Okay,
these really are idiotic demands... as read (and mocked) by Rush Limbaugh yesterday. But if you follow
his link — to an Occupy Wall Street forum page — you'll see that they're the dream product of one person, who signs himself Lloyd J. Hart, and the first comment is negative:
Way too many demands, Lloyd. I'm not the only person saying this. Occupy Wallstreet needs a laser-like focus if you want to get people on your side!
There are 572 comments, and I'm not going to read them all. But does the whole movement have to take responsibility for stuff like...
Demand eleven: Immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all. Debt forgiveness of sovereign debt, commercial loans, home mortgages, home equity loans, credit card debt, student loans and personal loans now! All debt must be stricken from the "Books." World Bank Loans to all Nations, Bank to Bank Debt and all Bonds and Margin Call Debt in the stock market including all Derivatives or Credit Default Swaps, all 65 trillion dollars of them must also be stricken from the "Books." And I don't mean debt that is in default, I mean all debt on the entire planet period.
Rush says:
Look, we laugh. Let me tell you something, folks: They believe this. Let me tell you something. They are being taught this. There are adult college professors who teach this crap. Now, where do you think these lunkheads get this stuff? They didn't come out of the womb thinking this. I kid you not. They are being taught this in the deep, dark crevices of academe and peer pressure and everything else.
And that's what Rush is teaching in the deep, dark crevices of AM radio.
Posts
281 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 281 of 281(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
those nasty hippies arguing for like removing student loan debt, and a right to work
What right to work demand are you claiming, I’ve read the “demands” and I haven’t come across the right to work, one…I’ve seen the “Give me $40,000 per year for sitting on my @rse one” but not the right to work one. Oh and forgive their student loans, so they took out $80,000 in loans to get a Gender Studies/Womyn’s Studies/English Degree, and find that they have NO job prospects, or at best are competing with you to ask, “Do you want fries with that?” but the bank would like payment on the loan, but the bank is at fault? Really, they get worthless and over-priced degrees, but the bank is the bad guy? You make me laugh more than usual….
I haven't responded or commented on this "J" character, but can somebody tell me if it's an actual person or just some kind of computer generated comedic element being thrown into the mix for fun.
Is there ever an actual point?
Love said... There's not a snowball's chance in hell that a 9% flat tax would cover the cost of operating our government and military.
If that is your opinion, I disagree. If that is a fact, please provide supporting links/evidence.
Love said... Trying to say the Tea Party is just some far reaching, random group of Americans, with no central leadership or organization is ridiculous and you know it.
Who is the central leadership or organization behind OWS?
(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
Joe - Joanna said the Tea Party had no leader.
I provided at least three who represent the Tea Party as "leaders."
Trying to say the Tea Party is just some far reaching, random group of Americans, with no central leadership or organization is ridiculous and you know it
It IS and it doesn’t…those guyz don’t speak for me, I have no clue as to who they are….unlike say Trumka or Andy Stern….nice try.
(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
I haven't responded or commented on this "J" character, but can somebody tell me if it's an actual person or just some kind of computer generated comedic element being thrown into the mix for fun.
Is there ever an actual point
The Small Pathetic Voice is:
1) A Power Lifter;
2) The owner of a “gat”;
3) The “publisher” of a blog no one ever comments on, and hence why s/he comes here;
4) Seriously disturbed.
I've been following them on youtube. They are just in the beginning stages and quite open that they have no idea what they are doing and it will take steps as they go along.
My wish is that the occupy people get together with the Tea Party instead of fighting each other - which is just what the machiavellian types would want. They need to understand they have far more in common than they think and need to work together to implement real change.
Unfortunately I already see knee jerk reactions on both sides- to the Occupy types the Tea Party are pawns of the republican party and evil. (Not. True.) To the Tea Party these are future-elitist, college idiots, etc.
Additionally, when you are just a mass of incoherent, inarticulate protest, you are a sitting duck for manipulators to swoop in and be articulate for you and coopt your energy for their own ends. (See the Obama campaign).
The State has tried to harness the passion of the people throughout history - it is more valuable than gold. When the Church was the State, it did an especially good (evil) job.
Actually Jeremy, its 9% coroporate, 9% income and 9% sales tax, not just a single 9% tax.
