Let's compromise.

[Stella_Omega]

Obama ran on changing the coming tax law you people claim can't be changed because it's against the UN Charter, constitution, Sharia law and whatever other bullshit reason why you think taxes have to be raised on everyone. Of course the democrats put off dealing with it until after the election. Having all this shit in flux is fucking insane no matter what your political beliefs are this close to the end of the year. What's the big deal about waiting a few years. Or set a trigger like the 8% unemployment rate the stimulus was supposed to prevent. 8% sounds pretty good right now as we head closer to 10.

It doesn't matter. Your side lost. You don't get to drive the bus anymore.

Allow me to spike your tea with something for the, shall we say, spirit. Rum? Or Bourbon?

 

[DeepGreenEyes]

It doesn't matter. Your side lost. You don't get to drive the bus anymore.

No one's driving the bus.

The rich and suburban teapartiers don't use mass transit, so it's not a core government function.

 

[Stella_Omega]

According to Newsweek, George W. Bush “earns” $4.2 million from paid speeches, public appearances and miscellaneous punditry each year. Hence the Bush Tax Cuts cut Bush’s own taxes by an amazing $187,552.00 each year. And that’s not even counting how much the Bush tax cuts engorge Bush’s investment income.

So Bush cut his own taxes. No wonder Bush is in favor of extending those tax cuts.

He’s not the only one. Here is how much the Bush tax cuts benefit – each year – some other folks you may have heard of:

Rush Limbaugh - $2,689,135.00
Glenn Beck - $1,512,352.00
Sean Hannity - $1,006,352.00
Bill O’Reilly - $914,352.00
Sarah Palin - $638,352.00
Newt Gingrich - $247,352.00

Maybe we should call them the “Rush Limbaugh Tax Cuts.” Or the “Glenn Beck Tax Cuts.” Because the reason why these right-wing blowhards support tax cuts for the rich is that they support tax cuts for themselves.

Which will cost our country almost $100 billion a year. Enough to give $30,000-a-year jobs to 3 million Americans. To cut unemployment by two percent, immediately. And to get our economy moving again.

Rep Alan Greyson

 

[Netzach]

How about the tax cuts are extended for everyone except those who make over a million per year.

This is fun! Too bad we're just a bunch of dilberts on the internet.

ZOMGZ CLASS WAR.

You know if these people were all going to create jobs they'd have done it since Regan. We'd all be rolling in trickled down money, not wee falling from on high.

 

[rosco rathbone]

What really bothers me is that the way most republicans talk about the unemployed, calling them lazy ect...

I lost my job almost a year ago, and I have in fact, been looking. You have to look for a job continously to collect unemployment, and no, I don't always do just the minimum. It's fucking depressing though, can you blame me for occasionally not wanting to hear "no" more than I have to for the week?

So... I've been a full time parent this past year, while my wife, who is considerably more marketable than myself, works cheap temp jobs I couldn't get if I sold my soul.

Hearing republicans talk, they'd have me charged with laziness, sentence me to die hungry on the street, and sentence my daughters to an orphanage (at best), just because, as failed job interviewers tell me; "times are tough."

Have you thought about getting a Nurse Aide cert? It took me 3 months, weekends only, cost 1000$, but I could have gotten it for free if I wanted to do the paperwork. Always hiring.

 

[WriterDom]

ZOMGZ CLASS WAR.

You know if these people were all going to create jobs they'd have done it since Regan. We'd all be rolling in trickled down money, not wee falling from on high.

Trickle down bureaucracy has worked so well over the last two years I can see why you'd be hesitant to change course. One more push and we can get to 10%. Of course, in reality we are closer to twenty.

I'm not opposed to raising taxes when things improve. Right now it's like having a neighbor who is months behind on their mortgage and you are giving them 10 dollars to give the bank. A nice gesture but you might as well be burning the money in the backyard.

Like McDonalds serving billions and billion of hamburgers, Obama has spent trillions and trillions of dollars and while getting 70 billion more from high earners might make you feel all warm and fuzzy, my guess is whatever they did with their money would be better than giving it to the government right now. That's like pissing on a fucking forest fire. But yeah, makes you feel good to see those fuckers pay more than they already do, but to what end?

