Campaign 2008

[ZGangsta 0]

Warren Buffet, the 2nd richest guy in the world, freely admits that he pays less tax (as a percentage of his income) than his employees.

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/20...n-buffet-p.html

 

This bullshit rhetoric that conservatives put out there that the rich are unfairly taxed is completely insane and it amazes me how so many people at the low end of income will buy into that and support that idea.

[snuffbox 0]

Would a worker not rather have 85 or 90% of their paycheck than 70%?

[EricMM 0]

Yeah, "why" is not the question...

[SuperJerk 0]

The argument for lowering taxes for wealthy people to encourage the economy is based on three flawed assumptions.

 

1) Entrepenuers will be less productive if you tax them higher.

Well, no. It actually just means they have to work even harder to make it rich. If someone wnats to get rich, a 25% tax rate isn't going to make them work any harder than a 50% tax rate. They still want to be rich, it'll just take them 50% longer to get there. If anything, that's going to make them work harder.

 

2) Money saved from tax cuts will be used to invest and lead to increased productivity.

Only if the money is invested in increasing productivity, and not used to buy pieces of other people's wealth, or spent on luxuries. Tax breaks are already available for productivity increases by corporations. You could argue that it effects the amount of capital available for entrepeneurship, but if these taxes are on people who are already wealthy, and not people starting a business who are not wealthy, then capital used to start new businesses isn't really being taxed.

 

3) When the government taxes, it takes money out of the economy.

No, because the government spends every penny it collects in taxes, and that spending is immediately put back into the economy. It is taken from one group of tax-payers, and given to another group (government employees and businesses with government contracts). And then that money is, in turn, also taxed as income and become part of the money being spent by the government.

 

 

______________________________

 

MSNBC seems obligated to publish at least one "No Shit?" story every day.

 

Today's was too good not to mention:

Omitting cell phone users may affect polls

People with only cell phones may differ enough from those with landlines

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26889731/

[ZGangsta 0]

Those clips of Paling talking to Katie Couric that are making their way around the net are just... my god. This woman has no clue.

[BUTT 0]

 

O'Reilly goes nuts, calls out right-wing radio hosts, says he wants to hit Barney Frank and Chris Dodd.

[SuperJerk 0]

You and Jamie Lynn got some negative press when she got pregnant so young. But more recently, 17-year-old Bristol Palin, and her mother, Sarah Palin, the Republican vice presidential candidate, found themselves in a similar situation. And the publ ic reaction has been different.

It's a totally different reaction. It's as if [sarah Palin] became celebrated. I mean, the mother, Palin, was celebrated for this. Every woman in the world has applauded her strength and her convictions and poor little old Jamie Lynn—you saw how she was crucified. Everybody did, firsthand ... I just feel like it's been a very hypocritical situation.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/159894

 

Some people are saying that the difference is that Spears was famous, and Bristol Palin wasn't, but does that really explain why it was okay in one case and it wasn't okay in another (according to popular opinion)?

 

 

 

_________________________

 

 

Bail-out deals seems further and further away...

 

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/25/cam...wrap/index.html

Edited September 25, 2008 by SuperJerk

[At Home 0]

The argument for lowering taxes for wealthy people to encourage the economy is based on three flawed assumptions.

 

1) Entrepenuers will be less productive if you tax them higher.

Well, no. It actually just means they have to work even harder to make it rich. If someone wnats to get rich, a 25% tax rate isn't going to make them work any harder than a 50% tax rate. They still want to be rich, it'll just take them 50% longer to get there. If anything, that's going to make them work harder.

 

You argue against this point from the premise that every business wants to kick it into high gear to keep their head above water. The argument is that higher taxes will stint business growth because of less profit, and less economic growth because less businesses will want to start up because who would want to start one when the government takes a sizable portion of your earnings anyways? The reverse is true, though; lower tax rates would create an incentive for businesses to start up.

 

2) Money saved from tax cuts will be used to invest and lead to increased productivity.

Only if the money is invested in increasing productivity, and not used to buy pieces of other people's wealth, or spent on luxuries. Tax breaks are already available for productivity increases by corporations. You could argue that it effects the amount of capital available for entrepeneurship, but if these taxes are on people who are already wealthy, and not people starting a business who are not wealthy, then capital used to start new businesses isn't really being taxed.

