"And I just want to point out, this was a central question during the election. It was debated over and over again. And on Tuesday night, we found out that the majority of Americans agree with my approach. And that includes Democrats, independents and a lot of Republicans across the country, as well as independent economists and budget experts."Is that the way elections work? There's a struggle right now to impose an interpretation on the election. One man got more votes than the other. We were put in the position of having to vote for one man or other other. But how does that translate into what we want on particular issues? It translates through the power-holders insisting on the meaning they like. We still get to fight back. The interpretive process never ends.
November 9, 2012
"Because Romney made opposition to raising tax rates on the superwealthy part of his campaign..."
"Obama seemed to interpret his defeat of his GOP challenger as a referendum on this point..."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
388 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 388 of 388Good point, Marshal, but I do believe in charity.
somefeller said...
Good point, Marshal, but I do believe in charity.
Excellent! Next find some college kids and just speak from the heart. Teaching our young people that lefties are nuts is critical to our future.
Don't let anyone stop you. You're a natural.
We should rely on Obama's judgement, he knows his constituency much better than I do. I don't know them at all. He speaks their language.
How much would you like the FAIR SHARE of the 1 % to be this month, Mr. President?
I was good with the math up to, oh, abouttheseventhgrade.
Oh, that much. Okay, here you go mr president. This is a check. It's a paper thing that means the same thing as money.
Don't I get real money?
It's the same thing.
But I want real money. The whole graduation gift and wedding registry thing didn't pan out that good.
Okay here you go, Mr President, a sack of money with a cartoon $sez
20 TRILLION dollars *claps* Yay we won we won we won.
If some college kids need some lessons, I'll just lead by example. If they are smart, that's all they will need. But some people need less subtle lessons. And I, as an act of charity, provide such lessons to such people, like yourself. You can thank me later.
Communists must love it when everybody's all up to their ears in debt all at once all together. The togetherness it creates is fantastic. It forces us together. Now somebody has to fix it. How are they going to fix it? How? Guess. Guess guess guess guess guess guess.
Come on. Guess. They're going to tax somebody else, aren't they.
No, dears. they're going to tax you. You gave them control of your life. Just as well, you're a serf. You applauded when they handed you a tab for 16 trillion and said yay yay yay let's do more.
Does not the Professor teach Constitutional law? Perhaps she is challenging us to expand the conversation in this thread. Personally, I would love to see a discussion of Federalist No. 51, written by James Madison, which:
"...addresses means by which appropriate checks and balances can be created in government and also advocates a separation of powers within the national government. One of its most important ideas is the pithy and often quoted phrase 'ambition must be made to counteract ambition'". (Wikipedia)
As I understand it, Madison asserted that the Legislative branch is the strongest - the "true voice of the people". But he also called for clear checks and balances.
Again, a discussion of Federalist No. 51 would flesh out what appears to me to be an underlying tenet of divided government - that conflict (call it "ambition") between the Legislative and Executive branches is a positive thing, something to be encouraged.
If my interpretation is correct (please! someone disagree with me!) then the Legislature must oppose Mr. Obama if they are in true disagreement. The House (the "peoples house") is Constitutionally obligated to oppose.
Remember when the Nixon presidency was deemed the "imperial presidency" and the Congress resisted? That was the Constitution at work. So should it be now that the House resist and remind the Administration that it is but one part of government and not even the most important part.
Somefeller: "Good times, good times."
Yea, we know. You won. Now what? You gonna drive, or just dance around with the keys like a teenage girl? What's the plan, man? Oh, you didn't really have one? Great, now you tell us.
Sheridan said...
Remember when the Nixon presidency was deemed the "imperial presidency" and the Congress resisted?
Obama's already blown past this standard. He's issued executive orders granting waivers to legislation that specifically rules out waivers. He's even granted waivers to his signature legislation that returns America to greatness. You have to wonder why employees of Nancy Pelosi's husband and friends's businesses don't deserve the incalculable benefits of Obamacare.
YI guess this is just another item in the interminable list of facts proving the left doesn't give half a shit about their alleged principles. Other than By Any Means Necessary of course. That one they hold dear.
An addendum to my earlier comment. Mr. Obama won his election. That is a fact and must be respected. But the House Republicans also won. Equal respect to them. Mr. Obama's "mandate" is no bigger than the Republican "mandate". Conflict must follow with the intent of driving compromise. Political calculations are in-play but the underlying Constitutional tenets of "checks and balances" are also operating. Because of this, I am optimistic that solutions will eventually be reached; hopefully, to the displeasure of both the President and the House. The road may be rocky for the American people but that's why there are elections every two years. God bless Madison, Hamilton and Jay!!
Sheridan reminds: Remember when the Nixon presidency was deemed the "imperial presidency" and the Congress resisted? That was the Constitution at work. So should it be now that the House resist and remind the Administration that it is but one part of government and not even the most important part.
Yes. Let's trim the overreached executive branch.
If only you were the faintest bit amusing then I could stand you.
The interesting creative serfs I knew are dead mostly. That's what got me when I was struck by their absence today. Everything seemed so vacant and void, so empty, people actually discussing class envy like dull commies do. Gawd. Talk about atavistic.
Oddly your dangerous dull commie retard hopes overlap my own settled in light and life dreams. A non nation without any borders, just drive straight through or fly for that matter and come right up and get whatever service you need. I want that. Like Star Trek. That's the way it should be, Cost irrelevant, Money a thing in the past. Everybody self-actuated, that's what I see for a splendid future and what for humanity's evolution to aim for, rifle my pockets go ahead, do that, you disturbingly freakish control freaks never satisfied, I'll help you if you'd state that goal clearly, but first darling retards there's a matter of debt before something so grand as that can be started and you've jumped precious retards and now we're well and truly fucked. I don't like you. You're stupid and mean. Your party is corrupt and you think you're all pure. You're not. Bad as they are, Republicans are better than you. The opposite of what you think. But you're serfs and serfs think really stupid things.
Be a doll and fix that broken door closer will you dear? I'll give you four million dollars.
See how I talk to slaves? I have 'em wrapped around my finger. Little promises go so far. It's amazing.
I'd tell my dog, "now you be a good girl and guard this house." She's shit for a guard but I get her to think she's a little soldier. "And watch out for crooks!" and she comes to attention. "And I'll be back in FIVE minutes!" I lie. She has no concept of time. I come back two hours later and she's still there guarding like a little soldier and I praise her with a play time and a biscuit. Serf mentality.
Marshal, I see your point. Speaker Boehner is well within his Constitutional privileges and duties to simply say to the President "blow me".
I think Madison would both encourage and support that approach (probably using milder language). Again, tough on the American people for a period of time but the alternative is the relinquishment of the House's Constitutional duty and the loss of its prerogatives. Under the Constitution, resistance is never futile.
Hi Bagoh, You base your assumptions on trickle down economics as fact, when in fact they are a theory. Higher tax rates have produced our best economies in the 70 years. Tax cuts have given us the hole we're in now. How can you ask for the status quo when you know history? Republicans have ignored math and science at their obvious peril. Time for some introspection.
Chip Ahoy said...
If only you were the faintest bit amusing then I could stand you.
Give us a break Chip, some of us aren't instinctively funny people.
Do you need someone to get a beer with?
Obama has added over $4 trillion to the national debt during his 1st term. Looking at the budget control act of 2011, wikipedia says the act specifies cuts of less than one trillion over 10 years.
So Obama is running a trillion buck deficit per year and we are terrified of cutting less than 10% of that deficit per year?
That can't be right, I must be misunderstanding. Maybe we could talk about the specifics of the budget control act of 2011 and how it will impact our economy.
In general the GOP needs to shrink the size of the fed gov both from an economic and political perspective.
The level of spite, self-pity and vindictiveness is really worth seeing
What the fuck does this even mean.
master cylinder said...
Higher tax rates have produced our best economies in the 70 years.
Our best years were when taxes were high and entitlements low--like the 1950s. Things got progressively worse [pun intended} as entitlements grew and taxes lagged. Fair enough?
chip & bagoh - why do you do this to yourselves?
Penetrating the mind of the politically retarded and spiritually nil and psychologically damaged can be a very dangerous undertaking. It is not recommended.
Forays into the massive confusion and reality distortion seem to reveal a heartfelt belief that appears to go like this: "now that we're so rich a nation, we can do socialism and communism better than the other countries that tried and failed before." There's so much to spare, there's so much wealth to spread around, theres' so obviously much extra laying around just being wasted, just give it and not feel it, be a human for once.
It's touching.
The man has a half brother a real blood brother living in squalor and everyone knows it. You know it. He condemned as unpatriotic debt a fraction of what he drove up. You. simply. do. not. make. any. sense. at. all.
Master Cylinder:"Hi Bagoh, You base your assumptions on trickle down economics as fact.."
I'm not assuming anything. I was stating facts about me, my money, and how taxes affect real people, and I'm typical of those who supposedly can pay the taxes with no effect. That is make believe. You are the one making assumptions, because you don't want to face the truth that people like me have to. You feel all safe and comfortable because it's not you paying the tax. I have to look people in the eye and explain to those who really do pay the tax - my employees. You just talk about theories. I'm talking about people, real lives and real sacrifices.
So answer my questions: 1) Do you think it's fair and smart to make that wealth transfer? (It is real money and real people you are taking it from.)
2) IF you were the one being taxed, what would you sacrifice? (It's real money and real choices.) I'm a real person, I promise you.
Chip Ahoy said...
Penetrating the mind of the politically retarded and spiritually nil and psychologically damaged can be a very dangerous undertaking. It is not recommended.
I'm sure we all appreciate you taking one for the team. But maybe you should pull back just a bit. You don't want to risk allowing those spirits to take over the flesh.
I just heard my name. Is someone else here?
