|
| Posted by: Great One
- [27956257] Wed, Oct 27, 2010, 16:27
Rolling Stone article on Obama
A different point of view on the Obama presidency. Has he really been as bad as the loudest folks would have you think? |
| | | 1 | Boldwin
ID: 79132821
Thu, Oct 28, 2010, 22:13
|
“Spiteful words can hurt your feelings but silence breaks your heart.”
|
|
| | | 2 | Tree, not at home
ID: 18342816
Fri, Oct 29, 2010, 10:10
|
some people prefer cutesy quotes and mis-truths.
here's the facebook status update from a friend of mine who lives in florida, one of the hardest hit states in regards to unemployment.
"ý2 year progress report: 401K up 30% (after 40% drop in 2008), Paid less taxes than in 2008, Healthcare premiums the same as in 2008, the value of my home is holding steady for past year and a half, unemployment is down for the 3rd month in a row. Could all this be true? You mean Obama is not screwing everything up? You mean things are getting better? Is someone lying to me? "
|
|
| | | 3 | Tree, not at home
ID: 18342816
Tue, Nov 02, 2010, 15:14
|
filters won't allow me to post the link, but it's
http://whatthef*ckhasobamadonesofar.com/
only the "F-word" has been spelled out in the actual link.
you could learn something from the site. i did.
|
|
| | | 4 | Boldwin
ID: 311028269
Fri, Nov 26, 2010, 10:31
|
Your e-mail program probably choked on Obama's e-mail to you, but The Onion saved you a copy.
Since I just know Righthaven would sue Dave if I C-n-P'd it, you'll just have to use the link.
|
|
| | |
| | |
| | | 7 | Boldwin
ID: 2710422918
Mon, Nov 29, 2010, 22:00
|
That's called 'beating congress to it', but yes, a great first step in a better direction.
|
|
| | | 8 | Razor
ID: 57854118
Tue, Nov 30, 2010, 11:47
|
Pointless move, if you ask me. Just appeases those who hate the government without really doing much to seriously address the deficit.
|
|
| | | 9 | Farn
Leader
ID: 451044109
Tue, Nov 30, 2010, 12:12
|
That's called 'beating congress to it'
You have to make even a small jab to make sure he doesn't get any credit right?
Pointless move, if you ask me.
Its pointless to make sure we don't spend more money then we already are? Interesting point of view.
|
|
| | | 10 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916
Tue, Nov 30, 2010, 12:52
|
Obama didn't beat Congress to it, nor is it pointless. This move polarizes part of Obama's base, but he made the move because it was the right thing to do, given the relation to private sector wages. Had Congress passed a law, Obama could have vetoed it if he were committed only to pacifying these employees who likely voted well above 70% for him in 2008.
|
|
| | | 11 | boikin
ID: 532592112
Tue, Nov 30, 2010, 14:40
|
Had Congress passed a law, Obama could have vetoed it if he were committed only to pacifying these employees who likely voted well above 70% for him in 2008.
I wonder if that is true, i would think it would be 50/50. I am not so sure that federal employee's are his base.
|
|
| | | 12 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916
Tue, Nov 30, 2010, 16:01
|
Over 30% of federal employees are minorities.
Minorities voted for Obama in historically high percentages. As for the white federal employees, I have a hard time thinking they would favor a party committed to shrinking the government and possibly see their jobs eliminated. Actually, I thought my 70% estimate was probably low.
|
|
| | | 13 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Tue, Nov 30, 2010, 16:24
|
I agree. Federal employees are, by and large, left leaning.
Republicans aren't about to work for the government.
|
|
| | | 14 | Boldwin
ID: 541023017
Tue, Nov 30, 2010, 18:10
|
That's called 'beating congress to it'
You have to make even a small jab to make sure he doesn't get any credit right?
That's pure fact. The Dems voted down the exact same idea a couple months ago. How much credit should they get for doing it now when they can' prevent it?
|
|
| | | 15 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Tue, Nov 30, 2010, 18:14
|
Congressional Dems hated the idea, then and now. And there is no reason to believe, if the GOP decided to make it an issue at this point, that it would pass the Senate this time around without Obama's help.
Nothing in the next two years will get done without Obama's cooperation. Sad fact, but true. Get used to it.