 

Most available funds in a business go to purchasing more capital and making a business expand via hiring more employees or whatever, not "other people's wealth, or spent on luxuries." Those maybe account for a small, infantile percentage of funds spending. Even still, I really doubt that companies, and not individuals, spend their business funds on luxuries instead of capital. I understand the necessity for it, but don't inflate this luxury spending. Now, that we've established that lower taxes = greater profit margin, we can also establish that greater profit margin = more capital purchasing power, which, in turn, equals business growth.

 

Then there's the trickle down theory. That lower taxes on the rich will give them more purchasing power in the economy, and lots of it, which will stimulate the economy down because they drive up demand with their large amounts of expendable salaries.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

Would a worker not rather have 85 or 90% of their paycheck than 70%?

Because, if you get more money then..someone else is losing money to taxes and in the end, costs of goods and services goes up more than the increase in your paycheck.

 

See: Wage, Minimum

 

and by God, today I listened to Rush Limbaugh (not his biggest fan..really), but he made the point today that if the Banks dont get the money they need, then they might have to start going after people with maxed out credit cards wanting payment in full on the debts owed on them. They will have to take drastic measures in order to be able to continue to lend money. If banks can't lend money, the economy pretty much shuts down. End of story.

 

Now, I have some thoughts on this because this piece makes it clear this is not a bailout. It's a rescue. Now, these things still have some value. I don't know what the value is, and they haven't been foreclosed on. They're pretty close to worthless, but it's not technically a bailout. And of course you're hearing all these warnings if we do this then there's not going to be any credit. Okay, now, what does that mean? Well, it could mean something like this. Now, I'm just giving you an extreme example. It could mean that all of our credit cards, outstanding balances are going to be called in, 'cause there's no more credit. If the credit markets have no cash to lend money, and if the assets that they hold are worthless, then there's no credit, and if there's no credit, there's no expansion. If there's no expansion, there's no growth.

[EricMM 0]

The argument for lowering taxes for wealthy people to encourage the economy is based on three flawed assumptions.

 

1) Entrepenuers will be less productive if you tax them higher.

Well, no. It actually just means they have to work even harder to make it rich. If someone wnats to get rich, a 25% tax rate isn't going to make them work any harder than a 50% tax rate. They still want to be rich, it'll just take them 50% longer to get there. If anything, that's going to make them work harder.

 

You argue against this point from the premise that every business wants to kick it into high gear to keep their head above water. The argument is that higher taxes will stint business growth because of less profit, and less economic growth because less businesses will want to start up because who would want to start one when the government takes a sizable portion of your earnings anyways? The reverse is true, though; lower tax rates would create an incentive for businesses to start up.

 

2) Money saved from tax cuts will be used to invest and lead to increased productivity.

Only if the money is invested in increasing productivity, and not used to buy pieces of other people's wealth, or spent on luxuries. Tax breaks are already available for productivity increases by corporations. You could argue that it effects the amount of capital available for entrepeneurship, but if these taxes are on people who are already wealthy, and not people starting a business who are not wealthy, then capital used to start new businesses isn't really being taxed.

 

Most available funds in a business go to purchasing more capital and making a business expand via hiring more employees or whatever, not "other people's wealth, or spent on luxuries." Those maybe account for a small, infantile percentage of funds spending. Even still, I really doubt that companies, and not individuals, spend their business funds on luxuries instead of capital. I understand the necessity for it, but don't inflate this luxury spending. Now, that we've established that lower taxes = greater profit margin, we can also establish that greater profit margin = more capital purchasing power, which, in turn, equals business growth.

 

Then there's the trickle down theory. That lower taxes on the rich will give them more purchasing power in the economy, and lots of it, which will stimulate the economy down because they drive up demand with their large amounts of expendable salaries.

If any of these ideas worked, do you think we'd be in the mess we're in right now?

 

TRICKLE DOWN / REAGANOMICS DON'T WORK~!!!!

 

Has our economy done better under Bush than it did under Clinton? Really!?

 

[At Home 0]

Eric, you're comparing two different things. Don't be stupid. The financial crisis' roots lay in things other than Reaganomics.

[SuperJerk 0]

Eric's not the one being stupid.

 

The argument for lowering taxes for wealthy people to encourage the economy is based on three flawed assumptions.

 

You argue against this point from the premise that every business wants to kick it into high gear to keep their head above water.

 

Even still, I really doubt that companies, and not individuals, spend their business funds on luxuries instead of capital.

