class? Why would upper middle class people not take advantages of the various deductions? Someone who are in the upper middle class obviously have the opportunity to take numerous deductions. If one chooses to pay more taxes by not taking deduction, then that’s their choice. It’s not like you can’t. This is why people call the tax code as a mean for social engineering. If you’re fighting the government and not do what they want you to do, then, of course you’ll pay more. However, you don’t have to. Talking about using the tax code as a tool for social engineering, one example is why long term capital gains is taxed at a lower rate than short term capital gains.[/quote]
I’d consider upper middle class as the top 25% by income. I don’t buy the “$200K is barely middle class in San Fran, New York, etc.”. That’s a choice and the expectations are just different. Middle class in general has changed dramatically over the years. Middle class was once 1 car, maybe a couple TVs with an antenna on the roof, a home phone and maybe a computer. Now it’s flat screen TVs in every room, Cell Phones for everybody in the family, internet service provider, cable providers, multiple cars, etc. A lot more stuff and the costs associated with that stuff. The question becomes is our life really all that better with that stuff.
As for why don’t you take advantage of tax deductions, usually most tax advantages come with a significant cost. If I bought a house at the peak of the bubble my federal tax rate is pretty low but I’m not better off financially because of it. I know the government wants us to have children, get married, buy homes, and dump our money into the stock market, but I’m not going to rush into those major decision just to get a tax break. I feel bad for people that do.
August 13, 2012 @ 1:12 PM
livinincali wrote: I’d
[quote=livinincali] I’d consider upper middle class as the top 25% by income.
[/quote]
That’s a pretty good definition.
Middle-class has always been a nebulous term.
In England, middle-class are professionals, and business people, but not nobility.
[quote=livinincali]
As for why don’t you take advantage of tax deductions, usually most tax advantages come with a significant cost. [/quote]
Yes, better to have neither expense nor deduction.
August 14, 2012 @ 4:34 AM
Here’s an interesting article
Here’s an interesting article on charity:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-12-biden-financial_N.htm
and here’s another:
http://www.businessinsider.com/mitt-romneys-charitable-donations-mormon-church-2012-7
Even I gave more (on less income) to charity the Joe Biden, the self-righteous LIBERAL.
Typical hypocrisy, but what did you expect?
August 14, 2012 @ 7:20 AM
Brutus wrote:Here’s an
[quote=Brutus]Here’s an interesting article on charity:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-12-biden-financial_N.htm
and here’s another:
http://www.businessinsider.com/mitt-romneys-charitable-donations-mormon-church-2012-7
Even I gave more (on less income) to charity the Joe Biden, the self-righteous LIBERAL.
Typical hypocrisy, but what did you expect?[/quote]
Question for you, Brutus: Do you think there’s more hypocrisy among liberal politicians than among conservative ones?
August 14, 2012 @ 8:35 PM
zk wrote:Brutus wrote:Here’s
[quote=zk][quote=Brutus]Here’s an interesting article on charity:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-12-biden-financial_N.htm
and here’s another:
http://www.businessinsider.com/mitt-romneys-charitable-donations-mormon-church-2012-7
Even I gave more (on less income) to charity the Joe Biden, the self-righteous LIBERAL.
Typical hypocrisy, but what did you expect?[/quote]
Question for you, Brutus: Do you think there’s more hypocrisy among liberal politicians than among conservative ones?[/quote]
[quote=Brutus]
(swirling wind)
[/quote]
Good call not falling for that trap, Brutus. Unfortunately for you, mindless, Rush-Limbaughesque trashing of the other side doesn’t fly if your audience isn’t a bunch of dittoheads.
August 16, 2012 @ 10:33 AM
zk wrote:zk wrote:Brutus
[quote=zk][quote=zk][quote=Brutus]Here’s an interesting article on charity:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-12-biden-financial_N.htm
and here’s another:
http://www.businessinsider.com/mitt-romneys-charitable-donations-mormon-church-2012-7
Even I gave more (on less income) to charity the Joe Biden, the self-righteous LIBERAL.
Typical hypocrisy, but what did you expect?[/quote]
Question for you, Brutus: Do you think there’s more hypocrisy among liberal politicians than among conservative ones?[/quote]
[quote=Brutus]
(swirling wind)
[/quote]
Good call not falling for that trap, Brutus. Unfortunately for you, mindless, Rush-Limbaughesque trashing of the other side doesn’t fly if your audience isn’t a bunch of dittoheads.[/quote]
To the question above, I say:
Yes. But it’s a close race…
August 16, 2012 @ 10:59 AM
Close? Not even. It will be
Close? Not even. It will be landslide for Obama especially in electoral votes.
I put my neck out there and predicted. We will see how much prescience I have.
Btw, I predicted Ryan as the pick one day before the announcement.
http://piggington.com/ot_who_will_romney_pick_as_vp_candidate
We don’t have much longer to wait…
August 16, 2012 @ 1:23 PM
briansd1 wrote:Close? Not
[quote=briansd1]Close? Not even. It will be landslide for Obama especially in electoral votes.
I put my neck out there and predicted. We will see how much prescience I have.
Btw, I predicted Ryan as the pick one day before the announcement.
http://piggington.com/ot_who_will_romney_pick_as_vp_candidate
We don’t have much longer to wait…[/quote]
Chik-fil-a says you’re wrong.
The left and democrats missed it, but Chik-fil-a shows that even in California, the political right is motivated. The left, is demoralized.
August 16, 2012 @ 3:07 PM
no_such_reality
[quote=no_such_reality]
Chik-fil-a says you’re wrong.
The left and democrats missed it, but Chik-fil-a shows that even in California, the political right is motivated. The left, is demoralized.[/quote]
Going to Chik-fil-a is not necessarily a sign of being motivated, nor is not going a sign that you’re demoralized.
To me, going to Chik-fil-a is an easy way to voice your homophobia without having to defend it to those who would discuss it with you.
And you’re right, I missed it. What was it that showed the left is demoralized?
August 16, 2012 @ 3:36 PM
zk wrote:Going to Chik-fil-a
[quote=zk]Going to Chik-fil-a is not necessarily a sign of being motivated, nor is not going a sign that you’re demoralized.[/quote]
Yeah, people are trying to make way to much out of that thing.
Probably more a sign that one is hungry than anything else.
[quote]To me, going to Chik-fil-a is an easy way to voice your homophobia without having to defend it to those who would discuss it with you.[/quote]
That’s it. It’s about being part of a group so that you don’t have to stick out your neck as an individual. The Klan is based on the same approach.
The fact that the “the left” didn’t try very hard to stop anyone from going to a chicken restaurant for lunch really doesn’t tell us anything.
I don’t consider myself part of “the left” – just ask me about public pensions. But I do believe gays should be allowed to marry, I think there is overwhelming momentum in that direction, and I don’t think anyone eating a chicken sandwich is going to change that.
That’s why I stayed home. Not demoralized, just disinterested in an embarrassing display of hate.
August 16, 2012 @ 3:42 PM
harvey wrote:
That’s why I
[quote=harvey]
That’s why I stayed home. Not demoralized, just disinterested in an embarrassing display of hate.[/quote]
+1
August 16, 2012 @ 3:49 PM
What about the the kiss-in at
What about the the kiss-in at Chik-fil-a?
If I were selling a product, I would not mess with gays. They will boycott for a long time.
All the corporations that voiced homophobia in the past have caved and made amends. It’s only a matter of time. I predict a Chik-fil-a float at the Gay parade in the future just like you have Coors and Target. If they want to grow beyond the Bible belt, they will have to do a 180.
Is there a Chik-fil-a in SD? I don’t even remember seeing one.
But Chik-fil-a is small potatoes compared to the “real capitalists” of the tech sector. Jeff Bezos just donated big bucks to support gay marriage.
August 17, 2012 @ 2:11 PM
zk wrote:no_such_reality
[quote=zk][quote=no_such_reality]
Chik-fil-a says you’re wrong.
The left and democrats missed it, but Chik-fil-a shows that even in California, the political right is motivated. The left, is demoralized.[/quote]
Going to Chik-fil-a is not necessarily a sign of being motivated, nor is not going a sign that you’re demoralized.
To me, going to Chik-fil-a is an easy way to voice your homophobia without having to defend it to those who would discuss it with you.
And you’re right, I missed it. What was it that showed the left is demoralized?[/quote]
Chik-fil-A is a sign of how awesome free advertising is for a business. Boycotts don’t work in part because once a boycott makes news, it just reminds people over and over again about that business. And although I don’t like their politics, Chik-Fil-A makes damn tasty food.
The left is *relatively* demoralized compared to 2008. There’s an enthusiasm gap, and new voter registrations for young voters are no where near what they were in ’08. But the electoral map is just ugly for Romney. Demographics just haven’t been kind to the Republicans nationally, and it’s starting to really show. If you use a 5% polling advantage as a cut-off, Obama currently has 243 safe electoral votes of the needed 270. (Romney has 191). If Obama wins FL, he wins, period. Romney has no route to the White House that doesn’t go through Ohio and Florida. The nice thing is we should know pretty early in the night if Obama will win. If he wins VA *or* NC, it’s over. If Obama wins Ohio it’s probably over too. Florida is notoriously slow in their results.
Mitt’s biggest hope now is a spending blitz, but it’s mid-August and a lot of voters have made up their minds. Barring a huge economic downswing in the next 4 months, Obama should smoothly sail back into the White House (although he may only pull ~51% of the popular vote). The Dems may lose the Senate though, which would make for at least 2 years of gridlock.