Given the flat inflation rate, a pay freeze doesn't make that much of a big deal as the unions are making it to be.
|
|
| | | 16 | Boldwin
ID: 541023017
Tue, Nov 30, 2010, 19:05
|
There were enuff Dem defections the first time and enuff Dem senators vulnerable in 2012 that it would over-ride a veto I think. It was purely to rob them of a popular move.
|
|
| | | 17 | Seattle Zen
ID: 10732616
Tue, Nov 30, 2010, 19:09
|
There were enuff Dem defections the first time and enuff Dem senators vulnerable in 2012 that it would over-ride a veto I think.
Then you really need to stop thinking. You are completely out of your mind suggesting that the current Congress will EVER override a Obama veto.
|
|
| | | 18 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Tue, Nov 30, 2010, 19:12
|
They didn't have enough then, and they don't have enough now. They don't have enough even to bring it out of committee in the Senate, so keep dreaming.
I know, I know: Democrats only do things for purely political reasons, not because they are the right thing to do.
God forbid President Obama would do the right thing and get credit for it. That's really a problem, isn't it.
|
|
| | | 19 | biliruben
ID: 34820210
Tue, Nov 30, 2010, 20:55
|
I'm far from sure it's the right thing economically. Taking money out of lower and middle class worker's pockets means they can spend less, and will be a further drag on the economy that is desperately trying to rebound.
I grant you it's the right thing politically.
|
|
| | | 20 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Tue, Nov 30, 2010, 21:06
|
They aren't taking any money away from them. They are freezing their wages.
Yours is the same argument the GOP was making that Obama and Congress were taking money from seniors because there was no COLA increase for them.
|
|
| | | 21 | biliruben
ID: 34820210
Tue, Nov 30, 2010, 21:13
|
No matter how you choose your words, it has the same economic effect.
I grant you it might have a different political effect.
|
|
| | | 22 | Seattle Zen
Leader
ID: 055343019
Tue, Nov 30, 2010, 23:14
|
I don't understand why he said it was for two years. I can understand the freeze, why make it two years, why not say, "wages are frozen" and leave it at that?
What REALLY steams me is the fact that he exempted the military. Is this going to be a recurring theme? "Cut X% across the board... except the military"? Sets a real bad precedent. Military brass are overpaid, why can't they "share in the sacrifice?"
|
|
| | | 23 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Tue, Nov 30, 2010, 23:57
|
Military pay is pretty damn low--they have a hard enough time recruiting as is.
|
|
| | | 24 | Boldwin
ID: 261139112
Wed, Dec 01, 2010, 13:47
|
And they just lost 25% of their potential recruits, in those who will not join a gay military.
|
|
| | | 25 | Seattle Zen
ID: 10732616
Wed, Dec 01, 2010, 13:57
|
That's funny, I was about to say that they just increased their potential recruits as the patrons of gay bars start to pour into recruiting stations.
in those who will not join a gay military.
Yeah, right. Where are they going to go, to some "gays not welcome" militia in Idaho?
|
|
| | | 26 | Khahan
ID: 373143013
Wed, Dec 01, 2010, 14:03
|
Unfortunately, Boldwin is right - there are now people who won't join because they'd have to serve with gays. Fortunately I think he's vastly overstating the 25%.
Though personally I don't feel this is an issue the courts or any civilian should decide. If the top military brass think 'dont ask, dont tell' is best for the military, then do it. If they don't think its best, then don't do it.
|
|
| | | 27 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Wed, Dec 01, 2010, 14:12
|
I really don't know where Boldwin is coming up with the 25% number. That's two and a half times higher than the number of actual servicemen and women who believe the repeal would affect their own readiness, for example.
I also think that calculus neglects the number of gay Americans who wish to serve but feel they cannot.
Are there people who won't join? Sure--were talking about a lot of recruits and I'm sure there are more than zero who won't because of DADT. We had many more people complain about the integration of blacks into the services as well. I think, in the end, chain of command, patriotism, and service to your country will win out every single time over non-essential servicemen attributes, as it has done for blacks and for women in the services.
|
|
| | | 28 | DWetzel
ID: 278201415
Wed, Dec 01, 2010, 14:17
|
Re: 24 -- good riddance then? Doesn't seem hard.
In fact, why don't we just figure out what that percentage actually is, and cut the defense budget by that amount, and presto, two problems solved at the same time.
|
|
| | | 30 | Razor
ID: 57854118
Wed, Dec 01, 2010, 14:31
|
The idea that we should kowtow to the demands of bigots is laughable. But let's not derail this thread with another outrageous, offtopic remark by someone.
|
|
| | | 31 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Wed, Dec 01, 2010, 14:58
|
Man, funny stuff (#29). Are the armies of Germany, UK, Belgium, Australia, South Korea, Spain, etc etc etc "emasculated?"