 

How about reading a little more carefully and figuring out what I'm really talking about before jumping everyone's asses next time?

[At Home 0]

And then you direct your first argument at entrepreneurs. Businesses and businesspeople.

 

"before jumping everyone's asses." Give me a break. You and Eric really are the same.

 

And yes, Eric is being pretty stupid for raising all his red flags to a modest disagreement on those arguments. Instead of, I don't know, illustrating a counterpoint, the only thing he could muster is THAT DOESN'T WORK LOOK IT DOESN'T WORK even when if you argue against lowering taxes for businesses or people, you should know that it has little to do with Wall Street's meltdown this month. My arguments up there were tax breaks for businesses, and could potentially be expanded into the higher class, but nevertheless anything that doesn't immediately help the middle class is, I guess, something that is so philosophically disgusting to Eric that he can't see past his own liberal dogmatism to see ANY potential benefits. Believe it or not, tax breaks for the rich and businesses does have a leg to stand on. Both you and Eric treat disagreement like children, and I think anyone who's read this thread (or, hell, the global warming thread) could see where I'm coming from on that one.

[SuperJerk 0]

And then you direct your first argument at entrepreneurs. Businesses and businesspeople.

 

No.

 

 

Entrepenuers are people. Businesses are organizations. They are taxed differently, and what they do with their incomes is also different. Your counter-argument was about the taxes on the new and pre-existing organizations, not the individual people starting the businesses or about to start the business using capital that isn't danger of being confiscated because the people who are starting them are not rich yet. Corporate taxes are a different situation, and your counter-argument was invalid.

 

Also, your whole bit about "I really doubt that companies, and not individuals..." just proves you weren't paying attention, because I was talking about people (not companies). Again, your counter-argument was invalid.

 

Instead of, I don't know, illustrating a counterpoint, the only thing he could muster is THAT DOESN'T WORK LOOK IT DOESN'T WORK even when if you argue against lowering taxes for businesses or people, you should know that it has little to do with Wall Street's meltdown this month.

 

That's because I wasn't talking about reasons for the crisis, I was explaining why Huckabee's plan wouldn't work.

 

Again, read a little before jumping people's asses.

 

 

 

Believe it or not, tax breaks for the rich and businesses does have a leg to stand on.

 

Calvin Coolidge tips his hat to you, sir. Let's just keep cutting taxes and shrinking government and our prosperity will last forever.

 

 

Both you and Eric treat disagreement like children...

I tend to spank disagreement and send it to bed without its supper.

Edited September 26, 2008 by SuperJerk

[SuperJerk 0]

[SuperJerk 0]

More Palin/Couric goodness...

 

 

Wow...she's just, like...talking in circles there...and just keeps going...wow.

 

 

 

To be fair, though...

Palin defends Alaska-Russia foreign policy remark.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4478156n

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

Nader and Barr offer to fill in for McCain in the Debate

 

That would be awesome actually.

 

 

[Gary Floyd 0]

Nader and Barr offer to fill in for McCain in the Debate

 

1.) Anyone who actually thinks Barr has really changed/is a Libertarian is a sucker. He's just another guy who's a Republican but is ashamed, so he starts calling himself a Libertarian instead. Bullshit. He can say he's changed all he wants, but he's still the same guy/

 

2.) I can't say anything about Nader that hasn't been said already.

[snuffbox 0]

Supporting Bob Barr is a matter of words vs. action. The man held power & had plenty of chances to enct libertarian or small-govt Republican ideas. He consistently followed his then-party to the biggest govt any of us have ever seen. But, this is America, and rhetoric based upon bullshit works with more than a few people. See also: the McCain/Plain ticket.

[Scroby 0]

I'm watching Rachel Maddow and she has Keith Oberman on the show and they're talking about McCain maybe getting rid of Palin and replacing her with someone who is just a lot better than her when it comes to knowing things and is able to handle the media.

 

Personally I don't think McCain and his campaign would do that, but a good point was brought up that if McCain did remove Palin and replaced her, McCain would make headlines again and would maybe get some voters attention by making the move and get their votes.

 

Would or could McCain actually do this?

[Guest C*Z*E*C*H]

Ugh, I can't even bother to dig up the HTML code for background music.

[SuperJerk 0]

[snuffbox 0]

Just saw a McCain ad on tv.