Sorry. I'm actually quite alone. Me and this outrageous tinnitus. Didn't mean to ignore you. It's just the sounds I'm hearing are in a language I haven't picked up yet. I'll get it eventually I'm rather good at that sort of thing. It's involves numbers but nothing is working out. It's quit mad.
master cylinder said...
Higher tax rates have produced our best economies in the 70 years.
High taxes don't produce strong economies. At best strong economies allow high taxes - but only for the short term.
"chip & bagoh - why do you do this to yourselves?"
Personally, I'm here to learn. I assume there is a good reason why so many people want to take money from me and the people I care about, and then give it to the likes of Boehner, Pelosi, Reid, Obama, etc..
There must be a good explanation of why these people who spent every penny they ever got from us twice over and now have us all deep in debt are better people to handle that money than the people who earned it and need it and clearly use it better. I need a good explanation for the people who are asking me why they don't get to keep it.
How many times must people say "This is not a referendum".
Lord, it's pathetic, Chip Ahoy is having a meltdown of some sort, Marshal has diarrhea of the mouth, Bagoh is carrying the weight of he world on is shoulders, Atlas shrugged look alike.
Oy it's gettin' pitiful.
The world, or his world.
Repubs should let democrats tax the shit out of the rich. Then after the money comes in say "so how much did you raise again? That's going to run government for how many days?
And then lets look at the number of companies that stop hiring and the layoffs that ensue after we try to stick it to the man.
At the end the rich guys will do fine, the poor will be up shits creak and the effect of money in the treasury will be like 3 drops in a bucket the size of the ocean.
Maybe rebubs should give dems what they want.
Killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.
lol.
Soon, we will all be Detroit.
"Higher tax rates have produced our best economies in the 70 years."
I don't mean to be rude, but did you really write that like it sounds? I assume you meant that there is sometimes a correlation like with wealthy people and fancy shoes, but the shoes don't "produce" the wealthy people, do they? Otherwise we could just tax everyone 100%, and freaking boom this bitch.
Sheridan wrote:
An addendum to my earlier comment. Mr. Obama won his election. That is a fact and must be respected. But the House Republicans also won. Equal respect to them. Mr. Obama's "mandate" is no bigger than the Republican "mandate".
And for all the talk about the referendum of Obama and how Romney didn't turn out his base, the fact is there were a lot fewer people voting for Obama as well. IN fact this is the first time in history where a president got fewer votes than the first time he ran.
The rest of them are in the various stages of grief. Calm the hell down, chickenlittles.
A weird thing is I've been whittling down friends and acquaintances one by one as they become serially intolerable and with gays now I'm down to two. Three, but one doesn't count. Both with very distant orbits, and both of them called today. Both are ancient. Oldest people I know. Both remarked how everybody are duds now. The old guys did. The third one is a dud but doesn't know it. Two would vote for Obama no matter what the debt having already complained bitterly BITTERLY about the debt run up by Bush, which is where he lost a lot of conservatives too.
Obama will misread everything. I'd send him a pop-up card but he'd misread it. He'd think "thanks 0" is laudatory.
He asked the guy at Grease Monkey how to check the oil and he said "dip stick" so he suck his head in the oil pan.
My favorite misreading: woman checks her concert and reads in bold letters JUL 10 and misses her concert to see Julio Iglesias because it was really on July 9 printed in smaller letters.
JULIO
July 9
I'm really looking forward to watching what happens in california now that dems have a supermajority. In fact, I'd recommend that repubs don't even put up a candidate next time around in CA. Lets just watch the comedy. It will be a tragi comedy or a really dark comedy where you don't laugh outwardly but do so in a "I can't believe I'm watching this way" but a comedy nonetheless.
Only states nearby should demand that if people leave the state of CA to come to a state that isn't fucked six ways from sunday that we see their voting record. If they voted for Jerry borwn or obama or any democrat then they are booted out of the state after being tarred and feathered. Leave the illegals alone and deport the socialists.
"Bagoh is carrying the weight of he world on is shoulders"
No, just a few hundred people. People you don't give a shit about. Hard working people. People that haven't had the chance to retire and smugly say, Hey I got mine, now support me.
OK, let the wailing and gnashing of teeth continue.....
Unlike you Inga, I didn't vote to raise taxes on other people, working people, knowing I'd be unscathed. That is pretty ugly deep inside where it counts.
When the coming recession hits, duck!
Here in Brooklyn, in Coney Island and Red Hook, the thin veneer of civilization has cracked and offers a peak into our future. The working class in the Projects and surrounding apartments are trapped in their homes, afraid to leave lest their possessions be appropriated. Within a few days of opening, the Barclay Center hosted a Techno Concert that delivered fireworks of the 9 mm kind (2 down, zero mention in the media). Cops guard gas stations almost 2 weeks after the storm. Why? Electrical failure prevents stockpiles from being pumped. What if the shortages included food?
Oh yeah, and FEMA closed its aid offices on Tuesday because of bad weather! Bad weather, get it!
People under 50 have no idea what it was like in the 60's when we came breathtakingly close to coming apart. Detroit is now in its last gasp. Ditto Newark, Camden, Baltimore and other cities. And those riots occurred during relatively prosperous times AFTER the Great Society was implemented!
There will be blood under Obama, just as there would have been blood under Romney. It's already too late.
Those wealthy communities that voted for Obama did so out of sheer terror, hoping to avoid the coming red tide. And the Chicago mob knows it.
JR565 - I've got family and friends in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming. The corrosive influence of Califonia money and politics is being strongly felt in those states. Land prices in targeted areas (e.g. western Wyoming south and east of Yellowstone) have skyrocketed. With that money also comes the Nob Hill Californians' need to "fix things" in those very "backward", red states. They have enough issues to deal with, many of their own making and some long-lived in American history (Indian affairs particularly). They do not want or welcome the intrusions of Californians.
1790 – 2001 (every president before Bush 43) 212 years 5.728 trillion in debt
2001 – 2007 (Bush 43 with a Republican Congress) 6 years 8.675 trillion in debt. (added 2.947 trillion is six years, or about 1/2 trillion a year)
2008 – 2009 (Bush 43 with a Democratic Congress) 2 years 10.627 Trillion in debt (added 1.952 trillion in 2 years, or about a trillion a year)
2010 – 2011 (President Obama and a Democratic Congress) 2 years 14.056 trillion in debt (added 3.5 trillion in 2 years or 1.75 trillion a year)
2011- today (President Obama and a divided Congress) 2 years 16.627 trillion in debt (added 2.158 trillion in less than 2 years or more than a trillion a year)
* In the last 12 years we have more than tripled our national debt
We are currently paying more than $360 Billion in interest every year on the debt, and that is with historically low interest rates. When/if interest rates return to the historical norm, this number will at least double.
"When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the Republic."
-- Ben Franklin
WTF? The high tax rate in the 50's was due to the fact that America was still paying off the war debt.
Do fucking libtards actually not know this? Jack Kennedy,that neanderthal neocon rethugligan cut the rates in the 60s.
Don't let it be forgot
That once there was a spot
For one brief shining moment that was known as Cameltoe.
The President is engaging in class warfare. He's always going to engage in class warfare. And the problem with class warfare is that a) it's very bad for the economy and the country and b) it works.
It's very easy to say "raise taxes on other people." And people say it. And I think this election was decisive on the class warfare front.
If Obama is going to fight class warfare, Republicans need to fight back by winning the middle class. You do that by disparaging welfare, and defining "welfare" broadly as benefits that poor people and rich people receive from the government.
We resent the rich when they have special deals from the government. We resent corporate welfare and sweetheart tax breaks.
We also resent the poor who get free stuff from the government.
Obama does both. He gives sweetheart deals to the ultra-rich, and lots of welfare to the poor. He constantly screws the middle class.
So Republicans have to fight him tooth and nail on this. Reclaim the middle class. Fight welfare in all its forms. Corporate welfare and welfare queens.
Boehner's response is stuck on stupid. Agree with Obama. Raise taxes on the rich. And cut taxes on the middle class until we are revenue neutral. Thus, no tax increase.
At that point, like judo, we are on the side of the middle class. We have lowered taxes on the middle class, raised taxes on the rich, and not made the government any bigger.
Then we need to cut out corporate welfare and welfare queens, and cut $1 trillion out of government spending.
You know I was thinking, idly, as I do, we could try to contact alien intelligences elsewhere in our galaxy and offer our gas giant in exchange for paying off our national debt. If they said they weren't all that into that much gas then we could offer the moons too. There's like what? nine of 'em innit? No wait. What? 63 moons? No way. I didn't know that. I'd be willing to trade Jupiter and all 63 moons because I never look at those anyway.
But.
If they go, they had their eye on Saturn then I'd think real hard about that. I don't know I never look at that one either but it's nice knowing it's up there.
So let's not wait. Even as we're negotiating a broader deficit reduction package, let's extend the middle-class tax cuts right now. Let's do that right now.
Don't let him get away with this rhetoric! "Extending the middle class tax cuts" sounds like a tax cut for the middle class. Actually all he means is he's not going to raise taxes on the middle class. He's just raising taxes on the rich. But he's flipped it around to a "middle class tax cut."
Republicans have to own this rhetoric. We are the tax-cutters. Not Obama! He doesn't get any fucking credit for a middle class tax cut.
So raise taxes on the rich, and actually lower taxes on the middle class. Deny Obama his tax hike and insist that he decrease his fucking $1 trillion dollar insanity before we go over the fiscal cliff.
No. It is a way to help pay down the existing deficit in a way that least hurts the majority of people who make up this great country of ours.
You need to change your name to "A Friggin' Idiot." The majority of people who made this great country of ours are dead, and we're left with a bunch of parasites demanding freebies.
Obama takes the constitution and wipes his ass with it.
