US Politics

[Mr. GOH!]

"One of the two major parties, the Republican Party, has become an insurgent outlier — ideologically extreme; contemptuous of the inherited social and economic policy regime; scornful of compromise; unpersuaded by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition." -Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein in It's Even Worse Than It Looks

 

Here's an article about the book. Note that Mann and Ornstein have mean things to say about the Dems, too. Ornstein works for the conservative American Enterprise Institute, but that doesn't stop him from recognizing that the modern GOP is terrifying and plays to ignorance and base fear.

 

Edit: Here's the link. http://www.npr.org/2012/04/30/151522725/even-worse-than-it-looks-extremism-in-congress

Edited May 1, 2012 by Mr. GOH!

[Battra92]

So the 5.85% is just an optional extra? (As assumed by the term "opted not to pay"), the 5.3% is still the base rate? Therefore she did practice what she preached; not using any loopholes, offshore accounts, etc etc to bring her tax rate down to near zero.

 

Massachusetts is as close to a flat tax as a state can get. There are a few deductions but for the most part you take your Federal adjusted income and multiply it by 5.3% or 5.85% if you're so inclined. When you advocate for higher tax rates and claim you aren't paying your fair share and then don't check a simple box on your taxes to pay more, you're a hypocrite.

 

The way I read these comments is "I'm not an idiot, I'm going to pay the minimum I'm legally obliged too. But if you make it so I'm legally obliged to pay more, that's fine." The 1% should not do the Government's (or specifically the IRS') job for them.

 

Why not? They already pay for the majority of the government.

 

If the 1% decide to pay 10% more tax without legislation, there is nothing to stop them pulling that rug. This would give them even more power than they currently have which can't be a good thing.

 

I don't understand what you are trying to say. Paying more in taxes would give them more power?

[TheMightyEthan]

Making a habit of optionally paying more would give them more power, because if the government began relying on that income (because the payors were making a habit of it) then they could hold that income hostage by saying we won't pay it if you do x or don't do y.

[Thursday Next]

To your first question, the Government should do the job of setting and collecting taxes because that is what they were elected to do. The 1% were not and lack the safeguards that government has.

 

I'm trying to say that if the 1% voluntarily pay more tax, then they will be able to hold the government to ransom over it by saying, if you don't do X we will no longer over-pay our taxes. EDIT: Ethan nailed it.

 

People should pay in taxes what they are legally obliged to pay. No one should voluntarily pay more, nor should anyone pay less. The government should do it's job and tax those who can afford to pay more, more than the rest.

Edited May 1, 2012 by Thursday Next

[Mr. GOH!]

Just because she's a hypocrite (which I dispute, but whatever) doesn't mean her position is incorrect.

Edited May 1, 2012 by Mr. GOH!

[deanb]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/opinion/sunday/terrorist-plots-helped-along-by-the-fbi.html

 

Hmmm. Especially with how much the coaxed on the Cromitie dude.

[Battra92]

Making a habit of optionally paying more would give them more power, because if the government began relying on that income (because the payors were making a habit of it) then they could hold that income hostage by saying we won't pay it if you do x or don't do y.

 

Hardly. The government already vastly overspends what it brings in. Collecting taxes is almost just a formality. The so-called Buffet-Rule that is supposed to save the government is nothing more than Huey Long style "Let's take the barbecue away from the fat people" rhetoric.

 

 

On a side note, there were plenty of useful idiots pretending to occupy a local square (getting protection from police that they despise) I guess the trust fund babies decided it was warm enough without mommy and daddy making them wear their jackets and their mittens.

[Yantelope V2]

Here's an article about the book. Note that Mann and Ornstein have mean things to say about the Dems, too. Ornstein works for the conservative American Enterprise Institute, but that doesn't stop him from recognizing that the modern GOP is terrifying and plays to ignorance and base fear.

 

Hmm, ignorance and fear?

 

Global warming: fear

Keynesian economics: ignorance

Obamacare: based in ignorance sold by fear

[Luftwaffles]

Global warming: fear

 

Please don't tell that to your kids. You may die before the real consequences of global warming begin to take hold, but it's a problem that their generation will have to face head-on and I don't feel like the future of our planet should be so casually shoved under the rug.

[Johnny]

Global warming: fear

 

I'll have to agree that a lot of the debate around global warming is fear-mongering - though not by the side you're implying.

Trying to make it so global warming isn't a potentially serious problem is playing on people's fears by telling them it's all gonna be all right and they don't have to confront the uncomfortable scientific discoveries of the day and age.

 

Also, it's very hard to take people seriously when they deflect criticism towards a party by criticizing another party. Can we please not do this? It's drawing party lines in the sand and that's the sort of thing that prevents progress.

[Mr. GOH!]

Austrian economics: ignorance. Willful ignorance because it rejects empirical evidence. But that's par for the course with the Right.