August 17, 2012 @ 10:04 PM
Chik-fil-a ought to study
Chik-fil-a ought to study Coors Brewing, a company that is well-studied in business school. I studied that case myself.
The Coors family was well known for supporting anti-gay causes. They had to reverse course and actively court the gay community.
Boycotts do work. Once a company builds a bad reputation, it’s very hard to shake. There are good reasons for corporations to be progressive. Hence, plenty of companies support the gay parade, BofA, Wells Fargo, etc…
For example, Jeff Bezos of Amazon donating big bucks to support gay marriage is viewed as positive. Chik-fil-a faces the problem with being labeled archaic in popular culture and that’s not good for growth.
August 17, 2012 @ 10:32 PM
poorgradstudent wrote:
The
[quote=poorgradstudent]
The left is *relatively* demoralized compared to 2008. There’s an enthusiasm gap, and new voter registrations for young voters are no where near what they were in ’08.
[/quote]
Demoralized is the wrong word. Yes, the left is less enthusiastic, but only because 2008 was special. We are now back to normal Democrat vs Republican politics.
[quote=poorgradstudent]
But the electoral map is just ugly for Romney. Demographics just haven’t been kind to the Republicans nationally, and it’s starting to really show.
[/quote]
We are well into the Internet Age. The “real capitalists” are the Internet billionaires.
In the minds of young voters, Republican ideas are old and archaic, especially the focus on guns, god and gays. Those archaic ideas are turning off educated young voters.
I would challenge conservatives to talk to their college educated friends and relatives to see what the prevailing attitudes towards gays is. Contrast that to the hateful rhetoric of right-wing Republicans.
Lifestyle wise, there is increasing urbanization. The suburbs will be fine, but any city of significance, even in the South, now has urban renewal and downtown living.
As a Democrat, I’d take the White House anytime instead of Congress. Congress with go back and forth between Democrats and Republicans. But a White House permanently painted blue would be just be too awesome.
I think that I’ll be a happy camper in the next few decades. But time will tell…
August 19, 2012 @ 1:10 AM
briansd1
[quote=briansd1][quote=poorgradstudent]
The left is *relatively* demoralized compared to 2008. There’s an enthusiasm gap, and new voter registrations for young voters are no where near what they were in ’08.
[/quote]
Demoralized is the wrong word. Yes, the left is less enthusiastic, but only because 2008 was special. We are now back to normal Democrat vs Republican politics.
[/quote]
Have to disagree with the reason the left is demoralized. Obama turned out to be an even better Republican than Bush. His campaign was focused on taking Wall Street’s “fat cats” to task, he promised investigations, and many people thought he was going to help reverse the direction of our economy and the growing gap between the rich and poor in this country. He talked a good talk, but once he was in office, all of that dropped off the agenda.
Many of us realize that they are ALL bought with the same money, and nobody that we are “allowed” to elect will ever represent the best interests of the American middle class. We only get to choose between the puppet on the left hand of our masters, or the puppet on the right. The puppet master is one and the same.
August 19, 2012 @ 7:53 PM
CA renter, here’s a good
CA renter, here’s a good article about divisions within the parties.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/big-gulf-between-parties-divisions-within/2012/08/18/f5ee15d4-e31a-11e1-ae7f-d2a13e249eb2_story.html
I think the divisions within thr Republican party much greater.
If you support candidates like Elizabeth Warren, the choice is clear.
August 20, 2012 @ 12:53 AM
briansd1 wrote:CA renter,
[quote=briansd1]CA renter, here’s a good article about divisions within the parties.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/big-gulf-between-parties-divisions-within/2012/08/18/f5ee15d4-e31a-11e1-ae7f-d2a13e249eb2_story.html
I think the divisions within thr Republican party much greater.
If you support candidates like Elizabeth Warren, the choice is clear.[/quote]
Of course I support Elizabeth Warren, but note that she does not talk much about the “emotional” issues like abortion and gay marriage. It’s not that these things don’t matter, but that the government really needs to keep its nose out of people’s private affairs unless they are asked to intervene by the *immediately involved* parties.
My primary concern is with the distribution/concentration of power and money. If that is managed well, everything else will largely fall into place, IMHO. We need to stop bickering about fringe issues.
The PTB know that they can control the masses by keeping these emotionally-charged fringe issues in the spotlight, so instead of focusing on how they manage power and money, we focus on nonsense like gay marriage and abortion. We will end up losing EVERYTHING because we’ve allowed them to distract us; we’ve taken our eyes off the ball.
August 20, 2012 @ 6:26 AM
i’m not eating chik-fil-a,
i’m not eating chik-fil-a, and im not even sure why.
but iw asn’t eating it before. but i would have considered it.
i am concerned aboutt he oppression of chickens.
August 20, 2012 @ 8:11 AM
CA renter wrote:The PTB know
[quote=CA renter]The PTB know that they can control the masses by keeping these emotionally-charged fringe issues in the spotlight, so instead of focusing on how they manage power and money, we focus on nonsense like gay marriage and abortion. We will end up losing EVERYTHING because we’ve allowed them to distract us; we’ve taken our eyes off the ball.[/quote]
Bread and circuses.
I have to agree with the above with a minor note, the masses are shackling themselves with debt to have their circuses.
Not national debt, that’s the blatant robbing of the nation’s wealth by the PTB. The debt of having to have a $400 iToy and the $70/month phone plan that goes with it. 500 channel of TV at $100/month. $200 Ugg boots as a teen fashion statement.
And the best one… student loans.
We’ve become a nation of 50 year old teenagers unable to control instant gratification.
August 20, 2012 @ 6:26 PM
no_such_reality wrote:CA
[quote=no_such_reality][quote=CA renter]The PTB know that they can control the masses by keeping these emotionally-charged fringe issues in the spotlight, so instead of focusing on how they manage power and money, we focus on nonsense like gay marriage and abortion. We will end up losing EVERYTHING because we’ve allowed them to distract us; we’ve taken our eyes off the ball.[/quote]
Bread and circuses.
I have to agree with the above with a minor note, the masses are shackling themselves with debt to have their circuses.
Not national debt, that’s the blatant robbing of the nation’s wealth by the PTB. The debt of having to have a $400 iToy and the $70/month phone plan that goes with it. 500 channel of TV at $100/month. $200 Ugg boots as a teen fashion statement.
And the best one… student loans.
We’ve become a nation of 50 year old teenagers unable to control instant gratification.[/quote]
Yes, and they are told to shackle themselves to debt in order to live the life of an “average” American (as seen on TV), and they are told to go deep in debt in order to get the education that they supposedly need in order to survive and thrive in today’s society (I don’t agree that college is for everyone, and think it’s detrimental in many cases, especially where the debt is concerned).
Remember how we were told to “keep shopping” in order to beat the terrorists? And how about constantly being told that “inflation will melt away our debt,” so don’t worry about it. We are also being told that this is a recessionary dip, and we’ll be headed back to “normal” in due time. The truth is we have stretched the debt bubble as far as it can go, and unless we start shoveling money full-speed to those who most desperately need it and who are deepest in debt, we will not see the end of this “dip” until all the excess debt is taken out.
Inflation is one option, but it’s unlikely to help those who are deepest in debt and will be only make things worse unless they figure out a way to keep the money going toward the bottom of the pyramid, and keep it circulating at/near the bottom indefinitely. So far, it’s been directed at the top, and that’s part of our problem — too much “investment” money looking for returns, while workers at the bottom of the economic pyramid deal with steadily declining wages and rising costs of living.
August 21, 2012 @ 1:49 PM
CA renter, remember that
CA renter, remember that abortion was settled by Roe v Wade. But Republicans want to conserve back to the past.
On gay rights, the advanced world has recognized gay marriage as a universal human right. Time to accept it and move on. It doesn’t have to be controversial at all.
August 22, 2012 @ 12:49 AM
Right, it shouldn’t be
Right, it shouldn’t be controversial at all because it’s nobody’s business but the people who are **directly** involved. The government should keeps its nose out of everyone’s private affairs, period.
It’s so non-controversial in my book that we shouldn’t even be talking about it WRT elections and politics. People who don’t like abortions don’t have to have abortions, and people who don’t want to marry people of the same sex don’t have to do that, either. I just don’t see why there is any controversy, whatsoever.
Now, let’s focus on the #1 most important thing in all of human history: the distribution/concentration of power and money. Everything else is a distraction.
August 22, 2012 @ 6:58 AM
CA renter wrote:
Now, let’s
[quote=CA renter]
Now, let’s focus on the #1 most important thing in all of human history: the distribution/concentration of power and money. Everything else is a distraction.[/quote]
+1
if you look at the bunch of distracting issues we have in the US, most of the industrialized world are quite ahead of us and are no longer bothered by them. Things like abortion, evolution, global warming, gay rights, single payer health care, and gun control to name a few are all non-issues across the developed world.
so either we are really really smart and know something the rest of the world do not, or we are …something else…
August 22, 2012 @ 7:07 AM
CA renter wrote:Right, it
[quote=CA renter]Right, it shouldn’t be controversial at all because it’s nobody’s business but the people who are **directly** involved. The government should keeps its nose out of everyone’s private affairs, period.
It’s so non-controversial in my book that we shouldn’t even be talking about it WRT elections and politics. People who don’t like abortions don’t have to have abortions, and people who don’t want to marry people of the same sex don’t have to do that, either. I just don’t see why there is any controversy, whatsoever.
