Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

[FreshFish]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

but for two weeks

Two weeks is temporary, nine years (the original duration) was four Congressional elections...eleven years is five Congressional elections. The Bush tax cuts were not "temporary" so much as they had a "sunset" provision which is a different thing entirely. That's okay though, your emotion always trumps dispassionate logic because your intentions are so noble....since it allows you so conveniently to ignore that your blessed Democrat brethren / sisterhood had complete control of Congress from 2006 through 2010 and did nothing whatsoever to change the tax law that you suddenly now find so abhorrent; and it was they who extended the cuts in 2010 when they still had majorities in both houses of Congress.

[Priceless]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

Two weeks is temporary, nine years (the original duration) was four Congressional elections...eleven years is five Congressional elections. The Bush tax cuts were not "temporary" so much as they had a "sunset" provision which is a different thing entirely. That's okay though, your emotion always trumps dispassionate logic because your intentions are so noble....since it allows you so conveniently to ignore that your blessed Democrat brethren / sisterhood had complete control of Congress from 2006 through 2010 and did nothing whatsoever to change the tax law that you suddenly now find so abhorrent; and it was they who extended the cuts in 2010 when they still had majorities in both houses of Congress.

Do you always agree with everything the Republicans do?

I'm sure you can explain how tax cuts that were enacted in 2003 were planned for a nine year period that ended in 2010. Sounds like some of that fuzzy math they use in Wisconsin.

[Bob Gray]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

let's see, if your income is $50,000 this year and you paid $5,000 in income tax this year, and if your income is $50,000 next year and you pay $7,500 in income tax next year, are your taxes higher next year? If so, would the term "increase" be accurate?

now let's look at spending. if you spend $100,000,000,000 this year, and $107,000,000,000 next year, has your spending gone up? Now, if you spend $100,000,000,000 this year and $103,500,000,000 next year, has your spending gone up?

If the answers are yes, then wouldn't the term "increase" be accurate, and that the latter has merely increased less than the former?


C'mon, this isn't that hard, you can do it!




PS so eleven years is "temporary"? interesting......I hope you don't perform any "temporary" maintenance in our neighborhood!!

Remember, in the federal government, if you spent $100 million last year and asked for $107 million this year and only got $103.5 million this year, that's a $3.5 million cut according to federal accounting.

[5mn_Major]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

Ahh...love the message boards.

I wasn't talking about your proposed solutions at all! I'm pretty well aligned with you on these matters.

I agree that everyone has to pay a bit more, and that we have to slow the rate of growth in spending (oh, how frustrating it is to try to talk sense with progressives! if you slow the rate of spending increase from 7% to 3% they call that a "cut" and howl to the moon....a 3% increase in spending is NOT a "cut" folks!)

But that's the problem, not just cuts but indescrimate cuts. Sure, cutting is pretty necessary...but cutting high value add (IMO education, technology infrastructure) is waay different than cutting something with a low return (IMO military). A big diff which does drive the long term competitive position of the US.

[Old Pio]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

Some Congress race polling data. I believe the accepted term is "interesting."



I heard a POTUS story on the morning commute that highlighted the amount of money the Tea Party poured into the NE primary for Fischer. She is apparently a Christine O'Donnell type, with or without the coven, and her nomination could turn a Kerrey 50/50 seat into a 80/20 seat.

It's still very early but the Dems keep racking up these incremental advantages in Senate races that are usually associated with a party on the rise -- the sort of "luck" that precedes a good election night.

Purely inside baseball but my wife made the observation that in 2008 Republican staffers had their resumes circulating, while in 2012 Democratic staffers do not.

Can I have some of that 80/20? Or are you just passing gas? The 3 GOP candidates got about 2.5 times as many votes as Kerrey. He's been away from Nebraska for over a decade, in NYC no less, and Nebraska is more conservative now than when he left. Fisher's been sitting in the Nebraska unicameral since 2004. And your strenuous efforts to smear her with Christine O'Donnell are more the product of wishful thinking than any knowledge of her. Kerrey's got an uphill fight. Don't you doubt it for a moment.

As to your resume annecdote, maybe the Democrats are in the bunker, waiting for General Wenck to attack.

[Old Pio]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

My personal opinion is that any nutjob can win in Nebraska. . However the point is a good one, which is until all these primary races are decided its a bit too early to start calling some of these contests. Who's scalp is next? Don't know, but I thinking Tommy Thompson in Wisconsin is really ripe for the picking. Can't get much more establishment than him. Plus he's even more middle of the road than Lugar. Florida, Arizona, etc - these primaries are yet to be decided and as we saw in Indiana (and Delaware last time) it doesn't take long for one of these candidates to catch fire.

You wouldn't know a cornhusker from a cornhole.

[Old Pio]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

Droves of US business execs bow to Japanese every day. Its called cultural awareness.

Apart from the implausibility of you actually being there to see what "droves" of US businessmen do, is the little matter that the President of the United States is not a businessman and neither is HIM the Emperor. These men are heads of state and should follow the appropriate protocols. In the case of the president, this means no deep bowing, or genuflecting or hem kissing. So as usual, your analogy is totally wrong. But why should this observation be any more informed than your others?