Trickle-down economics: ignorance of unfettered markets' disastrous effects and fear of a bogeyman government.

Defense spending: fear

National security policy: fear

Mexican border militarization: fear

Intelligent design: ignorance.

Global warming denial: ignorance

Anti-science: ignorance

Basing core values on arbitrary supernatural belief systems featuring angry sky ghosts, and insisting America was founded to privilege certain arbitrary supernatural belief systems over others and over rational belief systems: ignorance and fear

 

Then again, it is true; I only vote Dem because I truly fear what a GOP government of madmen, the corrupt and fools would do to America.

Edited May 2, 2012 by Mr. GOH!

[CorgiShinobi]

The way I see it, either party is willing to screw us over. It's just a matter of preference and approach.

 

Campaigning is in full swing and we're going to see the depths to which either side will sink to to have the "upper hand." Out of context quotes, challenges, hypothetical questions, the works essentially when it comes to making one side appear to be the obvious answer. I'm seriously thinking of going on a Facebook hiatus because I'm beginning to see the "Obama/Romney, answer this" comments.

 

Personally, I still don't know who I'll vote for. Doesn't seem to matter because if I'm in a "red state," a vote for Obama would go by like a fart in the wind. Electoral college, it makes sense for the 21st century!

[TheMightyEthan]

Making a habit of optionally paying more would give them more power, because if the government began relying on that income (because the payors were making a habit of it) then they could hold that income hostage by saying we won't pay it if you do x or don't do y.

 

Hardly. The government already vastly overspends what it brings in. Collecting taxes is almost just a formality. The so-called Buffet-Rule that is supposed to save the government is nothing more than Huey Long style "Let's take the barbecue away from the fat people" rhetoric.

 

I was actually talking about the state government, since it's a Massachusetts law we were discussing. Is Massachusetts allowed to run a deficit? I know a lot of state constitutions forbid it.

[Yantelope V2]

Trickle-down economics: ignorance of unfettered markets' disastrous effects and fear of a bogeyman government.

Real Conservatives are not against government regulation entirely just overregulation. Saying that conservatives want complete free market capitalism is once again: ignorance.

Defense spending: fear

National security policy: fear

Really? all defense spending is fear? Really?

National Security is fear? I'm so confused

Anti-science: ignorance

Again, nobody is anti-science. You're preying on ignorant people by trying to say that conservatives are anti science for not believing bad science.

 

Anywho, you can pretend like the Republicans are evil because they sell with "fear and ignorance" but you're kidding yourself if you think that's a Republican thing. It's a politician thing.

 

 

Also, this is interesting.

 

http://dailycaller.com/2011/11/02/nyc-arrest-records-many-occupy-wall-street-protesters-live-in-luxury/

 

for the TL;DR crowd. "Among addresses for which information is available, single-family homes listed on those police intake forms have a median value of $305,000 — a far higher number than the $185,400 median value of owner-occupied housing units in the United States."

 

So yeah, basically those people complaining about the rich one percent are mostly above average income to begin with.

[Thursday Next]

Since when is evolution bad science?

[TheMightyEthan]

 

*Edit* -

Also, this is interesting.

 

http://dailycaller.c...live-in-luxury/

 

for the TL;DR crowd. "Among addresses for which information is available, single-family homes listed on those police intake forms have a median value of $305,000 — a far higher number than the $185,400 median value of owner-occupied housing units in the United States."

 

So yeah, basically those people complaining about the rich one percent are mostly above average income to begin with.

 

That is interesting. I wonder how much of that is people giving their parents' address though. A lot of the complaints are that they have all this college debt and can't get jobs good enough to cover it, and it would stand to reason that people in that situation would live with their parents far beyond what is considered "typical". And if that's the case just because their parents can afford nice houses doesn't invalidate their grievances.

 

Not saying that's what's actually happening there, just wondering.

Edited May 2, 2012 by TheMightyEthan

[Johnny]

Real Conservatives are not against government regulation entirely just overregulation. Saying that conservatives want complete free market capitalism is once again: ignorance.

 

No True Scotsman arguments are awesome. Also, I'm not sure where in Mr. GOH's post you're reading that all or many "conservatives want complete free market capitalism."

 

 

Really? all defense spending is fear? Really?

National Security is fear? I'm so confused

 

Quite so. It's playing on the fear of being attacked. Sure, that's a reasonable fear (to a point), but it's still fear.

 

 

Anti-science: ignorance

Again, nobody is anti-science. You're preying on ignorant people by trying to say that conservatives are anti science for not believing bad science.

 

I've spoken to many conservatives who are strongly and completely anti-science. When Christian conservatives refuse to believe a science because it conflicts with the bible, for example, that's hardly something you can describe as just being critical of bad science. You know what's really bad science? Discarding sound, observable, theories about mechanics in nature because an ancient document - with highly questionable historical value - disagrees with it.