Now, let’s focus on the #1 most important thing in all of human history: the distribution/concentration of power and money. Everything else is a distraction.[/quote]
I agree that gay marriage should be allowed. But I wouldn’t say “I just don’t see why there is any controversy, whatsoever.” To say “The government should keeps its nose out of everyone’s private affairs, period” shows a lack of understanding of some of the issues.
There’s controversy because there are government benefits to getting married. So if the government kept its nose out of everyone’s private affairs and doesn’t care who’s married, those benefits would go away. If that’s what you want, then make that your argument. But I don’t think that’s what you want.
Let’s stand up for same-sex marriage. But let’s do it with an understanding of the issues so that we can make our points well.
As far as abortions go, saying, “people who don’t like abortions don’t have to have abortions” grossly oversimplifies the issue. You’re forgetting entirely about one of the people involved (the baby). Is the baby a person or isn’t she? If so, when? Is the mother responsible for creating that baby and therefore for protecting it? What about pregnancy resulting from rape? Etcetera. If you consider the fetus a person (and I’d be interested to hear your ideas on if/when that is the case), then you’d consider abortion to be murder. And you don’t have to be a right wingnut to be against murder.
Edit: Left myself signed on as “Willard” after my little joke last night. Oops.
zk
August 22, 2012 @ 11:51 PM
Willard wrote:CA renter
[quote=Willard][quote=CA renter]Right, it shouldn’t be controversial at all because it’s nobody’s business but the people who are **directly** involved. The government should keeps its nose out of everyone’s private affairs, period.
It’s so non-controversial in my book that we shouldn’t even be talking about it WRT elections and politics. People who don’t like abortions don’t have to have abortions, and people who don’t want to marry people of the same sex don’t have to do that, either. I just don’t see why there is any controversy, whatsoever.
Now, let’s focus on the #1 most important thing in all of human history: the distribution/concentration of power and money. Everything else is a distraction.[/quote]
I agree that gay marriage should be allowed. But I wouldn’t say “I just don’t see why there is any controversy, whatsoever.” To say “The government should keeps its nose out of everyone’s private affairs, period” shows a lack of understanding of some of the issues.
There’s controversy because there are government benefits to getting married. So if the government kept its nose out of everyone’s private affairs and doesn’t care who’s married, those benefits would go away. If that’s what you want, then make that your argument. But I don’t think that’s what you want.
Let’s stand up for same-sex marriage. But let’s do it with an understanding of the issues so that we can make our points well.
As far as abortions go, saying, “people who don’t like abortions don’t have to have abortions” grossly oversimplifies the issue. You’re forgetting entirely about one of the people involved (the baby). Is the baby a person or isn’t she? If so, when? Is the mother responsible for creating that baby and therefore for protecting it? What about pregnancy resulting from rape? Etcetera. If you consider the fetus a person (and I’d be interested to hear your ideas on if/when that is the case), then you’d consider abortion to be murder. And you don’t have to be a right wingnut to be against murder.
Edit: Left myself signed on as “Willard” after my little joke last night. Oops.
zk[/quote]
Don’t want to take this too O/T, but regarding gay marriage, I think that any legally married couple/family should have the same legal protections. Whether they are gay, polygamists, etc., it doesn’t matter to me. The problem with the anti-gay marriage types (IMHO) is that they think they should be able to decide who can marry just based on their gender or family structure. They are not fighting over the legal issues or govt protections involved; they just don’t think that gay people should be allowed to marry strictly because of their sexual orientation. That is why I think the govt (and other people) need to stay out of other people’s business. If it doesn’t affect them, and if they are not asked to intervene by the people who are **directly** involved, it’s not their business.
Regarding abortions, I believe a fetus is a “legal person” when it can live on its own. Mind you, that’s just my subjective opinion. I don’t think that my opinion should determine what others should or shouldn’t do with their bodies…that is their business. On a personal/emotional level, I am 100% opposed to abortion, but I also know that people find themselves in situations that I haven’t had to be in, and it’s not my right to tell them that they have to do something that will affect their lives forever. They are the ones who have to live with their decisions, whether they get abortions or not; so they should be the only ones who get to decide what to do.
August 24, 2012 @ 8:46 PM
This thread is starting to
This thread is starting to sound like a “keep your nose out of our social business” but when it comes to economic liberty “stick your nose as far as you can get it in and try to fix this”.
Equality of outcome the desire or equality of opportunity? I am all for the latter and removing all of this crony capitalism, but I surely don’t want progressive morals shoved down my throat anymore than I do the church lady’s morals.
August 25, 2012 @ 12:06 AM
CardiffBaseball wrote:This
[quote=CardiffBaseball]This thread is starting to sound like a “keep your nose out of our social business” but when it comes to economic liberty “stick your nose as far as you can get it in and try to fix this”.
[/quote]
Economic processes effect every man, women and child on earth. Marriage ceremonies do not.
http://www.countercurrents.org/chomsky090511.htm
look, say, at the financial system, it’s extremely dramatic what happened. There was a crash in the 1920s,and in the 1930s,a huge depression. But then regulatory mechanisms were introduced. They were introduced as a result of massive popular pressure, but they were introduced. And throughout the whole period of very rapid and pretty egalitarian economic growth of the next couple of decades, there were no financial crises, because the regulatory mechanisms interfered with the market and prevented the market principles from operating. So therefore you could take account of externalities. That’s what the regulatory system does. It’s been systematically dismantled since the 1970s.
Meanwhile, the role of finance in the economy has exploded. The share of corporate profit by financial institutions has just zoomed since the 1970s. Kind of a corollary of that is the hollowing out of industrial production, sending it abroad. This all happened under the impact of a kind of fanatic religious ideology called economics—and that’s not a joke—based on hypotheses that have no theoretical grounds and no empirical support but are very attractive because you can prove theorems if you adopt them: the efficient market hypothesis, rational expectations hypothesis, and so on. The spread of these ideologies, which is very attractive to concentrated wealth and privilege, hence their success, was epitomized in Alan Greenspan, who at least had the decency to say it was all wrong when it collapsed. I don’t think there has ever been a collapse of an intellectual edifice comparable to this, maybe, in history, at least I can’t remember one. Interestingly, it has no effect. It just continues. Which tells you that it’s serviceable to power systems.
August 25, 2012 @ 1:19 AM
Thank you,
Thank you, Arraya.
…………
Cardiff, the problem with “economic freedom,” as it’s often defined, is that it will always lead to crony capitalism (or any other “ism” that concentrates wealth). There is just no way around it.
Without safeguards and mechanisms that force (debt-free!!!) money back down to the bottom of the economic pyramid, we will always end up with a dangerous concentration of wealth, a loss of personal and economic freedoms for those on the bottom, and (eventually) bloody revolutions and wars. Personally, I’d rather avoid those things, and if that means I can’t make as much money as I want — irrespective of the damage it does to others — then so be it.
August 25, 2012 @ 8:05 AM
Arraya wrote:CardiffBaseball
[quote=Arraya][quote=CardiffBaseball]This thread is starting to sound like a “keep your nose out of our social business” but when it comes to economic liberty “stick your nose as far as you can get it in and try to fix this”.
[/quote]
Economic processes effect every man, women and child on earth. Marriage ceremonies do not.
http://www.countercurrents.org/chomsky090511.htm
look, say, at the financial system, it’s extremely dramatic what happened. There was a crash in the 1920s,and in the 1930s,a huge depression. But then regulatory mechanisms were introduced. They were introduced as a result of massive popular pressure, but they were introduced. And throughout the whole period of very rapid and pretty egalitarian economic growth of the next couple of decades, there were no financial crises, because the regulatory mechanisms interfered with the market and prevented the market principles from operating. So therefore you could take account of externalities. That’s what the regulatory system does. It’s been systematically dismantled since the 1970s.
Meanwhile, the role of finance in the economy has exploded. The share of corporate profit by financial institutions has just zoomed since the 1970s. Kind of a corollary of that is the hollowing out of industrial production, sending it abroad. This all happened under the impact of a kind of fanatic religious ideology called economics—and that’s not a joke—based on hypotheses that have no theoretical grounds and no empirical support but are very attractive because you can prove theorems if you adopt them: the efficient market hypothesis, rational expectations hypothesis, and so on. The spread of these ideologies, which is very attractive to concentrated wealth and privilege, hence their success, was epitomized in Alan Greenspan, who at least had the decency to say it was all wrong when it collapsed. I don’t think there has ever been a collapse of an intellectual edifice comparable to this, maybe, in history, at least I can’t remember one. Interestingly, it has no effect. It just continues. Which tells you that it’s serviceable to power systems.[/quote]
+1
August 25, 2012 @ 8:10 AM
Arraya wrote:CardiffBaseball
[quote=Arraya][quote=CardiffBaseball]This thread is starting to sound like a “keep your nose out of our social business” but when it comes to economic liberty “stick your nose as far as you can get it in and try to fix this”.
[/quote]
Economic processes effect every man, women and child on earth. Marriage ceremonies do not.
http://www.countercurrents.org/chomsky090511.htm
look, say, at the financial system, it’s extremely dramatic what happened. There was a crash in the 1920s,and in the 1930s,a huge depression. But then regulatory mechanisms were introduced. They were introduced as a result of massive popular pressure, but they were introduced. And throughout the whole period of very rapid and pretty egalitarian economic growth of the next couple of decades, there were no financial crises, because the regulatory mechanisms interfered with the market and prevented the market principles from operating. So therefore you could take account of externalities. That’s what the regulatory system does. It’s been systematically dismantled since the 1970s.