The top 10% of earners pay 80%-90% of all taxes.
The democrats want to raise taxes on the rich and the middle class. The middle class are the sweet spot.The rich already pay it all now and if you kick them during a recession it will turn into a depression. That's what the democrats want. Ripe.
Note too how the corruptocrats keep defining rich down. Is it at 250K now? 100K now?
The Hill reports:
"The Interior Department on Friday issued a final plan to close 1.6 million acres of federal land in the West originally slated for oil shale development."
Energy! Who needs it?!
I'm sure all of President Obama's cronies will be getting more billions of taxpayer money for their wildly successful "green" energy enterprises like Solyndra, A123 and Ener1. Soon we'll all be driving Fiskers*!
Forward! To our glorious Soviet American future!
* - Asbestos clothing recommended for Fisker drivers.
somefeller said...
Remember when conservatives talked about preference cascades instead of vast conspiracies about voters made to vanish by villains from Chicago? Good times, good times.
No, that's what the people looking at turnout said.
Funny how so many fortuitous things happen out of a clear, blue sky all of a sudden.
And precincts brag about 99+% votes for Zero. Nobody's had that kind of popularity since... Saddam Hussein.
And isn't it interesting that everybody thinks the country is going in the wrong direction, but votes for the guy taking it there?
And, oddest of all, someone as obnoxious as some phony folksy actually claiming to have friends.
Oh, Marshal, my contributions to society entail things you probably only barely aware even exist.
Claiming to have a job that apparently consists of lurking on Althouse is a contribution?
Or is it managing all those sockpuppets?
What, O what, does "the boss" say? Probably nothing, as long as he makes sure the laundry's done on time.
Forward! To our glorious Soviet American future!
You really think that kind of nonsense helps the right? Americans see or hear that and they don't take you seriously.
rcocean said...
"But if you think our prosperity in the 50s had nothing to do with the fact that we had no international competition then you are."
We were well off in the 50s - not because of massive exports due to some mythical destruction of Chinese/Japanese factories (LOL) - but because we didn't allow foreigners to destroy our manufacturing base with cheap labor and cheap goods
The 50s Were so good because half the industrial base of the world lay in ruins except ours. Manufacturing has ALWAYS competed globally. England failed and the United States grew because of our international trade. Britain failed because she didn't want her colonies competeing with her moribund native industries.
Those industries that we don't want-steel, oil, plastics, automobiles we regulated out of the country. Those industries that are labor intensive and can be done overseas naturally go overseas. Electronic manufacturing and assembly, solar panels, etc.
The industries that aren't heavily regulated or the industries that are efficient and innovative stay here.
Keep in mind in the marketplace labor is also a commodity.
Robert Cook said...
"We were well off in the 50s...because we didn't allow foreigners to destroy our manufacturing base with cheap labor and cheap goods."
Hey! That's that there "free trade" & "globalization" that so many people here talk up so much as the salvation of humankind! By "destroying our manufacturing base" the capitalists have actually freed up Americans to be able to be dog-walkers and baristas at Starbucks and various and sundry other kinds of service personnel and temp labor...or "persons of leisure."
Comrade Bob.
Stop before you beclown yourself some more.
My guess is a liberal arts teacher at some community college. Is that what you do?
You know what I do for a living, so tell me what you do.
Comrade phx, your opinion has been noted and given all of the due consideration that it deserves.
You wouldn't know a communist if he came up and bit you in the ass.
He intentionally didn't raise taxes on the wealthy so he could milk the issue till 2012 (and maybe 2016) as it is his only real winner. He is playing the republicans and they are clueless.
I am sanguine enough to think our economic issues can be fixed if we engage in serious bipartisan negotiations. The issues are long term and will not be fixed in the immediate future, however.
As for tax rates, I dont think there is enough money in the economy to fix the deficit with tax revenue alone--its really a math question.
I would welcome some sort of tax on assets and not income alone. Much of the wealth is in the form of assets. That does create a bureaucratic nightmare in accounting, but it is a possible solution.
Given the divided state of the polity, I am also pessimistic on any near term fixes. Were taxation to be applied to deficit reduction, then that might be a good start--but IMO politicians of all stripes regard taxation as revenue to be spent to assure reelection--Where is a good lock box when you need one.
I expect and accept huge spending cuts. I'd like to see the weakest and most vulnerable protected. And despoiling the environment should be among the last solutions, but I accept painful cuts are on the table. I won't stonewall if there's bipartisan support for tax increases and spending cuts, and a clear plan to get us out of this mess.
"garage mahal said...
Scott Walker is a national GOP hero for, among other things, wanting Wisconsin Democrats arrested and hauled into the Capitol for opposition to his proposals. Including a 8 month pregnant legislator."
You are the poster child of the left. This is simply a lie. It's not even a very smart one. Which is the norm. Walkers had no issue with their "opposition"...he wanted them in the Capitol to exercise it. Like the Assembly Democrats. The rest is just hyperbole.
The comparison of the House GOP and Wisconsin is a whole lot of fail. The House GOP is a majority...not a minority like the Dems are in WI. Every single one of them just went through an election, and the country retained their majority.. The call the House the "people's House" for a reason. In our government it is the truest reflection of the totality of our population.
Democrats in Wisconsin got crushed. They lost of state house, they lost the Senate, and they lost in the Assembly. And after all the bullshit of hiding out of state, and all the recalls, and even a general election, they still have the Senate, Assembly, and of course the Governorship. Three election cycles have confirmed the will of the people. That's a mandate.
I'd like to see the weakest and most vulnerable protected
I don't think anyone wants to see the weakest and most vulnerable hurt. But one big problem with our 'safety net' is that the government makes no distinction between the truly needy and those who are just happy to live off the dole.
Here we are, with ruinous levels of debt, and the Obama administration was advertising to get more people on food stamps. The ads (I actually heard them) were encouraging people who felt like they were 'making it' and didn't need help to sign up if their income level made them eligible.
Based on this, how can I believe that the Obama adminstration has any apetite for lowering spending? (except military spending, of course)
I'd like to see the weakest and most vulnerable protected
Also, if we don't address the spending / debt problem, our economy will crash. What will happen to the weak / vulnerable then?
phx said...
You wouldn't know a communist if he came up and bit you in the ass.
Why, yes I would. I also know a fascist when I meet one.
They are called comrade too.
would welcome some sort of tax on assets and not income alone. Much of the wealth is in the form of assets. That does create a bureaucratic nightmare in accounting, but it is a possible solution.
When you tax assets, assets leave. The wealth assets create leaves with the assets.
Lily Bart--you make a good point with respect to spending and deficit. At the risk of overstating the case, it may ultimately be a moral issue. I do not, however see our politicians responding to it at that level--PHX as put forward what I regard as a decent "big picture" response.
Why, yes I would. I also know a fascist when I meet one.
I wasn't responding to your morning blather Rusty.
But if it's any consolation I do think your foolish extremism is also worthy of mockery.
LilyBart said...
I'd like to see the weakest and most vulnerable protected
I don't think anyone wants to see the weakest and most vulnerable hurt. But one big problem with our 'safety net' is that the government makes no distinction between the truly needy and those who are just happy to live off the dole.
Why do you suppose that is?
I can see the light almost going on above your head. All you need to do is take that idea one step further.
apologies--the poster "unknown" above is me, Roger J.
Rusty: I would hope that any meaningful spending cuts abandon the current morass and get down to more definitive metrics.
phx said...
Why, yes I would. I also know a fascist when I meet one.
I wasn't responding to your morning blather Rusty.
But if it's any consolation I do think your foolish extremism is also worthy of mockery.
Aww. pobrecito! poor phx. You won!!
Eat your waffle in peace comrade.
In general the GOP needs to shrink the size of the fed gov both from an economic and political perspective.
The difficulty with this statement is that there are plenty of GOP hacks working in the Fed Govt who are pressuring Congress not to take away their sinecure.
I liken the Govt to a sibling who isn't very good with money, who is always asking for a handout. You have to realize that giving them money at some point is simply the same thing as throwing that money away, and you have to cut them off.
Clyde - "Energy- who needs it?"
You'd think the democrats would design cars that run on unicorn farts first.
Nope. Instead we have a government actively pushing energy prices higher.
I agree with Levi and Bagho, they should just let Obama have his way. Don't fight him. Sink or swim, Obama is the captain of the ship, let him take the wheel. I'd rather not hit any icebergs, I'm rooting for him, I really am, but if we are going to smash into an iceberg, I'd rather it happened sooner than later.
phx - You should think harder about what it means to be an American.
I have been thinking about that a lot. The conclusion that I have come to is that you are right. If the worst president in my lifetime can be reelected despite an economy which is as bad as it is and unemployment worse than any time since the 1970s, America is not the place that I thought it was. Essentially that means that you are a real American and I am merely a resident inside the same national borders.
There are a number of things that follow from that conclusion. For one thing, my opposition to massive illegal immigration was based on the fact that it hurts unskilled, primarily black, native born Americans. Since I no longer share that identification, that is your problem, not mine. The defense cuts that you are pushing for will result, in my opinion, in the destruction of at least one American city. That concerns me about as much as that earthquake earlier this week in Guatamala.
I'm not leaving and I'll probably keep voting but in the future it will be entirely based on what I think is good for me personally rather than what I think is good for America.
And for the original Althouse question I think that the Republican congress ought to agree to raise taxes on incomes over $250,000 but only if trust fund income will now be counted as ordinary income, the Eisenhower movie tax cut is repealed, munis are no longer tax free and state income tax can no longer be deducted from federal income tax. I'd also take a look at what the smart, sophisticated French are doing these days for some additional revenue enhancement ideas.
The defense cuts that you are pushing for will result, in my opinion, in the destruction of at least one American city. That concerns me about as much as that earthquake earlier this week in Guatamala.