[Mecca 0]

Congressional Democratic leaders wasted no time pointing the blame at House Republicans and in particular Republican presidential candidate John McCain after a tentative deal on the $700 billion financial sector bailout proposal blew up following an afternoon meeting at the White House.

 

“I would suggest that anyone in that meeting who tried to understand what John McCain said at that meeting, couldn’t,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada told reporters Thursday evening.

 

McCain suspended his campaign to return to Washington D.C. to take part in negotiations on the bailout. Barack Obama also returned after President Bush requested he attend today’s meeting. Reid suggested McCain’s return injected politics in to the negotiations. McCain was the last one to speak at the White House meeting, Reid said, and he “didn’t say anything substantive.”

 

“John McCain did nothing to help, he only hurt the process,” Reid said, further chastising McCain for calling for a delay in Friday’s presidential debate in Mississippi. “We should not let this little effort to avoid participating in the debates sidetrack this most important issue,” Reid said.

 

Growing resistance among House Republicans played a greater role in stalling negotiations, as a faction of GOP lawmakers released principles for a competing bailout proposal as it became increasingly clear that the tentative agreement did not have broad support in the House Republican Conference. One House Republican aide estimated that no more than 45 House Republicans would support the current proposal.

 

Key negotiators expressed surprise at the counter proposal. Reid said he was “stunned” by House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio who had previously expressed his support for passing a bipartisan plan.

 

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said she does not want to bring a bill to the floor without a significant number of House Republicans on board. Democrats are not keen to take political ownership of a Bush administration proposal less than six weeks before Election Day.

 

“If it’s going to pass, it needs to be bipartisan,” House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland told reporters, adding that he has “confidence” that Boehner is working to that end. “I hope that his Conference will cooperate in that effort.” Hoyer declined to say how many House Republicans would have to be on board for Democrats to bring the measure to the floor.

 

Reid said negotiations will begin again at 8:00pm/ET tonight. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke were headed back to Capitol Hill to meet with lawmakers. Reid said he asked Paulson to “do what he can” to get House Republicans on board.

 

“It’s all very fuzzy to us, we don’t know where we are,” House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank told reporters on the status of negotiations. Frank also suggested McCain’s return to Capitol Hill hurt negotiations.

 

“Sen. McCain has not been involved in this,” Frank said, noting the Arizona senator does not sit on any committees of jurisdiction and did not take place in earlier negotiations. “I think this was a campaign ploy by Sen. McCain,” he said, “He slowed it down. I don’t know if he caused it or what.” Echoing Reid, Frank said McCain should participate in Friday’s presidential debate, adding that if he doesn’t it’s “only because he doesn’t want to.”

 

UPDATE: “As far as I know Sen. McCain has not endorsed this plan. This is not a product of his campaign,” Virginia Republican Rep. Eric Cantor told reporters tonight. Cantor is leading the coalition of House Republicans who devised the competing plan with the consent of Boehner; he took issue with characterizations that Republicans surprised negotiators with their proposal.

 

“We’ve been talking about this plan for at least two days,” he said. Cantor defended McCain’s decision to return to Washington for “trying to affect the change needed” to get a bill done. “I applaud him in coming back and making sure that as a senator he is here to do that,” he said.

---------

 

McCain's counter proposal includes suspending capital gains taxes, less regulation, and more corporate tax breaks.

 

Jesus Fucking Christ.

[EricMM 0]

Well the markets open in four minutes.

 

If today's a black Friday, here we go...

[The Niggardly King 0]

http://studiodave.blogspot.com/2008/09/com...d-contrast.html

 

...

[panthermatt7 0]

Supporting Bob Barr is a matter of words vs. action. The man held power & had plenty of chances to enct libertarian or small-govt Republican ideas. He consistently followed his then-party to the biggest govt any of us have ever seen. But, this is America, and rhetoric based upon bullshit works with more than a few people. See also: the McCain/Plain ticket.

 

See also: "Change" aka Barack Obama.

[snuffbox 0]

Again, whatever you read on the internet that said he's never done anything was wrong. That was shown to you via numerous links.

[CubbyBr 0]

This debate is going to have a ridiculous audience. On a Friday night, I have people calling me and instead of asking what bar I'm going to tonight, they're asking me where I'm going to watch this debate.

[Guest Vitamin X]

http://studiodave.blogspot.com/2008/09/com...d-contrast.html

 

...

Well Palin IS a former beauty queen....