 

[teknight]

Trickle down bureaucracy has worked so well over the last two years I can see why you'd be hesitant to change course. One more push and we can get to 10%. Of course, in reality we are closer to twenty.

I'm not opposed to raising taxes when things improve. Right now it's like having a neighbor who is months behind on their mortgage and you are giving them 10 dollars to give the bank. A nice gesture but you might as well be burning the money in the backyard.

Like McDonalds serving billions and billion of hamburgers, Obama has spent trillions and trillions of dollars and while getting 70 billion more from high earners might make you feel all warm and fuzzy, my guess is whatever they did with their money would be better than giving it to the government right now. That's like pissing on a fucking forest fire. But yeah, makes you feel good to see those fuckers pay more than they already do, but to what end?

I'm no fan of government intervention by far, however: you'd tax the rich..in a good economy?! When you'd have less of an argument against their contributions to the economy (which would be booming)

Again: the biggest problem facing you is not "Who's driving the bus," but how you guys are going to pay of the debt. That requires taxes- lotsa them.

 

[WriterDom]

I'm no fan of government intervention by far, however: you'd tax the rich..in a good economy?! When you'd have less of an argument against their contributions to the economy (which would be booming)

Again: the biggest problem facing you is not "Who's driving the bus," but how you guys are going to pay of the debt. That requires taxes- lotsa them.

I'm still waiting on the "Summer of Recovery" that idiot Joe was harping all spring. And fool knows that raising taxes is not going to do squat for the economy in the short run. And revenue to the government is increased by having a vibrant economy. Not by soaking the rich. Start lowering the unemployment rate and not raising it, then we can talk about raising rates.

Of course, if you want to give more yourself, I don't think the government would turn it down. Just go to Treasury.gov and pull out your credit card.

We could pull out the 50,000 troops in the immoral and illegal war in Iraq like tomorrow. That has to cost a pretty penny or two. But that would require some testicles.

 

[teknight]

I'm still waiting on the "Summer of Recovery" that idiot Joe was harping all spring. And fool knows that raising taxes is not going to do squat for the economy in the short run. And revenue to the government is increased by having a vibrant economy. Not by soaking the rich. Start lowering the unemployment rate and not raising it, then we can talk about raising rates.

Of course, if you want to give more yourself, I don't think the government would turn it down. Just go to Treasury.gov and pull out your credit card.

We could pull out the 50,000 troops in the immoral and illegal war in Iraq like tomorrow. That has to cost a pretty penny or two. But that would require some testicles.

Are you saying that Obama has access to some ...employment lever?

You have entirely too much faith in government and what they claim they can do.

 

[WriterDom]

Are you saying that Obama has access to some ...employment lever?

You have entirely too much faith in government and what they claim they can do.

Givernment is the liberal God, not mine, Dude. We see how well more government has worked.

 

[WriterDom]

The real shame is that we're weeks away from a new year and no business or individual in America knows what the tax rates will be because Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi were too cowardly to address it before the election.

 

[teknight]

The real shame is that we're weeks away from a new year and no business or individual in America knows what the tax rates will be because Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi were too cowardly to address it before the election.

They're not cowardly, they're calculating...just like the Reps.
Speaking of the Reps, they talk of small government but run consistent deficits. Funny how that works, huh?

 

[Stella_Omega]

The right just never stops whining, do they? They whine when they lose, they whine when they win.

I'm putting this thread on ignore. Let WD whine to his heart's content.

 

[Netzach]

Trickle down bureaucracy has worked so well over the last two years I can see why you'd be hesitant to change course. One more push and we can get to 10%. Of course, in reality we are closer to twenty.

I'm not opposed to raising taxes when things improve. Right now it's like having a neighbor who is months behind on their mortgage and you are giving them 10 dollars to give the bank. A nice gesture but you might as well be burning the money in the backyard.

Change course - that's hilarious. It's been 30 years of corporate grab. Two years is a bat of an eye.