But when it comes to liberal spending, 100% taxation isn't sufficient.
Love wrote:
There's not a snowball's chance in hell that a 9% flat tax would cover the cost of operating our government and military.
Got any data to support that claim? Do you know what the gross earnings of all possible taxpayers is? Do you know what the Federal Budget is? (Don't bother looking, there hasn't been one in nearly 900 days) Do you know what the total income tax revenue collected for 2010 amount to. Can you do the math?
"Certainly there are criminals in the banking system, but does that mean that we must discriminate against the banking system as a whole?"
I'm sure they will be fine. Are fine.
@Joe
You forgot
5) professional editor (unverified)
6) published author (unverified)
7) poorly written Turing software (verified)
Joe wrote:
The Small Pathetic Voice is:
4) Seriously disturbed.
Not seriously, one has to have something at risk to be seriously disturbed.
But the Right should make up its mind...is it Anti-Wall Street, like the Tea Bagger Rhetoric says or is it pro Wall Street like the Republican bills in congress suggest.
The Tea Party right is neither pro nor anti Wall Street. They are pro free markets, and anti government bail-out.
(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
The Tea Party right is neither pro nor anti Wall Street. They are pro free markets, and anti government bail-out
That is a great point, many folks, especially Republicans confuse being “pro-business’ with being “pro-market.” No one hates a free market more than a Capitalist, not even a College Sociology Professor.
@ScottM, *LMAO* at “poorly written Turing software”..also let me repeat; “Nerd”.
A lot of this protesting "Wall Street" seems to be running under the impression that there is a finite amount of cash in the world and that the "outrageously wealthy" Wall Street broker only got that way by taking money from the poor(er).
Of course, these people are protesting but you can pry their iPods, iPhones, Macs, iPads, etc from their 'cold, dead, hands'.
Do they also think that the price of a Starbucks coffee or McDonalds sandwich will stay the same as it is now if the minimum wage is increased to $40k a year?
wv: pessedal
My memory is a little fuzzy but didn't this whole economic mess in large part get caused by banks being too generous with loaning money?
Additionally, when you are just a mass of incoherent, inarticulate protest, you are a sitting duck for manipulators to swoop in and be articulate for you and coopt your energy for their own ends. (See the Obama campaign).
(See the Arab Spring.)
(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
Do they also think that the price of a Starbucks coffee or McDonalds sandwich will stay the same as it is now if the minimum wage is increased to $40k a year
Yes they do, because they’re not too bright, AND because they figure once they’re in power they’ll make sure that the prices don’t rise…
ST:
The injustice of the financial/mortgage scam, however, is real.
This is unmitigated bullshit. No bank/mortgage company ever force ANYONE to sign onto a loan that they couldn't afford. Did they do due diligence to properly vet customers from 03-07 - fuck no! But that's their problem and they should be forced to eat their losses, not the taxpayer. The only fraud was the TARP bailout.
Do they also think that the price of a Starbucks coffee or McDonalds sandwich will stay the same as it is now if the minimum wage is increased to $40k a year?
Yes, but only for a short amount of time: Govt regulations will set price controls. Then those corporations will go out of business.
I should also point out the other major fraud were loan applicants lying about income, existing debt and their credit score.
This is unmitigated bullshit. No bank/mortgage company ever force ANYONE to sign onto a loan that they couldn't afford.
My argument on this matter since day one. What really pissed me off what Tingles over on MSNBC telling me that it's too damned bad that responsible mortgage owners that were paying their bills on time were going to have to foot the bill for the irresponsible. Life's not fair, in other words...
Oh, and since we're over 200 comments and nobody has invoked Godwin...Hitler.
(someone mentioned a grammer Nazi earlier, but that doesn't count)
Joe and Joanna,
Yep, also because Obama told them he'll lower the costs of Medicare by lowering the amount the gubmint reimburses doctors.
So they believe that they can lower costs by mandating a maximum price.
Obama told them so.
My overall point is that both lenders and lendees did not perform due diligence about what they could afford and they should all fall on their proverbial swords. I do NOT approve of bailing either of them out.
Joe (The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew), in response to the name Norquist, wrote: "Who"?
