Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 9:07 AM ET, 01/23/2011

Sunday Open Thread

By Greg Sargent

Apparently it's now "centrist" to call for job creation and national renewal, as if these are things independents and middle-of-the-road voters want more than everyone else does.

By Greg Sargent  | January 23, 2011; 9:07 AM ET
Categories:  Miscellaneous  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Open Thread
Next: The Morning Plum

Comments

@Greg

You mean Centrists and Indys don't want job creation more than anybody else?

I mean everybody knows we "progressives" are not about jobs..we're too busy trying to collectivize the economy to worry about jobs. :-)

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 23, 2011 9:31 AM | Report abuse

MORE ELIMINATORY RHETORIC


What can be done?


Pizzarias are now chanting Eliminatory Rhetoric when patrons walk in:


J E T S


J E T S


J E T S


J E T S


J E T S


Just Eliminate the Steelears


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 23, 2011 9:58 AM | Report abuse

"I mean everybody knows we "progressives" are not about jobs..we're too busy trying to collectivize the economy to worry about jobs."

The economy was in the tank and unemployment was rising when the current administration took over. Where was the focus? Overwhelmingly it was HCR legislation that "we have to pass so we can see what's in it", not jobs. (And what's in it turned out to be highly flawed.)

Obama's future depends on convincing centrists and indies in the next 21 months that he's finally figured out what they're really concerned about and is going to proactively (means more than just rhetorically) do something about it. Oh the horror, with the new congress, this will necessitate bi-partisanship.

LOL.

Posted by: actuator | January 23, 2011 10:06 AM | Report abuse

Obviously the idea is that the liberals are far more concerned with imposing their liberal agenda on American than they are with Economic Growth and jobs.


And Obama himself is to blame for this perception.

Obama made a statement just like that in front of Congress in September 2009 - and Obama has acted like he just can't wait to get the Economic stuff over with, so he can get onto his "big things."


Yes, this stuff is coming directly from Obama.

Why anyone has to explain this to the liberals while they play dumb is a little beyond belief.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 23, 2011 10:14 AM | Report abuse


Eliminationist is not a word.


Eliminalist is not a word either.


Eliminative is a word and is an adjective.


Eliminatory is a word and is an adjective.


I suppose that Eliminative or Eliminatory could be used as an adjective with rhetoric, however the two may have slightly different meanings. One would have to research the details of that etymology.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 23, 2011 10:36 AM | Report abuse

The Budget Deficit is going to Death Bomb all of our children's future (and all of the future children we don't yet know we're going to have) unless we eff up programs that don't really contribute to said Doom-icit... like tomorrow. Well, Tuesday, actually.
This will allow us to compete. Okay, so maybe not. But "competitiveness" is fun to say. It makes the person saying it sound Serious and Noble.

What this country really needs is a bunch of those motivational posters, you see. And not the kind all of the internet with pictures of Allison the track athlete and snarky comments underneath like "Pole Vaulting is the coolest sport ever!" I mean real motivational posters. Preferably with David Gergen's face staring it you with the "Son I Am Disappoint" look on his face and text underneath it like:

SOCIAL SECURITY

He worked for Nixon, Ford Reagan, and Clinton, and he wants you to cut it now... for competitiveness and the children.

Much like Wu Tang, David Gergen is for the children.

Posted by: michael_conrad | January 23, 2011 11:16 AM | Report abuse

Greg:

""Apparently it's now "centrist" to call for job creation and national renewal, as if these are things independents and middle-of-the-road voters want more than everyone else does. ""

Just to be clear, are you suggesting that the thesis of the NYT article is incorrect...that Obama is consciously trying to appeal to more centrist voters, is incorrect? Or was your snark simply employed for it's own sake?

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 23, 2011 11:18 AM | Report abuse

Jeez. Typo city in my last comment. I blame the Sunday morning hippity hop music. Speaking of which:

The wise Aristotle once said, "Life ain't a track meet. It's a marathon." Not really though, that was Ice Cube. But if David Brooks believed Aristotle said that, he would probably open his post SOTU column on the glory of competitiveness-ism with that.

Posted by: michael_conrad | January 23, 2011 11:21 AM | Report abuse

MORONS


You aren't going to SPEND your way out of this economic crisis.

Obama tried that and failed.


In addition, Obama and the democrats DID NOT take the economic crisis seriously two years ago - they diverted BILLIONS of dollars to democratic special interest projects - OBAMA WASTED THE MONEY.


NOW we hear the same thing from this DUDE OBAMA ???


Sorry, Dude Obama, you wasted your chance

NO ONE trusts you with the money anymore.


Obama wants to spend more money, this is a joke, right ?


.
.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 23, 2011 11:21 AM | Report abuse

Cereal just out-competed toast to be part of my breakfast. Cereal does not have Social Security benefits. Coincidence? I think not.

Posted by: michael_conrad | January 23, 2011 11:23 AM | Report abuse

Americans get what they deserve


Apparently the SMEAR CAMPAIGN worked - Obama picked a few points

IS that the kind of government that you want LIBERALS???


A government which runs the nation like a petty third-world dictatorship, going after political opponents with bogus charges ???


IS that what kind of government you want???


Because the Republicans would be happy TO USE THE SAME TACTICS AGAINST THE LIBERALS NEXT TIME.


BE CAREFUL LIBERALS - if you do not speak out against Obama now, and state CLEARLY these tactics are out-of-bounds, then you are saying it is OK for the Republicans to do the same.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 23, 2011 11:26 AM | Report abuse

DOES

putting SPACES between

Wingnut Word SALAD somehow make the Comment MORE Persuasive Or

SOMETHING.

-Only the sane can make it rainforest

Also: Very good book alert

Blowing Smoke: Why the Right Keeps Serving Up Whack-Job Fantasies about the Plot to Euthanize Grandma, Outlaw Christmas, and Turn Junior into a Raging Homosexual
by Michael Wolraich

Posted by: michael_conrad | January 23, 2011 11:28 AM | Report abuse

Prior to this Economic Crisis - and maybe 15 years ago, there were Economic studies of the 1930s, and the conclusions of the reports was that the additional spending did not have the effects that the history books claim.

One has to remember that MANY people understand the 1930s from a few paragraphs in a high school history book, which was NOT written by Economists.

Few people have studied the 1930s even at a college level.

So, the idea that massive government spending does NOT really explain the economy in the 1930s.

The economcy went BACK into recession in the 1937-38 period - and the country did not get out of the economic mess until the War and all that spending.


Employment picked up because men became soldiers and started fighting -

There may be great stories about how great the WPA was and all, however, those jobs may have helped people, but they did NOT spur the Economic recovery.


PLUS, our economy is different now - there is alot of LEAKAGE - we are spurring China's economy if at all - NOT OUR OWN.

Obama's Economic Policy this week is NOT an economic policy - it is another bogus Obama political plan to DECEIVE PEOPLE INTO THINKING Obama is working on the economy - when in fact Obama wants to IMPOSE his libeal agenda and cares little about anything else.


RIGHT NOW, Obama's ACTUAL ECONOMIC POLICY IS TO PUT A DRAG ON THE ECONOMY by creating economic uncertainty with his health care plan - and to impose BILLIONS of dollars in new taxes to impose that health policy.

That is his Economic Policy - none other.


.
That is the truth.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 23, 2011 11:41 AM | Report abuse

Dude, conrad

You are only saying that because the space is white - if that space was black, you would never say that.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 23, 2011 11:44 AM | Report abuse

THIS IS OBAMA'S ECONOMIC POLICY

If Obama, wants to improve the economy, SIGN THIS REPEAL and spur the economy. These taxes are what are holding the Economy back


Raise "Haircut" for Medical Itemized Deduction from 7.5% to 10% of AGI($15.2 bil/Jan 2013): Currently, those facing high medical expenses are allowed a deduction for medical expenses to the extent that those expenses exceed 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI). The new provision imposes a threshold of 10 percent of AGI; it is waived for 65+ taxpayers in 2013-2016 only.

Tax on Indoor Tanning Services($2.7 billion/July 1, 2010): New 10 percent excise tax on Americans using indoor tanning salons

Elimination of tax deduction for employer-provided retirement Rx drug coverage in coordination with Medicare Part D($4.5 bil/Jan 2013)

Blue Cross/Blue Shield Tax Hike($0.4 bil/Jan 2010): The special tax deduction in current law for Blue Cross/Blue Shield companies would only be allowed if 85 percent or more of premium revenues are spent on clinical services

Excise Tax on Charitable Hospitals(Min$/immediate): $50,000 per hospital if they fail to meet new "community health assessment needs," "financial assistance," and "billing and collection" rules set by HHS

Tax on Innovator Drug Companies($22.2 bil/Jan 2010): $2.3 billion annual tax on the industry imposed relative to share of sales made that year.

Tax on Health Insurers($60.1 bil/Jan 2014): Annual tax on the industry imposed relative to health insurance premiums collected that year. The stipulation phases in gradually until 2018, and is fully-imposed on firms with $50 million in profits.

$500,000 Annual Executive Compensation Limit for Health Insurance Executives($0.6 bil/Jan 2013)

Employer Reporting of Insurance on W-2(Min$/Jan 2011): Preamble to taxing health benefits on individual tax returns.

Corporate 1099-MISC Information Reporting($17.1 bil/Jan 2012): Requires businesses to send 1099-MISC information tax forms to corporations (currently limited to individuals), a huge compliance burden for small employers

“Black liquor” tax hike(Tax hike of $23.6 billion). This is a tax increase on a type of bio-fuel.

Codification of the “economic substance doctrine”(Tax hike of $4.5 billion). This provision allows the IRS to disallow completely-legal tax deductions and other legal tax-minimizing plans just because the IRS deems that the action lacks “substance” and is merely intended to reduce taxes owed.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 23, 2011 11:47 AM | Report abuse

MORE OBAMA TAX INCREASES LISTED BELOW

If Obama wants to really help the Economy

SIGN THIS REPEAL

SIGN THIS REPEAL

SIGN THIS REPEAL

Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans($32 bil/Jan 2018): Starting in 2018, new 40 percent excise tax on “Cadillac” health insurance plans ($10,200 single/$27,500 family). For early retirees and high-risk professions exists a higher threshold ($11,500 single/$29,450 family). CPI +1 percentage point indexed.

Hike in Medicare Payroll Tax($86.8 bil/Jan 2013): Current law and changes:
First $200,000
($250,000 Married)
Employer/Employee All Remaining Wages
Employer/Employee
Current Law 1.45%/1.45%
2.9% self-employed 1.45%/1.45%
2.9% self-employed
Obamacare Tax Hike 1.45%/1.45%
2.9% self-employed 1.45%/2.35%
3.8% self-employed

Medicine Cabinet Tax($5 bil/Jan 2011): Americans no longer able to use health savings account (HSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin)

HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike($1.4 bil/Jan 2011): Increases additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent.

Flexible Spending Account Cap – aka“Special Needs Kids Tax”($13 bil/Jan 2013): Imposes cap of $2500 (Indexed to inflation after 2013) on FSAs (now unlimited). . There is one group of FSA owners for whom this new cap will be particularly cruel and onerous: parents of special needs children. There are thousands of families with special needs children in the United States, and many of them use FSAs to pay for special needs education. Tuition rates at one leading school that teaches special needs children in Washington, D.C. (National Child Research Center) can easily exceed $14,000 per year. Under tax rules, FSA dollars can be used to pay for this type of special needs education.

Tax on Medical Device Manufacturers($20 bil/Jan 2013): Medical device manufacturers employ 360,000 people in 6000 plants across the country. This law imposes a new 2.3% excise tax. Exemptions include items retailing for less than $100.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 23, 2011 11:49 AM | Report abuse

"The economy was in the tank and unemployment was rising when the current administration took over. Where was the focus? Overwhelmingly it was HCR legislation that "we have to pass so we can see what's in it", not jobs."

actuator, perhaps you've forgotten the stimulus package, passed before congress or the president tackled the health care reform issue. It's pretty much an established fact with economists that the stimulus kept millions of people working. It didn't stimulate jobs as well as it could have, but that's due to the Republicans imposing an arbitrary cap to the size of the package and then insisting that over a third of it be spent on non-stimulative tax cuts.

Did he need to do more? Sure. If you can explain how we would have gotten any more stimulus spending for jobs creation through the dysfunctional Senate, then I'm all ears.

But beyond that, I'm not sure any jobs creation initiative will work when we've got tons of companies out there who have decided they would rather sit on piles of money than hire more workers. And really, why would they? They're seeing record profits and working the drones they DIDN'T fire back in 2008 twice as hard without having to pay them more, so it's a win-win for them. They've figured out that even 10% unemployment doesn't negatively impact their bottom line, so where's the incentive to hire anyone?

Posted by: JennOfArk | January 23, 2011 11:53 AM | Report abuse

michael_conrad, on Friday's thread, you were alleging a "Big Lie" about government rationing healthcare, and I asked: "do you know who Rahm Emanuel's brother is?" Did you read this article:

http://www.newsweek.com/2009/09/11/the-case-for-killing-granny.html

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 23, 2011 11:55 AM | Report abuse

EVEN MORE OBAMA TAX INCREASES LISTED BELOW

If Obama wants to really help the Economy

SIGN THIS REPEAL

SIGN THIS REPEAL

SIGN THIS REPEAL

Individual Mandate Excise Tax(Jan 2014): Starting in 2014, anyone not buying “qualifying” health insurance must pay an income surtax according to the higher of the following
1 Adult 2 Adults 3+ Adults
2014 1% AGI/$95 1% AGI/$190 1% AGI/$285
2015 2% AGI/$325 2% AGI/$650 2% AGI/$975
2016 + 2.5% AGI/$695 2.5% AGI/$1390 2.5% AGI/$2085
Exemptions for religious objectors, undocumented immigrants, prisoners, those earning less than the poverty line, members of Indian tribes, and hardship cases (determined by HHS)

Employer Mandate Tax(Jan 2014): If an employer does not offer health coverage, and at least one employee qualifies for a health tax credit, the employer must pay an additional non-deductible tax of $2000 for all full-time employees. This provision applies to all employers with 50 or more employees. If any employee actually receives coverage through the exchange, the penalty on the employer for that employee rises to $3000. If the employer requires a waiting period to enroll in coverage of 30-60 days, there is a $400 tax per employee ($600 if the period is 60 days or longer).

Combined score of individual and employer mandate tax penalty: $65 billion/10 years
Surtax on Investment Income ($123 billion/Jan. 2013): This increase involves the creation of a new, 3.8 percent surtax on investment income earned in households making at least $250,000 ($200,000 single). This would result in the following top tax rates on investment income
Capital Gains Dividends Other*
2010-2012 15% 15% 35%
2013+ (current law) 23.8% 43.4% 43.4%
2013+ (Obama budget) 23.8% 23.8% 43.4%

*Other unearned income includes (for surtax purposes) gross income from interest, annuities, royalties, net rents, and passive income in partnerships and Subchapter-S corporations. It does not include municipal bond interest or life insurance proceeds, since those do not add to gross income. It does not include active trade or business income, fair market value sales of ownership in pass-through entities, or distributions from retirement plans. The 3.8% surtax does not apply to non-resident aliens.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 23, 2011 11:56 AM | Report abuse

JennOfArk, on yesterday's thread, we providing several examples of Rachel Maddow lying.

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 23, 2011 11:59 AM | Report abuse

Also, it seems like the new Congress is more focused on health care than the last one.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 23, 2011 11:59 AM | Report abuse

JennOfArk, have you considered the possibility that so many of those entrepreneurs and businesses out there are holding on to cash because they fear that this administration will do more to take it away from them to throw away on wasteful spending that will not have a positive long term effect for either them or the country?

Sorry about the long sentence.

Posted by: actuator | January 23, 2011 12:11 PM | Report abuse

@Jenn Great response to actuator about this myth that he and other folks like David Gregory keep perpetuating. HCR was NOT the first thing Obama tackled as you correctly pointed out Jenn. But there is an additional canard hidden in that mischaracterization. Aside from defense spending our health care spending is the dominant force EFFECTING our economy right now. To argue absurdly that HCR stands by itself and is not an integral part of an economic solution is simply inaccurate.

Right now defense spending and soaring health costs have far greater implications for our future economic health than S.S. or Medicare. (This is not to suggest that those two programs are untouchable it's simply to prioritize).

