Big Ol' Smitty

One more point--"the rich don't even pay the taxes they're supposed to!" is not a powerful argument in favor a flat tax. It's may be a powerful argument in favor of closing tax loopholes, but really impugns tax dodgers far more than the tax structure.

Jingus, I think you're mixing up income taxes, capital gains taxes, and corporate income tax. The tax where there are myriad loopholes for corporate accountants to avoid is the corporate income tax. The reason Warren Buffett pays lower taxes than the average middle class person is because of the capital gains rate. For whatever reason, we have decided that we should tax capital gains at a lower rate than money earned through work. A progressive income tax rate may "punish the rich", but what we have now, what we had under Clinton in the 90s, and what Obama has proposed (which is an income tax cut for the middle & working class & a return to Clinton-era levels for the rich), all still feature far lower rates in the highest bracket than at any time between WW2 and the 1980s, when the United States probably saw the most amazing economic growth of any country at any period in history. The marginal tax rate on the very richest under Obama would be 35-39.6 percent. The highest rate (beware...PDF!) under, for example, President Eisenhower, was 92 percent! Ike lowered it to 91 percent. We had a 94 percent bracket toward the end of WWII! There were still 50 percent brackets under the most famous tax cutter in history, Ronald Reagan. If Obama's tax plan is "socialist" then Presidents FDR through Carter must have been downright Maoist or Stalinist and President Reagan Marxist-Leninist.

He's not saying that. He's saying that comparatively, your average bum may or may not make as much as someone in a third world country. Seeing as that there are a shitload of people who live on a few dollars a day, and that homeless assholes can make upwards of $20 a day, this is true in some cases. But he said that the average American homeless person was relatively rich on an international level in the context of saying "we need to define what rich is." Taking this idea further, marvin would probably suggest that all Americans are relatively rich and that therefore, contra Teddy Roosevelt, we don't need progressive income taxation. We already know he supports the crackpot "Fairtax" national sales tax plan. My point would be Americans don't gauge their wealth by comparing themselves to African slum dwellers, and any economic plan that tried to do this would be asinine. So while you're technically correct, pbonester, the point that our fair-skinned friend was making was very different. edit: Nightwing beat me to the punch.

Okay, marvin, if you want to define the lifestyle of an American homeless person as rich, go ahead and do that. I don't think many people will agree with you. still fly's point seemed to be that it made sense for the government to invest and not cut spending during downturns, and this is not a crackpot idea--it's a very mainstream economic view. And no, marv, that's not changinism.

Brody is doing yeoman's work, people. Give the guy props.

The only country that benefits from Trickle Up economics is China. Noted economist marvin, ladies & gentleman. He & Stephen Joseph will be signing books after the show. Also, fail.

Fail.

No, he's saying there couldn't have been a nonviolent uprising or some such against Hussein because Hussein had killed all of the potential Mandela/Gandhi/MLK Jr. types in Iraq, so the US had to invade. That's my read on it.

Re: the white supremacist mass murder/assassination plot From the Smoking Gun: Something tells me this plot wouldn't have gotten very far even if the ATF hadn't gotten the drop on them before hand.

Awesome new electoral strategy. McCain: If you vote for the Democrats, they'll be in power! Public: Um, okay.

Sea_of_Dicks

State Senator Clay Davis!

Those are Mary Janes, and they're horrid. And Czech is wrong about Mounds.

State and local governments actually control more funds than the federal government. They probably also have a greater impact on most people's lives as well. So I agree with snuffington.

OMG, Obama's thugs got to the judge, Marv! Now we're going to have riots, guns confiscated, mandatory abortions, and a 99.73% marginal tax rate in all brackets!

The Fairness Doctrine is right wing radio shibboleth and I would be shocked if I saw it raised by a Congress in the next session. Frankly, I don't really care, although I would prefer they focus on other things. I would also be shocked if Congress brought up any sort of gun control other than a ban on really destructive assault weapons or some kind of safety measures. I would eat platefuls of crow if an Obama administration pushed for heavy gun control, given that it has not even been on the radar in this campaign. In summation, I think the current threats to the Constitution right now are much more targeted toward the 4th Amendment and the rights of the accused amendments (and habeus) than to the 1st or 2nd.

Snuffbox, you're worried about the government surveilling the phone calls of Americans citizens without warrants with the help of telecom companies who then can't be sued when BARACK HUSSEIN is going to STIFLE FREE SPEECH and TAKE AR GUNS?!?!

I can't believe I'm voting for the same guy as Dobbs.

Drudge got punk'd.

Yowza. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/business...24panel.html?hp

Marvin, that is one poll. What was the sample size? Confidence interval? Margin of error? What was the polling average for Ohio on 10/22/08 (which is what sites like Pollster, 538, & RCP are using)? But something tells me you've never taken a stats class. It was CNN's poll 4 years ago in Ohio vs CNN's poll in Ohio today. Great answer.

Marvin, that is one poll. What was the sample size? Confidence interval? Margin of error? What was the polling average for Ohio on 10/22/08 (which is what sites like Pollster, 538, & RCP are using). But something tells me you've never taken a stats class.

Eliminating the tiny amount of competition that exists in the health insurance marketplace in favor of one government-run entity hardly sounds like a good idea to me. If you think prices suck now, just imagine what they'd be like with no competition -- it'd be like taxes, basically (far too high). But you see, matt, there are other countries that have this and that hasn't happened. The United States, which has the most market based health care entity in the industrialized world (with the possible exception of Australia--I'm not sure) spends the most on health care (13.9%% of GDP as opposed to, for example, 9.7% for Canada, 9.5% for France, 8.7% for Sweden, & 7.6% for Britian) . And what do we get in return for this massive spending? Substantially poorer health outcomes.

Owned.