If the question is in earnest then the questioner is deprived of any claim to seriousness in the discussion of national politics. Here we have someone who not only funnels heavy cash into conservative causes (not knowing who he is based on this would be unsurprising, for all but the most junkified political junkie) but who ALSO and in a very high profile way, drafts a pledge that no taxes will be raised under any circumstances. And EVERY single candidate for the GOP nomination signs that pledge.
So yeah, he is a real national figure and a real Tea Party leader. If you know who he is and you are just asking "Who?" as a strategy for deflecting the claim that Norquist is a leader, then that's weak tea, as it were.
Meanwhile, Joanna wrote:
"You say tomato, I say tomahto.
You say Norquist, I say Soros.
Yawn."
This comment is banal for too many reasons to enumerate, but false equivalency likely heads the list. Soros funds Democratic causes to be sure, but I have yet to see ALL the leaders of the Dem Party (or even ANY of them for that matter) pledge absolute fidelity to his or anyone else's ideology.
The much ballyhooed "Soros monster," on the bright side, makes for an entertaining meme to behold, when reading comments sections on far right web sites.
Hoosier:
My memory is a little fuzzy but didn't this whole economic mess in large part get caused by banks being too generous with loaning money?
Only because the Goverment told them that they had to. Something about "disparate impact".
The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
So yeah, he is a real national figure and a real Tea Party leader. If you know who he is and you are just asking "Who?" as a strategy for deflecting the claim that Norquist is a leader, then that's weak tea, as it were
Is he? I know of him from his AFTR work and his pro-Saudi viewpoints, but to say he’s the TEA Party or a TEA Party leader is to say Ron Paul is or the fellow who founded “Pork Busters” is. Their work PRE-DATES the TEA Party…thank you for playing though.
Not that anyone other than the financial genius commenters here know anything about finance and taxes, but:
Tax policy experts say Cain’s plan is unrealistic because it presumes that no deductions and exemptions will be permitted, no matter how popular.
“Either Herman Cain is the tax messiah or is proposing a system that has no correspondence to real-world tax systems,” said Edward Kleinbard, a former chief of staff to the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation. “In practice, it will have the same economic effect as a 27 percent uncapped payroll tax.”
Cain’s proposal is worded in a way that suggests nothing -- food, housing or clothing -- would be exempt from the national sales tax. It is unlikely that Congress would endorse such a broad-based consumption tax, and even if it did, consumers might change their buying habits. That could reduce consumption and would then lower revenue from the national sales tax.
(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
This comment is banal for too many reasons to enumerate, but false equivalency likely heads the list. Soros funds Democratic causes to be sure, but I have yet to see ALL the leaders of the Dem Party (or even ANY of them for that matter) pledge absolute fidelity to his or anyone else's ideology
1) Straw man no one claims that they have; and
2) Please tell which REPUBLICANS have pledged absolute fidelity to anyone’s ideology?
I wonder if these folks consider the founders of Google, Facebook, Twitter, Groupon, the Hollywood celebrity set and those other hip folks rolling in dough as the greedy 1% who aren't paying their fair share.
"... (someone mentioned a grammer Nazi earlier, but that doesn't count)..."
Someone? No soup for you!!!
Joe wrote:
1)Straw man no one claims that they have; and
2) Please tell which REPUBLICANS have pledged absolute fidelity to anyone’s ideology?
Both of the "points" are wrong for the same reason. Joanna's "yawn" was silly because Norquist DOES in fact have all their signatures. If you don't sign the pledge, at this point, you are simply not a viable candidate in the GOP. ALL REPUBLICANS have signed it. ALL of them raised their hand at the question, would they take a deal that stipulated one dollar of tax increases for every ten dollars of cuts. If that isn't ideological extremism, then the term means nothing.
And Norquist is a leader on that extremist front. You, Joe, remind of of the Texas School Board member, who argued that since she hadn't heard of a historical figure, the figure was not important enough to be in the textbooks.
Shanti shanti shanti
"... It is unlikely that Congress would endorse such a broad-based consumption tax, and even if it did, consumers might change their buying habits. That could reduce consumption and would then lower revenue from the national sales tax..."
Now there is a shock. Individuals changing their behavior as a result of increased taxation.
It is my experience that when I point out the general stupidity of ARM loans, people who got them get very angry at me.
Love, you should give a citation if you're going to quote that extensively from a source (I read the exact same article in Bloomberg.)