And again with all due respect to my fellow posters I trust the economic analysis of Erin Burnett far more than anybody on this blog. She pointed out this morning on MTP that the deficit..while a real problem..in certainly not insoluble and is not yet at "crisis" level. Even after the great Bush Recession of 08...after our overall net worth as a nation dropped 20%...we are still a very wealthy nation. We are worth approximately 63 Trillion with a deficit of 13 Trillion. This is not unmanageable at all...and now that Obama has stemmed the greatest economic crisis since 1929 we can begin to do what Dems have done in the past...balance the budget. Do facts and history not mean anything?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

Read the chart. Look at some freaking facts. The R's have failed miserably beginning with Reagan when it comes to balancing the budget. Does a past record mean nothing. If you were making a wager in Las Vegas on a sports team and one team had winning record and the other team had a losing record would you completely ignore it?

Perhaps you'd come up with the same logic as the blog loon...the winning team only had a winning record because the losing team made it possible...huh???...but then that's the blog loon I'd expect it from him...but the rest of you...do facts not mean anything.

LITERALLY...betting on the R's to solve the deficit as opposed to the Dems makes just as much sense as betting on an 0-10 team against a 9-1 squad!!

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 23, 2011 12:13 PM | Report abuse

clawrence - no, you didn't. Perhaps that's because you don't know what the definition of a lie is. Which is knowingly telling a falsehood. Misattributing a quote to someone who you believed said it isn't a lie, particularly when you show good faith and inform your viewers/listeners/readers that you made an error and you apologize for it.

I can understand why you have trouble with discerning a lie from a misstatement because conservatives believe that "winning" means never admitting they were wrong or apologizing for their lies or misstatements. So there's never any need to reflect upon what one's intent was when making the incorrect statement and therefore, the difference between a misstatement of fact based on sincere belief in its veracity and a bald-faced lie probably aren't as clearly drawn for you.

Overall, it's probably a good strategy for conservatives to follow; otherwise, they'd spend all their time apologizing for lying or making misstatements based on their sincere beliefs in things that aren't real or true.

Posted by: JennOfArk | January 23, 2011 12:16 PM | Report abuse

JennOfArk wrote,
"It's pretty much an established fact with economists that the stimulus kept millions of people working."
=========================================

Maybe with Krugman. I think you should turn to "fact" in the dictionary. It doesn't mean what you think it does.

Check last night's thread for all the examples of Rachel Maddow lies you asked for. Not quite big enough to admit you were wrong?

Posted by: Brigade | January 23, 2011 12:19 PM | Report abuse

Brigade - look up "lie" in the dictionary.

Krugman is far from alone in his analysis of the stimulus' effect on employment.

Posted by: JennOfArk | January 23, 2011 12:21 PM | Report abuse

Also, it seems like the new Congress is more focused on health care than the last one.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 23, 2011 11:59 AM
======================================

Exactly. The last Congress was focused on passing an HCR bill, any bill, no matter what was in it. This Congress is indeed more focused on actual health care. Thus, the move to repeal.

Posted by: Brigade | January 23, 2011 12:22 PM | Report abuse

The "New Lie" of the Democrats: that the 14th Amendment guarantees the health care law -

The New Lie is that REPEAL OF OBAMA'S HEALTH CARE LAW is unConstitutional.


The liberals have no respect for the history of this nation - they have no respect for the American People, the libeals have no respect for ELECTIONS.

This nation is entering an extremely DANGEROUS time when the liberals could get violent.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 23, 2011 12:26 PM | Report abuse

Saw David Stockman, Reagan's former OMB director, on Bill Maher. OMG what a breath of fresh air to see somebody on the right who remains rational about our defense policy.

He accurately pointed out that after Reagan won the Cold War with the collapse of the "Evil Empire" we should have drawn down just as we did in 1919 and 1946. Remember when Reagan went to Reykjavik Iceland, met with Gorbachev and didn't propose cutting the number of nuclear warheads...Reagan proposed getting rid of ALL nuclear warheads. The new war is not military. China has dropped a huge bomb on us alright and it's contained in the 3,000 Wal Marts around our nation.

While we are dropping bombs killing and maiming other human beings (many of them completely innocent of anything other than living in the wrong country) the Chinese are also in Afghanistan, Iraq, Africa, South America..all around the globe...not dropping bombs but making business investments...getting joint ventures going with host nations in mineral and national resource development. If we don't get our defense priorities correct and soon...if we can't stop fighting the 20th Century battles in the 21st Century we are going to go the way of the former Soviet Union.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 23, 2011 12:26 PM | Report abuse

I repeat:

"Obama's future depends on convincing centrists and indies in the next 21 months that he's finally figured out what they're really concerned about and is going to proactively (means more than just rhetorically) do something about it. Oh the horror, with the new congress, this will necessitate bi-partisanship.

LOL."

It will be interesting to see how much of Obama's SOTU speech will be rephrasing of his predecessor's comments from both sides of the political spectrum.

The more things change, the more they stay the same. Its just a matter of which side you're on and what your political strengths and weaknesses are. Wait and see.

Posted by: actuator | January 23, 2011 12:26 PM | Report abuse

JennOfArk, have you considered the possibility that so many of those entrepreneurs and businesses out there are holding on to cash because they fear that this administration will do more to take it away from them to throw away on wasteful spending that will not have a positive long term effect for either them or the country?
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Have you ever thought about how these same huge companies invest overseas in any number of countries, all with more uncertainty than in the U.S., and with arguably less control over their governments, and yet they continue to invest and hire in those countries? And you think that companies are sitting on top of cash because of uncertainty? Companies have been dealing with uncertainty since the beginning of organized business. That is their business.

If I were speculating about why companies are sitting on a mountain of cash, I would wonder about the effect of zero wage pressure, getting more out of fewer employees (productivity), cheaper foreign investments, soaring corporate profits, and cheap money policies.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 23, 2011 12:27 PM | Report abuse

rukidding7 wrote,
"Aside from defense spending our health care spending is the dominant force EFFECTING our economy right now. To argue absurdly that HCR stands by itself and is not an integral part of an economic solution is simply inaccurate."
=========================================

Unfortunately, the partisan Dem HCR bill did nothing whatsoever to address rising costs. Everyone who thinks the current HCR bill is (will be) holding down costs, give us a shout.

(crickets)

When your next premium increase is 20% or more, no fair quoting "facts" from economists that it would have been even more if not for the magic of HCR.


Posted by: Brigade | January 23, 2011 12:27 PM | Report abuse

LITERALLY...betting on the R's to solve the deficit as opposed to the Dems makes just as much sense as betting on an 0-10 team against a 9-1 squad!!

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 23, 2011 12:13 PM
======================================

How's the debt and deficit today compared to when Obama was sworn in? Are you having trouble with math? Spare us the Carter charts---he's not the President. Most sane people will grade Obama on results, not on blather about past Democratic Presidents.

Posted by: Brigade | January 23, 2011 12:29 PM | Report abuse

RUKIDDINg

Are you kidding? We did "draw down" from the Middle East.

The result was 3,000 DEAD AMERICANS on the streets of New York, you fool.


We did "draw down" after World War One


The result was 50 Million people killed by Hitler and Stalin.


We didn't really "draw down" after WW2, instead we HELD ONTO Europe, gave the Marshall Plan, and prevented hundreds of millions of people from living under Communism.

We had to fight wars in Vietname and Korea to slow down the march of the leftist communists.


There are no words to describe how silly your comments are - people will die if America follows the policys you want.


LIBERAL POLICIES ONLY LEAD TO DEATH AND DEBT. but you think you know everything.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 23, 2011 12:32 PM | Report abuse

JennOfArk, yes I did. The link I provided PROVED that Maddow knew the truth but still broadcast the lie. As far as I know, she has never "apologized" for slandering the author. Regardless, it was still a lie (I am using your definition: knowingly telling a falsehood) not some innocent misstatement. If you can PROVE that Brit Hume has lied, let us know.

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 23, 2011 12:36 PM | Report abuse

Looking at some stats, it appears that the U.S. has the second highest corporate tax rates of any developed nation. Japan is first and they've lowered theirs and are apparently planning to lower them further. Apparently its good for business and believe it or not, what's good for business is, generally speaking, good for a nation's economy.

In case you aren't paying attention, high income individuals are leaving states with high individual income tax rates and moving to states with lower or no income taxes.

Do you think there might be a pattern here? Could it be that businesses and individuals want to be where they get to keep more of their earnings because it bodes well for their futures?

Posted by: actuator | January 23, 2011 12:40 PM | Report abuse

"How's the debt and deficit today compared to when Obama was sworn in? Are you having trouble with math?"

Not as much as apparently you are Brigade.
Obama was handed the WORST economy since Herbert Hoover left office. It required a herculean effort to stave off disaster. We'll judge Obama's budget balancing skills in the context of his entire administration..not in the contest of two years of cleaning what FACTUALLY was the worst economic DISASTER in over 50 years!!!

Perhaps you are having trouble with reality Brigade...here you go some more facts (if you can stand them) to clear your head.

http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-jobs-lost-in-the-bush-and-obama-administration-2010-2

This chart ended at the end of 09 because Obama had already reversed the horrible trend Bush HAD CLEARLY ESTABLISHED.

Again Brigade do you like to operate in a fact free zone. OK go ahead and bet on your 0-10 team...makes sense to RFR. :-)

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 23, 2011 12:40 PM | Report abuse

"LIBERAL POLICIES ONLY LEAD TO DEATH AND DEBT."

So I guess George W. Bush is the greatest Liberal President of the 21st century.

Posted by: andrewlong | January 23, 2011 12:40 PM | Report abuse

Looking at some stats, it appears that the U.S. has the second highest corporate tax rates of any developed nation. Japan is first and they've lowered theirs and are apparently planning to lower them further. Apparently its good for business and believe it or not, what's good for business is, generally speaking, good for a nation's economy.

In case you aren't paying attention, high income individuals are leaving states with high individual income tax rates and moving to states with lower or no income taxes.

Do you think there might be a pattern here? Could it be that businesses and individuals want to be where they get to keep more of their earnings because it bodes well for their futures?

Posted by: actuator | January 23, 2011 12:41 PM | Report abuse

I think Obama's arrogance over the last two years has already convinced the centrists that Obama is a helpless case.

"Bait and Switch" does not help Obama - he thought he was so smart trying to deceive people, however Obama just insured his humiliation on Election Day.

If Obama was a real man, he would resign. If he didn't want to do what he promised in 2008, he should quit. NOT try to jam through a liberal agenda which the country DID NOT give its consent to.


Anyway, this point is going to be debating over and over - the LIBERALS ARE GOING TO CONTINUE TO LIE.

Ironically, everytime the liberals lie, they hurt themselves even more.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 23, 2011 12:42 PM | Report abuse

@Jenn,

For some reason, clawrence thinks that criticizing Rachel Maddow is the equivalent of criticizing you. Why? Who knows--gives him something to do, I guess.

None of us knows Rachel Maddow or cares a great deal about her, I assume. And Brit Hume? Why would anyone rally around (or conversely engage in armed conflict over) television commentators?

Claw reminds me of my mom's chihuahua who would dart out from under the bed and hip your ankles. Then he would reverse back under the bed and wait for the next unwitting person to walk by. Gave him something to do, I guess.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 23, 2011 12:42 PM | Report abuse

@clawrence

I looked at your link to Evan Thomas who went way overboard in a Serious Beltway Person piece trying to be Mr. Straight Talker on health care costs under a stupid title. We don't need to cut care that works, that's for sure, and for the record, the current system rations plenty. Thomas gets the details all wrong. (He can be quite the proud idiot sometimes). Obviously, no one should ever be killed, denied care that makes them more comfortable, or denied treatment that has been proven to work to deal with their illness. And yes, end of life counseling (and I know from personal experience how valuable this can be when a loved one is sick) should be fully funded. If the opposite of any of this happens, I would stand right beside Tea Partiers and anyone else and vehemently protest it.

But Evan Thomas does not = Zeke Emanuel and Zeke Emanuel does not = Barack Obama.

And where's your concern about what is happening in Arizona?

Posted by: michael_conrad | January 23, 2011 12:43 PM | Report abuse

MORE OBAMA TAX INCREASES


If Obama wants to really help the Economy

SIGN THIS REPEAL

SIGN THIS REPEAL

SIGN THIS REPEAL

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 23, 2011 12:43 PM | Report abuse

The double post was systemic and not intended.

Posted by: actuator | January 23, 2011 12:44 PM | Report abuse

@12Bar "Have you ever thought about how these same huge companies invest overseas in any number of countries, all with more uncertainty than in the U.S., and with arguably less control over their governments, and yet they continue to invest and hire in those countries?"

Excellent point!!!

@actuator "The more things change, the more they stay the same. Its just a matter of which side you're on and what your political strengths and weaknesses are. Wait and see."

Point taken and I agree.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 23, 2011 12:45 PM | Report abuse

Brigade - look up "lie" in the dictionary.

Posted by: JennOfArk | January 23, 2011 12:21 PM
=========================================

I did. It's those things Rachel Maddow tells. Now look up "misstatement".

"Misstate: To state wrongly or misleadingly.
Synonyms: misreport, falsify, distort, fabricate, lie."

I guess this is your weaselly way of admitting Maddow is a liar. Hard to deny in light of all those "facts" (in the traditional usage).

Posted by: Brigade | January 23, 2011 12:45 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for verifying my point about not knowing what a lie is, Brigade. Not that there was any doubt.

clawrence, what's with the Brit Hume again? As I patiently explained yesterday, the only one who sees this as a Rachel Maddow vs. Brit Hume steel cage match is you. I'm not going to waste time on your Brit Hume fixation

All of you whining about the fiscal irresponsibility of Democrats in general and Obama in particular and wringing your hands over the federal debt should go here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

It's a fascinating overview of where our debt came from!

Posted by: JennOfArk | January 23, 2011 12:51 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for verifying my point about not knowing what a lie is, Brigade. Not that there was any doubt.

clawrence, what's with the Brit Hume again? As I patiently explained yesterday, the only one who sees this as a Rachel Maddow vs. Brit Hume steel cage match is you. I'm not going to waste time on your Brit Hume fixation

All of you whining about the fiscal irresponsibility of Democrats in general and Obama in particular and wringing your hands over the federal debt should go here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

It's a fascinating overview of where our debt came from!

Posted by: JennOfArk | January 23, 2011 12:51 PM | Report abuse

@actuator

"Looking at some stats, it appears that the U.S. has the second highest corporate tax rates of any developed nation."

Ohhhh puhleeze actuator...this is such a tired and inaccurate right wing talking point. We need a link here to see what you are talking about. But surely you realize their is a HUGE difference in any tax rate between the "nominal" tax rate or the "stated" rate and the "effective" tax rate...that which is ACTUALLY PAID. This btw is true for individuals as well as corps and so we have the spectre of arguing over marginal tax rates in the high 30% range NOMINAL rates when in reality most of the wealthy pay a far lower EFFECTIVE rate..ala Gov Rick Scott who has paid 15% on Ten million in earning each of the last three years...just a separate illustration...but let's return to your point about Corporate tax rates.

Reality check. Under R Eisenhower Corps funded about 25% of our national budget.
Under R Bush II that "burden" had been reduced to just 8% of our budget.

And now actuator a Rick Scott like reality check on what Corporations REALLY pay despite ANY posted nominal rates...nominal rates are absolutely worthless in any discussion of taxes...truly meaningless.

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2008/08/13/study-tallies-corporations-not-paying-income-tax/

Two out of every three United States corporations paid no federal income taxes from 1998 through 2005, according to a report released Tuesday by the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 23, 2011 12:52 PM | Report abuse

@actuator,

Why cite Japan? That's not where corporate America is expanding. How about China and India? Why limit the reason to corporate tax rates? Why not add absence of regulation, unlimited labor at 60c an hour with opportunities to work 12 hours a day, child labor even cheaper, dirty air and water, business by bribe, no benefits, and no pensions.

Those incentives explain why corporate America is fleeing America. Oh, and our corporate tax code gives business a deduction to do so.

Why limit your criticism to corporate tax rates? You should be adding criticism of our wages, benefits, pensions, regulations, overtime rules, clean air and clean water, and prohibition of bribery. Then we can be **just** like China.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 23, 2011 12:52 PM | Report abuse

rukidding7 wrote,
"It required a herculean effort to stave off disaster. We'll judge Obama's budget balancing skills in the context of his entire administration..not in the contest of two years"
=======================================

"The Troubled Asset Relief Program, commonly referred to as TARP, is a program of the United States government to purchase assets and equity from financial institutions to strengthen its financial sector which was signed into law by U.S. President George W. Bush on October 3, 2008."