I think when you look through life with a foggy gaydar, you're going to come up with some doozys like #29.
[You know, the world actually has some experience with lifting the ban on gays in military service. You should look up those non-apocalypses up sometime].
|
|
| | | 32 | bibA
ID: 48627713
Wed, Dec 01, 2010, 15:08
|
In the larger urban police departments, I would estimate that a good third of the female personnel are "gay". And there are a lot of females now in law enforcement. I'd be willing to bet that the number of those who refuse to become cops because of this is minuscule.
Also, I do not believe there is any problem with them being fully accepted, socially and on the job, and that they are pretty much evaluated solely on merit.
|
|
| | | 33 | Boldwin
ID: 261139112
Wed, Dec 01, 2010, 15:54
|
I really don't know where Boldwin is coming up with the 25% number. - PD
It's actually higher.
One in four will quit the military early.
No other conclusion is possible, that the same forth of the enlistable will not join an openly gay military.
Prepare for 500,000 departing military over this and add that to the recruitment problem.
Combat units feel much stronger negatively about this, so add that to the recruitment problem.
The actual results are in the 9% positive, 91% negative or mixed impact on unit's performance, and those are the numbers that are being spun as 'positive survey results' from the troops, counting the mixed as positives.
|
|
| | | 34 | DWetzel
ID: 278201415
Wed, Dec 01, 2010, 15:57
|
"And the next war we'll see half the force sueing to get out of the military."
When you're making up numbers out of thin air to attempt to support your arguments and pretend you're not just trolling, could you at least keep your story straight? I thought it was 25%.
Bigots gonna bigot though I guess.
|
|
| | | 35 | Farn
Leader
ID: 451044109
Wed, Dec 01, 2010, 15:58
|
Baldy's link is blocked at work so I can't comment complete but just by putting my cursor over the link I see he's linked me to someone's blog. That's just the kind of top notch news agency I want to get my data from.
|
|
| | | 36 | Boldwin
ID: 261139112
Wed, Dec 01, 2010, 15:58
|
PD
Every one of those socialist countries and their hollowed out militaries owes their freedom to the American military umbrella and you positively know that whether you'd ever admit it.
|
|
| | | 37 | Boldwin
ID: 261139112
Wed, Dec 01, 2010, 16:01
|
Farn
It's just the earliest and only release of the official survey results that I could find. I am sure it will be much more available in hours.
|
|
| | | 38 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Wed, Dec 01, 2010, 16:02
|
They don't owe their freedom to our anti-gay stance. Any more than they owed it to our anti-black stance in world war II.
The soldiers themselves have spoken. It is clear that they are far, far more tolerant among gays in their ranks than you are. The fact that you believe yourself to know more about the military than, well, the military is telling. Despite lack of evidence and the military themselves being clear on their wishes, you continue to hold yourself as understanding more about how they work that they do.
Sad that on an issue of military readiness that you are unwilling to accept what the soldiers themselves say. And you call the Left paternalistic?
|
|
| | | 39 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Wed, Dec 01, 2010, 16:04
|
The issue is probably better discussed in the Gay Marriage thread than this one, since Obama has yet to do anything. Meanwhile, the link to the actual release is there, #519.
|
|
| | | 40 | Boldwin
ID: 261139112
Wed, Dec 01, 2010, 16:05
|
The soldiers themselves have spoken. - PD
Indeed.
Q45. If you had a leader whom you believed was gay or lesbian…9% positive, 91% negative or mixed impact on unit's performance.
Q68c. 85% of Marine Combat Arms, 75% of Army Combat Arms, 64% overall say Negative, Very Negative, or Mixed impact on unit trust if DADT is repealed.
Q90. 29% would take no action if assigned open showers with homosexuals. 71% would shower at other times, complain to leadership or chaplains, don't know or do "something else" [including violence].
Q81. 24% will leave the military or think about leaving sooner than planned. (One half million troops will QUIT the service early, destroying our national security.)
Q80. 6% will positively recommend service to others after repeal. 94% feel negative, mixed, no effect, or don't know about recommending military service to others.(Destroying recruiting efforts.)
Q66. If open homosexuality impacts combat performance, is the impact...9% positive, 91% negative or mixed impact.
Q71. 11% feel positive or very positive about permitting open homosexuality in field environment or out at sea. 60% negative or mixed. 19% no effect.