But either way, it's meaningless. Cain proposed a plan. You (and Bloomberg) are changing the terms of the plan, and then saying that it wouldn't work based on the terms that are not part of the plan. The plan, as it stands, is financially viable. If it doesn't have support, then people won't vote for Cain. If they vote for Cain, then it probably has support.
- Lyssa
Hoosier Daddy said...
I wonder if these folks consider the founders of Google, Facebook, Twitter, Groupon, the Hollywood celebrity set and those other hip folks rolling in dough as the greedy 1% who aren't paying their fair share.
They certainly welcomed Susan Sarandon and Michael Moore with open arms.
(As for the 99%, I'm among them and did not ask OWS to speak for me. Not that that should matter -- they obviously know my best interests better than I do. This is what democracy looks like.)
wv: bilbo
It is my experience that when I point out the general stupidity of ARM loans, people who got them get very angry at me.
LOL, same here. These mostly include first-time home buyers that were buying too much house or others that were on a second or third house, but had lousy personal finances and thought they were getting a deal.
When push comes to shove, figuratively, in these conversations, they will pull out the "well, the loan officer told me this and didn't tell me this" insinuating that they were tricked into what, for the overwhelming majority of us, is the single biggest investment in our lives.
(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
And Norquist is a leader on that extremist front
A Leader and not necessarily a leader of the TEA Party…thank you. And so it’s “extremist” to advocate for less spending? Again, can you point out a time when we had taxes increases and then they were followed by spending DECREASES? No you can’t. It’s a “mugs game” and any Republican who signs onto “responsible revenue increases” after Bush ’41 or Ronaldus Magnus deserves to lose the primary….Sorry Love, when Obama says, “Tax the rich” he means that, but he’ll never cut spending….We’ve begun to realize that, now after 30-plus years. So the question becomes, to the TEA Party, how to cut spending? I don’t claim there’s unanimity or even acceptance of all the pain necessary, but we do see that first we have to spend LESS. As I said, when we’ve filled in about 90% of the hole with less spending, give me a call about increasing revenue. That’s not “extreme” that’s Math…something the Left has trouble with.
Also, Love, you're welcome to answer my questions posed earlier, since none of your liberal friends appear to be interested in any sort of actual discussion on the actual post topic.
Do you agree with any of the points in the demand list that Althouse linked? Which, if any, do you believe would lead to a disasterous result?
- Lyssa
harrogate said...Joanna's "yawn" was silly
The invocation of Norquist, Koch Bros, Soros, etc. tends to produce arguments and debate that I have heard too many times to count. It's like a Godwin rule for political junkies. Thus I yawn. Nothing silly 'bout that.
Its been a very interesting discussion--glad to have the commenter known as Love on board.
But for all the discussion about tax rates and spending cuts (or increases) the President has no say on it, other than the bully pulpit.
Money bills originate in the house; the fed controls money supply--what the President, whoever he might be, is reduce onerous regulation, and reduce the federal bureaucracy.
Anyway, it will be interesting times ahead.
"... It is my experience that when I point out the general stupidity of ARM loans, people who got them get very angry at me...'
If you know you're only going to be in the home for say 3-5 years, an ARM makes sense. An ARM is not the right thing for the long haul.
But yeah, a lot of people go with an ARM to buy more house than they should have.
I'm not that old but old enough to remember when credit was not an easy thing to acquire where as in the 90s and aughts, it seemed the only qualification was a pulse.
The point was made earlier about bank loans, banks are suppliers but the demand isn't there,.at least not a lot of credit worthy demand. Most people are in de-leverage and hoard mode right now and will be for sometime.
Anyway, it will be interesting times ahead.
Quite possibly historic, given the seats up for grabs in the House and Senate.
Love said...
I realize the demands being made are outlandish and not possible, but how are they any more outlandish than many of the demands of the Tea Party?
As an example; Cain, the current poster boy of the Tea Party thinks we can lower taxes to 9% on personal income, corporate income and sales.
Anybody here think that's remotely possible, while still having the revenue necessary to have a functional government, military, etc.?
There is a fundamental difference between something being 'not possible' because there is no political will to do it, and something being 'outlandish' because it is mind-bogglingly wrong-headed with negative consequences that would far-outweigh whatever good you thought you were achieving.