Looks like Bush gets credit for "the Herculian effort to stave off disaster." I recall that McCain wanted to return to Washington to participate in the effort, but Obama chose to stay on the campaign trail and golf---sort of like during the Gulf oil disaster. Note: I'm assuming you're not stupid enough to believe the failed Obama stimulus package did anything to stave off disaster. It made things worse.

The debt and deficit have soared under Obama. If you can't judge him on the first two years of his administration, then maybe you should withhold your praise until he's actually accomplished something instead of making things worse. His odds are much better now with Republicans in control of the House. If they had also won the Senate, then things would be as they were when Slick Willie accomplished his economic miracles. Those were the good ole days, right? Republicans in control of Congress?

Posted by: Brigade | January 23, 2011 12:58 PM | Report abuse

Claw reminds me of my mom's chihuahua who would dart out from under the bed and hip your ankles. Then he would reverse back under the bed and wait for the next unwitting person to walk by. Gave him something to do, I guess.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 23, 2011 12:42 PM
========================================

Don't ever say anything like that about rukidding7, or he'll accuse of insults and hate mongering.

Posted by: Brigade | January 23, 2011 1:00 PM | Report abuse

People are getting concerned about Liberal Violence.


The Arizona shooter was clearly disappointed in Obama. The shooter hated Bush, then supported Obama. When Obama failed to live up to his promises, the shooter had no where to turn - and he went mad.


"What's government when words have no meaning" - the Shooter clearly talking about Obama.


__________________


Obama has pushed the Expectations of the liberals so high, and done such a horrible job performance -


The liberals just might get violent

Almost every demonstration that has gotten violent has been the Liberals - destroying stores and burning cars.

The Liberals in Oakland, CA had a riot last year.

It is the Liberals who get violent.

It is the liberals who do NOT want you to have guns to defend yourself.


Posted by: RainForestRising | January 23, 2011 1:02 PM | Report abuse

12Bar You're on fire today...you go girl!

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 23, 2011 1:02 PM | Report abuse

And where's your concern about what is happening in Arizona?

Posted by: michael_conrad | January 23, 2011 12:43 PM
=======================================

A good example of what happens when the government is involved. They've tried car insurance in some states---didn't work there either.

Posted by: Brigade | January 23, 2011 1:03 PM | Report abuse

JennOfArk:
"Thanks for verifying my point about not knowing what a lie is, Brigade. Not that there was any doubt."
========================================

Keep that dictionary handy. You're now having trouble with "verifying". I think "refuting" is the word you were after.

Posted by: Brigade | January 23, 2011 1:06 PM | Report abuse

JennOfArk:
"I'm not going to waste time on your Brit Hume fixation"
========================================

Intepretation: you've demonstrated that it's utterly ridiculous to compare a professional like Hume to a lying twit like Maddow, so now I'll retreat and leave the field of battle in shame.

Posted by: Brigade | January 23, 2011 1:09 PM | Report abuse

Brigade....Fine go ahead and continue supporting the 0-10 team over the 9-1 squad.
Again you make perfect sense to RFR. :-)

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 23, 2011 1:10 PM | Report abuse

Further, providing deductions for Corporate America to invest **and** hire overseas is taxpayers of America subsidizing the loss of their own jobs. That's such an obvious point but needs to be repeated.

I refuse to accept that America needs to become the next China. It is tempting to chase China's standards, if one can use the word standards. It is tempting to eliminate benefits, pensions, healthcare, work rules, minimum wage standards, child labor laws, environmental regulations and bribery rules and become like China. But, why would we want to do that?

We can look at China with its millions of near slave laborers, polluted air and rivers, pumping out cheap products while enriching the wealthy business owners and government officials, and that's what we aspire to? Really? Thought we'd been there, done that, already.

At least we should **try** to do something to avoid the China Syndrome.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 23, 2011 1:11 PM | Report abuse

12BarBlues wrote,
"Why limit the reason to corporate tax rates? Why not add absence of regulation, unlimited labor at 60c an hour with opportunities to work 12 hours a day, child labor even cheaper, dirty air and water, business by bribe, no benefits, and no pensions."
======================================

Now we're talking Vietnam.

Posted by: Brigade | January 23, 2011 1:11 PM | Report abuse

Intepretation: you've demonstrated that it's utterly ridiculous to compare a professional like Hume to a lying twit like Maddow, so now I'll retreat and leave the field of battle in shame.
--------------------------------------------------------
Come on, says Pancho, I dare ya to walk by the bed. Let me get me nippers ready.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 23, 2011 1:14 PM | Report abuse

No, Brigade, I have no problem with differentiating between a misstatement - a statement made containing inaccurate information that the speaker believed was accurate - and a lie - a statement made containing inaccurate information that the speaker knows to be false and disseminates anyway in an attempt to deceive his listeners.

Since we can't climb into people's heads to discern their motives at any given point in time, we have to rely upon intepreting how they react when they learn that they disseminated false information. Typically, the person who did so innocently without the intent to deceive will apologize for being wrong. The apology is evidence that they had no intent to deceive and regret that they may have due to being misinformed. The liar will either ignore the evidence that they've told a lie and refuse to address it or will double down by insisting the lie is true, even if the evidence that it isn't is right under their nose.

See "death panels" for a good example.

Posted by: JennOfArk | January 23, 2011 1:16 PM | Report abuse

@Brigade "Don't ever say anything like that about rukidding7, or he'll accuse of insults and hate mongering."

I can handle "chihuahua" insults...but really when two posters here wish to insinuate that I'm a violence prone madman...that's a little over the top...bad enough...but hopefully we can agree Brigade that comments about me staying away from "Safeway" are despicable. Not because of any personal insult to me but because of the use of a horrible tragedy that claimed 6 lives and myriad other victims just two weeks ago represents a true low in blogging. I mean really Brigade. I appreciate that you take it easy on me and 12Bar...sincerely without snark...I don't really care if you and Liam wish to engage in the game of the "dozens" that's your business...but surely even YOU think there are some limits or boundaries here...can we agree that "Safeway" references are completely inappropriate regardless of which side hurls them. In many ways I'd rather be called a Nazi..at least that doesn't desecrate the memories of those victims of the Tuscon tragedy.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 23, 2011 1:17 PM | Report abuse

Now we're talking Vietnam.
---------------------------------------------
Perhaps, but not limited to Vietnam. This is China and to a much lesser degree, India.

Why do we want to go their direction? I thought the idea was to pull them in **our** direction. When did we drop that idea? Now, we are like the wildebeest caught by the lion. We don't fight, we just lay down and die.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 23, 2011 1:18 PM | Report abuse


MORE OBAMA TAX INCREASES


If Obama wants to really help the Economy

SIGN THIS REPEAL

SIGN THIS REPEAL

SIGN THIS REPEAL

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 23, 2011 1:18 PM | Report abuse

"field of battle"? Really?

Someone seems to have an outsized notion of the importance of what he's doing here.

Posted by: JennOfArk | January 23, 2011 1:20 PM | Report abuse

"We can look at China with its millions of near slave laborers, polluted air and rivers, pumping out cheap products while enriching the wealthy business owners and government officials, and that's what we aspire to? Really? Thought we'd been there, done that, already."

Janelle, partly due to american corporate investment, the middle class in China is rising. In fact, China is now the world's largest market for French bordeaux.

But that prosperity is at the cost of lost American jobs and a sinking american middle class. That we would cut corporate taxes at a time when businesses are refusing to invest at home is a joke.

Posted by: fiona5 | January 23, 2011 1:22 PM | Report abuse

12Bar, the reason for citing Japan, was the fact that they've apparently determined that they can enhance the profitability of Japanese business and improve their economy by reducing corporate taxation. Not that corporations pay taxes, anyway, since all they do is insert it in their pricing. That said, reduced pricing makes their businesses more competitive, potentially leading to expansion and job creation and ultimately greater revenues for government with less real taxation.

Posted by: actuator | January 23, 2011 1:25 PM | Report abuse

@all,

In the interest of civility, I'll retract the chihuahua insults. Clawrence is **not** like Pancho, my mom's dog who'd nip your ankles if you walked by the bed. Just because he needed something to do.

I'm sorry, claw. Maybe it was your name, claw, no, don't go there...bwaha!

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 23, 2011 1:25 PM | Report abuse

12Bar

You are responsible for bringing Cao to this blog, knowing full well what he would be like.

I don't know why lesbians seek to use gays in this manner - but it is clear you two are working together to disrupt this blog.


You were even proud of yourself after you admitted that you brought him here.

The people from the Fix have at least a 3 year history of Cao and his mulitple names under as many as 50 IP addresses per day.


You and Cao have turned this blog into a shanty town of Fixistas - all Cillizza's fault.

For some reason Cillizza thinks his twitter ghosttown is better than dealing with you liberal creeps.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 23, 2011 1:31 PM | Report abuse

"field of battle"? Really?

Someone seems to have an outsized notion of the importance of what he's doing here."

some of the armchair generals here obviously have nothing else to do, since they are always here, so commenting on a blog takes on the role of an *actual* life.

Posted by: fiona5 | January 23, 2011 1:31 PM | Report abuse

12Bar, the reason for citing Japan, was the fact that they've apparently determined that they can enhance the profitability of Japanese business and improve their economy by reducing corporate taxation.
---------------------------------------------------------
I understand your point. Let's see how much foreign investment will flow into Japan as a result of this, when their neighbors are a veritable free for all for business. Do you think that Japan's lowering of corporate tax rates is really going to be enough?

Another factor to ponder is that huge corporations do not plan for the next year or two, or even ten. They plan for the next 25 or 50 years in terms of expansion. The idea that Oracle, for example, stops in its tracks when President X is elected and says "hold the fort, what will this president do?" does not reflect the reality of investing billions in overseas plants and hiring and project teams and corporate systems. These are ginormous projects that take decades to implement.

The reason that corporations are moving overseas, in the big picture, is that their cheaper labor force is over there and increasingly, their customers are over there. Over the last few decades, we have given away our future by encouraging the flight of jobs and subsidizing it to add insult to injury.

I'm not disagreeing that corporate tax policy has some impact, but the big picture is much bigger than corporate tax rates.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 23, 2011 1:37 PM | Report abuse

People are getting concerned about Liberal Violence.


The Arizona shooter was clearly disappointed in Obama. The shooter hated Bush, then supported Obama. When Obama failed to live up to his promises, the shooter had no where to turn - and he went mad.


"What's government when words have no meaning" - the Shooter clearly talking about Obama.


__________________


Obama has pushed the Expectations of the liberals so high, and done such a horrible job performance -


The liberals just might get violent

Almost every demonstration that has gotten violent has been the Liberals - destroying stores and burning cars.

The Liberals in Oakland, CA had a riot last year.

It is the Liberals who get violent.

It is the liberals who do NOT want you to have guns to defend yourself.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 23, 2011 1:44 PM | Report abuse

Not that corporations pay taxes, anyway, since all they do is insert it in their pricing.
-----------------------------------------------------------
At one level, you are right.

Here's a question: if corporate tax rates drop, would prices drop? I maintain they would not. Prices are not cost plus propositions. Prices are the highest price that can be extracted from the customer, while achieving the market share the corporate entity targets. (Of course, there are special situations, where prices are minimal to achieve other objectives, but these tend to be short lived prices.)

A shorthand way of saying this is that prices are negotiated between the marketplace and the seller. If the seller has to sell at a loss, the marketplace doesn't pay any more. And the converse is true also, if the seller gets outsized profits (compared to his competitors), he gets to keep his price.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 23, 2011 1:45 PM | Report abuse

If the reason to eliminate corporate taxes is because the price of taxes gets priced into products, you can use the same argument to eliminate individual income taxes. The income taxes paid by employees get passed along into salary requirements paid by corporations. Then, those salaries (along with their tax component) are included in the expenses of corporations and get priced into products.

If we follow this logic, no one but homeless and unemployed people would pay taxes since they are the only ones who cannot pass them along to someone else.

Interesting theory, but not very practical.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 23, 2011 2:00 PM | Report abuse

12Bar, in a market with real competition it becomes difficult for a seller to get "outsized profits (compared to his competitors" unless there is something in his systemic operations that enable him to produce products or services at much lower cost (absent monopolistic circumstances). Competitors will change their systems to achieve similar results. Eventually prices stabilize in a range where profits will reasonably allow the business to successfully continue in operation while consumers receive quality products and services at a reasonable cost.

Posted by: actuator | January 23, 2011 2:01 PM | Report abuse

@12Bar Agree with your 1:45PM

It is another right wing canard that all higher costs especially taxes on corporations are simply passed on to the consumer. You have actually let the air out of this balloon...and if the Corps had to cut costs is there ANYWHERE they can turn before hurting profit...duhhhhh

http://www.epi.org/economic_snapshots/entry/webfeatures_snapshots_20060621/

"In 2005, the average CEO in the United States earned 262 times the pay of the average worker, the second-highest level of this ratio in the 40 years for which there are data. In 2005, a CEO earned more in one workday (there are 260 in a year) than an average worker earned in 52 weeks."

Somewhat older data but the basic point hasn't changed. And before somebody says well even the wealthiest CEO only earns a small fraction of a corporate gross income...CEO's are just the tip of the iceberg here. V.P.'s and lesser officers on down are earning incredible ratios compared to workers. And then there is the money paid to the Board members...not that this is in any way incestuous..board members occupying multiple Corporate boards, voting each other wonderful benefits, comprising the Compensation committees for each other...you grease me and I'll grease you....ahhh but I'll leave that discussion to 12Bar who knows a lot more about the compensation committees then me

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 23, 2011 2:09 PM | Report abuse

@actuator,

Yes, you are right. The ship eventually rights and bobs on the same sea as all its competitors. I don't argue with that.

My point is that there is a **much** larger picture here than corporate tax rates. Twiddling with rates is much like walking south on a northbound airliner. It gives the feeling of doing something, while destiny is taking us in the other direction. There are so many forces that are destroying our economy. We need a more comprehensive approach to job creation in this country. We need to be thinking ahead by fifty years, not to the next election cycle. Big business doesn't care much who is in power, since their planning horizon is decades beyond that.

I fear that we have given up our future and if we don't get smart, and fast, our grandchildren will all be looking for ways to immigrate to China, if they'll take us, which I doubt.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 23, 2011 2:12 PM | Report abuse

BTW I've used the term "the dozens" to describe the game Brigade and Liam and others enjoy playing. To my AA friends I apologize for stating what is obvious to you, and to my cooler white friends who know..sorry...for those who don't...from the Urban Dictionary...
Playing the dozens...
1.A pursuit, native to South side black youths, the prime practitioners thereof, in which each attempts to outwit the other by deriding him with a greater and more prodigious succession of epithets
2."oneupmanship"
3.Metaphorically-any two(or more) individauls who publicly exchange epithets.

When the Fix collapsed a wave of new posters descended on the PL. The Fix seemed to be more in line with "the dozens" rather than actual intellectual engagement. Having said that we did pick up some wonderful new posters who are measured, intellectual in their posts and willing to cite sources and provide links.
12Bar and Mark in Austin immediately come to mind and I apologize to those I have left out...

But you guys from the Fix also brought over the greatest social disease in blog history...37th..STRF..RFR..whatever he/she/it is calling themselves these days.
We'll never forgive you for that. snark alert

Actually kudos to Kevin for devising the cure and hopefully Greg's techies implement soon...very soon...PLEASE.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 23, 2011 2:18 PM | Report abuse

I'll leave that discussion to 12Bar who knows a lot more about the compensation committees then me
-------------------------------------------------------
I don't know a lot, but I was in corporate America when compensation committees were just getting ramped up. As an executive, we all thought this was the best thing since sliced bread. The Committee looked around at other highly compensated executives, and said "by golly, we can pay our CEO, Exec VP, Vps and Directors at least as much as those guys and **not get sued**." Emphasis on the not get sued part.

Then, other Compensation Committees looked around at us, and said "by golly...and not get sued". It was like the machine that made all the execs rich and better than that, look necessary and legitimate and like we earned it, and best of all **not get sued**.

Now, we have some hard choices: we could take a look at this money machine and do something about it--or we can decide to cut corporate income tax rates. One is hard and would cause the executives to claim they will have to live in refrigerator boxes if even one penny of their compensation is touched, the other is relatively easy as Corporate America calls its Compensation Committees for a special meeting to review executive compensation because of this splendid development in federal taxes.