Q73. 5% say repeal would positively boost morale. 41% say negative or mixed impact morale. Rest no effect or don't know.
|
|
| | | 41 | Khahan
ID: 373143013
Wed, Dec 01, 2010, 16:08
|
33 - interesting blog. But I suggest you actually read it. Here are the excerpts from military leadership (ie: Gates)
2 quotes from Gates:
Allowing gay soldiers to be open about their sexual orientation might cause temporary problems but would do little long-term harm to the U.S. military, a long-awaited Pentagon report released yesterday concludes.
...A Pentagon survey found that a majority of troops aren't opposed to serving with openly gay service members, and Defense Secretary Robert Gates said concerns can be overcome through training and education.
Now, looking further into the statistics: Almost all list a low # of positive and a high number of negative/mix attitude. I'd LOVE to see the actual split of negative/mix attitude.
My guess is that if 9% are in favor of gays in the military and 91% are against/mixed that you'll find its more like a 9 for/9 against/82 indifferent split.
The for and against are extremes and statistically you can expect extremes to be roughly equal.
Q81. 24% will leave the military or think about leaving sooner than planned. (One half million troops will QUIT the service early, destroying our national security.)
This is the kind of question that can be answered with a 'talk is cheap.' Gotta wonder how big of a portion answered, "I'd think about leaving early," and out of that amount how many would actually leave early? It seems very likely that the line of thinking is, "let me see how this plays out. If I dont like it I'll leave."
That doesn't mean squat. Sorry. But the stats quoted in that article are (like too many stats) too easily twisted to serve a purpose. Without the proper context (IE: the exact questions asked) those stats can be spun to support just about anything you want.
You've chosen to take the word of a blog on what those stats mean. If you want to hang your hat on a blog, Boldwin, go right ahead. But as one of the few conservatives on these boards with you I have to say its a losing battle. Even I easily see how the presentation of these facts is too easily skewed.
|
|
| | | 42 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Wed, Dec 01, 2010, 16:10
|
From the actual report (page 69):
Overall, more than 60% of Service members told us that their career plans would
not change as a result of repeal; 13% said that they would definitely leave sooner than they
had otherwise planned; and 11% said they would think about leaving sooner than they had
planned. (See Table 9.)
This is, of course, before the change. I have no doubt that these numbers would drop.
But it is important to note that this does not have anything to do with Boldwin's assertion about recruiting--those numbers are about retention. For retention, about 27% say that the change would negatively impact their willingness to refer others to the military (according to the military, about a third of their recruits come from servicemen referrals). So even if every one of those people follow through (not clear that they would), this would impact 27% of 33%, or about 9%.
|
|
| | | 44 | Khahan
ID: 373143013
Wed, Dec 01, 2010, 16:15
|
Actually Baldwin, I made my stance on DADT pretty clear earlier in this post - leave it up to the military command to make this decision. It absolutely should have nothing to do with the courts or civilians.
Let the military run the military and support them. Pretty conservative point of view if you ask me.
I have yet to say what I personally feel about DADT because as far as this thread has gone, my personal view on whether its good or bad is irrelevant.
|
|
| | | 46 | biliruben
ID: 358252515
Wed, Dec 01, 2010, 17:13
|
That's nothing. My petit 5'5" officemate, mother of two could (and probably would if she read any of this thread) kick the living crap out of Baldwin, if he werent cowering in anonymous ether.
And she's gay.
|
|
| | | 48 | Boldwin
ID: 261139112
Wed, Dec 01, 2010, 21:21
|
PD
If you are suggesting only a 9% effect on recruiting, that's a wild lie.
The 1/4 of the population who would absolutely not share foxholes if they had a choice, will definately not be recruited.
Then you can add in the ones who don't get refered by the 1/4 serving.
Then you can factor in what percentage of the mixed response sector, just won't want to be bothered facing those issues and so won't join.
Then you can factor in that the combat units are much more negative.
Then you can figure in that the marines and special forces are much much more negative still...
And you are left with a tiny drafted European military with a festive supply chain and no spear point.
|
|
| | | 49 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916
Wed, Dec 01, 2010, 22:13
|
Then you can factor in those who will say something in a poll, then do an about face when push comes to shove - like finding employment in a 10% unemployment environment; like explaining to prospective employers why they quit the military; like forfeiting the free schooling they fully intended to take advantage of.
I'd venture to say that most of the negative repondents are from rural areas and have probably never even met, much less associated with a gay or lesbian. They've had it ingrained since youth that God hates these people, so you should too.
Of course gays could help themselves by continuing to adhere to a unforced DADT policy. Really, is there anything more obnoxious than somebody reminding you they're gay every 5 minutes? Those country kids will be thinking, "No wonder God hates you guys."
|
|
| | | 50 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Wed, Dec 01, 2010, 23:16
|
If you are suggesting only a 9% effect on recruiting, that's a wild lie.