Meanwhile, the role of finance in the economy has exploded. The share of corporate profit by financial institutions has just zoomed since the 1970s. Kind of a corollary of that is the hollowing out of industrial production, sending it abroad. This all happened under the impact of a kind of fanatic religious ideology called economics—and that’s not a joke—based on hypotheses that have no theoretical grounds and no empirical support but are very attractive because you can prove theorems if you adopt them: the efficient market hypothesis, rational expectations hypothesis, and so on. The spread of these ideologies, which is very attractive to concentrated wealth and privilege, hence their success, was epitomized in Alan Greenspan, who at least had the decency to say it was all wrong when it collapsed. I don’t think there has ever been a collapse of an intellectual edifice comparable to this, maybe, in history, at least I can’t remember one. Interestingly, it has no effect. It just continues. Which tells you that it’s serviceable to power systems.[/quote]
the default throughout human history has always been money will eventually concentrate into the hands of the few. a system, not redistribution, but a system of fairness which uses tools such as regulations and enforcement and provide truly equal opportunities for advancement is necessary.
August 25, 2012 @ 8:20 AM
CardiffBaseball wrote: but I
[quote=CardiffBaseball] but I surely don’t want progressive morals shoved down my throat anymore than I do the church lady’s morals.[/quote]
that makes no sense at all.
take the morality of slavery. you can’t argue that the morality of emancipation was shoved down the throat of the Southern Whites.
or morality of paternalism. you can’t argue that the morality of women’s suffrage was shoved down the throat of men.
in both cases, the default morality in place elevated a group while simultaneously suppress that of another group. does the liberation of the suppressed group equal the suppression of the prior chosen group? I think not.
what type of progressive morals are being shoved down your throat? or mine? I would love to know.
August 25, 2012 @ 11:40 AM
Isn’t it safe to say that
Isn’t it safe to say that what one person thnks is being shoved down his throat may be the same thing that is happily gulped down by another?
Isn’t it in all in the eye of the beholder?
August 25, 2012 @ 7:18 PM
1. Affirmative Action
2. The
1. Affirmative Action
2. The current progressive tax system, I prefer a flat tax with the first 50k not taxable, which is still progressive
3. Progressive thought on Social Justice and Equality of Outcomes
4. Making food choices, smoking choices etc. for others. Sin taxes on booze. They manage to get Neo-Cons to go along with sin taxes, because income is left alone but it’s still crap, cut some useless depts instead.
5. Those that seek to ban guns (though many, many libs I am friends with are fiercely pro-2nd amendment so it’s hard to put this on all progressives)
Now before I get into some long drawn out argument about why I am a classical liberal vs. a progressive liberal, let’s just cut to the chase. I am not naive enough to presume we would ever do what I’d like to see (slashing things like the EPA/Dept. of Ed etc.) and suddenly go back to small government. It just isn’t going to happen, and the crony capitalism that you bring up CA Renter is so far embedded into everything we do (on both sides of the aisle) that I am sure that ship has sailed.
I’d be happy just doing what I can to prevent the US from becoming more like a European style govt. So my kids are well-steeped in Ron Paul, and not BHO’s philosophy. That said I was a Clinton voter in ’92 having grown up in a Union Dem family so I totally understand your position and used to argue from it frequently. And deep down inside, although they will never admit this publicly I think I think WJC despises BHO with everything he’s got. Maybe I am wrong, but I don’t see GWB as being drastically different from WJC, whereas I think that with BHO his past associations are with some extremely shady characters. (being an old school guy I really do think socialists and marxists ideas are rotten to the core).
Where the American experience is different is that we pick and choose what types of social programs to implement, but we stop short of excessive theft of wealth, and that’s a good thing. I don’t think it’s all bad here. We all describe our Utopia, but I am not so dogmatic that I think my Utopia has to be implemented.
August 26, 2012 @ 7:31 AM
CardiffBaseball wrote:1.
[quote=CardiffBaseball]1. Affirmative Action
2. The current progressive tax system, I prefer a flat tax with the first 50k not taxable, which is still progressive
3. Progressive thought on Social Justice and Equality of Outcomes
4. Making food choices, smoking choices etc. for others. Sin taxes on booze. They manage to get Neo-Cons to go along with sin taxes, because income is left alone but it’s still crap, cut some useless depts instead.
5. Those that seek to ban guns (though many, many libs I am friends with are fiercely pro-2nd amendment so it’s hard to put this on all progressives)
[/quote]
agree with affirmative action. although I’m not quite sure if it is progressive or simply a liberal policy. certainly it IMHO ends up hurting the people it tries to help.
I think just as far as fiscal balance, we likely need some progression of tax rate. I do agree with you about the simplicity of flat tax. and with a flat tax it may get rid of the loopholes that allow the very rich to pay very little in taxes.
if by equality of outcomes you mean the welfare and social safety net. agree on that one. but same goes for corporate and agricultural welfare as well.
disagree with 4th and 5th point. will get back on this later.
August 26, 2012 @ 8:39 AM
ocrenter wrote:
I think just
[quote=ocrenter]
I think just as far as fiscal balance, we likely need some progression of tax rate. I do agree with you about the simplicity of flat tax. and with a flat tax it may get rid of the loopholes that allow the very rich to pay very little in taxes.
[/quote]
I’m gonna jump in here to address only this one issue of the flat tax. I’ve seen the term floated around for years, usually in a similar context to bring “simplicity” to the tax code, but rarely with any details. Assuming that a “flat tax” by itself, will make tax codes simpler is a fallacy. Over the last 50 years, we have gone from more than a dozen “tax brackets” down to less than half of that, but the code is no simpler. Making a single tax rate would not significantly simplify the code. The complexity in the code is in defining taxable income, not in the rates applied to that income. Simplifying that definition is a laudible goal. I’ve yet to see a single serious proposal which does this, irrespective of the political realities of actually getting reform like this passed into law.
Until there is a comprehensive flat-tax definition of income, there is no flat-tax proposal on the table. As a practical matter, it’s never happened.
August 26, 2012 @ 10:11 AM
SK in CV wrote:ocrenter
[quote=SK in CV][quote=ocrenter]
I think just as far as fiscal balance, we likely need some progression of tax rate. I do agree with you about the simplicity of flat tax. and with a flat tax it may get rid of the loopholes that allow the very rich to pay very little in taxes.
[/quote]
I’m gonna jump in here to address only this one issue of the flat tax. I’ve seen the term floated around for years, usually in a similar context to bring “simplicity” to the tax code, but rarely with any details. Assuming that a “flat tax” by itself, will make tax codes simpler is a fallacy. Over the last 50 years, we have gone from more than a dozen “tax brackets” down to less than half of that, but the code is no simpler. Making a single tax rate would not significantly simplify the code. The complexity in the code is in defining taxable income, not in the rates applied to that income. Simplifying that definition is a laudible goal. I’ve yet to see a single serious proposal which does this, irrespective of the political realities of actually getting reform like this passed into law.
Until there is a comprehensive flat-tax definition of income, there is no flat-tax proposal on the table. As a practical matter, it’s never happened.[/quote]
I’ve always taken flat-tax as simply complete removal of exemptions and write offs, which does simplify the tax code greatly. Given the amount of exemptions available especially as we climb the income ladder, I see the removal of exemptions and write offs as a great way to plug the huge fiscal hole of this country.
August 26, 2012 @ 10:25 AM
ocrenter wrote:I’ve always
[quote=ocrenter]I’ve always taken flat-tax as simply complete removal of exemptions and write offs, which does simplify the tax code greatly. Given the amount of exemptions available especially as we climb the income ladder, I see the removal of exemptions and write offs as a great way to plug the huge fiscal hole of this country.
[/quote]
What write-offs are you doing away with? (If you say “all of them”, you haven’t given it much thought.) Mortgage interest? Charitable contributions? State taxes?
How about deductions above the line? When computing capital gains, do you deduct the cost of the stock? How about businesses? Can they deduct the costs of the products they sell? Salaries and rent? IRA’s and other retirement plans? Medical insurance? Are the proceeds of home refinancing taxable? Depreciation deductions on real estate? Most of these are effectively “write-offs”.
August 26, 2012 @ 12:59 PM
I can’t be bothered to find
I can’t be bothered to find the old threads, so I’ll just put this here:
Is this week the week Ron Paul’s tidal wave of delegates hands Ron Paul the nomination? The Constitution demands Ron Paul Ron Paul the Ron Paul and gold standard the Ron Paul of Ron Paul President.
Ron Paul.
August 26, 2012 @ 1:13 PM
SK in CV wrote:ocrenter
[quote=SK in CV][quote=ocrenter]I’ve always taken flat-tax as simply complete removal of exemptions and write offs, which does simplify the tax code greatly. Given the amount of exemptions available especially as we climb the income ladder, I see the removal of exemptions and write offs as a great way to plug the huge fiscal hole of this country.
[/quote]
What write-offs are you doing away with? (If you say “all of them”, you haven’t given it much thought.) Mortgage interest? Charitable contributions? State taxes?
How about deductions above the line? When computing capital gains, do you deduct the cost of the stock? How about businesses? Can they deduct the costs of the products they sell? Salaries and rent? IRA’s and other retirement plans? Medical insurance? Are the proceeds of home refinancing taxable? Depreciation deductions on real estate? Most of these are effectively “write-offs”.[/quote]
in order for the flat tax idea to work, and for the promise of simplification of tax code to be true, it would have to be all-across-the-board complete elimination of all sacred cows. including all of the deductions you mentioned above.
this is why flat tax will never be implemented. lobbyist everywhere would essentially all have a coronary all at the same time.