This is just one piece of the complex problem of corporate America running away from employing Americans and becoming corporate China and India.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 23, 2011 2:26 PM | Report abuse

We also need to take a good hard look at income and wealth inequality. It's a sticky area; particularly for a country that has for the past 30 years defined the highest good of government as allowing completely unhindered accumulation of wealth, whatever the consequences. Where would we draw the line? Does Bill Gates or Warren Buffet really need a fortune of tens of billions? Not to knock those guys; they have simply been successful in navigating the current system to maximum gain, and to their credit are donating most of their wealth through charitable foundations. But then you have to get into asking: is it best to have a handful of guys who no one elected determining where all this excess wealth is directed? It really does seem to me to be in conflict with the whole notion of democracy to set up a system whereby a few benefit fabulously from the productivity of all and therefore get to decide where all the excess wealth of the entire society goes.

It occured to me during the wrangling over rich people keeping their Bush tax cut that the options presented were way too limited. Seems like we really should be looking at tax rates that steeply increase as you go up the scale - say by the time you get to the guy making 100 million or more per year, his highest marginal rate is at 60% - with graduated steps down to a rate of 40% to the guy making $250K.

Posted by: JennOfArk | January 23, 2011 2:32 PM | Report abuse


MORE ELIMINATORY RHETORIC


What can be done?

Pizzarias are now chanting Eliminatory Rhetoric when patrons walk in:


J E T S


J E T S


J E T S


J E T S


J E T S

Just Eliminate the Steelers


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 23, 2011 3:08 PM | Report abuse

Jenn writes:

"We also need to take a good hard look at income and wealth inequality."

____________

Jenn

You are going way beyond socialism now -


YOU ARE A COMMUNIST


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 23, 2011 3:09 PM | Report abuse

@JennOfArk

"It occured to me during the wrangling over rich people keeping their Bush tax cut that the options presented were way too limited. Seems like we really should be looking at tax rates that steeply increase as you go up the scale - say by the time you get to the guy making 100 million or more per year, his highest marginal rate is at 60% - with graduated steps down to a rate of 40% to the guy making $250K."

While I absolutely agree with you Jenn in principle...in reality I'd just like them to start paying the CURRENT nominal rate.
I keep using Fl Gov Rick Scott as the example because he is the quintessential robber baron who earned his millions on the backs of the sick and poor in our nation...cutting their quality of care so dramatically that it actually effected performance..and then stealing from the U.S. Taxpayers with such an egregious case of Medicare/Medicaid FRAUD his Corp fired him and paid close to two BILLION in fines instead. And so it's easy to take cheap shots at this scumbag...who paid 15%...15% for the past three years (the only reported during his Gubernatorial run) on TEN MILLION in earnings.

But does anybody think Scott is the exception? Does anybody believe that the "average" uber wealthy person actually pays the top NOMINAL marginal rate?
I'm with you Jenn but first we need to figure out how to get the uber wealthy to even pay the CURRENT nominal rate before all this absurd arguing about a rate that doesn't come close to resembling "effective" rates.

It's clear our country has changed. We no longer value labor (generic not as a term for unions). We have totally shifted to value the investor class. Common sense dictates that the investor class cannot succeed without the workers providing the labor...nor can the workers thrive without the investors providing jobs...we need BOTH. However the pendulum has swung so far to the side of the investor class that labor is no longer respected. And I mean this culturally..not just in our warped tax laws that charge a worker 7.65% for FICA taxes while a millionaire pays less than 1% for the same tax. Workers earning the average salary pay approximately 25% while the Rick Scotts of the world pay just 15%.

I think it has now become cultural...we value banksters more than plumbers...coupon clipping investors...more than the people who actually do the work. It wasn't always this way. Our middle class grew nicely from WWII until 1977..through R and D presidents...what changed? Is it so far fetched to examine the tax and regulatory policies of 1950-1980 compare them to 1980-2010 and see what has happened. What is the difference. Of course as you well know Jenn there are more than a few posters on this blog who could give a rat's arse about the middle class.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 23, 2011 3:10 PM | Report abuse

A personal note to Jenn and her comment at 2:32:


Screw you, you aren't taking my money.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 23, 2011 3:16 PM | Report abuse

rukidding


Plumbers are doing pretty well in this economy. IN fact over the past 10 years, plumbers and electricians have done extremely well compared to everyone else.


Again, you have no idea what you are talking about.

It is about time you respect everyone else.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 23, 2011 3:19 PM | Report abuse

Common sense dictates that the investor class cannot succeed without the workers providing the labor...nor can the workers thrive without the investors providing jobs...we need BOTH.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Workers are now "over there" not "over here". I know a high level executive in a Fortune 100 hi tech firm, whose name you would all know, who says that nearly all their hiring and investing is overseas. He tells me that he hasn't interviewed more then three U.S. engineering grads in the last several years, when he used to interview hundreds. He says that in a decade or so all that will be left here is a token corporate office with a few hundred token employees and one house belonging to their famous CEO, creating the illusion of American headquarters. My friend has already been offered an equivalent executive position in India, because guess what, that's where my friend's employees are located.

And what are we doing about any of this besides wringing our hands? You tell me, because I don't know of anything being done.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 23, 2011 3:19 PM | Report abuse


People are getting concerned about Liberal Violence.


The Arizona shooter was clearly disappointed in Obama. The shooter hated Bush, then supported Obama. When Obama failed to live up to his promises, the shooter had no where to turn - and he went mad.


"What's government when words have no meaning" - the Shooter clearly talking about Obama.


__________________


Obama has pushed the Expectations of the liberals so high, and done such a horrible job performance -


The liberals just might get violent

Almost every demonstration that has gotten violent has been the Liberals - destroying stores and burning cars.

The Liberals in Oakland, CA had a riot last year.

It is the Liberals who get violent.

It is the liberals who do NOT want you to have guns to defend yourself.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 23, 2011 3:20 PM | Report abuse

I sometimes forget why the Democrats are the party of "new ideas," until I remember that they want higher and steeper taxes and wealth confiscation.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 23, 2011 3:21 PM | Report abuse

Jenn writes:

particularly for a country that has for the past 30 years defined the highest good of government as allowing completely unhindered accumulation of wealth,


____________________

Well, let me explain. The highest good of government is PROTECTING FREEDOM.


ONE of those freedoms is wealth.


Seriously, you need to go see a team of mental health specialists and take the medicine they give you on a regular basis.

Same with you rukidding.


America is America. If you don't like it, get out.


Immigrants the world over have decided to come here - BECAUSE OF WHAT AMERICA IS.

If you don't like it, go BACK to where your ancestors came from.


Sorry, go BACK - we want nothing to do with you.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 23, 2011 3:24 PM | Report abuse

Seriously folks

If Obama does not like this country, he can go back to where his father is from.


I'm sure no one in Kenya will dispute his citizenship there.

HA !


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 23, 2011 3:26 PM | Report abuse

until I remember that they want higher and steeper taxes and wealth confiscation.
----------------------------------------------------------
Most of us, liberals, moderates and conservatives want jobs. We want jobs creation. Taxation, confiscation, regulation, benefits, pensions, work rules are all just tactics that people hope would get to the real benefit, which is jobs.

I haven't talked to anyone in the last five years who doesn't recognize the big trouble we are in in the U.S. And it doesn't matter which part of the spectrum you sit politically. We have been eroding our jobs and industries for decades and now we are reaping the wind. We are all worried that 8 or 9% unemployment is the "new normal". We can wrangle about how to get there, but we all agree on what the problem is.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 23, 2011 3:32 PM | Report abuse

"that they want higher and steeper taxes and wealth confiscation."

Ohhhh cry me a river!!! Really wealth confiscation?. Asking for people to pay what was HISTORICALLY viewed as their fair show is now CONFISCATION? Nothing like adding to a discussion with hyperbole!!!!!!!!!!!!!

A hypothetical example....a small nation consisting of five people has an annual income of 1,100,000. Four of the people earn 25,000 a year and one earns 1,000,000.
To operate the country, expenses mean that $500,000 must be CONFISCATED from the citizens. Obviously the four would outvote the one if it's a democracy and the top earner would pay a rate of 50% while the low earners paid 0%. Ohhhhh the humanity...the guy earning 1,000,000 would only have 500,000 left to show for his efforts...or put another way....FIVE TIMES MORE THAN HIS FELLOW CITIZENS. Do you all understand any of this at all? Confiscate!!! Now asking citizens to pay for their nation's well being is CONFISCATING their money. Geeeshh!!!

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 23, 2011 3:42 PM | Report abuse

@ruk,

Following your example above, if the rich guy could get everyone to believe that taxing him would do no good because he'd just collect it from everyone else, the four earning $25,000 a year would pay 35% taxes for a total of $35,000 and the country would borrow $465,000 from China.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 23, 2011 3:51 PM | Report abuse

@12Bar As you say bwaahaahaa. That was rich and pithy. Alas you are too close to the truth for comfort. :-) Pretty much all you have do do is add a bunch of zeros to my example increase the population to just over 300 million and your description fits modern American perfectly.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 23, 2011 3:53 PM | Report abuse

You people are complete idiots. The Clinton temporary SURCHARGE was just that - temporary.


THE RATE IS 36 % - you all can just shut up.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 23, 2011 3:53 PM | Report abuse

@ruk,

Hey, my income is made up of dividends and interest income. Let me convince you that I shouldn't pay taxes because I might do some kind of scary thing, like move to China or pass along my taxes to my housekeeper or stop buying food from Trader Joe's.

Then, the rest of youse guys can pay. What youse guys can't pay, you can float bonds and borrow. Hey, here's an idea: I'll lend you money at a reasonable interest rate. Win-win, right?

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 23, 2011 4:01 PM | Report abuse

"the greatest social disease in blog history...37th..STRF..RFR"


_______________


Wow rudding7 that is the most magnificent compliment you could have given me.


Thank you very much.


I just don't have words for this honor. Thank you. Sorry I have not prepared remarks for this moment.


All I can say is thank you


I thank the Academy. And everyone who has contributed to my success. Thank you. I just can not believe it........


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 23, 2011 4:03 PM | Report abuse

12 Bar blues

Just brought up an interesting issue


There are two kinds of liberals - one that is benefiting from the spending of the Federal


The OTHER KIND OF LIBERALS is the kind that is COLLECTING INTEREST FROM THE SPENDING OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT - COLLECTING INTEREST FROM THE DEBT

These liberals are the worse, most self-serving, EVIL, HORRIBLE, UGLY, DISGUSTING, WORTHLESS, LEACH-LIKE LIBERALS.


Liberals, these kinds of liberal are your REAL ENEMIES.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 23, 2011 4:09 PM | Report abuse

For the record, I do not think that criticizing Maddow is the equivalent of criticizing JennOfArk. Nor do I think that Thomas or Emanuel is the equivalent of Obama, but that's where we are headed.

I just sat down for the football games, so if anyone wants to discuss what's going on in Arizona (Giffords is in Texas though), or anything else, let me know.

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 23, 2011 4:12 PM | Report abuse


"the greatest social disease in blog history...37th..STRF..RFR"


_______________


ARE there endorsement deals available?


Wow rudding7 that is the most magnificent compliment you could have given me.


Thank you very much.


I just don't have words for this honor. Thank you. Sorry I have not prepared remarks for this moment.


All I can say is thank you


I thank the Academy. And everyone who has contributed to my success. Thank you. I just can not believe it........


"the greatest social disease in blog history...37th..STRF..RFR"


_______________


Wow rudding7 that is the most magnificent compliment you could have given me.


Thank you very much.


I just don't have words for this honor. Thank you. Sorry I have not prepared remarks for this moment.


All I can say is thank you


I thank the Academy. And everyone who has contributed to my success. Thank you. I just can not believe it........

.

Are there endorsement deal available???


.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 23, 2011 4:14 PM | Report abuse

clawrence


rukidding just gave me the greatest compliment


It is really a great day for me.


Packers-Jets SuperBowl would really do it for me.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 23, 2011 4:16 PM | Report abuse

At the point where Dick Lugar is a "moderate," John Thune is a "conservative" and Barack Obama is a "socialist," labels have lost all intrinsic meaning. So I guess you can pretty much call anyone anything you want. Centrist = whatever. There are no rules.

Posted by: CalD | January 23, 2011 4:19 PM | Report abuse

"the greatest social disease in blog history...37th..STRF..RFR"


_______________


ARE there endorsement deals available?


Wow rudding7 that is the most magnificent compliment you could have given me.


Thank you very much.


I just don't have words for this honor. Thank you. Sorry I have not prepared remarks for this moment.


All I can say is thank you


I thank the Academy. And everyone who has contributed to my success. Thank you. I just can not believe it........

"the greatest social disease in blog history...37th..STRF..RFR"


_______________


Wow rudding7 that is the most magnificent compliment you could have given me.


Thank you very much.


I just don't have words for this honor. Thank you. Sorry I have not prepared remarks for this moment.


All I can say is thank you


I thank the Academy. And everyone who has contributed to my success. Thank you. I just can not believe it........


.

Are there endorsement deals available???

.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 23, 2011 4:21 PM | Report abuse


"the greatest social disease in blog history...37th..STRF..RFR"


_______________


ARE there endorsement deals available?


Wow rudding7 that is the most magnificent compliment you could have given me.


Thank you very much.


I just don't have words for this honor. Thank you. Sorry I have not prepared remarks for this moment.


All I can say is thank you


I thank the Academy. And everyone who has contributed to my success. Thank you. I just can not believe it........


"the greatest social disease in blog history...37th..STRF..RFR"


_______________


Wow rudding7 that is the most magnificent compliment you could have given me.


Thank you very much.


I just don't have words for this honor. Thank you. Sorry I have not prepared remarks for this moment.


All I can say is thank you


I thank the Academy. And everyone who has contributed to my success. Thank you. I just can not believe it........


.

Are there endorsement deals available???


.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 23, 2011 4:33 PM | Report abuse

Congrats, RainForestRising. It's just an honor to be nominated.

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 23, 2011 4:33 PM | Report abuse

@CalD

"labels have lost all intrinsic meaning."

Exactly. Reagan would be a liberal with today's TP logic in place. Remember last month when the R's were all set to block ratification of the START treaty. This treaty was simply to REDUCE nuclear warheads.
Again Reagan went to Reykjavik to meet with Gorbachev and he attempted not to simply reduce nukes...but to ELIMINATE THEM. OMG that freaking pinko wussie Ronnie. No nukes. Say it ain't so Ronnie.

Of course Bob Dole and his fellow R's in the early 90's were complete socialists in favor of a Government takeover of health care since their R solution was basically what ended up being the ACA...

Other R's have actually embraced some minimal gun control...no assault weapons..police killing bullets etc but to do so now would place them to the left of even the Dems...so no discussion about the large clips..except by Cheney who thinks it's probably a good idea to place a ban on them...Cheney a weak kneed liberal? Didn't he confirm his conservative cred by shooting a buddy in the face?

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 23, 2011 4:35 PM | Report abuse

Wow rukidding7


I am truly touched by the honor you have given me

I just do not know what to say.

All I can say is I will continue to Exercise my First Amendment Rights - I owe everything to the writers of the First Amendment.


Thank you to the Academy.

I would just like to thank the Academy for this honor......


I am soooo touched........

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 23, 2011 4:37 PM | Report abuse

rukidding


Did you ever consider that Republicans think we should keep the nuclear missiles, just in case we have to use them against the socialists and the muslims


OR just in case the socialists and the muslims are the same people.....


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 23, 2011 4:47 PM | Report abuse


Wow rukidding7


I am truly touched by the honor you have given me

I just do not know what to say.

All I can say is I will continue to Exercise my First Amendment Rights - I owe everything to the writers of the First Amendment.


Thank you to the Academy.

I would just like to thank the Academy for this honor......


I am soooo touched........


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 23, 2011 4:48 PM | Report abuse

rukidding


I am truly filled with tears with the honor you have given me today.....


I want to thank the Academy....

I just want to say that I have no words to describe

THAT URLACHER JUST INTERCEPTION RODGERS !!!!

HOLY.....


.....


....

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 23, 2011 4:54 PM | Report abuse

Collins just intercepted .....


NO Lovie is going to challenge.....


the greatest game in the history of anything.....