The only real question is how Obama will co-opt these slackers if they haven't been alread.
All of the pro Occupy comments about the madness of the Tea Party's advocacy spending not exceeding revenue. These folks are a wholey owned subsidiary of the DNC.
What say you LOVE?
ScottM: indeed--I see the Senate flipping republican and the only question will be a clothure proof senate--quite likely.
Dont much care if Obama wins or not (OK thats not true--hope he gets his ass kicked), but the bottom line for me is an overwhelming republican congress. Mr Obama will be reduced to nothing except a figure head role in international politics.
"... Its been a very interesting discussion--glad to have the commenter known as Love on board..."
I'm pretty sure that's the commenter formerly known as Jeremy.
Oh is it that so BubbaLove
Annie-humping soon.Heh heh ...tell that to yr snitch connection ,and then take some more lithium, Doktor Tee-shirt. Maybe get yr AA and start over flunkie. Or brain transplant
Arguing for TARP. What a sad shit of shit, hardly different than the teabugs here or Joejoe and Queerstor the Hayekian dolts.
--Joe-pig...your typical generalizations ..are typically lame and meaningless--hardly better than Limbaugh's belches.
Mr Obama will be reduced to nothing except a figure head role in international politics.
Given the scenario you're painting, I have to say I wouldn't be happy with this. The POTUS and his state department are our links to the rest of the world. We've already gone too far down the path of seemingly giving up the ghost as far as leadership and influence go, both tied directly to the executive.
"The invocation of Norquist, Koch Bros, Soros, etc. tends to produce arguments and debate that I have heard too many times to count."
A, all of this stuff being debated involves topics we are deeply familiar with. What important issue can you not say that about? "End public education, fund public education, I've heard the arguments before. Yawn."
More specifically, you show a lack of understanding of why the commenter said Norquist's name anyway. Maybe the "yawn" was a signifier for ignorance of who Norquist is?
Norquist is, after all, a somewhat different figure in context of this discussion than either Soros or the Koch brothers, who may be cash cows for their respective sides,but do not explicitly extract promises for all the world to see. Norquist is not a cashcow. He is something else.
No amount of affected, self-satisfieed boredom on your part changes the basic truth of this.
But oter than that, your post was really really thoughtful.
no Hoosier dumbass.."Love"s not jeremy.IT's about a dozen or so sockpuppets--including rightist ones (ie Fred4Pres,bagoh, AND left--Cookie for oneetc). AKA Bubbba!
It’s a “mugs game” and any Republican who signs onto “responsible revenue increases” after Bush ’41 or Ronaldus Magnus deserves to lose the primary….
Joejoe Kissinger, even your hero Nixon increased taxes. What were they around 70% across the board? And even after Reagan's tax cuts, still 50%. Now under 40%--.So still at historic lows after BushCo. Not that history matters much when a teabagger's got his anti-govt schtictk on.
(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
And even after Reagan's tax cuts, still 50%
Uh-no…in the neighborhood of 28%, but thank you for playing……And NIXON, to a Conservative…Oh puh-leeeze, it’s like quoting Hubert Humphrey to a Liberal Democrat…Nixon is reviled, on the Right, for his EO on Affirmative Action, the creation of OSHA and the EPA…and Wage and Price Controls. If Nixon wasn’t hated by Ted Kennedy the Republicans wouldn’t care a fig for Nixon….
Hoosier - "Now there is a shock. Individuals changing their behavior as a result of increased taxation."
Flat taxes are regressive and impact the middle and lower classes much more than the wealthy due to the increased percentage of income the taxes impact.
Flat taxes are regressive and impact the middle and lower classes much more than the wealthy due to the increased percentage of income the taxes impact.
The current tax system, if you buy what POTUS is dishing out, is far more regressive because the poor and middle class CAN'T spend money to find loopholes and exemptions.
A 9% flat tax would be a significant decrease in my tax liability.
lyssalovelyredhead - I personally do not think Cain's 9-9-9 suggestion would produce the kinds of revenues necessary to sustain the country's financial/revenue needs. (And as I mentioned before, flat taxation impacts the middle and lower classes much more than the upper and wealthy.)
If you feel differently, that's your prerogative, but I don't think there are many economists that would agree.