You don't know anything about what I think about military spending. Your assumptions about me are not meaningful.
Given your second sentence from this post, I'd say you need to stop thinking about politics and get some spiritual or psychological counseling.
This election has brought out the worst in some of you righties.
I am starting to feel real fear for some of you. You are on the internet too much or something, but you are talking crazy.
You personalize this shit way too much.
....it may ultimately be a moral issue. I do not, however see our politicians responding to it at that level--PHX as put forward what I regard as a decent "big picture" response.
PHX and his type think the best way to organize a society and government is to have high taxation so that government can take care of people and make sure life if fair.
Two big problems with this
1. There are no 'angels' we can elect to oversee all this goodness. We have on humans - people who are, in the end, typcially self-interested.
2. No matter how smart they are, they cannot have all the information they need to really create fairness and justice - they only create new and different injustices.
Solendra is a good example of this: The Obama adminstration wants to invest in 'alternative energy'. So why not choose companies owned by people who support you? So, they don't really understand the industry, or business, and are strongly influenced by their friend and supporters (who are deeply self interested) Result: the loss of half a billion of our kids' money with nothing to show for it. And, according to records, the company's business plan was shaky and their financial condition was weak at the time the loan guarantee was approved. (They were turned down for the loan guarantee program during the Bush administration for these reasons). Obama has said he does not regret this decision. Solendra is not the only 'investment' disaster. There are others.
1. Politicans act in their own interest
2. Politians don't have he knowledge and background to stand in our shoes and make our decisions for us.
But by turning over the money and decsions to politicans and their appointees, we are baking in inefficiencies and bad decisions that will, in the end,lead to a lower standard of living for all of us.
In the end, we may be more 'equal', but we will be more 'equally' poor. This does not help us - it does not help the poor and downtrodden.
It means a lot of things, killing OBL, coering up Benghazi, Obamacare. Basically everything O did or voted presnt
I don't think you don't need to be here talking with people who disagree with you politically or who voted for a different candidate than you did. You probably can't handle that right now. You need to be with someone who will talk you off the ledge.
1. There are no 'angels' we can elect to oversee all this goodness. We have on humans - people who are, in the end, typcially self-interested.
2. No matter how smart they are, they cannot have all the information they need to really create fairness and justice - they only create new and different injustices.
You can't imagine how much I agree with this. So your conclusion about me must somehow be wrong, no?
I didn't read your post but you started out with an incorrect assumption about ME and the best way I believe society should be organized. I ask you therefor to be a little more humble when you make generalizations about my beliefs. You and I could then possibly have more productive exchanges.
Did you know that there is study after study proving that Headstart has no long term (or even mid-term) benefit to the participants (and therefore to society)? And yet, on we go spending an enormous amount of money on Headstart. Wasting money on Headstart. Money that might be used to actually do some good is just wasted. And nobody is allowed to object.
But hey, your goverment *cares* enough about you to waste your money on noble sounding, but pointless, expensive programs.
A final thought for you, Comrade phx:
A deeply unserious electorate returned a deeply unserious president to office, despite the seriousness of the times.
These people take NOTHING seriously.
So my saying "Forward! To our glorious Soviet American future!" is nothing different. Actually, a Soviet future would probably be better than what we're going to get over the next four years; they at least built power plants!
I'm not a TYPE, I'm an individual. If you're looking for a type or a representative of some group you don't like, you're barking up the wrong tree.
Sometimes recently I have said "us libs" but that is a very shorthand way of speaking and not really accurate.
I speak for myself and no one else. I'm a free agent.
phx said....you started out with an incorrect assumption about ME
I've looked back through the thread and see that I'm not the only one you've accused of not understanding your position. Perhaps you're not being very clear about your positions?
So my saying "Forward! To our glorious Soviet American future!" is nothing different. Actually, a Soviet future would probably be better than what we're going to get over the next four years; they at least built power plants!
So if you tell me you didn't really mean it, Clyde, I appreciate you more for not being totally off the deep end.
But in a crisis such as we are in I believe people need to speak soberly so that they are understood clearly, and don't fuel the flames of extremism, which are pretty widespread and not helpful.
My positions are more complicated than the simple binary libtard/rethuglican worldview that so many people want to divide us into.
Well, you can poll the question independently to confirm how well it resonates, but we know that some have their own special form of "math they just do as Republicans to make themselves feel better."
You should think harder about what it means to be an American.
My quote. And what I was thinking of when I said it is E pluribus Unum. We are one from many.
That means for me at the end of the day regardless of our ideologies, our differences, we come together and support one another as Americans, doing what the best we can for our nation.
That's what I want people to think of.
Given your second sentence from this post, I'd say you need to stop thinking about politics and get some spiritual or psychological counseling.
My second sentence was The conclusion that I have come to is that you are right.
Is your advice really that bad? Thank you for your concern, though.
...come together and support one another as Americans, doing what the best we can for our nation.
We are together loosly and voluntarily. Government cannot and should not dictate to me what my support of you should be. If they do, we are not a free people.
Unknown I was talking about your idea that you don't care if an American city is destroyed.
Saying stuff like that is extreme to the nth degree.
I believe the crisis we are in must be driving many of you to make these disturbing statements, like your losing your moorings. In such an instance I do advise you to get away from political forums, find something that nurtures your better angel.
Too bad comments as sane as Roger's 7:20 AM here don't get more traction.
Government cannot and should not dictate to me what my support of you should be.
Who's dictating your support to me? First, it's not about me. I don't really care PERSONALLY what you guys believe or what you do.
But I'm sure advocating the government dictate to you or anyone else what you should support, and I don't know where you got that from.
Roger is probably saner and more mature than I am. I would probably nominate him for leadership here if we were an actual committee with a mandate for fixing the economy - even though we are ideologically different stripes on many matters.
When he says something I take him very seriously.
@lily "sure NOT advocating the government," etc.
PHX--thank you very much. If I may, I would like to point out that Simpson-Bowles commission laid a very good blue print for making fixes--Alas, their excellent work was dismissed out of hand. The proposal, IMO, was doable and it crossed party lines. Had Mr Romney won, I would have loved him to appoint Erskine Bowles as Sec Treasury. And Bowles would be a great choice for Mr Ob ama's administration as well. Until our elected officials, of both stripes, get over the "kicking the can mentality, not much is going to happen.
Ironically, IMO, Mr Obama, should he desire to do so, could lend his voice to real fixes. It remains to be seen if he will. He can set the tone should he choose to do so.
And Ritmo: thank you as well for the kind words.
Roger - if Obama hasn't lent his voice to bipartisan compromise (although with better revenue - and not from those who can least afford it - as a non-negotiable), then why did Paul Ryan assail him for cutting $700 billion out of the entitlement known as "Medicare"?
I think Obama will and has shown himself willing to cut entitlements, but revenue from those who can most afford it is a non-negotiable pre-requisite. The right has held onto this sacred cow for way too long, and it stifles the entire budget balancing debate. The largest peacetime expansion we saw in the 1990s was with the rates that Obama's proposing, so it's astounding that the Republicans hold so dearly to a 2% top marginal rate cut that has led so clearly to both decreased revenue and decreased growth.
No problem, Roger. It's important to encourage honest, reasonable debate and I believe in calling attention to those, like you, who are interested in it.
phx - I never said that I don't care if an American city is destroyed. I said that I care about it as much as an earthquake in Guatamala.
You are the guy who keeps talking about nuance. I have expanded my horizons and care about everybody on earth as much or as little as I care about Americans. Do you think I want Guatamalans to die or that I take pleasure in their suffering? As someone posted earlier in the thread, "Your assumptions about me are not meaningful."
You are right that I have lost my moorings. Being an American was an important part of my identity and it is taking some adjustment to realize that it is just a place where I live. It is liberating, though.
Ritmo--here's my take on the current political situation and my comments apply to both those on the left and the right. With few exceptions, our elected representatives are concerned first an foremost with being relected--they have their constiuencies to whom they are beholden. Regretably, the constituency to whom they should all be beholden to is the Republic and most, IMO, are only interested in their own relection. And to ensure that, they must pander to their supporters. I suppose that in this day and age, that is how our republic works. It would again, IMO, require elected leadership to get serious about fixing something that is manifestly broken: the US economy. I wish I could be more optimstic, but alas, I am not. The can is about to be kicked down to the 2014 midterms.
Roger said,
"Given the divided state of the polity, I am also pessimistic on any near term fixes. Were taxation to be applied to deficit reduction, then that might be a good start--but IMO politicians of all stripes regard taxation as revenue to be spent to assure reelection--Where is a good lock box when you need one."
There aren't any near term fixes. Not anymore. 20 trillion in debt has seen to that. We're looking out in the terms of decades to manage this. Not a few election cycles. When you address this in terms of taxes you're looking at it in a statist way. Taxes are also subject to the laws of diminishing returns.
Laffer was correct in stating that there was a point where raising taxes garners no more revenue. The natural effect being that those being taxed will behave in a way to avoid paying the tax.
The other side of the equation hasn't been addressed other than cuts in military spending. This is , of course, a logical fallacy. Not only for constitutional reasons but it distracts from the real elephant in the room which is entitlements.
If, as Robert Cook asserts, You can cut the military budget by 50-75% and still field an efficient military because there is at least that much corruption and graft. using the same logic we can cut at least that same amount from any government program because every government program is subject to the same level of corruption and graft.
That isn't very realistic. However there is a level of cost cutting that still leaves an efficient bureaucracy. We just have to determine what that level is. Dispite that. The way Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid are structured has to be reviewed. There is is no way they are sustainable under the current system. This isn't politics. It's numbers. There are too many rent seekers and not enough rent payers.
as I've said over and over again economics isn't about money. it's about what people do with money. it's about human behavior. The more the state schemes to take it away from people the more people will scheme to keep it.