Posted by: RainForestRising | January 23, 2011 4:57 PM | Report abuse

I assume we'll see something in Monday's Morning Plum about the latest article in the Post about filibuster reform:

"Amid a long-running dispute over decades-old filibuster rules, Senate leaders have used a parliamentary trick to leave the chamber in a state of suspended animation - in reality adjourned since Jan. 5 but officially considered in a long recess that's part of the same individual legislative day.

This nearly three-week break has taken place in large part so leadership could hold private negotiations to consider how to deal with a group of Democrats agitating to shake up the foundation of the world's most deliberative body, right down to challenging the filibuster.

To the dismay of a younger crop of Democrats and some outside liberal activists, there is no chance that rules surrounding the filibuster will be challenged, senior aides on both sides of the aisle say, because party leaders want to protect the right of the Senate's minority party to sometimes force a supermajority of 60 votes to approve legislation.

Instead, rank-and-file lawmakers will receive pitches from Sens. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), who have been negotiating more limited changes, such as with "secret holds" that allow an anonymous senator to slow legislation. In addition, some modifications could be made to the way confirmations are handled for agency nominees who do not have direct roles in policymaking. "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/22/AR2011012203920.html?hpid=moreheadlines

Posted by: jnc4p | January 23, 2011 5:01 PM | Report abuse

jnc4p in response to your comment at 5:01 PM


You know perfectly well that first Greg has to take his shots at Sarah Palin

Then Greg has to complain about the polls concerning health care.


then Greg has to twist something around and claim on the basis of some nuance that the liberals are right about something, even though no one in the country cares about that little tiny itty bitty nuance that Greg thought of when he was coming down from whatever drug he bought in his midnight run to Bridgeport.....


So, after Greg writes about that, Greg will complain that the Republicans have secret money, even though Obama has more secret money and Obama has more money overall.....


So after Greg repeats himself for the fifth time, ONLY THEN will Greg start to think about a new topic.

MEANWHILE, Cillizza is laughing his a$$ off because Chris turned Greg's blog into a shantytown of bloggers


Cillizza is laughing at Greg because Greg has to wonder about what to do with Cao


And Cillizza is laughing his a$$ off at Greg because 12 bar brought the creepy Cao here.


And Cillizza is laughing his a$$ off because he is cashing his NBC check while Greg has to deal with the crap of all the insane liberals......


LOL


LOL


LOL


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 23, 2011 5:11 PM | Report abuse

So I guess you can pretty much call anyone anything you want . . . There are no rules.

Posted by: CalD | January 23, 2011 4:19 PM
==========================================

That's always been my motto, but some people have a hard time seeing it our way.

Posted by: Brigade | January 23, 2011 5:11 PM | Report abuse

@rukidding7"Saw David Stockman, Reagan's former OMB director, on Bill Maher. OMG what a breath of fresh air to see somebody on the right who remains rational about our defense policy.

He accurately pointed out that after Reagan won the Cold War with the collapse of the "Evil Empire" we should have drawn down just as we did in 1919 and 1946. Remember when Reagan went to Reykjavik Iceland, met with Gorbachev and didn't propose cutting the number of nuclear warheads...Reagan proposed getting rid of ALL nuclear warheads. The new war is not military. China has dropped a huge bomb on us alright and it's contained in the 3,000 Wal Marts around our nation. "

I'm a big David Stockman fan and I really liked his appearance on Real Time, but I believe he was oversimplifying some of the tradeoffs here. First, during the G.H.W. Bush & Clinton Administrations there was a modest draw down of U.S. Defense spending (aka the "peace dividend") that was a contributor to the improved situation with the Federal budget that eventually left it in a surplus when Clinton left office (along with a variety of other factors including the G.H.W. Bush Tax/Budget deal in the late 1980's, 1993 tax increases, spending restraint once there was a divided government in the 1990's, and interest rate reductions).

"Funding for national defense declined by about 16.9 percent between the last Reagan Administration defense budget (FY 1989) and the last Bush Administration budget (FY 1993). These were the deepest cuts of the post-Cold War period. To be sure, the depth of these reductions owed much to the actions of the then Democratic-controlled Congress. However, the Democratic Congress was hardly acting alone: all but the very first of the Bush budget submissions called for cutting defense spending.

By comparison, under the Clinton Administration, funding for defense declined by about 13.1 percent between FY 1993 and FY 1998, when funding for defense bottomed out,"

http://www.csbaonline.org/4Publications/PubLibrary/H.20000831.Post-Cold_War_Defe/H.20000831.Post-Cold_War_Defe.php

More fundamentally, what Stockman is advocating would require us to withdraw from Europe, Korea, Japan, and have a significantly reduced presence in the Persian gulf. There are non-trivial consequences to that, just as there were in 1919 and 1946 when we drew down and then got involved in later wars. In many ways, we were a free rider on the British defense spending prior to World War II and the rest of the world has been a free rider on our defense spending since then.

Also, you may wish to read this article from Stockman in the WSJ:

"Four Deformations of the Apocalypse"

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/opinion/01stockman.html?pagewanted=1

Posted by: jnc4p | January 23, 2011 5:16 PM | Report abuse

Brigade

I prefer not to call anyone anything


I prefer to sink them by logic.


However, that is not to say that I haven't called anyone anything. I called Greg a hermaphrodite once.....


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 23, 2011 5:16 PM | Report abuse

Greg probably didn't see that comment


Greg is probably driving at 100 mph down to Bridgeport to buy more drugs.


It really is the only way to explain why Greg writes all the insane things he does on this blog......

;

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 23, 2011 5:21 PM | Report abuse

"Ohhhh cry me a river!!! Really wealth confiscation?. Asking for people to pay what was HISTORICALLY viewed as their fair show is now CONFISCATION? Nothing like adding to a discussion with hyperbole!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

I wonder at what point an exclamation point string becomes hyperbolic.

My observation was simply that it is a conceit that Democrats have "new ideas." Your own histrionic retort of course directly confirms this, by once again raising the war cry for what you deem tax rates that were "historically" considered fair, i.e., around twenty years ending with JFK's tax cuts (nice selective history). So much for the party of new ideas and all that. But this we knew.

As for your outrage at the use of "confiscation," we all know how big you are on web definitions for settling issues. So here is the freedictionary definition for "confiscate":

"con·fis·cate (knf-skt)
tr.v. con·fis·cat·ed, con·fis·cat·ing, con·fis·cates
1. To seize (private property) for the public treasury.
2. To seize by or as if by authority. See Synonyms at appropriate.
adj. (knf-skt, kn-fskt)
1. Seized by a government; appropriated.
2. Having lost property through confiscation.

You and your pal JennOfArf are again agitating for higher and steeper income taxes, at rates left us by the New Deal -- that would be a top rate over 90%. Or maybe JFK's mere 70% percent would satisfy you, and of course you want to tax savings and investment income the same way. On top, you want to eliminate the FICA cap and essentially turn FICA into another income tax layer, and keep a stiff estate tax. Am I missing anything? So, as your example shows, in your ideal country the nonrich vote for the rich to pay all the taxes.

That is what "confiscate" means -- to seize for the public treasury. Or as JennOfArf put it:

"But then you have to get into asking: is it best to have a handful of guys who no one elected determining where all this excess wealth is directed?"

You clearly think taking more money -- a lot more money -- from "the rich" in taxes for the public treasure is an important economic measure. You very much want their accumulated wealth taken. You ought to have the honesty to use the right word for this, which is "confiscation." Be a man about it. Or instead continue to hyperventilate over the use of correct language and get the vapors over why we can't go back to 1946.

I think you should start a new Saturday educational cartoon short feature. You could call it "Histrionic History with Rukidding." You could use catchy tunes and animated stories to show how terrible the country has been before 1933 and after 1960.


Posted by: quarterback1 | January 23, 2011 5:24 PM | Report abuse

Greg writes:

Steve Benen, Matthew Yglesias, and Kevin Drum all have posts up blasting Republicans for their unwillingness to step forward and condemn bigoted criticism of plans to build an Islamic center near Ground Zero.

Drum asks whether there are any Republicans who are "willing to just quietly and frankly defend traditional American notions of religious freedom and traditional American notions of tolerance and decency."

It's a good question, and by all means, pressure Republicans. But what about the Democrats who are refusing to condemn the opposition and call it out for what it is? What about Dems who won't stand up for the aforementioned traditional American notions of religious freedom and tolerance and decency?

_____________________________

Greg has anyone, in your life, ever gone up to your face and told you that you were a piece of shtt ????


Because I will.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 23, 2011 5:30 PM | Report abuse

So after Greg repeats himself for the fifth time, ONLY THEN will Greg start to think about a new topic.


MEANWHILE, Cillizza is laughing his a$$ off because Chris turned Greg's blog into a shantytown of bloggers


Cillizza is laughing at Greg because Greg has to wonder about what to do with Cao


And Cillizza is laughing his a$$ off at Greg because 12 bar brought the creepy Cao here.


And Cillizza is laughing his a$$ off because he is cashing his NBC check while Greg has to deal with the crap of all the insane liberals......

LOL


LOL


LOL

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 23, 2011 5:34 PM | Report abuse

Maybe I should change liberal's crap to liberal's garbage


what do you think?


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 23, 2011 5:40 PM | Report abuse

Greg

did you get back from your drug-run to Bridgeport?


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 23, 2011 5:43 PM | Report abuse

QB:

Just for the record, I obviously support hyperbole.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 23, 2011 5:45 PM | Report abuse

That is what "confiscate" means -- to seize for the public treasury.
--------------------------------------------
If taxing the rich is called confiscation, so is taxing the less than rich. Let's just call all taxation confiscation.

Now that we have that out of the way, how does that add any enlightenment to our present catastrophe of joblessness, high deficits, and no ideas of how to get out of it?

Arguing about what to call taxation? Confiscation or taxation? Getting lost in semantics land is what I call it. When it takes from me, I call it confiscation--when it takes from someone else, I call it taxes. Or vise versa. Who gives a fig?

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 23, 2011 5:51 PM | Report abuse

JennofArk:

""It really does seem to me to be in conflict with the whole notion of democracy to set up a system whereby a few benefit fabulously from the productivity of all and therefore get to decide where all the excess wealth of the entire society goes.""

There are several problems with this statement (productivity of "all"? "excess" wealth of society?), but perhaps the biggest is your apparent lack of understanding of what "democracy" refers to. Democracy is a method by which political decisions are made, specifically majority rule, not a method by which wealth is distributed. There is no inherent "conflict" between the notion of democracy and free markets, capitalism, or the financial rewards they produce.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 23, 2011 5:52 PM | Report abuse

I think the term "centrist" ignores the fundamental issue Obama is pushing, which is that there should be universal agreement among the right and the left that job creation, prudent investment, energy independence, and smaller deficits are good goals for policy making.

Posted by: benintn | January 23, 2011 5:57 PM | Report abuse

12Bar

If you want Obama's health care plan so badly, please give all your portfolio to paying for other people's health insurance


AND leave your dirty hands off everyone else's money.


Spend your OWN money for what you want, and leave the rest of us out of it.

thank you.

Seriously, spend YOUR money and don't ask anyone else to pay for WHAT YOU WANT.


THANK YOU.


NOW go spend your money, and leave everyone else alone, you stupid lesbian.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 23, 2011 6:01 PM | Report abuse

"You could use catchy tunes and animated stories to show how terrible the country has been before 1933 and after 1960."

At least get the dates right. Our zenith was actually just before 1980 and trickle down economics when the wealthy began to trickle on the heads of the middle class.

Statistical FACT. The middle class is shrinking and the shift of wealth in our nation has reached historic proportion.
It's clear Q.B. you favor the wealthy over the middle class. OK that's certainly a position to be taken. But I simply return your challenge....

"Be a man about it. Or instead continue to hyperventilate over the use of correct language and get the vapors over why we can't go back to 1946."

First of all Q.B. how about a little respect here...if you're going to characterize my positions could you at least do it accurately. I've never suggested going back to 1946...perhaps 1966..better still 1976...all I am saying is that unlike you I think the wealthy have done exceptionally well under Bush's absurd tax policies...which produced how many jobs?..ooohhh ZERO you say. I think the shrinking middle class which is a statistical FACT and not debated by an serious person left or right..is horrible for our country for at least two reasons.
Morally it's reprehensible to return to the oligarchy and robber barons we had before the days of T.R. but more importantly there is plenty of research that shows societies with weak middle classes are not as efficient economically...by any metric..inflation..GDP growth..etc.

But go ahead Q.B. join Brigade and root for the team with an 0-10 record on the economy. As I said it makes perfect sense to RFR.

BTW from Dictionary.Com don't know the source of your definition...

con·fis·cate
   /ˈkɒnfəˌskeɪt, kənˈfɪskeɪt/ Show Spelled [kon-fuh-skeyt, kuhn-fis-keyt] Show IPA verb, -cat·ed, -cat·ing, adjective
–verb (used with object)
1.
to seize as forfeited to the public domain; appropriate, by way of penalty, for public use.
2.
to seize by or as if by authority; appropriate summarily: The border guards confiscated our movie cameras.

There is no penalty to asking Americans to be patriotic enough to support our nation.

BTW Am I "forfeiting" my money when I send in my mortgage payment...my power bill...is Duke power "confiscating" my money for power...I have no choice about where to purchase my power...I can either pay or freeze to death...if I am expected to PAY for these services...is it not logical to expect me to pay for cops, highways, military, etc...or is payment for those services somehow construed as confiscation? I have the same choice about paying my taxes as my power bill...NO CHOICE other than moving to a different locale. I can't wait to tell Duke Power to stop "confiscating" my money!

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 23, 2011 6:01 PM | Report abuse

12Bar:

""Who gives a fig?""

Apparently ruk does, as it was he who seemed to object to the use of the term.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 23, 2011 6:01 PM | Report abuse

12Bar

Let me EXPLAIN to you what you have been advocating on this blog


YOU want to tax the Republicans to PAY for the benefits YOU want to give to other people.


AND then when the government runs a DEFICIT, you want to LEND the government money -


AND YOU WANT TO COLLECT INTEREST OFF THE DEFICITS THAT YOUR OWN POLITICAL VIEWS CREATE.

BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED.

BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


BUSTED


Posted by: RainForestRising | January 23, 2011 6:15 PM | Report abuse

It looks like 12Bar was just BUSTED!

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 23, 2011 6:27 PM | Report abuse

If we can talk about the nearly half of Americans who pay no tax, why can't we talk about the small percentage of Americans who pay a lower percentage of tax than I do. I don't get it why one conversation is verboten under some principle of confiscation, but the other conversation makes sense in that **everyone** should be paying taxes. There is nothing verboten about discussing the payment of taxes, and who should pay, and how much people should pay, or the various forms of taxation. There is nothing communist or socialist about talking about taxation.

At least rich Americans have the money to pay more taxes, which makes it a more practical conversation. Talking about minimum wage people paying taxes is only academically interesting. The IRS will have to enlist the mob to collect from the poor.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 23, 2011 6:28 PM | Report abuse

Poor RFR--what a no-life headcase.

Posted by: fiona5 | January 23, 2011 6:28 PM | Report abuse

It looks like 12Bar was just BUSTED!
----------------------------------------------------------
Oh, oh...ankle bleeding.

Bwhahahaha!!!

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 23, 2011 6:30 PM | Report abuse

And qb1 wonders why almost everyone feels the need to act condescending towards him...

Let's see if he can find a country where the government DOESN'T "confiscate" money. Somalia, perhaps? The shining beacon of a country.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 23, 2011 6:31 PM | Report abuse

@Greg


Please get in your techies faces tomorrow and show them that "busted" post. Really I try but when you have a psychopath posting here it's time not for the troll blocker...but for the psychopath blocker.

C'mon Greg give us the P.B. give us some help against the sickest person I have seen on any blog.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 23, 2011 6:33 PM | Report abuse

"If we can talk about the nearly half of Americans who pay no tax"

This is just one of the ugly lies spread by the right wing.

Go look at your tax forms. Where is the 0% tax bracket?

If you get an income, you pay taxes.

I guess we need to act condescending towards these people and pretend they make valid points?

Posted by: DDAWD | January 23, 2011 6:38 PM | Report abuse

I had to look at what crazy thing Rainy is doing now. No big deal, unless the WaPo resents the cost of server space to store God knows how many lines of one word BUSTED. All I can say is that Rainy has to ratchet up his schtick to get attention. Poor Rainy.