August 26, 2012 @ 1:55 PM
ocrenter wrote:
in order for
[quote=ocrenter]
in order for the flat tax idea to work, and for the promise of simplification of tax code to be true, it would have to be all-across-the-board complete elimination of all sacred cows. including all of the deductions you mentioned above.
this is why flat tax will never be implemented. lobbyist everywhere would essentially all have a coronary all at the same time.[/quote]
Therin lies the problem. It sounds like a nice idea to just eliminate all deductions. But your neighborhood gas station operator, who has a gross margin of only a few pennies per gallon of gas sold, or the corner market who has a gross margin of maybe 25%, would end up with a tax liability far in excess of what they make every year. Do the same thing for corporations and reduce the tax rate from 35% to 15%? Ford would pay income taxes far in excess of its net income.
Flat tax sounds simple. It isn’t. Tax laws are not complicated because of the rate schedules. They’re complicated by the definition of income. Eliminating ALL deductions can’t work. It is impossible.
August 26, 2012 @ 2:22 PM
SK in CV wrote:ocrenter
[quote=SK in CV][quote=ocrenter]
in order for the flat tax idea to work, and for the promise of simplification of tax code to be true, it would have to be all-across-the-board complete elimination of all sacred cows. including all of the deductions you mentioned above.
this is why flat tax will never be implemented. lobbyist everywhere would essentially all have a coronary all at the same time.[/quote]
Therin lies the problem. It sounds like a nice idea to just eliminate all deductions. But your neighborhood gas station operator, who has a gross margin of only a few pennies per gallon of gas sold, or the corner market who has a gross margin of maybe 25%, would end up with a tax liability far in excess of what they make every year. Do the same thing for corporations and reduce the tax rate from 35% to 15%? Ford would pay income taxes far in excess of its net income.
Flat tax sounds simple. It isn’t. Tax laws are not complicated because of the rate schedules. They’re complicated by the definition of income. Eliminating ALL deductions can’t work. It is impossible.[/quote]
for businesses it would have to be net income. not gross.
August 26, 2012 @ 2:42 PM
ocrenter wrote:
for
[quote=ocrenter]
for businesses it would have to be net income. not gross.[/quote]
Right. Which means allowing many of the write-offs which I identified above. It’s not quite as simple as doing away with all write-offs.
August 26, 2012 @ 4:01 PM
SK in CV wrote:ocrenter
[quote=SK in CV][quote=ocrenter]
I think just as far as fiscal balance, we likely need some progression of tax rate. I do agree with you about the simplicity of flat tax. and with a flat tax it may get rid of the loopholes that allow the very rich to pay very little in taxes.
[/quote]
I’m gonna jump in here to address only this one issue of the flat tax. I’ve seen the term floated around for years, usually in a similar context to bring “simplicity” to the tax code, but rarely with any details. Assuming that a “flat tax” by itself, will make tax codes simpler is a fallacy. Over the last 50 years, we have gone from more than a dozen “tax brackets” down to less than half of that, but the code is no simpler. Making a single tax rate would not significantly simplify the code. The complexity in the code is in defining taxable income, not in the rates applied to that income. Simplifying that definition is a laudible goal. I’ve yet to see a single serious proposal which does this, irrespective of the political realities of actually getting reform like this passed into law.
Until there is a comprehensive flat-tax definition of income, there is no flat-tax proposal on the table. As a practical matter, it’s never happened.[/quote]
Excellent post, SK. The “complexity” of the tax code has nothing to do with tax rates; those are pretty simple.
I would also argue that we could eliminate the “complexity” of the tax code by making all income equal: cap gains, interest, dividends, rents, earned income, etc. should all be taxed at the same rate.
One could also argue that a “flat tax” is extremely regressive, as the income earned by most workers goes almost entirely to basic living expenses, while the income earned by the highest income earners can go toward investments…(which are currently taxed at a lower rate, no less) which enables them to amass even more disposable income/wealth at a faster rate than the most productive people in our country (the workers who create all that “excess” value). There is something very wrong about that setup, which is why I favor steeply progressive tax rates.
All income should be taxed at the same, progressive rates — everyone’s income is treated the same at any given bracket. That’s as fair and just as it can possibly get.
August 26, 2012 @ 8:31 PM
SK I am not sure but it seems
SK I am not sure but it seems to me some of the flat tax proposals out there are strictly covering the 1040. While this doesn’t negate your point, I don’t think it’s nearly as bad as you are making it out here. True deductions of business expenses wouldn’t change, and I don’t know that corporate changes were on the table.
In particular I refer to business investment where you must decide to expense or amortize over a depreciation table. I am not sure you can throw something like that into a flat tax scenario if you make a 50 million dollar investment in equipment a 50K income exclusion does no good. That investment will most likely still be depreciated over whatever the schedule allows. I’ll admit to not considering in the past how business income is treated under some of the flat tax proposals.
August 26, 2012 @ 10:47 PM
The question is, what do we
The question is, what do we want to incentivize? Progressive income taxes by their definition disincentivise more income creation. Consumption taxes disincentivize additional consumption.
From a business perspective, the two taxes have different effects. Consumption taxes increase the cost of investment, while income taxes reduce the profits of investments. So they are not so different on the bottom line.
I think the difference lies in incentives. consumption taxes encourage savings, but since money is no use in the bank, it must be spent eventually. While progressive income taxes discourage people to make additional moneys by removing the profit of doing so.
If all things being equal, I doubt much would change if we compared a progressive consumption tax with an equally progressive income tax. Money is no use sitting in the bank. The problem is the progressive nature of taxes today.
At least with consumption taxes, people who have already made their money (or more importantly inherited it) still pay the taxes that us poor worker bees pay.
August 26, 2012 @ 11:58 PM
jstoesz wrote:The question
[quote=jstoesz]The question is, what do we want to incentivize? Progressive income taxes by their definition disincentivise more income creation. Consumption taxes disincentivize additional consumption.
From a business perspective, the two taxes have different effects. Consumption taxes increase the cost of investment, while income taxes reduce the profits of investments. So they are not so different on the bottom line.
I think the difference lies in incentives. consumption taxes encourage savings, but since money is no use in the bank, it must be spent eventually. While progressive income taxes discourage people to make additional moneys by removing the profit of doing so.
If all things being equal, I doubt much would change if we compared a progressive consumption tax with an equally progressive income tax. Money is no use sitting in the bank. The problem is the progressive nature of taxes today.
At least with consumption taxes, people who have already made their money (or more importantly inherited it) still pay the taxes that us poor worker bees pay.[/quote]
Consumption taxes are even more regressive than flat taxes. “Worker bees” spend most of their income on basic living expenses, so would be paying the greatest share of taxes, as a percentage of income.
Wealthy people do not spend most of their income on consumption, but on “investing”/speculating. By moving to a consumption-only tax system, rich people would be spending a tiny portion of their income on taxes while the poorest workers would be paying the max rate.
What ails our global economy isn’t the lack of people willing to work and make more money. What we lack is demand (consumption). We have surplus labor and a shortage of demand for the goods and services provided by that labor. This is at the root of our economic problems and our debt bubble.
The reason we have this excess labor/deficient demand problem is because all the wealth is concentrated into too few hands, and those people do NOT spend all of their income since they have so much disposable income which tends to be “invested” — mostly on existing assets which DO NOT grow the economy — or spent on luxury items which provide very little benefit to society at large (as opposed to workers who spend primarily on basic necessities). Since we do not discriminate between useful investing (investing in improving or creating productive capacity…and the riskiest type of investing) and speculating (buying existing assets — not productive and the least risky type of “investing”), we have “investors” scouring the earth looking for assets to invest in…like existing houses, agricultural commodities, and raw materials needed to build goods for sale. This pushes up the price of goods purchased by “worker bees” which exacerbates their already declining purchasing power. Too much money is concentrated at the top of the economic pyramid!
If we want to fix the root cause of our economic problems, we need to broaden the number of people who are able to consume (debt-free!), and reduce the supply of labor. We can do this by increasing marginal tax rates (steeply, IMO), closing tax loopholes, reducing the number of hours worked per person, AND allowing asset prices to fall so that workers’ purchasing power isn’t as greatly affected by the reduced hours worked. We need to encourage **real** investing that can expand productive capacity and raise the living standards of workers around the globe. Unfortunately, nobody is going to invest in increasing productive capacity for as long as there is too little demand; and that can only change if we reverse the flow of money and force it down to the greatest number of people possible. It is DEMAND that creates the incentive to increase supply capacity and grow the economy. Without increasing ***DEBT-FREE*** demand, we will continue down the path of economic destruction.
Cutting taxes for the wealthy is one of the primary reasons we are in this financial mess. We need to reverse these damaging trends, not accelerate them.
August 26, 2012 @ 10:20 AM
CardiffBaseball wrote:
4.
[quote=CardiffBaseball]
4. Making food choices, smoking choices etc. for others. Sin taxes on booze. They manage to get Neo-Cons to go along with sin taxes, because income is left alone but it’s still crap, cut some useless depts instead.
5. Those that seek to ban guns (though many, many libs I am friends with are fiercely pro-2nd amendment so it’s hard to put this on all progressives)
[/quote]
in regard to #4, as long as there’s Medicare and Medicaid, the government will have to be involved in trying to change behaviors with the sin tax and pretty soon the sugar tax. individual bad choices does not equal individual consequences in this country. it does in places like China where there is no social safety net and all health related cost is by the individual. completely remove Medicare and Medicaid, then I agree with your point.
gun right advocacy is so out of this world in this country. no where else in the developed world allow for such freedom and access. hence we have to deal with mass shootings every few months. sure, guns don’t kill people, people do. but people armed with a semi can kill 20 within 5 minutes, people armed with a pocket knife can kill one.