[LynahFan]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

Lets dispense with the extremes. Would your company hire US based engineers for 40K a year plus benefits (say 30% on top of that so 52K a year). Mind you, these people don't have to be based in Manhatten. Hell, it sounds like you could hire people who would work from home.

Here's my take: The extra 32K per year for the 3 employees costs your company a whopping $96 grand for the entire year. Maybe that's a lot of money and maybe it isn't. Not sure about the size of your company. However, is that so much to ask to keep jobs in the US? Your company might even be able to weasel a tax break out of it to reduce costs even more. I think an unfortunate fad in American business right now is that you have to outsource jobs overseas or else you're screwing the shareholders. It would be nice to know just how much money is really being saved.

Now you're just making stuff up. Entry level Mechanical Engineers in the US make $60K in salary (salary.com), not 40. And it's not whether it's $96k or whatever in absolute dollars for my company - the fact is that it's 5x less expensive per employee to hire the Indians. So it doesn't matter whether the company we're talking about is big or small.

Or make an iPhone for 10 cents an hour.

So is your solution to do away with the minimum wage, safety regulations, environmental standards etc and have the vast majority of Americans devolve into a third-world existence? Or to get the Indian and Chinese governments to impose those regulations on business and raise their citizen's standard of living?

My solution? To what problem?

[Priceless]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

My solution? To what problem?

Oh sorry, I thought recognized outsourcing jobs to Asia was a problem.

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Fear Factory
www.thedailyshow.com
****** style='display:block' src='http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:405953' width='512' height='288' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' wmode='window' allowFullscreen='true' flashvars='autoPlay=false' allowscriptaccess='always' allownetworking='all' bgcolor='#000000'>
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

[FreshFish]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

I'm sure you can explain how tax cuts that were enacted in 2003 were planned for a nine year period that ended in 2010.

The tax cuts were enacted in 2001 with various phase-in provisions. The 2003 law accelerated the phase-in period.

Many of the tax reductions in EGTRRA [the 2001 cuts] were designed to be phased in over a period of up to 9 years. Many of these slow phase-ins were accelerated by the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JGTRRA), which removed the waiting periods for many of EGTRRA's changes.

The Bush tax cuts had sunset provisions that made them expire at the end of 2010

As my son would say, you've just been "owned."

[Old Pio]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

Remember, in the federal government, if you spent $100 million last year and asked for $107 million this year and only got $103.5 million this year, that's a $3.5 million cut according to federal accounting.

During my time in the AF one of the annual rites was for unit commanders to spend their TDY (temporary duty) money before the end of the FY. These funds are used to send personnel on the road. The reasoning was if we're good stewards of public funds and don't spend all that we've been allocated this year, we'll get less next year, when we actually might need it. Personally, I loved TDY. Got two trips to Japan and a trip to Germany out of the deal. Very tough duty.

[leswp1]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

The tax cuts were enacted in 2001 with various phase-in provisions. The 2003 law accelerated the phase-in period.









As my son would say, you've just been "owned."

So the sale analogy is right. The sale should have been over but they decided it shouldn't have been. Pretty sure the limits were set so they could pass the thing in the first place. I have a hard time with people claiming not extending is a tax increase. It was labeled as temporary. Just because you don't like something does not make the character of it change.

[Priceless]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

The tax cuts were enacted in 2001 with various phase-in provisions. The 2003 law accelerated the phase-in period.

Here's the important part of what you posted:

The Bush tax cuts had sunset provisions that made them expire at the end of 2010

Notice the word "expire"? That means it is temporary. That means when it runs out, it's not a "tax increase" as you and your ilk want to frame it.

To use the example you used earlier

let's see, if your income is $50,000 this year and you paid $5,000 in income tax this year, and if your income is $50,000 next year and you pay $7,500 in income tax next year, are your taxes higher next year? If so, would the term "increase" be accurate?

But you were supposed to be paying $7,500 in taxes and only had to pay $5,000. It was a TEMPORARY tax cut (I don't give a crap if it lasts 100 years like the TEMPORARY tax on phone usage to fund the Spanish-American War - it is still a TEMPORARY cut) so your tax "increase" is wrong.

Your argument is that it's been on the books for so long (Yes, 11 years is a freakin eternity) that doing what the law says we are supposed to do (end the tax cuts) would bring about a calamity for the rich. Just like if ObamaCare passes it will tank the stock market, right? Has it tanked yet?

[FreshFish]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

George Orwell's dystopian world of 1984 is alive and well in the White House (or at least the webmaster there is a big fan). Someone added a few sentences to every Presidential biography from Coolidge onward [except Ford] to promote Obama's candidacy....

http://content.usatoday.com/communit...a/1?csp=34news

Click on almost any president since Calvin Coolidge, scroll to the bottom of his official bio, and you'll find one or two references to something Obama has done to carry on that president's achievements.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/

[duper]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

George Orwell's dystopian world of 1984 is alive and well in the White House (or at least the webmaster there is a big fan). Someone added a few sentences to every Presidential biography from Coolidge onward [except Ford] to promote Obama's candidacy....

http://content.usatoday.com/communit...a/1?csp=34news




http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/

It's a travesty! A sham! And a Mockery! It's a Traveshammockery! Thomas Jefferson NEVER used the internet this way!