A 9% flat tax would be a significant decrease in my tax liability.
It would also cut out a lot of favor-buying to the privileged classes. A congress without the power to manipulate the tax code is a congress that can't make special favors to a favored few.
- Lyssa
Love, I don't feel anything- it's math, not personal opinions or emotions. The Bloomberg article you quoted acknowledged that the plan, as it is written, would give enough revenue. The parts that you cited only stated that the math didn't work if you change the variables. (Obviously.)
Cain's plan, as it stands, gives enough revenue to match the revenue that we take in now (Now, of course, that's not enough to continue to fund government, but that's another issue.) Whether or not we're willing to vote for Cain and support that plan is a question that will be answered soon enough.
- Lyssa
Scott- "A 9% flat tax would be a significant decrease in my tax liability."
That's nice.
It would also be nice for many others, but overall, it would impact the middle/lower classes more than the current system.
U.S. News & World Report:
1. The first argument against the flat tax, one that resonates with homeowners, charitable organizations, and anyone with employer-provided health insurance or a pension plan, is the disruption that would come from trashing the current income tax system in favor of something untested and untried.
2.Second, there's no concealing that the flat tax would radically redistribute the tax burden. Adam Smith, to whom economists always turn to for economic wisdom, observed, "It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion." The current U.S. tax system consists mainly of taxes on income (personal and corporate), payroll (Social Security), sales, and property. In 2007, these taxes provided 92 percent of federal income and 51 percent of state and local government income. Sales taxes are regressive—they take a higher share of low incomes than higher incomes. State and local income taxes range from flat to mildly progressive. Payroll taxes are moderately regressive because they fall on only wages and salaries and only up to a maximum of $106,800 in earnings
3.The rhetoric about ending double taxation ignores the fact that under a flat tax, wages would still be taxed twice, but dividends only once. Wage earners pay both payroll and income taxes. They've paid double taxes since 1935. Why should income from owning financial assets be treated differently—especially since most of that income goes to upper-income households?
A flat tax would shift tax obligations from the rich to the poor, and especially the middle class, and eliminate desirable tax incentives for retirement savings, home ownership, and charitable contributions. Simple? Yes. Efficient and equitable? Not so much.
(From U.S. News & World Report - that liberal rag?)
There are now 24 countries with a flat tax, but none of them got there by scrapping an established progressive income tax system nearly 100 years old. Fifteen of these countries are formerly Communist countries of Eastern and Central Europe. The others are very small, ranging from Montenegro to Iceland. No major industrial nation has made that choice.
So I guess Cain must be some kind of former Communist.
It would also be nice for many others, but overall, it would impact the middle/lower classes more than the current system.
I'm squarely in the middle class. I have no problem whatsoever expecting friends and relatives of mine, who I know don't now pay ANY federal income tax...yet somehow have flat panel tv's and, in one case, a superbike...pay THEIR fair share.
Flat taxes are regressive and impact the middle and lower classes much more than the wealthy due to the increased percentage of income the taxes impact
Lots of things impact lower and middle income people more than the wealthy. The total absence of waygu beef and beluga caviar from my diet is directly attributable to my middle-class income. But is mitigating my gastronomically uninspired diet a legitimate function of government? I can't find anything in the Constitution that gives me hope of a six-course gourmet meal at Restaurant Per Se anytime soon. Maybe I'm naive but I've always thought the advantages of wealth was a primary reason one would chose to acquire same.
Your original complaint about Cain's flat tax proposal was that the revenue it would raise would be insufficient. Now that you've changed direction can we assume you've dropped your fiscal policy objections?
Paddy O,
"Usually the debtor doesn't want to forgive it"
I assume you meant "creditor"?
Lyssa,
"Do you agree with me that if we were to enact each or a majority of these demands, we would completely lose our standard of living to the point of becoming a near-third-world country? "
If by "near" you mean "near on the underside" (i.e. more like 4th-world), then yeah.
wv: "winter". Oh, dear, now Blogger thinks it can predict the future!
Quaestor - "Your original complaint about Cain's flat tax proposal was that the revenue it would raise would be insufficient. Now that you've changed direction can we assume you've dropped your fiscal policy objections?"
No, my argument regarding the flat tax matter is separate, but included.