I'm not suggesting a thing. I'm specifically pointing to the military's survey results. Maybe you don't believe what the military says is the case. If so, you'll have to come up with something better than "You lie."
...and have probably never even met...
I hate to, again, use the military's own survey as the taking off point for a talking point, but the survey demonstrated just that point--that a military person who said they they knew a gay person were far less likely to believe that the repeal of DADT would have any effect on their own, or other's, military readiness or their own willingness to refer others to the military as a career.
In 1946, 80% of the military was against integrating blacks into the service. Against that much larger headwind, Harry Truman did the right thing over those objections. In 2010 we have an overwhelming majority of the military shrugging that allowing gays to openly serve would cause them any problems, plus the President, the Sec Defense, Joint Chiefs, and the public.
It is time we stopped telling people that, to go into the honorable profession of soldier, they need to lie.
|
|
| | | 51 | Tree
ID: 2010312116
Thu, Dec 02, 2010, 07:43
|
how can argue facts with people who don't accept facts as reality?
|
|
| | | 52 | Frick
ID: 5310541617
Thu, Dec 02, 2010, 08:33
|
Re: 49
Thanks for the broad generalization that anyone who doesn't live on a coast is a gay bashing bigot.
|
|
| | | 53 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916
Thu, Dec 02, 2010, 09:55
|
Thanks for the broad generalization that anyone who doesn't live on a coast is a gay bashing bigot.
There are many urban areas not on the coasts, and many rural areas that are on the coasts. Check the map of Northern California and Oregon coastlines for verification.
A person in St. Louis or Salt Lake City is a lot more apt to have frequent interaction with gays than a person in Worland, Wyoming or Coos Bay, Oregon.
And gays in Worland and Coos Bay are a lot more likely to stay in the closet because generally there's no gay community to rely on for support.
Religious proclamations that gays defy "God's morals" are more prevalant in rural areas, because it's a lot easier to condemn somebody if you've never experienced an aquaintance, classmate or co-worker who's gay, and discovered that fears of them trying to cop a feel at every opportunity are misplaced.
So, I don't think I generalized that anyone who doesn't live on the coasts is a gay bashing bigot. In fact, I don't think that people who have a hard time accepting same sex attraction as 'normal' are necessarily bigots regardless of where they live. I don't understand same sex attraction, and I think there will always be a stigma attached to it, but I don't think I'm a bigot.
|
|
| | | 54 | Boldwin
ID: 481137214
Thu, Dec 02, 2010, 16:21
|
It is time we stopped telling people that, to go into the honorable profession of soldier, they need to lie. - PD
It is time we stop borrowing the legitimacy of MLK's movement and wrapping perversion with it.
|
|
| | | 55 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Thu, Dec 02, 2010, 16:27
|
In what way is this a perversion? Do you not believe that soldiering, at its heart, is about honor?
The DADT policy requires the gay soldier to hide the mere fact of their sexuality from everyone in the service. They, in fact, have to lie by saying and acting heterosexual while in the service of our country.
Don't try to lecture me on perversion, when you would actually weaken our armed services by apply sexual preference as an essential component of being a soldier--a stance at odds with actual soldiers.
|
|
| | | 56 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Thu, Dec 02, 2010, 16:31
|
Meanwhile, the Democrats grow a spine, and pass an extension of the Bush tax cuts for the middle class.
Yay!
Next session the GOP can try to make the case that the US needs to borrow (more) money so that the wealthy can continue to enjoy tax rates lower than during the Clinton administration.
|
|
| | | 57 | biliruben
ID: 358252515
Thu, Dec 02, 2010, 17:59
|
Awesome. Now make the Senate filibuster from now until new years day against tax cuts.
Time for some hardball.
|
|
| | | 58 | Razor
ID: 265539
Thu, Dec 02, 2010, 20:41
|
That is a bold and brilliant plan, biliruben. Sadly, it will not happen.
|
|
| | | 59 | WiddleAvi
ID: 32559
Thu, Dec 02, 2010, 21:12
|
If the Dems really grew some balls they would say either no tax cuts for the wealthy or we just let all the tax cuts expire. I think the GOP will feel some backlash then once taxes rise for middle class.
|
|
| | | 60 | J-Bar
ID: 581124222
Thu, Dec 02, 2010, 23:25
|
#56 Awesome PD is now a supporter of the Bush tax cuts that his little charts were so adamantly opposed to. Wonder why PD hasn't posted charts of how the FDR policies are affecting are budgets today. Probably just biased i guess.
|
|
| | | 61 | biliruben
ID: 34820210
Thu, Dec 02, 2010, 23:31
|
Bush era tax cuts crushed the economy. Now the radical right aren't satisfied, and want to make sure we finish the job, and squash any possible hope of a strong recovery.