Unknown _ THAT place you describe sounds like the place that I know of by various names: Buddhahood, cosmic consciousness, nirvana, extraordinary awareness, self-actualization.
If you are going to that place I hope to see you there.
Uknown- I have been trying to figure out why Obama's reelection has left me with a feeling of lightness rather than dread which I expected. Perhaps I too feel liberated in the way you do. We are all humans now. The illusion that was once my country blew away in the wind, and it feels surprisingly good.
Rusty--we agree, but I would still hold our for some degree of optimism. But clearly we are speaking in terms of decades and not election to election.
Unknown said....Being an American was an important part of my identity and it is taking some adjustment to realize that it is just a place where I live. It is liberating, though
I think a lot of people are feeling this way. But I was struggling to put a name to it. I think you've said it very well - America has become 'just a place I live'. And I understand the 'liberating' comment as well.
And phx, I think you misunderstand the meaning.
The burden is now on people like phx (see his comment at 9:31 to hold their vision of America together. Have fun. I'm going on a long apathetic vacation. Aaahhhh. Bliss.
BTW Roger, your idea on taxing assets as opposed to income is an interesting and progressive one, if not entirely new or (as you note) practical. Henry George was advocating this over a century ago. The easiest way to do it is by taxing property, which most local governments do. Adding this on to a federal tax burden is possible but seems to go against the Jeffersonian ideal of widespread property ownership.
I was recently watching the movie Popeye again and came across the exchange between Popeye and the taxman:
The Tax Man: You just docked?
Popeye: I has.
The Tax Man: Ah ha, let's see here, that'll be 25¢ docking tax.
Popeye: What for?
The Tax Man: Where's your sea craft?
Popeye: It ain't no sea craft, it's me dinghy and it's under the wharf.
The Tax Man: Ah ha. ahh-ha. This your goods?
Popeye: They is.
The Tax Man: Yeah. You're new in town right?
Popeye: If you call this a town, yes.
The Tax Man: Well, first of all, there's 17¢ new-in-town tax, and there's 45¢ rowboat-under-the-wharf tax, and one dollar leaving-your-junk-lying-around-the-wharf tax, so all together, you owe the Commodore $1.87.
Popeye: Uh, who's this Commodore?
The Tax Man: Is that the nature of question? There's a nickel question tax.
Who is the commodore? The democrats are the Commodore. Repubs need to eat their spinach and deck that mother fucker.
Ritmo--re taxing assets--as you fairly note I didnt say it was easy--but until we as a nation can come to grips that wealth is not solely measured by income, but total assets we will, I fear, not move forward. My income, for example, is quite small; but my net worth is considerably greater. One would think the CPA lobby would latch onto this one in a second!
Lily Bart--you are correct that people with wealth care hire tax attys to ensure their wealth is sequestered. That is an artifact of the tax code imo. Until we as a nation deal with these issues, not much is going to happen to the existing tax code. An I see no political will from either side of the aisle to address this issue.
This has been an interested thread IMO--thanks to the communtarit on both the left and the right for their comments. But it is a glorious saturday morning in Memphis and time to get out to enjoy the day--best to all
Roger J - your comment at 1013h:
From the beginning of the Republic, partisan politics has been the driving force of the government. Federalist No. 51 encourages political dis-harmony to serve the causes of "checks and balances". Perhaps the earliest time when politicians seemed to unite on behalf of the entire country was in 1815 during the so-called "era of good feelings". And even that didn't last long.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Era_of_Good_Feelings
I am optimistic primarily because I see the tenets of the Founders actually working. IMO they wanted our representatives to compete and conflict against one another. A completely "unified" government would have been the precursor to a tyranny.
The House should fight the President in the arena of public opinion. If House leadership is right in their conflict strategy, they will will the elections in 2014 and retain their power. If they are perceived as wrong, impotent and inconsequential, the power in the House will change. And yet not even that will necessarily mean that the Administration "won".
For me, this is the genius of the American system of government. It assumes that no-one has the perfect answer to every issue big or small. It simply requires that the people, through their elected officials, FIGHT. And keep FIGHTING.
And if ever the people stop fighting, resisting, challenging - through ennui or despair, only then is the Republic in danger.
Perhaps the coming fiscal disaster is the moral equivalent to the issues of slavery that consumed much of the first hundred years of the life of the nation. Perhaps we are track for a new kind of slavery that is not tied to race. If that's the case, I draw some comfort knowing that people long dead "managed" the resolution of active, race-based slavery as well as any human being could. Of course, they left behind a legacy of racial discrimination that is still active. But the physical chains were removed.
Incremental "progress" in all areas of life (political and real) was IMO the intent of the Founers. It's probably the best that we or any organized government can expect.
"...if they don't get their way they are going Galt and taking them ball home."
"That is just the disappointment and anger talking, but in effect the tax actually does the exact same thing. It reduces their output and thus in the long term is a net loss, because these people are almost by definition the best at utilizing capital, and the people the money goes to are clearly some of the worst also often by definition. They need because they can't make.
I wanted to point out that it might not be their fault. But also that it not being someone's fault that they are marginally capable, never learned self-discipline, were always told the world was against them so they couldn't envision success from delayed gratification, or had medical issues or *whatever* reason they *can't* "make"... none of that changes the dynamic that Bagoh describes.
Some people do, truly, have Bad Luck. And even if it's possible for individuals to overcome that sometimes, it's an uphill battle.
And Bagoh is also right about this next point even if he didn't say it this way...
What we're doing isn't spreading the wealth around... it's spreading the Bad Luck around.
We can all be poorer, including those who aren't doing well now. A person can argue that this is important because of fairness, it's far harder to claim that it actually helps anyone.
The election means what it was always going to mean if Obama were re-elected. Obama has a mandate to shove down people's throats whatever he can possibly pull off. He will test the full limits of that power, and anyone who did not understand that going in is a fool.
Synova said....What we're doing isn't spreading the wealth around... it's spreading the Bad Luck around.
Very well said. I hope you don't mind if I use this.
"...if they don't get their way they are going Galt and taking them ball home."
Going Galt is not fit-throwing or vindictivness. The charater Galt and his type were not 'punishing' people. They understood that the direction the country was going would lead to distruction and they couldn't support it.
O Ritmo Segundo said...
BTW Roger, your idea on taxing assets as opposed to income is an interesting and progressive one, if not entirely new or (as you note) practical. Henry George was advocating this over a century ago. The easiest way to do it is by taxing property, which most local governments do. Adding this on to a federal tax burden is possible but seems to go against the Jeffersonian ideal of widespread property ownership.
It's a bad idea for reasons I stated above. Much like being under water on a mortgage, there is a point where an asset is no longer an asset and it will be abandoned or removed. I should point out an asset IS an asset only as long as it has value. Taxing something has a way of diminishing its value. This isn't an unfounded assertion, but economic fact.
Garage wrote:
Scott Walker is a national GOP hero for, among other things, wanting Wisconsin Democrats arrested and hauled into the Capitol for opposition to his proposals. Including a 8 month pregnant legislator.
Why would they have to be hauled into the Capitol if they worked there? Oh yeah, didn't all dems refuse to vote and flee the state?
So then it wasn't that they "opposed his policies" it was they blocked his policies from occuring because they dind't come to the table despite the fact that that's their jobs.
So it wasn't "opposition to his policy" that caused him to arrest that pregnant lady, it was because all the democrats in the state, were playing hooky in another state so govt business could not be done.
I can't believe how disingenuous you are.
"Unknown I was talking about your idea that you don't care if an American city is destroyed.
Saying stuff like that is extreme to the nth degree.
I believe the crisis we are in must be driving many of you to make these disturbing statements, like your losing your moorings. In such an instance I do advise you to get away from political forums, find something that nurtures your better angel."
People might be hyperbolic, but it seems impossible to actually penetrate the sphere of incomprehension even then.
I think it's pretty darn delusional to believe that Republicans wanted to usher in concentration camps for gays and the new Handmaiden style theocracy or get all inside anyone's lady parts. I had one fellow tell me that Gary Johnson wanted to put people in concentration camps. I didn't try to tell him that was delusional, because what's the point?
Obama isn't going to compromise. Here is is, out and out, saying "See, the people want to do this" and he's declared that and is now going to go whole hog into the "Republicans hate me because I'm black, and hate poor people, and are obstructionist haters, and it's all their fault."
There is not room for HONEST concern about national security, no room for HONEST concern about fixing the economy, no room for HONEST concern that a culture that does not value the business builder, the employer, the private sector science research related to *anything* profit related, that devaluing production just might be a long term really truly *destructive* trend.
No... we're all supposed to not care. Not care. Not care.
So when someone says, fine, I don't care.
It disturbs you?
O Ritmo Segundo said...
Too bad comments as sane as Roger's 7:20 AM here don't get more traction.
Probably because he comes here and acts like an adult.
Very well said. I hope you don't mind if I use this.
...
Going Galt is not fit-throwing or vindictivness. The charater Galt and his type were not 'punishing' people. They understood that the direction the country was going would lead to distruction and they couldn't support it.
If you have this "liberating" feeling that American now "is just a place where I live", wtf do you care?
It's not like there's a shortage of extreme right-wingers on althouse and you are needed.
Go take that liberating break from politics to rejuvenate yourself.
What if more obscenely rich people decide structure their salary the way Steve Jobs did? No salary and all stock options and perks.. How do you get tax from stocks that aren't sold for decades?
Synova- That is because what they always wanted all along was to decide for us what we care about. It is a religion and I am declaring myself an atheist of that religion. You can lead a horse to the water, but you can't make me care. That is liberating.
garage mahal wrote:
The people clearly spoken as to what they want. Sorta like Wisconsin voters did with Scott Walker, remember? You are now to shut up and let them do what they were elected to do!