Cain's suggestion will never fly and would never raise the revenues needed to sustain the government.
Show me all of the economists that disagree.
Scott - The flat panel comment is straight out of the Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Fox News tripe.
The flat tax will never fly.
Period.
"... Flat taxes are regressive and impact the middle and lower classes much more than the wealthy due to the increased percentage of income the taxes impact..."
Perhaps but that wasn't my point. You seem to be under the impression that higher taxes on the wealthy won't affect their behavior.
Love - I have no idea what Beck, O'Reilly or Fox News have to do with relatives I have that don't pay federal income tax, but own things like big screen tvs and frivolous transportation.
If you think that's "tripe", you don't know very many people in the lower income brackets.
We had a couple in their fifties living next to us, way back in my early radio days (ie poor) that were on assistance of all kinds, didn't pay any taxes...and had a HUGE rear projection TV with Direct TV. While we were living there, we saw them coming home from Sears (they walked as they didn't own a car) with a brand new dvd player. Mind you, this was 1998, so they weren't exactly $40.
If you don't think this kind of thing happens all the time, you live under a very large, very posh rock.
This should be interesting:
"Warren Buffett has answered the Wall Street Journal's snarky remarks about his tax returns. Today in an interview with Fortune Magazine editor Carol Loomis, he challenged Rupert Murdoch to release his tax returns to the press. Buffett said he'd release his at the same time."
Any wagers on whether Rupert releases his?
Scott - Please don't insult my intelligence.
The same crap was broadcast on Fox within the last few weeks.
Stuart Varney:
"When you look at actual living conditions of the 43 million people the census says are poor, you see in fact they have all these modern conveniences. 99.6% of them have a refrigerator. What They Lack is the Richness of Spirit"
And have you run this by your relatives?
Apparantly all the "Demands" so effectively mocked by everyone come from a single whackacoodle college student.
But do not doubt for a minute that there is huge anger towards the Wall Street "Jobs Creator" crowd...the rewarded with trillions in bailouts, wealthier than in 2008 crowd...
Not a single indictment. With the connivance of both Democrats and Republicans. They sold their poisoned paper here and abroad. It isn't just Americans furious with them..Germans and Asians have bluntly stated that the days they listened to America on fiscal matters or accepted them at their word - is over.
Limbaugh can mock the protests and the braindead solutions of some fringe character in the protests - just as much as "conservative patriots" mocked the growing Civil Rights Protests and Vietnam protests of the 60s. But they will still grow because they stem from a belief that something is deeply wrong.
I try not to insult the infirm. J's the exception.
Quaestor said...
Love wrote:
There's not a snowball's chance in hell that a 9% flat tax would cover the cost of operating our government and military.
Got any data to support that claim? Do you know what the gross earnings of all possible taxpayers is? Do you know what the Federal Budget is? (Don't bother looking, there hasn't been one in nearly 900 days) Do you know what the total income tax revenue collected for 2010 amount to. Can you do the math?
=================
Qaestor - So far of the candidates, only Cain and Johnson and Huntsman have had no media scrutiny of their ideas or their resumes. Now that Cain is evolving into the Republican version of the Black Messiah Obama was to the Democrats....following disappointment with think with their hearts and not their brains Female Goddesses like Palin and Bachmann....the scrutiny will be escalated on Cain and the viability of his 9-9-9 cureall elixir.
Cain wasn't important enough to look into this before. Now based on polls, he is.
Most people looking at it at a glance see another Steve Forbes style massive cut in taxes on the rich, just like most Flat Tax schemes put forth by Forbes and other multimillionaires and billionaires or their shills before Cain's Plan. And also, it would cut revenues even further. Another massive tax cut and at the same time a jobs and consumer spending killer.
And rollbacks to 9% of cap gains, income - a boon for the rich and upper middle class - will not be compensated for by slapping a new 9% sales tax everyone, no deductions for any purchase permitted - on mortgage payments, medicine, all types of insurance purchased, gasoline and food sales.
Right now, the "go with your heart, do not engage your brain" sort of conservatives are following Dems with their own version of Black Messiah worship.
Love wrote:
Cain's suggestion will never fly and would never raise the revenues needed to sustain the government.