We're using the economic equivalent of gas station TP when we need tampons.

Like McDonalds serving billions and billion of hamburgers, Obama has spent trillions and trillions of dollars and while getting 70 billion more from high earners might make you feel all warm and fuzzy, my guess is whatever they did with their money would be better than giving it to the government right now.

Do you even understand the implications of this? You are acting like the top bracket of these cuts is a line item savings. A midnight basketball program in DesMoines.

The largest segment of the budget upcoming is maintaining the idiocy of the bush tax cuts.

Let me draw a pie chart.

What do you think these people are doing with their money? Giving you a very large finger.

That's like pissing on a fucking forest fire.

But it's not. That's the problem. If it was I would give far less of a shit.

But yeah, makes you feel good to see those fuckers pay more than they already do, but to what end?

To the end of replenishing the largest repeat LARGEST piece of what we're going to have to face - we've been running the government like we've been partying with Dad's VISA card and trying to skip on the bills since I was in grade school. Both parties. Eventually the long coked up shopping expedition will be over and the need for income won't go away.

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/08/01/raise-my-taxes-mr-president.html

How about Fareeds idea - you get a tax break for hires. Prove a hire, get a cut.

 

[WriterDom]

The tea party has the Maine ladies towing the line. Maybe you need a democratic version to keep Webb and company in line. Call it the Leningrad Party or something. For a moment I was wondering why Reid's huge fucking waste of time only fell 7 votes short, then I remembered most of the new guys haven't been sworn it yet.

Damn, I agree with the DailyKos today:

For the first time in recent memory, progressive and conservative activists are in total agreement about something — President Obama must go.

 

[WriterDom]

The right just never stops whining, do they? They whine when they lose, they whine when they win.

I'm putting this thread on ignore. Let WD whine to his heart's content.

And to think I offered you repeal of Don't ask don't tell. Now you get nothing!

 

[teknight]

To the end of replenishing the largest repeat LARGEST piece of what we're going to have to face - we've been running the government like we've been partying with Dad's VISA card and trying to skip on the bills since I was in grade school. Both parties. Eventually the long coked up shopping expedition will be over and the need for income won't go away.

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/08/01/raise-my-taxes-mr-president.html

How about Fareeds idea - you get a tax break for hires. Prove a hire, get a cut.

Yes! That's what I was talking about....

...as for Fareed's idea: incentives have a weird of becoming perverted. In this case, the economist in me is thinking that companies will hire more people than necessary....although, given the high unemployment rate, hiring could go on for awhile before it becomes deleterious. I grant that it's a minor point, but any sort of incentives will have unintended consequences, and I think we need to be aware of the risk (even if is minute).

 

[rosco rathbone]

The tea party has the Maine ladies towing the line. Maybe you need a democratic version to keep Webb and company in line. Call it the Leningrad Party or something. For a moment I was wondering why Reid's huge fucking waste of time only fell 7 votes short, then I remembered most of the new guys haven't been sworn it yet.

Damn, I agree with the DailyKos today:

For the first time in recent memory, progressive and conservative activists are in total agreement about something — President Obama must go.

I agree with the baggers on all kinds of stuff. In the end we're just squabbling over what flavor of Wall Street/MNC enabler we want in the White House.

 

[WriterDom]

Yes! That's what I was talking about....

...as for Fareed's idea: incentives have a weird of becoming perverted. In this case, the economist in me is thinking that companies will hire more people than necessary....although, given the high unemployment rate, hiring could go on for awhile before it becomes deleterious. I grant that it's a minor point, but any sort of incentives will have unintended consequences, and I think we need to be aware of the risk (even if is minute).

A basketball player making 10 million a year could hire four people to wipe his asshole after he shits. Not that he'd need four but that way he'd avoid the overtime.

In the meantime they could cut grass, rake leaves, clean house or something. Unless they were union asswipers. Then all they could do is wipe ass and they could never be fired no matter how much shit they left behind.