The people spoke and kept the repubs in charge of the House. Maybe they're telling repubs to be the ones in charge of tax policy. Maybe they are telling govt they enjoy gridlock.
Obama does not have a mandate here.The situation is exactly as it was prior to the election. And Obama despite winning, got fewer votes than his previous election, the first tim that has ever happened to a president in the history of the republic. So far from a mandate, it looks like he lost power.
The people spoke and kept the repubs in charge of the House. Maybe they're telling repubs to be the ones in charge of tax policy. Maybe they are telling govt they enjoy gridlock.
Obama does not have a mandate here.The situation is exactly as it was prior to the election. And Obama despite winning, got fewer votes than his previous election, the first tim that has ever happened to a president in the history of the republic. So far from a mandate, it looks like he lost power.
Now that's a ration right-wing response to the election. I'm not saying I agree with it but I respect it.
It's a better choice than this disassociative crap that some of you are putting yourselves through.
"rationial right-wing"
phx said...
It's not like there's a shortage of extreme right-wingers on althouse and you are needed.
There are, in fact, very few.
The thing is, phx, that clapping for tinkerbell doesn't work. It's make believe.
If only everyone is happy and *participates* and believes... tinkerbell still dies horribly. Even if we're all clapping.
I look at the economy and I listen to the class warfare crap, the stick it to the rich crap, the raise taxes crap because somehow, magically, the government taking more money makes the economy improve.
Surgeons used to bleed people, too, sincerely believing that it would make them stronger instead of weaker.
You want everyone to just pretend that taking blood works, but the people who don't think so aren't cooperating with you any more than they would if they thought blood-letting was wrong and someone wanted to bleed their anemic father.
The only way to be "okay" with that is to not care.
Phx can't seem to make up his mind. One moment it is "Take that liberating break" the next he is frightened of the "dissassiative crap". Which is it? Why does dissassociation frighten you so much? Could it be that the entire leftist position relies on the friction with the illusion of an authoritative right.
Give them the wheel. Then we'll really find out if they know how to drive or not.
And also, speaking just for myself? I'm not at all discouraged or giving up the larger fight, taking it off the political grid, but shorter term? Shorter term I'm looking for ways to make myself feel more secure, hunker down, expect the worst. No "the sun will come out tomorrow" but figuring on how to deal with years of no-recovery recovery and high unemployment.
Step one is no more data plans for phones on our account. Little things. Mini-galts, if you will. Spend less. Take fewer risks. Plan for the worst.
Funny thing... Boehner goes out the day or so after the election and says, essentially... We can give Democrats amnesty. We can work with them.
Obama goes out the day or so after the election and says... See? I get to have it my way.
Brilliant.
And it will be Republicans accused of being the problem. Well, they'd better be the problem. They we're elected a majority to the House. They'll put a budget out. That's their jobs. Republicans will do their jobs.
And we already know what the Democrats will do.
Your offspring has to pay down 20 T in debt.
I am very sorry about this. I am very very sorry. We are poor stewards and I am part of it. I'm a full grown man, fully matured, and it makes me cry.
I have a slight problem. I'm down to two gay friends I care to talk to, ancient creaks, quite distant now, and one called to have dinner on Sunday. He's in town. Wonderful person, lovely interesting fellow, we do have a great time. Smart. Successful. Busy at at something like I don't know 75 I'm guessing. Still downhill skis. A good role model for anybody. How can I sit across from him knowing he's so colossally maladjusted and malignantly misaligned he'd actually leave behind debt like that? He displayed real contempt when it was run up under Bush. I didn't have a good answer for that, this is where I failed in responding because I sill don't have a good answer why it's acceptable to owe so much to awful countries. We're borrowing from China, he worried. And then I did too. I didn't have an answer for that and still don't. I lost that argument. He got me there. And now he voted for the guy who doubled it in half the time and he won't have a satisfactory answer for that. By his own values, good values too, he condemned Bush, he must condemn Obama but doesn't. So now I have to tell the last one of the last two people I know he's just flat too stupid to listen to and I'm fairly certain he doesn't want to listen to me. He's not long for this world no matter how active he stays and he's leaving behind this debt for your kids. I'm thinking maybe I should call off this thing on Sunday because I just don't see how I can be pleasant. And then I'm down to one, and that guy's a real jackass.
We have already made some cuts here. No cable, no cell phones, one car, cashed in my small retirement account to pay off my student loans, have decided not to save for college for our children (we plan on encouraging a trade). If energy, health insurance and food prices continue to rise, we will have to start cutting in to
necessities. 100% of my care and concern is for my own family. Caring for other people is a luxury for good times.
Chip Ahoy, the economy started to go into a freefall spanning the Bush exit and Obama entrance. Both those presidents enacted legislation to prevent us from going into a complete nosedive. It worked, and that's why we added the debt we did. But we got something for it - we didn't go into a depression.
You might think it was bad what they did, or what Obama did, or what I and others voted for, but that's at least how I saw it. I don't like the debt, but I saw it as necessary.
No one can know for sure if another would have been better - at least I admit I can't. But the point is nobody acted maliciously. Obama was elected, so he got to choose his fix, which was an extension of the fix Bush had already begun.
Time to come out of the coma and try to work together to get out of the shithole we are in, in my respectful opinion.
Synova wrote:
Funny thing... Boehner goes out the day or so after the election and says, essentially... We can give Democrats amnesty. We can work with them.
This is a dumb idea by the way. We already have 20 million people out of work. Adding millions more to the rolls of people looking of jobs is not a great idea. Especially considindering providing amnesty means making them americans. Who then would do the jobs that Americans won't do?
THere is immigration remorm that must be done. But providing blanket amnesty is just dumb.
Unless by amnesty he simply means "wont deport". Note, that Mccain was probably to the left of Obama on immigration. How did the election work out for him?
Chip
The debt is a problem but the bigger problem is that the "dead hand of government" is suppressing economic activity that would otherwise create wealth that would otherwise make it possible to pay for this stuff. The simple version is that if the GDP were larger, the debt would be a smaller share of the GDP.
During most of the time that your friend was alive, and probably during almost all of his working career the level of government regulation of business was a lot lower than it is today. You can see how this affected the economy of India where after independence in 1947 the Fabian socialists who ran the Congress Party created the "Industrial Raj" to supervise private industry. Pretty much every business decision had to be approved by a government bureaucrat. With India on the verge of collapse in the early 1990s, the government took the bold step of eliminating the Industrial Raj and the Indian economy grew by 7 to 9 percent every year. Sadly bureaucracy, like rust, never sleeps. Within the last year or so more regulation has been imposed on the Indian private sector and their rate of growth has dropped as might be predicted.
The United States has been doing the same sort of thing for the last few years. The regulatory burden has been growing exponentially and Obama has added the additional factor of regime uncertainty since nobody knows what new regulations are going to be imposed but everybody knows that violating the new regulations might get you sent to jail.
The result has been economic stagnation in the United States.
Anyway, don't hold the debt against your friend. The debt is not the primary cause of the problem, although it may be the thing that tips us over the edge into economic chaos. A good friend is too valuable to lose over this sort of dispute. He didn't rack up the debt or strangle the economy by himself.
phx said...
Chip Ahoy, the economy started to go into a freefall spanning the Bush exit and Obama entrance. Both those presidents enacted legislation to prevent us from going into a complete nosedive. It worked, and that's why we added the debt we did. But we got something for it - we didn't go into a depression.
WTF!!!
If this is consider a success, what, by your metric, is considered a failure?
Rusty said...
phx said...
Chip Ahoy, the economy started to go into a freefall spanning the Bush exit and Obama entrance. Both those presidents enacted legislation to prevent us from going into a complete nosedive. It worked, and that's why we added the debt we did. But we got something for it - we didn't go into a depression.
WTF!!!
They're called "facts", Rusty. Don't be as afraid and surprised by them as Carl Rove was.
By his own values, good values too, he condemned Bush, he must condemn Obama but doesn't.
Bullshit.
If you don't know the difference between spending to give the economy sufficient stimulus to prevent depression and spending to give your contractor buddies two unfunded wars and a tax cut that no one needed, then you don't know enough economics to have that discussion.
Good to know that it took your friend get you to acknowledge an obvious argument that everyone had been making all along.
If you have this "liberating" feeling that American now "is just a place where I live", wtf do you care?
I care a lot less than I used to. Sometimes you just cannot save people from themselves. But you don't let them take you down with them.
"If you don't know the difference between spending to give the economy sufficient stimulus to prevent depression and spending to give your contractor buddies two unfunded wars and a tax cut that no one needed, then you don't know enough economics to have that discussion."
Because the economy knows a moral influx of cash from an immoral influx of cash? So somehow spending on green-energy buddies saves us all and spending on contractor buddies dooms us?
What difference is so obvious to you between those different ways of spending? Cronies vs. Cronies with pure hearts?
"Time to come out of the coma and try to work together to get out of the shithole we are in, in my respectful opinion."
The Republican House will put out the budget that they're required to put out because the purse-strings and the budget is the constitutionally dictated job of the House and the Democrats will do.... what?
Work together to get us out of the shit hole we're in?
O Ritmo Segundo said...
Rusty said...
phx said...
Chip Ahoy, the economy started to go into a freefall spanning the Bush exit and Obama entrance. Both those presidents enacted legislation to prevent us from going into a complete nosedive. It worked, and that's why we added the debt we did. But we got something for it - we didn't go into a depression.
WTF!!!
They're called "facts", Rusty. Don't be as afraid and surprised by them as Carl Rove was.
An assertion was made. Facts weren't put in evidence. In fact there is ample evidence to the contrary of his assertion.