If you all would install Troll Hunter you'd be spared all of this. When Greg rolls out his own Troll Hunter, that will help those who can't use TrollHunter. All hail to the Great Kevin Willis, who is mysteriously missing from our midst.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 23, 2011 6:41 PM | Report abuse

To my techie friends on this blog who know far more about computers and blogs than me...which is virtually all of you :-)

Is it that hard for the WaPo to change from posts that limit characters to a format that would limit lines?

Seriously as has been described by every poster here with the exception of Clawrence/Jake...posters from the right and the left agree on ONE THING...we have a genuinely disturbed antisocial person loose on this blog. Since EVERYBODY (again excepting Jake/Clawrence) AGREES this person is sick...and literally antisocial...we can only help he seeks help but in the meantime....


Greg....either a psycho blocker or at minimum change format from character to line limits. That busted post is the most incredibly selfish ignorant act I have seen in close to a year on this blog. It really is beyond the pale and perhaps you can write the person responsible with some information about how to get some help.

I'm not being snarky here either...this person is obviously sick and needs help. I say this not as a put down but a genuine desire to see a sick person get help...not for our blog...we'll fix it with a blocker...but for his/her own mental health. Something is seriously wrong with any individual who is this anti-social.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 23, 2011 6:46 PM | Report abuse

Let's see if he can find a country where the government DOESN'T "confiscate" money. Somalia, perhaps?
------------------------------------------------------
Oh, I'll bet that Somalia confiscates money. It's just at a transaction level between two people. No tax return required.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 23, 2011 6:46 PM | Report abuse

MORE OBAMA TAX INCREASES


If Obama wants to really help the Economy


MR. GORBACHACHEV:


SIGN THIS REPEAL

SIGN THIS REPEAL

SIGN THIS REPEAL

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 23, 2011 6:47 PM | Report abuse

12Bar:

""If we can talk about the nearly half of Americans who pay no tax, why can't we talk about the small percentage of Americans who pay a lower percentage of tax than I do.""

If you pay any net income taxes at all, the percentage of Americans who pay a lower percentage than you is probably quite large.

""I don't get it why one conversation is verboten under some principle of confiscation...""

Who said it was?

""There is nothing communist or socialist about talking about taxation. ""

Not necessarily, no. But if, in the talking, the notion that income belongs first to the government and not the one who earned it is advanced or presumed (as it so often is here at PL), then certainly those concepts come in to play.

""At least rich Americans have the money to pay more taxes, which makes it a more practical conversation.""

It is just as "practical" to simply eliminate many spending programs, but I'm guessing if that approach was raised, the "academic" discussion of right and wrong will suddenly take on a lot more importance to you.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 23, 2011 6:53 PM | Report abuse

Rukidding


Seriously man you have to face reality


Your shtt is confused it doesn't know which way to go.


After I ripped you a few new a$$ho1es this week, your shtt is completely confused.


What is wrong with you???

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 23, 2011 6:53 PM | Report abuse

rukidding


Your shtt has got to be confused


After I ripped you a few new A$$ho!es this week, your shtt has to be confused about which way to go......


Please, can you just stop it?


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 23, 2011 6:56 PM | Report abuse

12Bar

I genuinely oppose your political views.

Your views, as you have described - are as follows: you support liberals who run up massive deficits.

Then you lend your personal funds to the Federal government and collect INTEREST off the ridiculous spending.


Is that about right?


Meanwhile, the Tea Party and the Republicans are saying, "don't spend the money in the first place."


I find it personally insulting that you would try to MAKE MONEY in this way.


Your views are self-serving. You don't care about the poor. All you are seeking to do is MAKE MONEY OFF THE TAXES OF THE MIDDLE CLASS.

The American People find lesbians like you REPULSIVE.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 23, 2011 7:01 PM | Report abuse

ruk:

""Since EVERYBODY (again excepting Jake/Clawrence) AGREES this person is sick.""

Don't include me in that "everybody". I don't know the first thing about his mental health and have no interest in speculating on it.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 23, 2011 7:04 PM | Report abuse

Well, Scott, that's a pound of words, but not a scintilla of sense. Since when does taxation have right and wrong? It just is. It's a negotiation, like pricing and a million other things that are negotiated in our culture. There are no stone tablets of the Ten Commandments of Taxes. Taxes have been higher and lower, and angels didn't dance and the devil didn't prance.

Right now, the wealthy have got us all buffaloed that they'll do some really scary thing if they have to pay more taxes. Corporations are no better--their implied threat is to take even more jobs offshore unless taxes are lowered and regulations demolished. And we are equally scared to extract more from the middle class in fear they will become the poor. Then the idea of extracting from the poor--that's a whole 'nother story. The truth is we're just plain scared because we don't understand what has happened to our great country which is sliding into mediocrity, low wages, and high unemployment.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 23, 2011 7:05 PM | Report abuse

"Not necessarily, no. But if, in the talking, the notion that income belongs first to the government and not the one who earned it is advanced or presumed (as it so often is here at PL), then certainly those concepts come in to play."

Attribute this notion to someone.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 23, 2011 7:07 PM | Report abuse

@Scott Fine. You're eliminated from any speculation.
Perhaps I am the only poster here who finds RTR's behavior extremely anti social and self evidently SICK.

Everybody is free to post their OWN opinion...about RTR's motives or mental health.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 23, 2011 7:08 PM | Report abuse

RUK

Again you are making statements about things you have NO BASIS talking about.

Clearly, I am calling into question your mental health, because I am personally concerned that you might grab a gun and become a mass murderer.


Seriously man, I think you belong on medication.

Perhaps many liberals belong on medication - until they realize that someone has to PAY for their fantasies of massive government programs paying for everything you can think of.


That about describes the thought process of liberals: "wouldn't it be wonderful of the government paid for all these things, AND I am a superior person to everyone else because I want to GIVE these things to other people using other peoples' money."


Use YOUR OWN MONEY to give stuff to other people


THAT IS ABOUT THE TOTALITY OF THE ISSUE HERE.

AND YOU have the nerve to question my mental health. Pay for everything you want with your own money - AND get back to us.


seriously man, you need to be locked up and be put in a straightjack - FAR FROM ANY KEYBOARD.

.
.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 23, 2011 7:10 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD:

""If you get an income, you pay taxes.""

Not necessarily income taxes.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125997180

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 23, 2011 7:13 PM | Report abuse

AND YOU have the nerve to question my mental health. Pay for everything you want with your own money - AND get back to us.


seriously man, you need to be locked up and be put in a straightjack - FAR FROM ANY KEYBOARD.


.
.


_____________________


THAT applies to you 12barblues as well


And to you ddawd, get OFF of the affirmative action programs - and give the WHITES who deserves your positions and your paychecks WHAT THEY DESERVE


GO EARN EVERYTHING YOURSELF, YOU PATHETIC LEACH.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 23, 2011 7:15 PM | Report abuse

"Not necessarily income taxes.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125997180

152 | January 23, 2011 7:13 PM"

So you're livid because the government allows you to file all your earnings and deductions on one form?

See, I don't understand what the hell you get out of lying. You're not running for office, I'm assuming you're not being paid to post on here. What is it? You're really just intent on belonging to the Conservative Club, aren't you?

Posted by: DDAWD | January 23, 2011 7:18 PM | Report abuse


Correction

Spelling correction ALERT


AND YOU have the nerve to question my mental health. Pay for everything you want with your own money - AND get back to us.

seriously man, you need to be locked up and be put in a straightjack - FAR FROM ANY KEYBOARD.

.
.


_____________________


THAT applies to you 12barblues as well


And to you ddawd, get OFF of the affirmative action programs - and give the WHITES who deserves your positions and your paychecks WHAT THEY DESERVE


GO EARN EVERYTHING YOURSELF, YOU PATHETIC LEECH.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 23, 2011 7:18 PM | Report abuse


MORE OBAMA TAX INCREASES


If Obama wants to really help the Economy


MR. GORBACHACHEV:


SIGN THIS REPEAL

SIGN THIS REPEAL

SIGN THIS REPEAL

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 23, 2011 7:21 PM | Report abuse

@ruk,

I find Rainforest strange. I have given up on any idea he's going to get help or even go off this blog. Chris Cillizza was cursed with him for a while, now it's Greg's turn. Use Troll Hunter, my friend. You don't see him, you don't hear him. It's like he's been put into a sound proof black box. If people didn't very occasionally refer to him, I wouldn't even know he exists.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 23, 2011 7:23 PM | Report abuse

Oh 12Bar

You wish you were reading my comments today

Ha ha ha


You know rukidding, you have got to be kidding.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 23, 2011 7:26 PM | Report abuse

@Scott

You obviously missed my earlier example with the mythical nation of five.

The reason the bottom 50% are not paying taxes is because they can't afford it. If all the money is shifted to the wealthy of course they will pay more of the taxes.

"Despite our economy being mired in the deepest recession since the 1930s, people in the top 1% continue to own as much wealth as those in the bottom 90%, and education is essential to reversing this trend and constructing a strategy for recovery."

http://www.faireconomy.org/issues/growing_divide?gclid=CLTTloG_zJ8CFRq1sgodeVIH_Q

And why split hairs Scott...is a tax not a tax not a tax...how about FICA? is that a tax? Ohhh no that's right it's a confiscation. Here in Florida R's avoided raising taxes by taking all that filthy lucre from Obama's stimulus and of course they added...wait for it...not a tax..not a confiscation of money...it's called a fee...as in let's lower corporate taxes and make up the difference by increasing the fees on everything from telecom taxes paid by consumers..to higher taxes...excuse me..confiscations...oops the R's here call it "fees" on things like fishing licenses, drivers' licenses etc.

And so Scott I learned long ago not to speak for you. And so I'll simply ask.

Do you deny all these statistics from many sources including independent Gov't data that the wealth has shifted pretty dramatically in the past 30 years?

Do you think a vibrant middle class is essential for our nation's health? On moral reasons? Practical economic reasons?

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 23, 2011 7:34 PM | Report abuse

"Our zenith was actually just before 1980 . . . ."

You might be the only person in the country who thinks that, unless you are referring to your Zenith color console TV.

"Statistical FACT. The middle class is shrinking .. . ."

That's not even a meaningful quantitative statement, let alone a "FACT." It's more of a talking point.

"It's clear Q.B. you favor the wealthy over the middle class."

No, I favor freedom, political and legal equality, prosperity, responsibility, family, and community over bondage, inequality, poverty, dependency, and the welfare state. I don't view the proper role of government and politics as class struggle.

"There is no penalty to asking Americans to be patriotic enough to support our nation."

That's a euphemism and cop out. No "penalty"? What does that even mean? Asking? Let me know when the IRS starts asking. Or when the Dems' next tax increase bill is voluntary.

Patriotic enough? So now people who don't want to pay your high tax rates on them aren't patriotic enough? You can obfuscate and manipulate statistics all you want, but high income earners pay far out of proportion to their incomes. That's a fact. In fact, they pay virtually all the income taxes.

No,your mortgage lender and power company do not confiscate your money. Have you really gone so far around the bend that you can't tell the difference any more? You voluntarily purchase their services. (Yes, it's voluntary and optional, and there are plenty of people who don't. And btw utility rates are regulated pretty much everywhere.)

I've read enough about you here to know that you are wealthy compared to most people. You tend to think that people who have a lot more than you don't deserve it, and that it's unjust for them to have it. But you have a lot more than most people yourself. I suspect you'd find it something like confiscation if they all decided they should have half of your wealth for themselves, and that you wouldn't see it as your patriotic duty to hand it over.

Of course, I could be wrong about that, but the fact that you still have a lot more wealth than most people suggests that I'm right. I know, the difference is that you are "middle class" and not "rich," so you deserve what you have and probably more. But I think that's just self-serving ecomonic "morality."

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 23, 2011 7:36 PM | Report abuse

12Bar:

""Since when does taxation have right and wrong?""

Since it involves interaction between 2 or more human beings, which is precisely when the issue of morality becomes relevant.

""It just is.""

No, it isn't. That's just silly. Taxation is not a naturally occurring phenomenon outside of human behavior.

""It's a negotiation, like pricing and a million other things that are negotiated in our culture.""

Not for most of us. I have never in my life gotten a chance to negotiate over what I will pay in taxes. I am told by the government what it is, and I am ordered by law to pay it. No negotiation involved at all. (Sure, a bunch of politicians will haggle with each other over how much they will force me to pay, but that is not a negotiation on my behalf in any meaningful sense at all.

Oh, and BTW, the very fact that it is law means that it is in fact unlike pricing and a million other things that get negotiated in our culture.

""There are no stone tablets of the Ten Commandments of Taxes. Taxes have been higher and lower, and angels didn't dance and the devil didn't prance.""

All true...and equally irrelevant to your odd notion.

The issue of taxation is not, and has never been (at least in this country), strictly a matter of maximizing government revenues and/or economic output. It has always included considerations of how much "ought" to be taken...ie considerations of morality and the impact of taxation on the freedom of individuals.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 23, 2011 7:42 PM | Report abuse

12BarBluesAgain


You really should read what rainforestrising has been saying about you.


.

Posted by: SunlightandLowTaxes | January 23, 2011 7:46 PM | Report abuse

ok, Scott, so you lied about "Not necessarily, no. But if, in the talking, the notion that income belongs first to the government and not the one who earned it is advanced or presumed (as it so often is here at PL), then certainly those concepts come in to play." being advanced on here.

Understandable. You have to say your Conservative Things, but can't really support them, so you lie about people making outrageous statements.

Congrats, I'm sure Sarah Palin is winking at you as we speak.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 23, 2011 7:51 PM | Report abuse

"Our zenith was actually just before 1980 . . . ."

_______________


What a joke. One might say a high point was the Fall of the Berlin Wall


But let me say this, American has NEVER been stronger than on 9/12/01


And the liberals HATED that day because George Bush was our leader that day


AND our BEST DAYS ARE STILL AHEAD OF US.

.

Posted by: SunlightandLowTaxes | January 23, 2011 7:51 PM | Report abuse

Good night all....I'm off to enjoy the butt kicking the Steelers are putting on the j-e-t-s.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 23, 2011 7:58 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD:

""Attribute this notion to someone.""

Liam, wbgonne, probably you (I don’t recall a specific instance with you, but I think it is likely). Basically anyone who has ever argued that a tax cut needs to be “paid for”, or that the rich or corporations are being “subsidized” (or some such) with a tax cut. The underlying presumption to any such claims is that income belongs first and foremost to the state.

""So you're livid because…""

No, I’m not livid at all.

""See, I don't understand what the hell you get out of lying.""

I’m not lying. In the link I provided to you, NPR has reported that in 2009, 47% of all tax filers owed no income tax.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 23, 2011 8:00 PM | Report abuse

THIS is really the root of liberal hostility.

The liberals hated that George Bush guided the nation after 9/11.

Seriously folks. I would like to see on liberal admit that. OK, I have seen several liberals admit that one. But those have been liberals who keep their honesty and integrity.

Most liberals have been devoid of all honesty and integrity for at least a decade now.

Liberalism is dead for a generation.... It's not coming back. The democrats are finished. Another centrist party will emerge and the liberals will be nothing more than a pathetic, bait-and-switch footnote in history.


Posted by: SunlightandLowTaxes | January 23, 2011 8:02 PM | Report abuse

Liberal 1 said:

"ok, Scott, so you lied about "Not necessarily, no. But if, in the talking, the notion that income belongs first to the government and not the one who earned it is advanced or presumed (as it so often is here at PL), then certainly those concepts come in to play." being advanced on here."


Liberal 2 said:

"Not to knock those guys; they have simply been successful in navigating the current system to maximum gain, and to their credit are donating most of their wealth through charitable foundations. But then you have to get into asking: is it best to have a handful of guys who no one elected determining where all this excess wealth is directed? It really does seem to me to be in conflict with the whole notion of democracy to set up a system whereby a few benefit fabulously from the productivity of all and therefore get to decide where all the excess wealth of the entire society goes."

People who don't even understand the roots and implications or their own belief systems are prone to rash accusations that others are lying.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 23, 2011 8:02 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD:

You need to learn to be more patient.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 23, 2011 8:04 PM | Report abuse

Listen, Scott, if you choose to see taxation as fitting into some moral construct of your own making, fine. I spent my life in business and I see running this country as a grand negotiation through our democracy. I can't get too interested in the immorality of the mortgage interest deduction or child care credits or the immorality of people paying income taxes on dividends. When people get enough others to go along with them, those things will change through our democratic process. That's what makes tax law a negotiation--in the big picture.