 

 

Anywho, you can pretend like the Republicans are evil because they sell with "fear and ignorance" but you're kidding yourself if you think that's a Republican thing. It's a politician thing.

 

I think any politician who uses fear and ignorance to win political points should be called out on it, no matter what party they are from. Also, you're still doing the whole deflecting thing I mentioned in my last post.

 

 

Also, this is interesting.

 

http://dailycaller.c...live-in-luxury/

 

for the TL;DR crowd. "Among addresses for which information is available, single-family homes listed on those police intake forms have a median value of $305,000 — a far higher number than the $185,400 median value of owner-occupied housing units in the United States."

 

So yeah, basically those people complaining about the rich one percent are mostly above average income to begin with.

 

In addition to what Ethan said, I must say I really don't give half a crap what someone's income level is. If they are making sense, they are making sense, and having money does not change that. Growing economical class gaps is a serious issue, and is reducing the class mobility you american (rightly) seem to hold so dear.

 

Additionally:

Taxing rich people is a good idea because it lets us do more cool things for the good of society without putting even more tax burden on those who can't afford it or overspending budget.

And just because the people saying this are well off doesn't make it not so.

[TheMightyEthan]

Yeah, as GOH said on the previous page: a good point is a good point, even if it's a hypocrite making it.

[Yantelope V2]

That is interesting. I wonder how much of that is people giving their parents' address though. A lot of the complaints are that they have all this college debt and can't get jobs good enough to cover it, and it would stand to reason that people in that situation would live with their parents far beyond what is considered "typical". And if that's the case just because their parents can afford nice houses doesn't invalidate their grievances.

 

Not saying that's what's actually happening there, just wondering.

Nobody forces people to take out school loans though and taking out a school loan for a degree which won't really ever pay for itself just seems like bad money management to me. The college tuition rates are rather high but I see it as a similar problem to health care where government intervention has separated supply from demand and as such costs are spiraling out of control. Not everyone should go to college.

 

Edit: Also, it's not simple hypocrisy if people are complaining about not having money while they have tons of money. That's just called lying.

Edited May 2, 2012 by Yantelope V2

[Johnny]

Yes yes, we know that it's a bad idea to get an education that doesn't lead to a job.

But no education guarantees a job, and quite frankly it's scary how high the costs of getting an education just so you maybe might be able to get a decent job later on is getting in the US.

 

I don't think people should be forced to live with such enormously crippling debt just because they didn't have the foresight to pick the best education and combination of luck and skill required to land a job straight out of college.

Hell, in many cases people might pick an education that looks good when they started and then turns out to have a shortage of jobs years later when they are done with it.

[TheMightyEthan]

@Yant: But that assumes you had reason to know that the degree wouldn't be able to pay for itself at the time you took out the loans. I started law school before the 2008 collapse, when there was no reason to think jobs would be hard to find, and if it weren't for the fact that my family has a law firm I probably wouldn't have a job right now (based on my efforts to get jobs elsewhere before deciding to work here). Even if I hadn't gone to law school I would have had a tough time getting/keeping a job with my mechanical engineering degree (graduated with that in May 2008) for a couple of years, because all the job openings had requirements of 10 years experience, etc, though I believe that market's getting better now.

 

I do totally agree that not everyone needs to go to college though. That's a cultural problem.

[Yantelope V2]

Well, the solution to your problem is creating jobs. Law and Engineering degrees are actually pretty good about paying back so I'm sure you're going to be just fine assuming you can find a job. Now how you actually create jobs is a whole different issue but taxing the rich won't do it.

[Yantelope V2]

http://www.politico....ter-122272.html

 

Is it common to make "composite" characters in autobiographies?

 

Also, How many years of failing to meet economic predictions do we have to endure before we can declare Obama's economic policies a total failure? So far he's batting 0-4.

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/abrambrown/2012/05/02/u-s-added-only-119000-new-jobs-in-april-stocks-double-their-losses/

Edited May 2, 2012 by Yantelope V2

[Thorgi Duke of Frisbee]

http://www.politico....ter-122272.html

 

Is it common to make "composite" characters in autobiographies?

 

Also, How many years of failing to meet economic predictions do we have to endure before we can declare Obama's economic policies a total failure? So far he's batting 0-4.

 

http://www.forbes.co...e-their-losses/

Picking up and restructuring the pieces of a country that the last president shattered on his drunken, idiotic, fear-based rampage takes time, especially when progress is halted by moronic GOP senators and House members that have decided the only word in the English vocabulary they're going to use from now on is "no". Any ineptitude on his part is almost entirely the fault of the GOP holding him back from his job, just so they can seize power again. That's all they care about anymore; "my way or the highway." That things haven't gotten much, much worse after George W. left office is an achievement in itself.

[Yantelope V2]

Except that Republicans have not had control of the senate since 2007 and democrats controlled the house from 2007 to 2011 so it's been democratic legislature at the helm. Your argument is completely false.