Can you support what was asserted? You wanted to be treated like a reasoning adult. Now is your chance.
A person might might might be able to argue that government spending on a war or two and government spending on a green-energy crony or two and government deficit spending on government services are conceptually and materially different when it comes to economic impact than government spending on infrastructure... though a lot of people think that the infrastructure argument is weak as well.
But the obvious difference between items in the first group can only be how a person *feels* about manufacturing guns and MRE's or manufacturing solar panels and propping up local governments or who's campaign donors make out lke bandits. Money flows into the economy either way.
We're talking about people who argue without irony that unemployment improves the economy though a multiplier effect.
We never got infrastructure spending to speak of so there's no way to tell if that would have worked or not.
If I may, a shout out to AllenS.
Veterans day is coming up and it gives us old farts a chance to reminece. While I didnt serve with Allen we share the same things--we get up early in the morning and watch the sun rise knowing we have another day to live.
It would have been my honor to serve with a trooper like AllenS.
"Time to come out of the coma and try to work together to get out of the shithole we are in, in my respectful opinion."
So after a year (actually longer) of calling us ugly names, ridiculing our positions and values, and working hard to marginalize us, NOW you want to come together to 'work things out'.
You've damaged the relationship. I've realized for quite sometime that people on the left don't just disagree with my view of government, they HATE me. With a passion. They think I'm EVIL. They've ascribed nefarious and hidden motives to my positions (selfish. racist. etc.) No other possible reason I could disagree with you. You make absolutely NO room for me to have a *principled* position, though we disagree. Message received.
And I'm not sure your side knows what compromise actually means. It doesn't mean that I compromise and do it your way.
I might be willing to see my taxes increased if I thought that the money would be used to retire the debt, and that the country would otherwise get its financial house in order. But, given the 'spread the wealth' view of the current administration and its supporters, and given that historical tax increases have been used to support higher spending (not debt reduction), I AM NOT willing to see my taxes increased. I will fight it. For *principled* reasons. (raising taxes - only to continue to spend at unsustainable levels will not help. It will only hurt our economcy, and therefore the poor, more.
Seems to me we would be far better to try to agree on areas where we can agree--regretably blogs dont lend themselves to type of discourse. I have found that PHX, Ritmo, and my good friend Garage can agree on one hell of a lot of things--When we let the "discourse" on blogs poison us, then we will continue to be apes on a treadmill. Ignore the poison and seek some agreement--but of course, I do tend to be an optimist in this area.
I can cease and desist on the negativity. I always liked the challenge of coming here and finding common ground with people rather than beating them over the head.
I confess I've been doing a lot of the latter the last few days.
If you'd like to seriously organize a little to see if we can't change the tenor I'm open.
Other than that I think I should take time off myself. The negativity doesn't become me.
If you'd like to seriously organize a little to see if we can't change the tenor I'm open.
"Now that my side won (with bared knuckle ugliness), we all should let bygones be bygones and get along." Right.
If I'm ever hypocritical LilyBart, you call me on it. I'll hold myself accountable to you.
PHX, IMO, expressed a desire to see the US fix its economy, and he specified that whatever fixes are necessary, they should not leave some Americans behind. He advocated spending cuts and increased taxation on some. That, IMO is a credible position that can lay the basis for some solutions. Is it not worth considering his position? Seems to me it is.
Rustling Leaves said...
Phx can't seem to make up his mind. One moment it is "Take that liberating break" the next he is frightened of the "dissassiative crap". Which is it? Why does dissassociation frighten you so much? Could it be that the entire leftist position relies on the friction with the illusion of an authoritative right.
I could be snide and say that the Harlem Globe Trotters would be a lot less interesting without the Washington Generals but I think that it just comes down to leftists not believing that their favorite policies are destructive and they can't understand why any rational person of good will would be unhappy with their agenda. Since they don't intend to create some kind of Weimar Republic/Peronist Argentina/Zimbabawe scenario they think it is crazy if somebody says that the actions they are advocating are likely to result in that sort of outcome.
Synova said,
We're talking about people who argue without irony that unemployment improves the economy though a multiplier effect.
We never got infrastructure spending to speak of so there's no way to tell if that would have worked or not.
That's what happens when someone lets ideology get in the way of reason.
Lord, it's pathetic, Chip Ahoy is having a meltdown of some sort, Marshal has diarrhea of the mouth, Bagoh is carrying the weight of he world on is shoulders, Atlas shrugged look alike.
What is it with these self righteous leftists? My god, they are like lemmings. The word "Whine" shows up and that's all they can talk about.
Listen to what bagoh20 is saying. He is saying he may have to leave CA. He is saying he can't take care of his workers, nor hire more because of the massive state and federal burdens. Much of the value of their work is being taken, for programs. Do the programs work? I say they do not.
$1T in in welfare in 2010. Enough to give every household under the poverty level $60,000. That money could be used for productive purposes. For instance, reinstating the single earner family. But instead it is being thrown away.
The results are more people on food stamps. In CA the HS dropout rate is phenomenal, and half of the kids graduating have a college matriculation rate of 13%. But despite the miserable failure of schools, that has not stopped the government from saying "We need more money." Imagine if that were a private corporation that was selling cars that broke down right after you bought one. You would be up in arms. But when it comes to failed government, it's La te da, they need more money.
Liberals simply do not understand.
You wonder why people who work hard are incensed. If the programs worked, if they made this country better, it would be one thing. But the idea of borrowing money from our kids to support the unsustainable lifestyle of America today is criminal.
Yet, people like you voted for it.
Insofar as taxing the wealthy, I say bring it on. Move the corporate tax to a VAT, so the bean counters will say consumers pay for it. And then really bring down the hammer on the wealthy.
They will hate it. They have power, and they will use it to stop the insane left. So long as the left is getting its money from the middle class, it's not going to happen.
Then your jealous crusade against the wealthy will have some meaning, Inga. And then you will lose.
Because the economy knows a moral influx of cash from an immoral influx of cash?
Economists can quantify the stimulative effect of various forms of influx.
Concept of the day: Stimulative effect. Look it up.
Here's the stimulative effect of a top marginal rate tax cut, for instance.
You didn't say tax cut... you said the difference between the spending that Bush did and the spending that Obama did.
That is was obvious.
How would spending on a failed solar panel company differ from spending on munitions?
Can you support what was asserted? You wanted to be treated like a reasoning adult. Now is your chance.
I don't understand. Tell me what kind of a reasoning, informed adult would disagree with:
1. The fact that the financial crisis of 2008 severely threatened the economy to the point of freefall? (P.S. The GOP candidate at the time called this "cratering" and found it catastrophic enough to suspend his campaign over it).
2. That the $700 billion TARP program/Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 wasn't signed into law by Bush on Oct. 3, 2008?
3. That an anticipated economic depression did not occur?
These are easily checked, widely known facts. You insult the intelligence of everyone here (including those who sympathize with you) when you pretend that there is some kind of unnecessary doubt to cast upon them.
You didn't say tax cut... you said the difference between the spending that Bush did and the spending that Obama did.
I didn't have to. Anyone with a passing familiarity of economics understands that the purpose is the same in Keynesian terms.
That is was obvious.
I don't didn't know what you're trying to say here.
How would spending on a failed solar panel company differ from spending on munitions?
Um, by something called a factor of about seven thousand, assuming $500 M spent on Solyndra and $3.2 - 4 trillion spent on Iraq and Afghanistan. (Moderate to conservative estimate).
Do try to keep up and keep track of these things. They add up. And a TRILLION, is, like a really, really big number. National debt numbers. A billion is one one-thousandth that number. Still a big number for most people, but much less considerable than the trillions that our debt is measured in. And a half a billion? Still, something to fret over, but nowhere near the money that the tax cuts and wars cost.
O Ritmo Segundo said...
Can you support what was asserted? You wanted to be treated like a reasoning adult. Now is your chance.
I don't understand. Tell me what kind of a reasoning, informed adult would disagree with:
1. The fact that the financial crisis of 2008 severely threatened the economy to the point of freefall? (P.S. The GOP candidate at the time called this "cratering" and found it catastrophic enough to suspend his campaign over it).
2. That the $700 billion TARP program/Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 wasn't signed into law by Bush on Oct. 3, 2008?
3. That an anticipated economic depression did not occur?
These are easily checked, widely known facts. You insult the intelligence of everyone here (including those who sympathize with you) when you pretend that there is some kind of unnecessary doubt to cast upon them.
This is what I have a disagreement with
Both those presidents enacted legislation to prevent us from going into a complete nosedive.
An assertion not based on fact. We can't know, however, because markets weren't allowed to react in their own way.
It worked, and that's why we added the debt we did.
And yet the evidence proves otherwise. real unemployment is closer to what? 18+%
But we got something for it - we didn't go into a depression.
a 20 trillion dollar debt is all we got for it and we've kicked the can down the road. I suppose you wouldn't call it a depression, but 23 million unemployed might disagree.
All we have done is pile debt on top of debt. The correction instead of being painful for a short while will enslave our children and grand children. Instead of a small tax increase that would fall on everyone there will, by necessity, be onerous tax increases on everyone not on the public dole. Unless the state wants to debase the currency by printing more money-in effect repudiating the debt. I which case everyone will pay the tax increases.
This is my opinion based history
How do I know this is true? Companies are already laying off people.
Individuals and companies are divesting themselves of capital gains exposure.Turning their holdings into cash.
Capital is already heading offshore.Down market.
These are facts.
I wouldn't cal it a mandate, but its close enough. The Republican obsession with cutting taxes and not giving an inch concerning the wealthy and their access to tax shelters and deductions was politically tone deaf.
Ironically, Romney DID advocate raising taxes on the wealthy with one of the smartest political ideas I've hear in years--capping deductions at, say, $18,000 or 20% of your gross income, whichever is less.