We've had higher and lower tax rates. We've had deductions for interest on car loans. Now we don't. We've had deductions for oil well limited partnerships, now we don't. There must be a thousand provisions in the Code that have changed over the years. That's the nature of the tax code--it accomodates change. It's not the Ten Commandments--it's a negotiated process.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 23, 2011 8:04 PM | Report abuse

Why be patient? You are lying. (when I said attribute it to someone, the assumption was that it would be an honest attribution)

Posted by: DDAWD | January 23, 2011 8:07 PM | Report abuse

One last thought for you Q.B. before I enjoy the whuppin of the j-e-t-s.

Because you are an R Q.B. you confuse talking points with blather like "death panels" "job killing (fill in the noun)"

"That's not even a meaningful quantitative statement, let alone a "FACT." It's more of a talking point."

Talking points and facts or meaningful quantitative statements are only mutually exclusive for R's. Do you really need me to swarm you under with dozens of links to dozens of organizations showing that the middle class is shrinking FACTUALLY...if you accept that statistical proof is factual or at minimum as you suggest at least quantatively relevant. If you wish to refer to a fact as a talking point I'm not sure what to take from your point...other than soooo..at least it's accurate...unlike most of the blather that comes from the R's.

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2011/jan/21/judging-job-killing/

"We examined the claim by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor that the health care law is "job killing" and rated it False.

And we looked at the same claim by Rep. Mike Pence about the financial regulation bill and rated that Barely True."

No wonder you confuse talking points with falsehoods Q.B.

And now Steelers 24 j-e-t-s 0 as in ZERO
and it's just the first half. Get that weak cr8p out of Pittsburgh j-e-t-s and go home with your tail between your legs like the whipped puppy you are.....yeehaaaaaa

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 23, 2011 8:12 PM | Report abuse

Scott,

The reason taxation is a negotiation is because it changes as a result of the democratic process. There have been a thousand changes in the Code over time. Deductions come and go. Rates go up and go down. Why does that happen? Because a new regime comes in with their ideas and laws are passed and changes made. There is no Ten Commandments of taxation--it's all a negotiation.

If you have some moral construct about taxation, good for you. Let us know when you think something is immoral or moral, that would be interesting. I don't get too wrapped up in that stuff myself. It's just a business problem to me. You need so much money (which is negotiable) and you can get it from this group of people (which is negotiable). Then congress negotiates. Right now, the group of people funding our government includes China lending us money. Obviously, we need to be concerned about that and need to cut government, raise taxes, some combo of the two, or only one, within a few years. We'll decide that through negotiation.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 23, 2011 8:15 PM | Report abuse

Folks

The liberals have no right to raise taxes during an economic crisis.

Seriously people this is what Obama has done.

I realize the liberals were all happy about getting majorities, but disregarding the economic reality that there is a crisis and insisting on raising taxes is just stupid.

And this is exactly what your Harvard Dude Obama has done: Raise Taxes in the middle of an Economic Crisis.

I'm not sure if Hoover did anything as stupid, but if he did, Obama's actions would top that. Buchanan's inaction in the face of succession would probably have to be rated against Obama's raising taxes in an economic crisis as the stupidest act in American History.

.

Posted by: SunlightandLowTaxes | January 23, 2011 8:16 PM | Report abuse

Brigade - look up "lie" in the dictionary.

Posted by: JennOfArk | January 23, 2011 12:21 PM
=========================================

I did. It's those things Rachel Maddow tells. Now look up "misstatement".

Posted by: Brigade | January 23, 2011 12:45 PM | Report abuse

=========================================

I did. It had your picture.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | January 23, 2011 8:17 PM | Report abuse

12Barblues

You are a deceptive fool. You are cheering the liberals on to larger and larger deficits. Meanwhile, all you want to do is lend the Federal government money and collect the interest.

You are not doing anyone in the country any good except for yourself.

A pathetic lesbian - a sad fate. Someone who can't even get along with her own elderly father. You have gotten your father so angry with the stupid things you say, that even in his advanced age he has been so angered that he has been prone to violence.

Such is the liberals - they either get violent at their own rallies.

OR they provoke other people to be violent. Because they are just completely mad. They used to have insane asylums - now I am convinced they kept the liberals there. The liberals got out and convinced everyone to close the asylums. Now all the liberals are running wild. Some of them are actually running the country.


A bad movie or the USA today ?

.

Posted by: SunlightandLowTaxes | January 23, 2011 8:21 PM | Report abuse

Sorry for the double post--in content. The first one went to bit heaven for a little while.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 23, 2011 8:22 PM | Report abuse

@Scott Are you sure you don't want to speculate? :-) You Lesbian you...sorry too busy LMAO.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 23, 2011 8:23 PM | Report abuse

Out for now. Good discussions today.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 23, 2011 8:25 PM | Report abuse

"Listen, Scott, if you choose to see taxation as fitting into some moral construct of your own making, fine. I spent my life in business and I see running this country as a grand negotiation through our democracy. I can't get too interested in the immorality of the mortgage interest deduction or child care credits or the immorality of people paying income taxes on dividends. When people get enough others to go along with them, those things will change through our democratic process. That's what makes tax law a negotiation--in the big picture."

But aren't you presuming that any tax rate is morally neutral? Is there, in your opinion, a tax rate at which morally neutral becomes immoral? And if you believe that there is (I do), than the democratic process requires permanent, non-negotiable boundaries, no?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 23, 2011 8:25 PM | Report abuse

@SLT - Exactly which taxes were raised?

As long as I'm asking questions, why the new handle? Surely with RFR and OD, you're in good shape.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | January 23, 2011 8:30 PM | Report abuse

Fairlington

do you really want a listing of Obama's tax increases?

.

Posted by: SunlightandLowTaxes | January 23, 2011 8:35 PM | Report abuse

That Politifact link is funny. Those guys are usually good for a laugh. You almost don't have to read farther than the headline to know how fatuous the whole thing is.

The problem with your "the middle class is shrinking" assertion isn't that a fact can never be a talking point but that your assertion isn't factual let alone quantitatively meaningful. It's a vague opinion that could mean any number of things, all of which involve interpretation.

I hate both the Steelers and Jets. I'm fine with the beat down in progress, so long as the Steelers suffer a demoralizing loss to the Pack. But I doubt it.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 23, 2011 8:38 PM | Report abuse

Listing of Obama's tax increases, Part 1

The nation wants these tax increases REPEALED, because Obama promised bipartisanship in 2008, AND because Obama did NOT get bipartisan support for these new tax increases, the country view these taxes as ILLEGITIMATE.


The nation wants ALL these taxes REPEALED, AS EXPRESSED IN THE ELECTION NOVEMBER 2010:


Raise "Haircut" for Medical Itemized Deduction from 7.5% to 10% of AGI($15.2 bil/Jan 2013): Currently, those facing high medical expenses are allowed a deduction for medical expenses to the extent that those expenses exceed 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI). The new provision imposes a threshold of 10 percent of AGI; it is waived for 65+ taxpayers in 2013-2016 only.

Tax on Indoor Tanning Services($2.7 billion/July 1, 2010): New 10 percent excise tax on Americans using indoor tanning salons

Elimination of tax deduction for employer-provided retirement Rx drug coverage in coordination with Medicare Part D($4.5 bil/Jan 2013)

Blue Cross/Blue Shield Tax Hike($0.4 bil/Jan 2010): The special tax deduction in current law for Blue Cross/Blue Shield companies would only be allowed if 85 percent or more of premium revenues are spent on clinical services

Excise Tax on Charitable Hospitals(Min$/immediate): $50,000 per hospital if they fail to meet new "community health assessment needs," "financial assistance," and "billing and collection" rules set by HHS

Tax on Innovator Drug Companies($22.2 bil/Jan 2010): $2.3 billion annual tax on the industry imposed relative to share of sales made that year.

Tax on Health Insurers($60.1 bil/Jan 2014): Annual tax on the industry imposed relative to health insurance premiums collected that year. The stipulation phases in gradually until 2018, and is fully-imposed on firms with $50 million in profits.

$500,000 Annual Executive Compensation Limit for Health Insurance Executives($0.6 bil/Jan 2013)

Employer Reporting of Insurance on W-2(Min$/Jan 2011): Preamble to taxing health benefits on individual tax returns.

Corporate 1099-MISC Information Reporting($17.1 bil/Jan 2012): Requires businesses to send 1099-MISC information tax forms to corporations (currently limited to individuals), a huge compliance burden for small employers

“Black liquor” tax hike(Tax hike of $23.6 billion). This is a tax increase on a type of bio-fuel.

Codification of the “economic substance doctrine”(Tax hike of $4.5 billion). This provision allows the IRS to disallow completely-legal tax deductions and other legal tax-minimizing plans just because the IRS deems that the action lacks “substance” and is merely intended to reduce taxes owed.

Posted by: SunlightandLowTaxes | January 23, 2011 8:39 PM | Report abuse

Listing of Obama's tax increases, Part 2
The nation wants these tax increases REPEALED, because Obama promised bipartisanship in 2008, AND because Obama did NOT get bipartisan support for these new tax increases, the country view these taxes as ILLEGITIMATE.


The nation wants ALL these taxes REPEALED, AS EXPRESSED IN THE ELECTION NOVEMBER 2010:

Obama should agree to REPEAL ALL OF THESE TAXES


The United States House of Representatives has already voted YES REPEAL all these taxes:

Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans($32 bil/Jan 2018): Starting in 2018, new 40 percent excise tax on “Cadillac” health insurance plans ($10,200 single/$27,500 family). For early retirees and high-risk professions exists a higher threshold ($11,500 single/$29,450 family). CPI +1 percentage point indexed.

Hike in Medicare Payroll Tax($86.8 bil/Jan 2013): Current law and changes:
First $200,000
($250,000 Married)
Employer/Employee All Remaining Wages
Employer/Employee
Current Law 1.45%/1.45%
2.9% self-employed 1.45%/1.45%
2.9% self-employed
Obamacare Tax Hike 1.45%/1.45%
2.9% self-employed 1.45%/2.35%
3.8% self-employed

Medicine Cabinet Tax($5 bil/Jan 2011): Americans no longer able to use health savings account (HSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin)

HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike($1.4 bil/Jan 2011): Increases additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent.

Flexible Spending Account Cap – aka“Special Needs Kids Tax”($13 bil/Jan 2013): Imposes cap of $2500 (Indexed to inflation after 2013) on FSAs (now unlimited). . There is one group of FSA owners for whom this new cap will be particularly cruel and onerous: parents of special needs children. There are thousands of families with special needs children in the United States, and many of them use FSAs to pay for special needs education. Tuition rates at one leading school that teaches special needs children in Washington, D.C. (National Child Research Center) can easily exceed $14,000 per year. Under tax rules, FSA dollars can be used to pay for this type of special needs education.

Tax on Medical Device Manufacturers($20 bil/Jan 2013): Medical device manufacturers employ 360,000 people in 6000 plants across the country. This law imposes a new 2.3% excise tax. Exemptions include items retailing for less than $100.


Posted by: SunlightandLowTaxes | January 23, 2011 8:42 PM | Report abuse

Listing of Obama's tax increases, Part 3

The nation wants these tax increases REPEALED, because Obama promised bipartisanship in 2008, AND because Obama did NOT get bipartisan support for these new tax increases, the country view these taxes as ILLEGITIMATE.


The nation wants ALL these taxes REPEALED, AS EXPRESSED IN THE ELECTION NOVEMBER 2010:

Obama should agree to REPEAL ALL OF THESE TAXES


Individual Mandate Excise Tax(Jan 2014): Starting in 2014, anyone not buying “qualifying” health insurance must pay an income surtax according to the higher of the following
1 Adult 2 Adults 3+ Adults
2014 1% AGI/$95 1% AGI/$190 1% AGI/$285
2015 2% AGI/$325 2% AGI/$650 2% AGI/$975
2016 + 2.5% AGI/$695 2.5% AGI/$1390 2.5% AGI/$2085
Exemptions for religious objectors, undocumented immigrants, prisoners, those earning less than the poverty line, members of Indian tribes, and hardship cases (determined by HHS)


Employer Mandate Tax(Jan 2014): If an employer does not offer health coverage, and at least one employee qualifies for a health tax credit, the employer must pay an additional non-deductible tax of $2000 for all full-time employees. This provision applies to all employers with 50 or more employees. If any employee actually receives coverage through the exchange, the penalty on the employer for that employee rises to $3000. If the employer requires a waiting period to enroll in coverage of 30-60 days, there is a $400 tax per employee ($600 if the period is 60 days or longer).


Combined score of individual and employer mandate tax penalty: $65 billion/10 years
Surtax on Investment Income ($123 billion/Jan. 2013): This increase involves the creation of a new, 3.8 percent surtax on investment income earned in households making at least $250,000 ($200,000 single).

This would result in the following top tax rates on investment income
Capital Gains Dividends Other*
2010-2012 15% 15% 35%
2013+ (current law) 23.8% 43.4% 43.4%
2013+ (Obama budget) 23.8% 23.8% 43.4%

*Other unearned income includes (for surtax purposes) gross income from interest, annuities, royalties, net rents, and passive income in partnerships and Subchapter-S corporations. It does not include municipal bond interest or life insurance proceeds, since those do not add to gross income.

It does not include active trade or business income, fair market value sales of ownership in pass-through entities, or distributions from retirement plans. The 3.8% surtax does not apply to non-resident aliens.

Posted by: SunlightandLowTaxes | January 23, 2011 8:45 PM | Report abuse

Fairlington

I hope that answer was specific enough for you.

I would greatly appreciate your support in the REPEAL of these taxes which are dragging down the Economy and detering small businesses from hiring.


Thank you very much.


.

Posted by: SunlightandLowTaxes | January 23, 2011 8:47 PM | Report abuse

"the Steelers suffer a demoralizing loss to the Pack. But I doubt it."


Well let's end the night in agreement Q.B.:-)

I agree with you on both counts...aspirationally..I too hope the Pack gives the Steelers a beatdown in the S.B. but like you I also doubt that is going to happen.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 23, 2011 8:53 PM | Report abuse

This game is not over

I am for Green Bay


HA

.

Posted by: SunlightandLowTaxes | January 23, 2011 8:58 PM | Report abuse

12Bar:

""Listen, Scott, if you choose to see taxation as fitting into some moral construct of your own making, fine.""

You are simply being obtuse, perhaps intentionally so, if you deny that there is a moral aspect to taxation. Of course there is. And the fact that different segments of society negotiate over what taxes will be is no refutation of this fact. Negotiations over taxes are quite often drenched in moral arguments. Warren Buffet argues (disingenuously) that it isn't "fair" that his secretary pays a higher tax rate than he does. That is a moral argument. Arguments for and against the estate tax are almost entirely moral arguments. Some argue that it isn't "fair" that those who make higher incomes pay a lower effective SS tax due to the cap. Others argue that it wouldn't be "fair" to get rid of the ceiling because of the nature of what the payments are supposed to be going to fund (ie future collection, which is capped). These are all moral arguments.

To say that because tax rates are politically negotiated there is no moral aspect to them is to ignore much of what the negotiation is all about.

""I can't get too interested in the immorality of the mortgage interest deduction or child care credits or the immorality of people paying income taxes on dividends.""

What say you, then, about the introduction of, say, a poll tax? Every voter should have to pay, let's say, $1000 in order to be able to cast a ballot. This is certainly a very practical way for the government to raise money, and it would, afterall, not even really be cumpulsory. If one didn't want to pay, just don't bother voting. Good idea? (Don't forget...no moral arguments. They don't interest you.)

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 23, 2011 8:59 PM | Report abuse

ScottC3: ""I have never in my life gotten a chance to negotiate over what I will pay in taxes. I am told by the government what it is, and I am ordered by law to pay it."" This ain't the old USSR, dude. You can take all your money and go wherever you like in this great big wide world. Go find that country that is the proper balance of taxes vs. services, in your mind, and MOVE, already.
.

Posted by: jprestonian | January 23, 2011 9:02 PM | Report abuse

jp:

""You can take all your money and go wherever you like in this great big wide world.""

No, I can't. Have you ever tried to emigrate to another country? I have lived for extended periods of time in 2 different locations outside the US. The process of getting even a temporary visa to most countries can be very difficult, and I had an employer sponsoring me. If one just wants to up and move on one's own, it is even more difficult. The only place where I have a right to simply move to is the US, by virtue of my citizenship.

