The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

When you ask a loaded question, you expect a loaded answer, so why bother?

It's a loaded question to ask them what the difference between their Medicare plans are? Or, whether or not Ryan requested stimulus money for his district?

Cause on both of those questions they fumbled. Miserably.

 

[Handyman]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

As for the final brackets, I still do believe we're beyond the apex of the Laffer parabola, so I don't think it's a good idea to raise bracket rates, unless we want to address the 48% of Americans that don't even pay any income taxes at all, especially if you want to talk about Americans paying their fair share.

As I said in a post yesterday, everyone should pay...how much is beyond my purview but they should pay. It is everyone's responsibility to fix this not just the upper half.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

Sure Obama and Biden have to, or should have to if the media did their jobs, answer the question of whether they can related to the common folk, which is the issue you raised. And if people want to talk about the wealth of Ryan or Romney, they should talk about Obama and Biden, who certainly also have much more means than the common folk. To pretend otherwise is simply partisan sniping.

The pure out and out money grabbing/lining of the pockets that occurs by "public servants" in the house, senate and white house is beyond most of our comprehension. For one national candidate to suggest that his opponent is "out of touch" with the common voter, like that's some sort of crime, is silly. They're all completely out of touch with the way the rest of us live.

What do I care if Romney has 25 million or 25 billion. They're both outside my standard of living, as are Obama and the rest of them. And candidly, by most standards I've got it pretty good.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

As I said in a post yesterday, everyone should pay...how much is beyond my purview but they should pay. It is everyone's responsibility to fix this not just the upper half.

Yes, and just think how the Obama from 2008 would have handled this situation. "we are all in this together, and so I'm asking everyone to help out. Income tax rates will be increased by 10% across the board." Which would be a pretty subtle way to say, "I'm going to increase tax rates on the rich anywhere from 2 to 3 times as much as on the middle class."

if your lowest tax rate is 10%, it goes to 11%. so 1% more of your income goes to taxes.....annoying, but tolerable. However, the top rate would go from 35% to 38.5%, nearly where he wants it to go anyway, 3.5% more of the income in that bracket, 3.5 times as much of an increase, and on way more income as well.

that's one reason why people think his reasons for wanting to tax the rich have nothing to do with economics (or with revenue needs either for that matter)....especially because he gets so angry when he talks about it off-script. It's creepy to me when someone who is supposed to represent all of us picks out some of us in this way. Wall St. bankers probably do deserve it; but less than 10% of "the rich" are on Wall St. The woman downtown with 15 people in her diagnostic testing lab doesn't deserve to be treated that way; the guys in the industrial parks around the country in their custom grinding shops, their spring and coil manufacturing plants; what have they done to warrant such treatment?




Keynes talked about the "animal spirits" of investors; let's say he meant to include entrepreneurs in the same category. So if an animal is threatened (including a human being), either it fights back or it runs and hides.

Obama of 2008 could say "we are all in danger" and rally the country to fight back.

Obama of 2012 is saying "the rich are the enemy!!" and so they are mostly hiding. It is one of the biggest reasons hiring has been so sluggish: no one knows what their after-tax costs will be next year, and so no one can determine how much they can afford to invest now, since no one can determine the after-tax return on investment (note I am using "invest" in its traditional sense, not in Obama-speak where "invest" means "spend").

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

The pure out and out money grabbing/lining of the pockets that occurs by "public servants" in the house, senate and white house is beyond most of our comprehension. For one national candidate to suggest that his opponent is "out of touch" with the common voter, like that's some sort of crime, is silly. They're all completely out of touch with the way the rest of us live.

What do I care if Romney has 25 million or 25 billion. They're both outside my standard of living, as are Obama and the rest of them. And candidly, by most standards I've got it pretty good.

Well said.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

I think the problem is not the tax rate but the image that he and Ryan have no empathy or sympathy who are not as fortunate as them.

at least, not until you hear Ryan's life story.....get out your hankies early if you plan to watch any of the Republican convention!

Ryan's family comes from Irish immigrant roots; his great-grandfather started a family business which his cousins still run today. Ryan's father died when Ryan was age 16 and so he went to work at McDonalds (making apple pie no doubt ) yada yada yada.

Romney will probably give some story about how being on mission and nearly dying in a motorcycle accident transformed his life and took a callow wayward youth and forged him into a man of purpose and principle and yada yada yada.


If anyone stopped to think for a few seconds, they'd realize that if Romney really were motivated by money, he'd be four times wealthier than he is now. He left Bain to run the Olympics, then he was Governorof Massachusetts....most private-equity types don't do that. Had he stayed full-time at Bain he'd have so much more than he has, it's scary.