It's pretty damn clear that no politician is going to lose an election by doing this, even though it effectively raises taxes on those making more than $250,000. Moreover, now is the time to do it. Going over the fiscal cliff over this issue would be the height of irresponsibility and WILL ensure Republicans get thrown out of office.
Ritmo, I followed your link in your 5:02 comment. Thanks for providing it.
I also skimmed the preliminary working paper that the article you linked to is based on. The article understandably misinterprets the implications of the research findings for the impact of the Romney plan.
First, a disclaimer. I'm going to assume that the preliminary research findings hold up to further examination, but they are based on some highly questionable assumptions. But for purposes of blog commenting, let's assume the findings are correct.
The paper uses a database maintained by the National Bureau of Economic Research called TAXSIM. It uses data from actual returns to simulate any hypothetical household's tax liability based on typical deductions for each income group. Therefore, the program treats an increase in tax rates and a reduction in allowable deductions similarly. So when the article says "tax cuts" it really means "a combination of tax-rate changes and deductibility changes that lead to a tax cut for the typical household in an income bracket.
The Romney plan would have reduced the deductions of high-income earners by a lot, so much so that by the definition used in the research you're citing very-high-earners would have almost certainly been treated as getting a tax-rate increase.
So the findings of the paper you're citing actually imply that the Romney tax cuts would have been quite stimulative.
(I can only be online intermittently tonight, so don't take a non-reply as anything but an absence from the internet.)
And yet the evidence proves otherwise. real unemployment is closer to what? 18+%
Thanks for the hyperbole. Never before has "unemployment" been taken to mean something synonymous with the "underemployment" U6 statistic, but I'm glad to see that you've been able to put it to good, partisan use.
"Both those presidents enacted legislation to prevent us from going into a complete nosedive."
An assertion not based on fact.
Unless you believe that, without clairvoyance, it's impossible to know why anyone ever does anything, then you could have a point.
But most sane observers would say that preventing further economic catastrophe was indeed not only the stated reason for why both presidents enacted the measures they did, but the likely reason.
I suppose you wouldn't call it a depression, but 23 million unemployed might disagree.
It's interesting that you "suppose" a fact is a fact, but only when you couch it within the statistic that provides you with a demographic just ripe for partisan cherry-picking! Maybe they don't know or care about the difference between economic terms such as "recession" and "depression", so I will appeal to them to illustrate the propriety of such conflation. Brilliant!
Or alternatively, maybe they do know the difference...
The rest of your response reads similarly, so need not be addressed. But I loved this one:
Companies are already laying off people.
Which NEVER happens, even in milder economic times! Never!
However,
Turning their holdings into cash. Capital is already heading offshore.
And at record profits!
All the more reason to conclude that their concerns and political grievances are entirely selfish, not concerned with the plight of the unemployed, and therefore liable for those assets to be taxed to pay down that debt they say they're so concerned about, or lengthen the benefits of those that they refuse to employ with the excess holdings.
You can't expose the less virtuous characteristics of the powerful and then demand that democracy give them a break for breaking that democracy's back. Democracy will pay them back with a vengeance. The ensuing whiplash will be a bitch!
You guys took advantage of this crisis to rally your troops. But the problem with the few facts you actually did manage to corral is that they actually have to be relevant. Twisting them to mean something that they don't, well, that's something the public will pick up on too. Especially when you're busy telling them that you don't care to employ them until the financially well-off are given an even bigger piece of cheese than the sky-high morsels you've already fed them.
It's completely illogical. How can consumer demand be driven higher when you insist on keeping the consumer class on its knees? Warped, wealth worshiping thinking is how you do it. But the facts don't show that the approach works - (except in undeveloped countries).
Keep trying. Maybe the GOP will learn.
(I can only be online intermittently tonight, so don't take a non-reply as anything but an absence from the internet.)
It's ok Chip. Your comments are honest, in good faith, and with the best attempt possible to separate partisan biases from the truth - so I know better than to take any aspect of your comments/commenting situation personally.
I'll also read your response in fuller detail, but isn't your problem with relying on what the Romney "plan" would do a claim to definitive knowledge of what it actually would do? Did they ever release the details? Was it ever consistent?
I don't have any problem with what you describe as the Romney plan. I just wasn't convinced that, if it was the latest and most credible version, it was something that he would fight to carry out. I could be wrong on that, but don't you think Mitt's credibility was an issue, even among Republican challengers and voters?
Ritmo, The details I'm talking about are these two things: a 20% reduction in everybody's tax rate (not 20 pct. points) and a $17K limit on total deductions. For the very wealthy, mortgage interest and state income tax deductions are typically way over $17K, so their total tax payments wouldn't necessarily increase at all.
The plan was a textbook attempt to exploit the "substitution effect" of a tax change from its "income effect." You view it entirely in terms of Keynesian demand stimulus, but it was really an attempt at supply-side stimulus.
For the very wealthy, mortgage interest and state income tax deductions are typically way over $17K, so their total tax payments wouldn't necessarily increase at all.
The problem with this is that it seems like the converse of the argument that the stimulus didn't work (which is a non-consensus, partisan view, anyway), so why try it again? You're telling me that, despite record profits, equal or greater reductions at the top will pay off? Despite the fact that there's no evidence for this, least of all in this latest recession?
It sounds to me that guys like Siegel and Bag O' are fighting a war of personal spite against the underclass, the middle class, the government and the national economy. In which case it makes total sense to fight back. All the social science/economic details that you're providing, does it really overwhelm an observation as basic as that?
As I understand it, a deduction does decrease your tax payment. Why are you now saying that withdrawing a deduction doesn't increase taxes? If you're arguing against revenue now, then what happened to the whole debt reduction argument? Does it just depend on the audience being addressed?
Anyway Chip, I might have to step out for some time also. But if you do return, here's an excellent article on Sheila Bair's proposals for fixing the financial system, which is at least as important as tax policy in sorting through this mess.
It sounds to me that guys like Siegel and Bag O' are fighting a war of personal spite against the underclass, the middle class, the government and the national economy. In which case it makes total sense to fight back. All the social science/economic details that you're providing, does it really overwhelm an observation as basic as that?
Ritmo, you sold me. I agree, it is simply immoral for the wealthy to not pay higher taxes. At least they ought to pay the same as the highest marginal rate for 99 percenters, right?
Maybe you can explain to me, when the house was run by these Moral Democrats, and the Democrats had a super majority in the senate, and the presidency, they didn't take the simple step of making the tax code fair.
Why didn't they even it out?
Whatever.
Bottom line, for me, going forward, comes down to one word: Budget.
It'd be nice if, in even just one of the senses of that word, our national government could manage to do that. (Not to mention the others.)
Given that wishin' ain't gettin', I'm just gonna focus on doin'.
I don't trust any of you, much less believe you/in you. It's a good thing, so to speak.
But most sane observers would say that preventing further economic catastrophe was indeed not only the stated reason for why both presidents enacted the measures they did, but the likely reason.
I never said that preventing economic collapse wasn't the reason. I said it wasn't sucessful. Any sane person can see that.
It's interesting that you "suppose" a fact is a fact, but only when you couch it within the statistic that provides you with a demographic just ripe for partisan cherry-picking! Maybe they don't know or care about the difference between economic terms such as "recession" and "depression", so I will appeal to them to illustrate the propriety of such conflation. Brilliant!
Or alternatively, maybe they do know the difference...
Call what ever you want. it's still an economic disaster.
Which NEVER happens, even in milder economic times! Never!
These aren't mild economic times.
However,
Turning their holdings into cash. Capital is already heading offshore.
And at record profits!
Offshore. Capital is leaving at a more accelerated rate.
All the more reason to conclude that their concerns and political grievances are entirely selfish, not concerned with the plight of the unemployed, and therefore liable for those assets to be taxed to pay down that debt they say they're so concerned about, or lengthen the benefits of those that they refuse to employ with the excess holdings.
You can't expose the less virtuous characteristics of the powerful and then demand that democracy give them a break for breaking that democracy's back. Democracy will pay them back with a vengeance. The ensuing whiplash will be a bitch!
You're confusing this behavior as some sort of political behavior on the part of the participants.It isn't the cause, but the effect. Capital is looking to lower risk. They aren't doing what they're doing to punish. It's an act of survival.
O Ritmo Segundo said...
And yet the evidence proves otherwise. real unemployment is closer to what? 18+%
Thanks for the hyperbole. Never before has "unemployment" been taken to mean something synonymous with the "underemployment" U6 statistic, but I'm glad to see that you've been able to put it to good, partisan use
Not partisan hyperbole at all. Simply an economic fact.
Underemployment? Yes I suppose in the sense those jobs don't exist anymore and won't be coming back for awhile.
It's been four and a half years and you're calling an increase of .02% in employment a success. you're calling less than 2.0% growth a success when we need something like a minimum of four percent for real growth.
On top of that you want to raise taxes on the very people that invest and create jobs.
Those are the facts.
Economic growth does not come from high taxes and burdensome regulation. That is also a fact.
I stand by my earlier prediction. Unless a drastic change in economic policy happens soon there will be 9%+ unemployment an sub 3% growth.
As I've stated before, the rules that govern the marketplace are as unbending as those that govern physics. You can fuck with them all you want, but in the end gravity always works and the market always gets its way.
phx said...
He stole the election
I thought this was amusing.
One Ohio precinct voted for Obama by 108%
Ah. Chicago ward healing goes national.
Maybe you can explain to me, when the house was run by these Moral Democrats, and the Democrats had a super majority in the senate, and the presidency, they didn't take the simple step of making the tax code fair.
Why didn't they even it out?
Because Ted Kennedy died after a month or two and they lost the supermajority necessary to invoke cloture and end any filibusters. Maybe you've heard of these procedures?
Post a Comment