Oh, and BTW, unlike most other countries, the US has global taxation on income (albeit with an exemption), so the only way I can actually escape US tax laws is to give up my citizenship. Then, of course, I'd need to get citizenship somewhere else.

No, one can't just go wherever one wants in this great big wide world.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 23, 2011 9:20 PM | Report abuse

""No, one can't just go wherever one wants in this great big wide world."" Should not be a problem for any Galtian self-made, bootstrapper.
.

Posted by: jprestonian | January 23, 2011 9:25 PM | Report abuse

BTW, anyone else note the irony in a liberal telling me, essentially, to love it or leave it?

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 23, 2011 9:26 PM | Report abuse

jp:

""Should not be a problem for any Galtian self-made, bootstrapper.""

Perhaps, but I thought you were talking to me.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 23, 2011 9:27 PM | Report abuse

"BTW, anyone else note the irony in a liberal telling me, essentially, to love it or leave it?"

Especially since he obviously missed the point to begin with. Par for the course.

Also ironic to see a liberal arguing that taxes don't involve moral questions. But 12bb's arguments usually involve more randomness than logic.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 23, 2011 9:36 PM | Report abuse

Something is seriously amiss with Americans' thinking about jobs and economics. Defending corporations for moving jobs offshore, demanding that we bribe them with lower taxes and lower wages to keep them here, this is so starkly against the interests of the people doing the arguing.

Whether your're a liberal or you call yourself conservative (no, I am not dignifying those who self-refer as conservatives by agreeing with the label, they're far too shabby to deserve the label), it's not in your interests to wipe out the middle class. It's not in your interests to cede your way of life to a few hundred ridiculously wealthy families. . It's not in your interests to see corporations dictate to government nor to give the stock value to shareholders a higher priority than the well-being of your fellow citizens.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 23, 2011 10:02 PM | Report abuse

Well, Clinton's Free Trade deals have to go.


In Clinton's quest to be relevant, and to "do something," Clinton sold out the entire country.

Sorry democrats, but Clinton destroyed the place on his way out the door.

AND to think, all the liberals had to do was tell Clinton to resign - and the nation would have been better off.


ALSO, every crook in political office around the country NOW thinks he can "get away with it," because Clinton got away with the Monica lying.

Disgraceful - the moral bottom fell out. Clinton wrecked the place.

AND now the country looks more like Arkansas than at any other point in history.

Thank you liberals for giving us Bill Cliton.

.

Posted by: SunlightandLowTaxes | January 23, 2011 10:14 PM | Report abuse

Precisely the danger with Obama -

That Obama decides to "destroy the place on his way out the door" - as Obama sees that he has zero credibility in Congress now - and the country can't wait to get rid of him.


Finally the dreaded "little things" like school uniforms, are ON Obama's agenda.


NOW instead of doing anything in Washington, for Obama it is ALL about the re-elect. Please can the country be SPARED from the garbage coming from the Obama people. Already we had a Smear Campaign this year.

False Charges of Racism are BEING PREPARED right now -

Come on folks, the best thing for everyone is if Abercrombie comes clean, give us the documents - AND EVERYONE RUNS OBAMA OUT OF TOWN.

.

Posted by: SunlightandLowTaxes | January 23, 2011 10:18 PM | Report abuse

Someone didn't read the argument against a "shrinking" middle class above.

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 23, 2011 10:19 PM | Report abuse

"We also need to take a good hard look at income and wealth inequality. It's a sticky area; particularly for a country that has for the past 30 years defined the highest good of government as allowing completely unhindered accumulation of wealth, whatever the consequences. Where would we draw the line? Does Bill Gates or Warren Buffet really need a fortune of tens of billions? Not to knock those guys; they have simply Posted by: JennOfArk"

Actually, neither HAS a fortune of those billions. Both are what they are supposedly worth because they own something supposed to be worth billions, UNLESS they try to sell it, at which point each's wealth is whatever they can get from selling their something, Microsoft or berkshire hathaway.

Same same for Sam wall. Worth billions because he owned Wallmart, BUT, he paid himself a pittance. The Titans of industry of old, Carnegie and Rockefeller were incredibly rich, but only because they owned Carnegie Steel or Everything Oil.

The Titans of industry now are rich because they pay themselves fantastikal salaries that Rockefeller, or Carnegie would never have been able to comprehend. They only got really rich when they converted their ownership into cash to do something with it. Modern titans convert their companies to cash on a present tense basis and do so so as to have lots of cash.

Somebody ought to look into how much Sam Wall ever earned from all that work. And how much he paid in taxes because of it. It wasn't a lot. Howard Hughes and all that wealth? In his last twenty years how much of his wealth did he liquefy?

No, modern titans and their incredible incomes are a real novelty. Make them pay those bad old 95% tax rates and they will give their jobs to people who actually know what they are doing, and not just how to sufficiently emollufy themselves.

Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and the passed giants, Loren M Berry, John Patterson, Sam Wall, they would still be billionaires, and still be paying themselves pittances compared to our modern day midases.

Posted by: ceflynline | January 23, 2011 10:32 PM | Report abuse

It truly is unfortunate that Obama is in there right now.

We are in the middle of an Economic Crisis - and all we have is Obama holding the Economy Back with his silly ideas about raising taxes.


The health care plan is dead - the American People are going to repeal it one way or another. Obama might as well give in sooner rather than later.

That is exactly the situation.

The government EXISTS to do what the people want - for no other reason. Obama's ego is in the way. Obama is practically single-handedly holding the economy back right now. We are at a point at which the Economy can NOT move forward unless Obama is voted out first.

Is that fair to the UNEMPLOYED???

That is the status right now. Are the liberals going to continue to HOLD PEOPLE OUT OF WORK, just so they can continue to support Obama, who is going to lose anyway.

It makes no sense.


The House is in the hands of the Republicans, Obama is resorting to stupid smear campaigns.

The MOST important thing is still the Economy and jobs - and yet the liberals are still hanging on.

If you want the economy to start growing, we have to get rid of Obama, and then we can start to move the Economy forward.


Resignation is in order.


.

Posted by: SunlightandLowTaxes | January 23, 2011 10:55 PM | Report abuse

Ironically, if the liberals were smart, they would have never passed health care - and they probably would still have the House. And Obama's re-election chances would be slim, but better than now, which is zero.

Quite a turn of events - grasp at something and lose it all.

The act of grabbing also causes one to lose what is being grabbed.


The liberals forgot something.

The liberals forgot this is a democracy and ultimately the People are in charge. They forgot that the American People decide what the laws are, not the liberals.


Thank you.

Now time to leave children - you can read about all this later.


.

Posted by: SunlightandLowTaxes | January 23, 2011 10:59 PM | Report abuse

Between posts about other posters and baiting / gotcha behavior coming from those who refer to themselves as conservatives, there is precious little discussion going on here.

Look, people, we have two irreconcilable viewpoints: one that government plays a vital role in society and one that sees it as nothing but impediment. The latter view is recognizable by deliberate mischaracterizations and outright lies: taxation as confiscation, taxation as theft.

Maybe we should split into two nations and see which philosophy works better. Only, please, make sure the "taxation is theft" people are downwind.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 24, 2011 12:04 AM | Report abuse

ScottC3: ""I have never in my life gotten a chance to negotiate over what I will pay in taxes. I am told by the government what it is, and I am ordered by law to pay it."" This ain't the old USSR, dude. You can take all your money and go wherever you like in this great big wide world. Go find that country that is the proper balance of taxes vs. services, in your mind, and MOVE, already.

==

Seconded.

Really, Scott, if you're going to spend all day kneeling with one hand clutching a rifle barrel and stifling back sobs about confiscation, why don't you move somewhere more to your liking? There are 200+ other countries in the world and a lot of them have lower taxes (don't expect the QoL you've been accustomed to, though, but a big ol' independent don'-need-no-help-from-nobody coonskin cap pioneer like like shouldn't have to worry about that).

Somalia comes to mind. Libertarian paradise. No regulations, no gun restrictions. Let me know if you need help with the one-way ticket.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 24, 2011 12:08 AM | Report abuse

Of course taxation has a moral dimension, how could it be otherwise? But the two sides—and let's call them what they are, sides, it's not a continuum—have two distinct moral concerns.

We liberals are concerned about the morality of failing to provide a just and stable society. We see a moral failing in leaving alleviable suffering unaleviated. We see government as playing a vital role in the preservation of democracy, and in guiding society in the direction that we have the temerity to choose.

Those who refer to themselves as conservatives (TWRTTAC) can't conceal their contempt for these concerns, and dismiss them all. If people are failing then it's because they didn't act responsibly enough and if they (and their children) suffer as a consequence, well, it serves them right and let it be a lesson. Never mind that the frugal suffer just as much as the profligate. TWRTTAC are much more concerned with the morality of taking Other People's Money and giving it to people who haven't earned it ("earned" being euphemism for "born to it" or "obtained it through financial chicanery" but who's counting), which they call redistribution, or confiscation, or, my favorite, penalizing success.

We liberals can't help but notice that those ultra-rich paid far more of their fair share not long ago, including under the President that TWRTTAC claim to revere as quasi-divine.

Two moralities. One that cares for suffering and one that doesn't. Not equal.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 24, 2011 2:38 AM | Report abuse

Cao

How in the world can you complain about the quality of the conversation here?

For at least 3 years, you have dragged down the discussions, here and on Cillizza's blog.

Seriously man - you attack, are mean and completely lacking in respect for anyone else. You and the Obama paid trolls are the reason that everyone posts the way they do.

Obviously, the Obama paid trolls are gearing up again to harass and mock everyone in the country who does not agree with Obama and his fantasyland of promises which he never, ever lives up to.

You on the other hand, appear to be operating on your own, lashing out at others because you are maladjusted. No one can help you with that. But just stop what you are doing.

Posted by: SunlightandLowTaxes | January 24, 2011 4:22 AM | Report abuse

Since there was a Hawaii law from 1860 to 1967 forbidding any non Christian names of children born in Hawaii.

How is it possible to have the name Barack Hussein Obama on a birth certificate?

Posted by: dancingrabbit | January 24, 2011 4:44 AM | Report abuse

Bad toilet training if anyone cares for my guess

Posted by: caothien9 | January 24, 2011 5:28 AM | Report abuse

"If we can talk about the nearly half of Americans who pay no tax"

This is just one of the ugly lies spread by the right wing.

Go look at your tax forms. Where is the 0% tax bracket?

If you get an income, you pay taxes.

I guess we need to act condescending towards these people and pretend they make valid points?

Posted by: DDAWD | January 23, 2011 6:38 PM
=========================================

Is it really possible for someone to be so ignorant or is he just pretending?

Posted by: Brigade | January 24, 2011 6:29 AM | Report abuse

Olbermann and story-control

The Times has a piece up this morning by Bill Carter and Brian Stelter. This is Carter's second or third piece in the Times since Friday. Also, as of Friday evening, he was an interviewee on CNN on the termination story. He quotes corporate executives throughout, mostly by name but some anomymously. He also quotes some other individiuals, all anonymously except in one instance, a negative truncated comment from Brokaw. The thrush of each quote and the overall story being told here has three main points:

1) Olbermann was trouble. The portrayal is of someone angry, fickle and (as the first paragraph states) "with a track record of attacking his superiors" etc. Griffin is quoted (paragraph three) claiming Olbermann was "a jerk and difficult and brutal".

2) Olbermann wanted to go and this is a mutual decision.

3) The Comcast merger is irrelevant and corporate at Comcast had nothing to do with any of this other than be concerned people might think it had something to do with Olbermann being removed.

Now, all of this may be accurate but how would we know? Carter has been conveniently quoting corporate throughout while no information is coming from other parties (except a few unsourced bits). Carter doesn't see fit to mention this disparity in sourcing, nor how the announcement was timed by corporate as a Friday dump (the purpose of which is always and only narrative control). This is really crappy reporting and looks far more like corporate stenography. Obviously, it was a big media story as soon as it happened and one might forgive the reporter(s) for the initial shallowness but we are two or three days in now. And it isn't like this is unimportant. Olbermann has been THE key media target for right-leaning interests and he was the top rated host on a network which had blossomed in the ratings because of him.

Posted by: bernielatham | January 24, 2011 6:47 AM | Report abuse

"Two moralities. One that cares for suffering and one that doesn't. Not equal."

A sentimental, self-regarding, self-serving BS dichotomy. Written in crayon. By a self-impelled fugitive.

Not veritable.

Posted by: tao9 | January 24, 2011 6:51 AM | Report abuse

Bernie:

""Now, all of this may be accurate but how would we know?""

Perhaps a better question, what evidence could these reporters possibly present that would convince you?

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 24, 2011 7:28 AM | Report abuse

Krugman gets to the bottom line:

"But even if he proposes good policies, the fact that Mr. Obama feels the need to wrap these policies in bad metaphors is a sad commentary on the state of our discourse. The financial crisis of 2008 was a teachable moment, an object lesson in what can go wrong if you trust a market economy to regulate itself. Nor should we forget that highly regulated economies, like Germany, did a much better job than we did at sustaining employment after the crisis hit. For whatever reason, however, the teachable moment came and went with nothing learned.

Mr. Obama himself may do all right: his approval rating is up, the economy is showing signs of life, and his chances of re-election look pretty good. But the ideology that brought economic disaster in 2008 is back on top — and seems likely to stay there until it brings disaster again."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/24/opinion/24krugman.html?ref=opinion

Hey Tao!

Go Packers! (I hope Rothlisberger gets arrested the day before the game.) Below zero here in The Hub but pitchers and catchers in FLA in 3 weeks! Go Sawx!

Posted by: wbgonne | January 24, 2011 7:28 AM | Report abuse

"Now, all of this may be accurate but how would we know?"

Oh, I don't know, perhaps The Man Himself could deliver the truth. Could it be He has some opaque agenda?

"Carter has been conveniently quoting corporate throughout while no information is coming from other parties (except a few unsourced bits)."

So he shouldn't be reporting what "corporate" sources are saying until "other parties" are speaking out?

"Carter doesn't see fit to mention this disparity in sourcing, nor how the announcement was timed by corporate as a Friday dump (the purpose of which is always and only narrative control)."

He doesn't see fit to mention that which is either self-evident or your interpretation?

"This is really crappy reporting and looks far more like corporate stenography."

Yet the only criticisms you've lodged are the putative offense of reporting what A and B are saying in the absence of comment by (unidentified) C and D, and failure to editorialize by impugning the integrity of A and B.

"Obviously, it was a big media story as soon as it happened and one might forgive the reporter(s) for the initial shallowness but we are two or three days in now. And it isn't like this is unimportant. Olbermann has been THE key media target for right-leaning interests and he was the top rated host on a network which had blossomed in the ratings because of him."

KO was/is a goldfish in a goldfish bowl, albeit one from whose castle perspective (that would be, the collective, "yours") his passing by is as that of a leviathan.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 24, 2011 7:42 AM | Report abuse

wbgonne:

""The financial crisis of 2008 was a teachable moment, an object lesson in what can go wrong if you trust a market economy to regulate itself.""

The notion that our economy was/is unregulated by government is beyond absurd.

BTW...I am still hoping you might provide me with an example of a law which you think would be a good law to impose on the people, but which the constitution would not allow. Again, I am interested in knowing if you think the constitution limits federal power in any way beyond simply doing "good".

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 24, 2011 7:42 AM | Report abuse

All, Morning Roundup posted:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2011/01/the_morning_plum_172.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | January 24, 2011 8:42 AM | Report abuse

Bernie

Here's a good piece up at alternet.

""“Unlike News Corp. chairman Rupert Murdoch, who stands solidly behind the right-wing propaganda on Fox News, the corporate owners of MSNBC have no similar commitment to the work of Olbermann, Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz.

"For the suits at headquarters, it’s just a balancing act between the ratings that those shows get and the trouble they cause as Republicans reclaim control of Washington.”

Those corporate priorities also were underscored in the pre-Iraq invasion days when MSNBC dumped Donahue, then the network’s biggest draw. But Donahue had allowed on some guests critical of Bush’s planned war.""

http://www.alternet.org/media/149639/what_the_hell_happened_to_keith_olbermann/?page=1

Posted by: lmsinca | January 24, 2011 8:42 AM | Report abuse

Thanks Ims!

Posted by: bernielatham | January 24, 2011 8:46 AM | Report abuse

Morning Roundup posted:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2011/01/the_morning_plum_172.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | January 24, 2011 8:52 AM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company