Traditional conservatives like PD are just hoping to hold the line.
|
|
| | | 62 | J-Bar
ID: 581124222
Thu, Dec 02, 2010, 23:32
|
As far as the whole openly gay thing in the military I am all for all boundaries based on sexual preference to be removed. All units, dorms, showers, bathrooms, squads in basic, roommates, jobs (including all combat positions), ect be completely open to the next person on the list regardless of race, gender, sexual preference, religion, dress preference, color, or any other factor other than the minimum qualifications.
|
|
| | | 63 | Mith
ID: 451132222
Thu, Dec 02, 2010, 23:32
|
Have you been asleep for 3 years? The left has supported Obama's proposal of continuing the Bush cuts for all but the wealthiest Americans since, I believe, early in his candidacy.
|
|
| | | 64 | J-Bar
ID: 581124222
Thu, Dec 02, 2010, 23:35
|
Fannie and freddie run a muck were the major cause of the recession. So I guess after this extension happens we can call them the Obama tax cuts and you will be all for them.
|
|
| | | 65 | J-Bar
ID: 581124222
Thu, Dec 02, 2010, 23:40
|
Oh you mean the no one earning under 250,000 will pay any additional taxes. And then the let me rephrase "oh i only meant Federal income taxes", not tobacco taxes, fuel taxes, and every other tax that i may want to increase.
|
|
| | | 66 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Thu, Dec 02, 2010, 23:43
|
I've always been against tax cuts for the wealthy. Both ethically and economically they made no sense at all. That, combined with irresponsible spending by the GOP when they held all the power, defined the entire Bush Administration and made it much, much more difficult for the government to respond to the current economic crisis.
Let me make this as clear as I can: You can't be against the deficit and for continued tax cuts for the wealthy.
The middle class and poor are those affected most by the economic downturn. The wealthy, by and large, are not. I've stated elsewhere that deficit spending by the government to help those in need during the downturn is not only prudent, but is more healthy for our economy long-term because it will soften the downturn while bringing about recovery that much more quickly.
So: Your damn right I'm for keeping taxes on the middle class as low as possible. Putting money back into the hands of people who both need it and will spend it is smart policy.
|
|
| | | 67 | biliruben
ID: 34820210
Fri, Dec 03, 2010, 00:26
|
You can't be against the deficit and for continued tax cuts for the wealthy.
I predict epic silence on that point, as they scratch their heads and try and squeeze that reality into their "no tax cuts are ever bad" Paradigm of Silly.
|
|
| | | 68 | J-Bar
ID: 581124222
Fri, Dec 03, 2010, 00:52
|
Only if you see tax cuts as a zero sum gain. Which is what some want to say when we hear how much they contributed to the deficit. Amazing that the same supporters of a fallacy like "saved jobs" feel that lower tax rates have no positives. And how can you be against deficits and tout unending and unfunded stimulus spending. Based on 4.6% increase in top 5% of earners (>$160,000) based on 2008 revenues we are talking 28 billion maximum in lost revenues but not taking into account anything positive that may be derived from this loss. But lets not blink at 800 bil in stimulus, or 40 bil for this, 150 bil for that.
|
|
| | | 69 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Fri, Dec 03, 2010, 01:55
|
I don't think you realize that there is smart spending, and dumb spending.
Smart spending is unemployment compensation. Dumb spending is interest on the T-bills to cover the additional shortfall from giving the wealthy tax cuts.
The rich have had a long free ride at taxpayer expense. Time for them to pay up.
|
|
| | | 70 | Building 7
Leader
ID: 171572711
Fri, Dec 03, 2010, 07:45
|
You can't be against the deficit and for continued tax cuts for the wealthy.
When the marginal rate was 90% you could. Not sure about today. There are examples of tax rates going down and total revenues going up.