August 20, 2012 @ 3:09 PM
briansd1 wrote:CA renter,
[quote=briansd1]CA renter, here’s a good article about divisions within the parties.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/big-gulf-between-parties-divisions-within/2012/08/18/f5ee15d4-e31a-11e1-ae7f-d2a13e249eb2_story.html
I think the divisions within thr Republican party much greater.
If you support candidates like Elizabeth Warren, the choice is clear.[/quote]
Team Urban liberal!
August 20, 2012 @ 3:15 PM
poorgradstudent
[quote=poorgradstudent][quote=briansd1]CA renter, here’s a good article about divisions within the parties.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/big-gulf-between-parties-divisions-within/2012/08/18/f5ee15d4-e31a-11e1-ae7f-d2a13e249eb2_story.html
I think the divisions within thr Republican party much greater.
If you support candidates like Elizabeth Warren, the choice is clear.[/quote]
Team Urban liberal![/quote]
Also, seriously, it looks like a full 17% of Republicans (the Window Shoppers) are just confused. It sounds like they are largely young women who were raised “Republican” even though they disagree with pretty much everything the Republican party stands for.
Of course, the “DIY Democrats” are also slightly confused. They probably are the true moderates?
August 18, 2012 @ 12:34 AM
poorgradstudent wrote: If you
[quote=poorgradstudent] If you use a 5% polling advantage as a cut-off, Obama currently has 243 safe electoral votes of the needed 270. (Romney has 191). If Obama wins FL, he wins, period. Romney has no route to the White House that doesn’t go through Ohio and Florida. The nice thing is we should know pretty early in the night if Obama will win. If he wins VA *or* NC, it’s over. If Obama wins Ohio it’s probably over too. Florida is notoriously slow in their results.[/quote]
This is a good interactive map worth bookmarking.
For fun, make your prediction, do a screen grab and compare to the actual results, just to see how prescient you are.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2012/ecalculator#?battleground
August 16, 2012 @ 2:58 PM
Brutus wrote:
To the question
[quote=Brutus]
To the question above, I say:
Yes. But it’s a close race…[/quote]
So if you think it’s a close race, why the outrage at Biden and Kerry, but not at any conservatives?
August 17, 2012 @ 1:28 PM
zk wrote:Brutus wrote:
To the
[quote=zk][quote=Brutus]
To the question above, I say:
Yes. But it’s a close race…[/quote]
So if you think it’s a close race, why the outrage at Biden and Kerry, but not at any conservatives?[/quote]
Could it be you’ve been emotionally manipulated by Rush Limbaugh and his ilk?
August 16, 2012 @ 10:29 AM
Yes. But it’s a close race.
Yes. But it’s a close race.
August 14, 2012 @ 10:15 AM
We all agree that donations
We all agree that donations to the Mormon church don’t really count as charity, right? More like private club dues?
August 14, 2012 @ 10:33 AM
poorgradstudent wrote:We all
[quote=poorgradstudent]We all agree that donations to the Mormon church don’t really count as charity, right? More like private club dues?[/quote]
Especially when nobody who’s not Mormon cannot enter the church.
Religious charity has social engineering involved. It’s like marketing and promotions.
August 13, 2012 @ 2:32 PM
livinincali wrote:I’d
[quote=livinincali]I’d consider upper middle class as the top 25% by income. I don’t buy the “$200K is barely middle class in San Fran, New York, etc.”. That’s a choice and the expectations are just different. Middle class in general has changed dramatically over the years. Middle class was once 1 car, maybe a couple TVs with an antenna on the roof, a home phone and maybe a computer. Now it’s flat screen TVs in every room, Cell Phones for everybody in the family, internet service provider, cable providers, multiple cars, etc. A lot more stuff and the costs associated with that stuff. The question becomes is our life really all that better with that stuff.
As for why don’t you take advantage of tax deductions, usually most tax advantages come with a significant cost. If I bought a house at the peak of the bubble my federal tax rate is pretty low but I’m not better off financially because of it. I know the government wants us to have children, get married, buy homes, and dump our money into the stock market, but I’m not going to rush into those major decision just to get a tax break. I feel bad for people that do.[/quote]
Alright, with that squared away. I would have to disagree with your statement that combined effective rate is easily well over 20%. I’m in the upper middle class you’re referring to. I’ve been in the upper middle class since the first day I got a job out of college. Yet, my combined effective tax rate was only over 20% when I was maxing out Roth 401k instead of traditional 401k AND I had no deduction. My Federal alone is FAR from the 15-20%.
Yes, tax advantages comes with a cost. Which is why it’s called a tax deduction and not a tax credit. When you choose to not buy a house or whatever it is that there are deduction for, that’s your choice. No one is forcing you to not buy and pay higher effective tax rate. If you choose to go against’s the government’s social engineering through the tax code, then be prepared to pony up and pay the taxes. With hind site, you’re being rewarded for going against the government’s social engineering. All I’m saying is, you don’t have to pay high tax rate if you don’t want to. Just like rich people can pony up and pay more taxes if they want to. But most people rather not. Even people who are proponents of higher taxes for people like themselves still try to find ways to pay the least tax as possible.
August 13, 2012 @ 2:45 PM
AN wrote:Even people who are
[quote=AN]Even people who are proponents of higher taxes for people like themselves still try to find ways to pay the least tax as possible.[/quote]
No contradiction in that statement. Individual choices is not the same as economic for the country.
Higher rates may not be good for a person, but they may be the solution for the country. No need to make it personal when looking at policy.
August 13, 2012 @ 2:55 PM
briansd1 wrote:AN wrote:Even
[quote=briansd1][quote=AN]Even people who are proponents of higher taxes for people like themselves still try to find ways to pay the least tax as possible.[/quote]
No contradiction in that statement. Individual choices is not the same as economic for the country.
Higher rates may not be good for a person, but they may be the solution for the country. No need to make it personal when looking at policy.[/quote]
The solution for the country is to create a tax code where you can’t hide from taxes. Which is why I’m advocating for simpler tax code so there are less place to hide. There’s every reason to make it personal. If you yourself would find ways to hide from paying taxes AND find ways to hide, then we should remove that shelter so no one can hide. Then we all can see exactly how much everyone pay. However, with the tax code being the tool for social engineering, those who obey pay less and those who goes against the grain will have to fork over the taxes. If you don’t like to pay more than Mitt, then just obey the social engineering creator and you too can pay less in effective tax rate.
August 13, 2012 @ 3:24 PM
AN wrote: Yet, my combined
[quote=AN] Yet, my combined effective tax rate was only over 20% when I was maxing out Roth 401k instead of traditional 401k AND I had no deduction. My Federal alone is FAR from the 15-20%.
[/quote]
The numbers are fairly simple for single standard deduction wage earners. The only real variable is how much do you contribute to a tax deferred 401K.
At 70K per year and 0 contribution you get a federal effective of 15.8%, at 6% gross (the standard 401K match plan) you get 14.3% and at the max contribution you get 9.8%. Everything works it’s way up from there. At 110K you get 19.1% with no contributions and 15.3% at the max contribution. So single or dual income married upper middle class falls pretty well into my range of 15-20%.
Dual income married on the standard deduction is slightly worse if combine income is in the 150K area.
I agree with you thoughts on the social engineering aspects of the tax code and would prefer it to be a more simplified approach.
August 13, 2012 @ 4:47 PM
livinincali wrote:The numbers
[quote=livinincali]The numbers are fairly simple for single standard deduction wage earners. The only real variable is how much do you contribute to a tax deferred 401K.
At 70K per year and 0 contribution you get a federal effective of 15.8%, at 6% gross (the standard 401K match plan) you get 14.3% and at the max contribution you get 9.8%. Everything works it’s way up from there. At 110K you get 19.1% with no contributions and 15.3% at the max contribution. So single or dual income married upper middle class falls pretty well into my range of 15-20%.
Dual income married on the standard deduction is slightly worse if combine income is in the 150K area.
I agree with you thoughts on the social engineering aspects of the tax code and would prefer it to be a more simplified approach.[/quote]
You’re assuming 0-6% 401k contribution. However, I’ve ALWAYS maxed out my 401k. Even when I started working. I just learn to live with less. So, my tax rates were always low, since my AGI was always low even when my GI always put me in the 25+% tax bracket (upper middle class by your definition). Again, $110k, if you max your contribution, you get 15%. That’s assume no other deduction. When you get to this level of income, I would expect you to have a few other deduction. You can also get married, have one of the spouse work part time (just enough to max out his/her 401k & IRA), max out your own 401k and IRA. Assuming you make $110k and your spouse make $40k, just by maxing out both retirement accounts, your effective rate would be 12.3%. If you add in a house, kids, etc. and your effective tax rate would be even lower. If you’re a couple making $250k, just by maxing out the retirement accounts, your effective rate is 18.1%. So, it’s not THAT hard to get your fed effective rate below 15%.
August 13, 2012 @ 10:10 AM
livinincali wrote:
Depends on
[quote=livinincali]
Depends on what you include in your tax rate. Do you include or exclude California Income tax? Do you include or exclude Social Security Taxes? Do you include property taxes or exclude them? What about Sales Taxes? That’s the problem with measuring effective tax rates in our complex tax system. You can get your federal income effective tax rate pretty low but you’re probably paying taxes somewhere else to do it.