You have yet to demonstrate this point or even provide a shred of evidence in its favor. The current tax system doesn't raise the revenues needed to sustain the government, either. Which brings up the question: Do you think the government ought to (let alone can be) sustained at its current level? The almost hyperbolic upward curve the national debt has experienced over the last few years suggests that such sustenance is impossible.
It may never fly, but not because of its merits or shortcomings. It will fail because of the political power of tax attorneys and accountants whose income hinge on the complexity of the tax code -- the more complex and convoluted the tax laws become the more they earn.
The flat-tax revolution: Fine in theory but it will never happen. Oh, really?
The only way we're going to survive as a first-world power is to re-industrialize America. There are many steps needed to accomplish this, among them are:
1) First and foremost the various governments that control our lives must be reined in, their power over our economic freedom must be reduced and they must be made to live within their means.
2) Incentives must be given to entrepreneurs to located their operations within the United States, and not to move their profit centers overseas.
3) Education needs reformation. far too many students receive high school and university diplomas without marketable skills.
To all grammar Nazis: Yes, I failed to correct the comma splice in point 3.
Cedarford writes:
"Limbaugh can mock the protests and the braindead solutions of some fringe character in the protests - just as much as "conservative patriots" mocked the growing Civil Rights Protests and Vietnam protests of the 60s. But they will still grow because they stem from a belief that something is deeply wrong."
Exactly. That is the truth right there. What are being identified as their demands, or their lack thereof, is a side issue, at best. It is the growing sense that the people running the country are not the voters, nor the represetnatives of the voters, but a small handful of indecent individuals.
But still the awareness goes. And every time an American thinks to him or herself, the Wall Street brokers are scumbags, the Bankers are scumbags, the CEO's are scumbags. Every time an American thinks this, an angel gets its wings.
I thank "Love" for being the adult in the conversation.
"The rhetoric about ending double taxation ignores the fact that under a flat tax, wages would still be taxed twice, but dividends only once."
[In reality, the new sales tax would tax income a 3RD TIME!]
Cains crude revenue raising calcs allow no exceptions to the new Federal Sales tax...but they must..Congress is not going to pass something that tacks 9% onto purchase of investments like land, stock equities, a classic car that will appreciate in value and is listed by the doctor driving it as an "investment", a bank certificate of deposit, a rich person's "fine art" investment - without building in a 9%+ expected return.
It would also set up a fine black market and stimulate the hiring of more Fed Gov't drones to enforce it by monitoring and punishing the population in every corner of the country if they are tempted to try "cash at the back door is King!" strategies.
Would money given to charity be subject to a 9% sales tax?
I buy a 1 OZ gold chain at a jewelry dealer. 9% sales tax plus whatever state and city tax applies?
I buy 50 one ounce gold coins and claim it is an investment..to diversify my portfolio. Do I get an exemption as a wealthy investing "jobs creator"?
The guy that mows my lawn? Who pays the 9% sales tax on purchase of his service? Will wealthy lawyers have to tack 9% onto their services, or will they be exempt?
What of municipal and state and Fed Gov't purchases of goods and services? Exempt from the 9% tax, or passed on to the citizenry with additional revenue enhancement collection methods??
"... Any wagers on whether Rupert releases his?.."
Why should he?
Llyod is writing from Vinyard Haven, MA.
Anyone above mention that?
Hilarious.
(google earth it)
"Immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all."
No, no. Wait until my personal loan goes through.
Jeez, that shit's transparent - "I'm in too much debt! Forgive all debt!"
According to what I read, the biblical jubilee resulted in no one loaning anything as the year approached. Property, if it changed hands at all, went at a discount because the buyer knew he would have to give it back soon. The biblical prohibition of usury is what led to Jews being bankers and pawn brokers. Jews could not charge interest to other Jews, and Christians could not charge interest at all. However, Jews could charge interest to Christians. Interest is just rent on money. There is nothing unfair about it. You would not expect to live rent-free in someone else's house, would you?
"There are 572 comments, and I'm not going to read them all. But does the whole movement have to take responsibility for stuff like..."
Yes. They do. And so do you for voting for the man who is engineering all this.
So far the Arab Spring has produced one de facto military dictatorship, Egypt, one ongoing civil war, Libya, and one ongoing massacre, Syria. Be careful what you wish for...
Post a Comment