How much is the increase for the top bracket? Nobody ever mentions it. Exactly what is it? Like 39% to 42%. Does antbody know. I don't think it's very much.
|
|
| | | 71 | J-Bar
ID: 581124222
Fri, Dec 03, 2010, 07:48
|
If PD could wave his wand and make actual tax rates be whatever he wanted for the top .01%, 1%, 5%, 10%, 25%, 50% what would they be and what percentage of income taxes would you hope they would garner.
|
|
| | | 72 | J-Bar
ID: 581124222
Fri, Dec 03, 2010, 07:56
|
I think it is 35% to 39.6.
|
|
| | | 73 | Boldwin
ID: 451159221
Fri, Dec 03, 2010, 09:43
|
35-38.6
|
|
| | | 74 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Fri, Dec 03, 2010, 10:26
|
#71: As an aside, I've stated before that we should absolutely add more tax brackets, to smooth out the jumps in taxes going from one bracket to another. And I would add a bracket or two for those making personal income of over a million, for instance.
Tax rates for those making over about $375K (I believe) is 35%. It was something like $372 in 2009, but the rate itself hasn't changed.
|
|
| | | 75 | DWetzel at work
ID: 49962710
Fri, Dec 03, 2010, 10:57
|
How well your trickle down economics have worked
Brief summary: For the top 1% of earners, real incomes (inflation-adjusted to 1979 levels) have increased by roughly 250%. For the bottom 90%, they've not increased at all (in fact, they've decreased slightly).
So, if the theory is that those top 1% were going to spend a bunch of money on jobs and things that would lift all the boats, it sure doesn't seem to be working. If you have an alternate explanation for this, let's hear it -- but try bringing actual facts into the discussion.
|
|
| | | 76 | Great One
ID: 471018298
Fri, Dec 03, 2010, 11:04
|
I am very much for raising the rates of the rich... maybe that 250K number just needs to be raised to appease folks. Make it 500K, 750K... I don't care. And make the percentage even higher to compensate. Does the guy with 20 MM dollars really feel it when he gets taxed a few hundred thousand extra? He won't even notice.
|
|
| | | 77 | Boldwin
ID: 451159221
Fri, Dec 03, 2010, 11:09
|
I've never met a businessman who thot it was that easy, but I've seen plenty fall out of that bracket.
|
|
| | | 78 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Fri, Dec 03, 2010, 11:25
|
This isn't about business taxes. These are personal income tax rates.
|
|
| | | 79 | Frick
ID: 5310541617
Fri, Dec 03, 2010, 11:31
|
Was it here that someone posted a quote from Warren Buffet, that he challenged any Forbes 500, that they had a lower effective tax rate than their secretary?
|
|
| | |
| | | 81 | Building 7
Leader
ID: 171572711
Fri, Dec 03, 2010, 14:09
|
35% to 39%. That's piddly. That's not going to cause many people to pack up and move overseas. Or make many changes at all. That's how you Democrats should be arguing it IMO. That 3 or 4 % is going to be the end of life as we know it? Come on, that's nothing. A postage stamp had a similar increase and nobody noticed.
|
|
| | | 82 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Fri, Dec 03, 2010, 14:15
|
I'm not sure what you are saying here, B7. Is your argument that the amount between 35% and 39% isn't worth arguing about? If so, then that seems to be a point in favor of raising the rate to the 1990's rates, then.
|
|
| | | 83 | boikin
ID: 532592112
Fri, Dec 03, 2010, 14:30
|
I think that his point or atleast that is case that should be made for raising the rate from 35% to 39%...Though i would much rather see a reduction in number of tax deductions than the actual tax rate. The number that is more relevant is not the tax rate but actual tax rate, what % of income is going to taxes.
|
|
| | | 84 | Building 7
Leader
ID: 171572711
Fri, Dec 03, 2010, 15:08
|
My point is that the R's are calling it the greatest tax increase in American history. And it's only going from 35% to 39%. The D's should be stating the actual %'s which will show that it is not a big deal. Every time the R's say it's the biggest tax increase in history, say it's just going from 35% to 39%. If people know nothing else about it; they know that 35% to 39% is not a big deal....and will likely side with the D's.
|
|
| | | 85 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Fri, Dec 03, 2010, 15:10
|
Well, during this deficit-spending, it doesn't make sense to continue to borrow money to pay for a tax cut for the wealthy, IMO.
I agree with you on the reduction in deductions. Many of those can almost be called earmarks because they are crafted in a way that only a few people can actually use them.
|
|
| | | 86 | DWetzel at work
ID: 49962710
Fri, Dec 03, 2010, 15:39
|
"My point is that the R's are calling it the greatest tax increase in American history. And it's only going from 35% to 39%. The D's should be stating the actual %'s which will show that it is not a big deal. Every time the R's say it's the biggest tax increase in history, say it's just going from 35% to 39%. If people know nothing else about it; they know that 35% to 39% is not a big deal....and will likely side with the D's."