Federal by itself is probably around 15-20% for upper middle class with few deductions, but add in CA income and Social Security and you easily get over 20%.[/quote]
Do you know why you never hear about the total tax percentage (as opposed to the federal income tax percentage)? Because democrats are lame at marketing. If they had the noise machine that the right does, you can be sure that it would be out there. What’s the actual total tax paid as a percentage of income and who pays what percentage?
Any income over $110k is not taxed for social security. So a guy making 110k is taxed at 4.2%. But a guy making 110m is taxed (for social security) at 0.0042%.
Gasoline tax, sales tax, liquor tax etc. The rich, in almost all cases, pay a far lower percentage of their income for these taxes.
Overall, if you count all the taxes paid as a percentage of income instead of just federal income tax, the difference between what the rich pay and what the middle class pays looks different.
I say this not to suggest that they should pay a different percentage than they do. I say it to further illustrate the manipulation of the discussion by the right. If the left had a noise machine like the right, you’d have hundreds of blowhards on the radio and tv screaming about how unfair that is. And you’d have millions of people buying it, whether their point was valid or not. Just like has been happening on the right for over a decade now.
August 11, 2012 @ 7:05 PM
paramount wrote:I’m a
[quote=paramount]I’m a political atheist, but it seems clear to me that O is going to win fairly easily.
Romney’s vp choice was great for O, but Romney was losing anyway
And this despite the fact that O has been actively destroying liberty and freedom, expanded an occupation war and lied about lots of campaign promises.[/quote]
I laughed out loud when I read this.
Political atheists don’t believe that “O has been actively destroying liberty and freedom.” Only right wingers do.
August 11, 2012 @ 7:26 PM
In sports that’s what you
In sports that’s what you call a sore loser. It’s a version of “my team sucks so we deserve to lose. But your team sucks also so your win has no significance anyway.”
August 11, 2012 @ 9:04 PM
zk wrote:
Political atheists
[quote=zk]
Political atheists don’t believe that “O has been actively destroying liberty and freedom.” Only right wingers do.[/quote]
Not necessarily. A true Libertarian might feel that way, even if they support things like gay rights and pot legalization. And many on the far LEFT are disappointed by Obama’s record on civil liberties… they may not think Romney or McCain would have been any better, which is why they don’t necessarily support either party.
August 11, 2012 @ 9:15 PM
poorgradstudent wrote:zk
[quote=poorgradstudent][quote=zk]
Political atheists don’t believe that “O has been actively destroying liberty and freedom.” Only right wingers do.[/quote]
Not necessarily. A true Libertarian might feel that way, even if they support things like gay rights and pot legalization. And many on the far LEFT are disappointed by Obama’s record on civil liberties… they may not think Romney or McCain would have been any better, which is why they don’t necessarily support either party.[/quote]
Being disappointed that he hasn’t done enough on gay rights and pot legalization is a long way from thinking he’s “actively destroying” liberty and freedom.
August 11, 2012 @ 2:23 PM
Mitt was never the
Mitt was never the independent boss he claims to be. On every issue, he will cave to the extremes in his party, who now control the agenda.
Allan said that an Obama win would be the best thing to happen to the Republicans who will then repudiate the extremes and move towards the center, to leaders like Huntsman.
I believe the opposite of Allan’s prediction will happen. A Romney loss will entail recriminations by the far right and move to more even extremes. The reasoning is that if a governor from MA can’t win, then the Republicans ought to nominate someone from Mississippi.
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/08/paul-ryans-party.html
August 11, 2012 @ 9:01 PM
I’m really confused by the
I’m really confused by the timing of the announcement. Saturday morning is when people make announcements they want to be buried. Companies announce good news on Monday morning and bad news on Friday afternoons.
Because the VP has so little impact on the overall election I’m leaning towards calling Ryan a wash, overall. I think he will help with fundraising, as the mega rich LOVE Paul Ryan, and these days they drive the money game. I don’t think he can deliver Wisconsin; he’s not a Senator or Governor who has shown he can carry a statewide election, and his name recognition is far from 100% in Wisconsin.
I think Ryan is “safer” than Palin was, but he’s still a gutsy pick. He’s a smart guy with a strong command of domestic policy issues, and there’s not gonna be another Katie Couric interview. The big danger is the pick means there’s going to be a lot more talk about tax policy and social security rather than jobs. Romney either has to criticize the Ryan Plan while praising Ryan, or defend the Ryan Plan, for all its warts.
Romney’s biggest opening against Obama is the high unemployment rate. He needs to hit obama on Jobs, jobs, jobs if he wants to win. I know the Republican party believes in trickle down, but I’m not sure the american public, especially those in rust-belt swing states would agree that tax cuts for their bosses mean more money in their pockets. Bottom line, this election is going to come down to the Obama Plan vs. the RomneyRyan Plan.
August 11, 2012 @ 9:56 PM
poorgradstudent wrote:I’m
[quote=poorgradstudent]I’m really confused by the timing of the announcement. Saturday morning is when people make announcements they want to be buried. Companies announce good news on Monday morning and bad news on Friday afternoons.
Because the VP has so little impact on the overall election I’m leaning towards calling Ryan a wash, overall. I think he will help with fundraising, as the mega rich LOVE Paul Ryan, and these days they drive the money game. I don’t think he can deliver Wisconsin; he’s not a Senator or Governor who has shown he can carry a statewide election, and his name recognition is far from 100% in Wisconsin.
I think Ryan is “safer” than Palin was, but he’s still a gutsy pick. He’s a smart guy with a strong command of domestic policy issues, and there’s not gonna be another Katie Couric interview. The big danger is the pick means there’s going to be a lot more talk about tax policy and social security rather than jobs. Romney either has to criticize the Ryan Plan while praising Ryan, or defend the Ryan Plan, for all its warts.
Romney’s biggest opening against Obama is the high unemployment rate. He needs to hit obama on Jobs, jobs, jobs if he wants to win. I know the Republican party believes in trickle down, but I’m not sure the american public, especially those in rust-belt swing states would agree that tax cuts for their bosses mean more money in their pockets. Bottom line, this election is going to come down to the Obama Plan vs. the RomneyRyan Plan.[/quote]
+1
Actually the news did come Friday night, so the CEO did deliver the news at its appropriate deserving spot.
August 11, 2012 @ 10:05 PM
poorgradstudent wrote:I’m
[quote=poorgradstudent]I’m really confused by the timing of the announcement. Saturday morning is when people make announcements they want to be buried. Companies announce good news on Monday morning and bad news on Friday afternoons.
[/quote]
His campaign was in panic mode. They had to go on offense, they couldn’t risk another bad weekend.
August 12, 2012 @ 1:30 AM
Either way, O and Romney are
Either way, O and Romney are bought, sold and paid for by the same elite/global corps.
August 12, 2012 @ 3:05 AM
paramount wrote:Either way, O
[quote=paramount]Either way, O and Romney are bought, sold and paid for by the same elite/global corps.[/quote]
At the very least, can we all agree on this?
………..
For those who don’t already know this…
Rep. Paul Ryan, the GOP’s most outspoken advocate for cutting and privatizing Social Security, has already benefited from Social Security himself, in the form of survivor benefits he received after his father’s untimely death.
From the age of 16, when his 55-year-old father died of a heart attack, until he was 18, Ryan received Social Security payments, which, according to a lengthy profile in WI Magazine, he put away for college. The eventual budget czar attended Miami University in Ohio to earn a B.A. in economics and political science, and landed a congressional internship as a junior.
Ryan’s congressional ascent, all the way to the top spot on the Budget Committee, began with his Social Security-funded college education.
Raw Story (http://s.tt/1d9Si)
And this:
“Ryan credits his father’s death and the care of his grandmother as giving him first-hand experience as to how social service programs work,” WI Magazine wrote, referencing his Alzheimer’s-stricken grandmother, also a beneficiary of the social programs Ryan now opposes, who moved in with Ryan and his mother after his father died.
Raw Story (http://s.tt/1d9Si)
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/04/20/paul-ryan-already-benefitted-from-the-social-security-fund-he-now-wants-to-gut/#
August 14, 2012 @ 8:47 AM
Rich liberals are noble and
Rich liberals are noble and generous. They are people with a sense of responsibility and noblesse oblige.
Rich conservatives are just plain selfish.
Poor conservatives are uneducated and ignorant.
August 14, 2012 @ 11:54 AM
briansd1 wrote:Rich liberals
[quote=briansd1]Rich liberals are noble and generous. They are people with a sense of responsibility and noblesse oblige.
Rich conservatives are just plain selfish.
Poor conservatives are uneducated and ignorant.[/quote]
LOL
August 14, 2012 @ 12:19 PM
briansd1 wrote:Rich liberals
[quote=briansd1]Rich liberals are noble and generous. They are people with a sense of responsibility and noblesse oblige.
Rich conservatives are just plain selfish.
Poor conservatives are uneducated and ignorant.[/quote]
we have to morph this with the other side’s opinion too:
Rich liberals are noble and generous but lack values, are immoral, and unpatrotic.
Rich conservatives are plain selfish job creating, moral patriots.
Poor conservatives are uneducated and ignorant. But can be re-educated by the selfish job creating patriots.
August 14, 2012 @ 1:23 PM
I think that Ryan is more
I think that Ryan is more likable than Romney.
Just talked to a friend who said that Mitt Romney and Al Gore are just boring guys whom he equally despises. This is a plain spoken Real American talking — someone who watches Fox News but isn’t much into politics.
He said that Ryan is OK and likable enough. Did not mind listening to Ryan.