UAWA. Unitied Ass Wipers of America

 

[rosco rathbone]

A

UAWA. Unitied Ass Wipers of America

That's basically the nursing assistants, and there is, in fact, a move to organize them, and I hope it succeeds and that they manage to raise their pay from 8 bucks an hour to 15.

 

[Netzach]

Yes! That's what I was talking about....

...as for Fareed's idea: incentives have a weird of becoming perverted. In this case, the economist in me is thinking that companies will hire more people than necessary....although, given the high unemployment rate, hiring could go on for awhile before it becomes deleterious. I grant that it's a minor point, but any sort of incentives will have unintended consequences, and I think we need to be aware of the risk (even if is minute).

Are you one of those total free market rights itself people, don't tinker with anything ever?

I have a whole toychest full of recalled Chinese toys to play with, come on over. We ban lead and they use cadmium? In case no one can tell that is "fuck you" in Mandarin.

 

[teknight]

Are you one of those total free market rights itself people, don't tinker with anything ever?

I have a whole toychest full of recalled Chinese toys to play with, come on over. We ban lead and they use cadmium? In case no one can tell that is "fuck you" in Mandarin.

Good point. I'm not sure where on that spectrum I fall. We can't trust businesses, as they do and should only consider their bottom line. So government should definitely intervene for safety.


HOWEVER: any form of intervention in the market will have unintended consequences. Some goals (low unemployment) are acceptable, but we should be aware of the consequences.

BTW: what I said referred only to unemployment and I did say that hiring could go on for awhile before it became deleterious.
But thank you for asking.

 

[teknight]

Part II

Are you one of those total free market rights itself people, don't tinker with anything ever?

I have a whole toychest full of recalled Chinese toys to play with, come on over. We ban lead and they use cadmium? In case no one can tell that is "fuck you" in Mandarin.

Here's the thing: whenever government chooses to intervene in business (not where matters of safety are concerned) then I (and everybody else) is forced to promote the interests of a narrow group of people because our tax money goes to protect X group or Y industry. Why do I have that obligation? Granted, right now, I have nothing at stake in any of this, so I have a biased unbiased viewpoint, but, why, beyond a social security blanket, which would represent, in my mind, the idea that not everything always goes according to plan, and is basically insurance writ large, am I responsible for everyone else's choice? Why are you responsible for the careers people undertake?

I'm not being combative, but, what is my obligation, ultimately?

 

[midwestyankee]

Good point. I'm not sure where on that spectrum I fall. We can't trust businesses, as they do and should only consider their bottom line. So government should definitely intervene for safety.


HOWEVER: any form of intervention in the market will have unintended consequences. Some goals (low unemployment) are acceptable, but we should be aware of the consequences.

BTW: what I said referred only to unemployment and I did say that hiring could go on for awhile before it became deleterious.
But thank you for asking.

I'm going to presume that the unintended consequences of which you speak here result from the skewing effect on incentives that is created by the intervention. That is, I choose to tax capital gains at a fixed rate that happens to be lower than the rate at which ordinary income is taxed and soon you have a thousand hedge fund managers making sure that all of their income is taken in the form of capital gains (note, I realize that the actual issue with hedge fund managers' income is more complex than this, but we'll work with this simplified explanation for now). Thus the intervention of modifying the tax code to encourage capital formation through long-term investment actually reduces tax revenue to the extent by which wealthy individuals are able to game the system by framing their income so that it is taxed at the lower rate.

And I'm sure there are other and greater misalignments between intention and result that you might point out.

However, let's also recognize that the incentives inherent in the pure market are also present and very powerful. In fact, they incentivize quite anti-civil behaviors when such behaviors are likely to increase one's profit.

The question in a large and varied society, it seems to me, is how do we control incentives so that the incentives mostly promote civil behavior, wherein by "civil" we mean behavior which promotes the greater good at least as much as it promotes the individual's good.

 

[teknight]

I am talking about skewed incentives...and, you're right, businesses' interests are faced down by unaware consumers, which skews the playing field.

It just strikes me as "odd" that interest groups have more power in dictating what your "civil" behaviors and goods should be. That is not always a bad thing, it's just ...odd (and that makes my statement naive beyond belief).