While I agree with the sentiment, you vastly overestimate the intelligence and the non-sheep qualities of the American people.
More to the point, if you know that it's really not that big a deal, and I know it's really not that big a deal, ask yourself why the people that ARE saying it's that big a deal are saying that, and why the media supporting those people isn't mentioning it?
|
|
| | | 87 | Seattle Zen
Leader
ID: 055343019
Fri, Dec 03, 2010, 15:50
|
I'm in complete agreement with B7. The D's are doing a poor job selling their plan. I find myself saying that too often...
|
|
| | | 88 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Fri, Dec 03, 2010, 15:58
|
That's a good point (Zen & B7).
I've been following this for some time, and even for me I'm learning something new (today). Democrats seem to almost be afraid of spelling out their own arguments to people.
|
|
| | | 89 | J-Bar
ID: 581124222
Fri, Dec 03, 2010, 17:29
|
#75 nice chart that says nothing in reference to earnings. It uses income and those with money that have invested will show great increases in capital gains which accounts for the large spikes.
#78 A large number of small businesses are filed as individual returns.
If it is not a big deal going up then it is not a big deal to stay the same. Is the risk of changing the dynamic into an unknown worth the 40 bil?
Either it is a big deal or it isn't?
nice article that dispells Buffet offhanded statement
|
|
| | | 90 | DWetzel
ID: 278201415
Fri, Dec 03, 2010, 17:38
|
"#75 nice chart that says nothing in reference to earnings. It uses income and those with money that have invested will show great increases in capital gains which accounts for the large spikes. "
How does it show nothing? Are we not counting investment income as part of people's income any more? If 90% of the population had income to invest, their profits would be reflected in the graph-- but they don't.
Furthermore, if they're investing all that, why aren't the benefits accruing to most of the population? Wasn't the whole theory that providing those people with big tax breaks would allow the money to trickle down? Where's the trickle? If there was one, it would be readily evident on that graph.
|
|
| | | 91 | DWetzel
ID: 278201415
Fri, Dec 03, 2010, 17:39
|
"Is the risk of changing the dynamic into an unknown worth the 40 bil?"
What's "unknown" about it? We tried it, roughly 5-15 years ago. It worked just fine then. You make it sound like some scary boondoggle contraption that nobody's ever tried before.
We're trying 35% right now, it isn't working at all -- but you're scared of the unknown?
|
|
| | | 92 | J-Bar
ID: 581124222
Fri, Dec 03, 2010, 18:38
|
DWetzel logic: Yacht sales to the wealthy increased 300%, Yacht sales to the poor did not increase. We need to subsidize some yachts to the poor because of this disparity. Oh the injustice.
Please see chart on AGI and you will see that the bottom 50% of filers AGI increased or stayed the same even when the top 5% AGI decreased.
I do agree that the tax code should be made simpler by getting rid of some deductions which in turn would raise the actual tax rate of the more affluent but that's another fight for another day.
|
|
| | |
| | | 94 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916
Fri, Dec 03, 2010, 19:36
|
"Thanks to your service we are making important progress.
"On behalf of more than 300 million Americans, we are here to say thank you ... for everything that you do." - President Barak Obama 12/2/10 while on a suprise visit to Afghanistan
"For liberals, gays in the military is a win-win proposition. Either gays in the military works, or it wrecks the military, both of which outcomes they enthusiastically support." - Columnist Ann Coulter 12/2/10
Substance or hyperbole? In this case, case for Obama.
|
|
| | | 95 | DWetzel
ID: 33337117
Fri, Dec 03, 2010, 22:13
|
J-Bar logic: because the wealthy increased yacht purchases by 300%, life is awesome because the economy grew! (Hey, if you can misrepresent my position, it's only fair that I do the same.)
Explain why, as you seem to assert, that measuring people's adjusted gross income a better measure of people's income than their income? The former may be more useful for tax purposes, but that was not the point of my post at all.
|
|
| | | 96 | J-Bar
ID: 581124222
Sat, Dec 04, 2010, 18:24
|
If you could help me with the point of your post I would appreciate it.
By the way my statement about your logic was a direct correlation whereas yours I haven't figured out yet because no where did I say life was awesome. Nice try but typical.
AGI represents what they are paying taxes on which I believe (taxes) were the topic of the thread for the last so many posts. HMMMM
|
|
| | | 97 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Wed, Dec 22, 2010, 15:13
|
Obama is giving away the country to the Indians! Wait. Nevermind.
|
|
|
|