I think that people vote for who they like and Romney is apparently very unlikable. I can’t really tell because I like Al Gore just fine. I like Romney more than I liked Bush because Bush sounded just so stupid all the time. But, apparently, Bush’s likability factor was pretty good.
August 14, 2012 @ 1:42 PM
briansd1 wrote:I think that
[quote=briansd1]I think that Ryan is more likable than Romney.
Just talked to a friend who said that Mitt Romney and Al Gore are just boring guys whom he equally despises. This is a plain spoken Real American talking — someone who watches Fox News but isn’t much into politics.
He said that Ryan is OK and likable enough. Did not mind listening to Ryan.
I think that people vote for who they like and Romney is apparently very unlikable. I can’t really tell because I like Al Gore just fine. I like Romney more than I liked Bush because Bush sounded just so stupid all the time. But, apparently, Bush’s likability factor was pretty good.[/quote]
Ryan definitely seems more affable and less like a Robot than Romney. I’ve been saying since 2008 that Romney just reminds me a lot of John Kerry. Zero charisma, good at parroting the party line but awkward. Al Gore is a special case onto himself; he ran a poor campaign and should have used more of his real personality that came out in An Inconvenient Truth, although he also is prone to seem aloof and robotic.
The more likable candidate often wins Presidential elections, because we elect people and not parties and swing voters in particular are often pretty torn on the issues and just go with the candidate that seems more likable.
August 14, 2012 @ 9:33 PM
poorgradstudent wrote:
The
[quote=poorgradstudent]
The more likable candidate often wins Presidential elections, because we elect people and not parties and swing voters in particular are often pretty torn on the issues and just go with the candidate that seems more likable.[/quote]
That pretty much has been the case for the last 40 years. Or at least 36. In ’72, George McGovern and Sargent Shriver were two of the most well liked to ever work in DC. McGovern rarely said a bad word about anyone, and vice versa. Shriver was a friggen saint until the day he died. Nixon and Agnew were assholes, and everyone knew it. Changing VP candidates when Tom Eagleton withdrew didn’t help much but election wasn’t even close. The assholes won in a landslide.
August 15, 2012 @ 9:40 PM
Herman and Eddie
[img_assist|nid=16570|title=Herman and Eddie|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=468|height=480]
August 16, 2012 @ 9:18 AM
svelte wrote:Herman and
[quote=svelte][img_assist|nid=16570|title=Herman and Eddie|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=468|height=480][/quote]
The Mitten/Ryan team has an uncanny resemblance to the Munsters! Will little Eddie/Ryan start wearing shorts for all his new “fans?” And I wonder if Mitten’s spouse looks like Morticia? And does Mitt really have those bolt-holes in his neck which he hides behind plaid shirts??
Only his hairdresser knows for sure …
August 16, 2012 @ 1:16 AM
Ryan’s pronouced widow’s peak
Ryan’s pronouced widow’s peak is kinda weird and evil looking.
And I agree with you, BG. Ryan could use some botox. In fact his face is kinda wrinkly like a Shar Pei. My bro who’s a maxillofacial would be happy to give him a facelift.
I didn’t know that Obama used botox. He could use a facelift to take care of the cheek folds and the mole though.
August 16, 2012 @ 6:14 AM
where’s raise taxes and
[img_assist|nid=16572|title=where’s raise taxes and reduce spending???|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=466|height=97]
so I was somehow directed to NewsMax Media’s right wing propaganda news site. they had an “urgent poll” including the above question.
of course, the most logical and reasonable and the only solution is missing: raise taxes and cut spending.
August 16, 2012 @ 10:18 PM
ocrenter wrote:where’s raise
[quote=ocrenter][img_assist|nid=16572|title=where’s raise taxes and reduce spending???|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=466|height=97]
so I was somehow directed to NewsMax Media’s right wing propaganda news site. they had an “urgent poll” including the above question.
of course, the most logical and reasonable and the only solution is missing: raise taxes and cut spending.[/quote]
It’s like someone mentioned up above: they are preying on the huge swath of ignorant people in the U.S.
What’s sad, and scary, is that many people will read this poll and think that all of the options are listed there.
August 16, 2012 @ 9:09 AM
briansd1 wrote: . . . I
[quote=briansd1] . . . I didn’t know that Obama used botox. He could use a facelift to take care of the cheek folds and the mole though.[/quote]
brian, take a look at Obama’s pics and videos from very early in his presidency. You will see he used to have a permanent deep furrow between his eyebrows before his people suggested (and rightly so) that Botox should become his friend. He doesn’t really need a facelift. Juvederm injections would take care of the cheek folds and a good dermatologist could remove the mole.
August 16, 2012 @ 9:13 AM
That young stud-muffin Ryan
That young stud-muffin Ryan now has me inspired to step up my workout a little. I’m going to begin to incorporate different things to create “muscle confusion.” :=]
August 16, 2012 @ 1:04 PM
bearishgurl wrote:That young
[quote=bearishgurl]That young stud-muffin Ryan now has me inspired to step up my workout a little. I’m going to begin to incorporate different things to create “muscle confusion.” :=][/quote]
As much as I don’t want Ryan to be right, he has the results to prove it.
Most people work out go for bulk and bragging rights, not real health and fitness.
Muscle confusion makes a lot of sense. That’s why skiers or horsemen, or farmers who work out all their muscles are more fit.
6’2, 163 is “skinny” compared to most the population, but it’s a good BMI of 20.
August 16, 2012 @ 3:37 PM
Lilly not Morticia
Lilly not Morticia
August 16, 2012 @ 7:53 PM
yes there is a CF in SM.
yes there is a CF in SM. Don’t eat there – food is terrible.
The problem is there are waaaay more Christians in this country than gays. Gays trying the boycott things is likely to backfire quite often.
On the other hand, I think the Christians will eat there once and drive up sales for that month. Then they’ll forget about it while the gays, they’ll never come back.
August 20, 2012 @ 8:05 AM
svelte wrote:yes there is a
[quote=svelte]yes there is a CF in SM. Don’t eat there – food is terrible.
[/quote]
There is also one in Carmel Mountain. Nordstrom Rack as well, just like San Marcos.
August 20, 2012 @ 6:36 AM
I don’t want a President who
I don’t want a President who is “likable.” I want an asshole that gets the country back on the track to prosperity.
If I wanted a likable president I would have voted for Obama.
When you examine conservative charitable giving, you’ll see they give as much or more than the Liberals. They just don’t brag about it as much.
August 20, 2012 @ 8:01 AM
Brutus wrote:
When you
[quote=Brutus]
When you examine conservative charitable giving, you’ll see they give as much or more than the Liberals. They just don’t brag about it as much.[/quote]
Maybe they are donating to religious organizations in an attempt to reduce the likelihood of extended stay in the hot place (Texas, Arizona)? If that is the case it sounds like buying insurance with pre-tax money.
August 22, 2012 @ 9:20 AM
Giving money to your church
Giving money to your church is not entirely charitable giving. How much of that money is going to help the poor and unfortunates? How much is going to the child molesting defense fund?
[quote=Brutus]When you examine conservative charitable giving, you’ll see they give as much or more than the Liberals. They just don’t brag about it as much.[/quote]
August 22, 2012 @ 10:51 AM
ninaprincess wrote:Giving
[quote=ninaprincess]Giving money to your church is not entirely charitable giving. How much of that money is going to help the poor and unfortunates? How much is going to the child molesting defense fund?
[quote=Brutus]When you examine conservative charitable giving, you’ll see they give as much or more than the Liberals. They just don’t brag about it as much.[/quote][/quote]
and how much of that goes to fight gay marriage?
August 22, 2012 @ 7:16 AM
All that said, I do concur,
All that said, I do concur, CAR, that there are vastly more important issues out there than gay marriage. And with homophobics being crowded out by the young and enlightened (on that issue), it won’t be an issue much longer.
August 22, 2012 @ 7:41 AM
zk wrote:All that said, I do
[quote=zk]All that said, I do concur, CAR, that there are vastly more important issues out there than gay marriage. And with homophobics being crowded out by the young and enlightened (on that issue), it won’t be an issue much longer.[/quote]
It sounds like you are not gay. Because if you were, gay marriage just might be pretty important to you.
August 22, 2012 @ 7:59 AM
svelte wrote:zk wrote:All
[quote=svelte][quote=zk]All that said, I do concur, CAR, that there are vastly more important issues out there than gay marriage. And with homophobics being crowded out by the young and enlightened (on that issue), it won’t be an issue much longer.[/quote]
It sounds like you are not gay. Because if you were, gay marriage just might be pretty important to you.[/quote]
I didn’t say gay marriage wasn’t important. I said there are vastly more important issues out there. Meaning for the country as a whole. Changing the city permit rules to allow me to build the outbuilding I want would affect me personally more than gay marriage or most other issues. But it’s not that important to the country as a whole, and it would be a shame if we as a country wasted time debating my outbuilding when there are more important issues out there.
Obviously same-sex marriage is more important than my outbuilding. It’s personally important to a lot of people. And it’s important to me as a matter of social justice. But its importance to the nation has been blown out of proportion by politicians using the issue to incite/excite their base. Pretty soon, there won’t be enough homophobes around that appealing to them will make political sense. I’d like to fix the problem before that. But for the issue to be near the forefront of the national debate seems out of proportion to me.
August 22, 2012 @ 9:08 AM
I’d agree with that – cheers!
I’d agree with that – cheers!
August 27, 2012 @ 11:04 AM
deleted.
deleted.