I shed no tears for Mitt, don't get me wrong. Yet when you say someone should "give back".... the opportunity cost to him that came with his "giving his time and energy" is enormous, second perhaps to Andrew Carnegie. that's just too hard for most people to wrap their head around though.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

at least, not until you hear Ryan's life story.....get out your hankies early if you plan to watch any of the Republican convention!

Ryan's family comes from Irish immigrant roots; his great-grandfather started a family business which his cousins still run today. Ryan's father died when Ryan was age 16 and so he went to work at McDonalds (making apple pie no doubt ) yada yada yada.

Romney will probably give some story about how being on mission and nearly dying in a motorcycle accident transformed his life and took a callow wayward youth and forged him into a man of purpose and principle and yada yada yada.


If anyone stopped to think for a few seconds, they'd realize that if Romney really were motivated by money, he'd be four times wealthier than he is now. He left Bain to run the Olympics, then he was Governorof Massachusetts....most private-equity types don't do that. Had he stayed full-time at Bain he'd have so much more than he has, it's scary.

I shed no tears for Mitt, don't get me wrong. Yet when you say someone should "give back".... the opportunity cost to him that came with his "giving his time and energy" is enormous, second perhaps to Andrew Carnegie. that's just too hard for most people to wrap their head around though.

Mitt also donatd his inheritance from his father to BYU, and started his business career with a clean slate. And he donates over a million a year to his church. But your central point is exactly right. Since when is being wealthy a handicap for serving as President? Not for FDR. Not for any Kennedy, born or unborn. Not even for LBJ*. What was that phrase Democrats used to throw around? Oh yes, I remember: "The politics of personal destruction." Apparantly, suggesting your opponant is a killer doesn't qualify.

*Lady Bird Johnson was the frontman for LBJ's radio/TV station in Austin. For years, it was the only game in town. For some reason, everytime someone applied for a Construction Permit in Austin, the FCC voted "no." The fact that LBJ was majority leader of the Senate probably didn't influence their decisions. How much of a genius does it take to be a successful businessman if the federal government won't permit any competition?

One of my endless supply of annecdotes. A guy I worked with in Houston got his start working weekends on the Johnson radio station. One day LBJ showed up. This wasn't just the owner of the station (which would be intimidating enough), it was also the Vice President of the United States, complete with limos, lights, sirens, cops and Secret Service agents. Try to imagine a 19-year old on a Saturday having to deal with that. Anyway the guy had a roll of TP in the studio with him (it's a common practice to have some TP handy in case you have to blow your nose before cracking the mike). Anyway, Johnson came rolling in to the studio, saw the TP and asked the guy if he'd brought it from home. The guy said "no." Later, a memo over LBJ's signature advised staffers to bring their own TP if they were intending to use it for a secondary purpose.

 

[Slap Shot]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

cc: Old Pio
re: voter ID

I don't think your position is cracked and I see potential merit in the cause. I guess my thoughts are I'm not convinced there's a problem that requires fixing. My comment about it causing more problems than it prevents is: What would be the resulting +/- in voters being 'prevented' from voting vs. +/- fraudulent votes being prevented. I think that requires further exploration and was wondering if you too see some merit in that.

I'll hang up and listen.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

cc: Old Pio
re: voter ID

I don't think your position is cracked and I see potential merit in the cause. I guess my thoughts are I'm not convinced there's a problem that requires fixing. My comment about it causing more problems than it prevents is: What would be the resulting +/- in voters being 'prevented' from voting vs. +/- fraudulent votes being prevented. I think that requires further exploration and was wondering if you too see some merit in that.

I'll hang up and listen.

3 things on this if you watched the Stewart video.

1. The Republicans in the state of Pennsylvania are convinced that voter ID will net Romney the electoral votes in their state.
2. Over 750,000 people in Pennsylvania may not be able to vote that did in the last election due to not having the proper identification.
3. The notice people have been given is literally a few months, not years.

But that's ok.

 

[joecct]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

3 things on this if you watched the Stewart video.

1. The Republicans in the state of Pennsylvania are convinced that voter ID will net Romney the electoral votes in their state.
2. Over 750,000 people in Pennsylvania may not be able to vote that did in the last election due to not having the proper identification.
3. The notice people have been given is literally a few months, not years.

But that's ok.

Does that imply that there are a large amount of Pennsylvanians who are not eligible to vote (not 750,000 but even 5% could be significant)??

 

[Old Pio]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

cc: Old Pio
re: voter ID

I don't think your position is cracked and I see potential merit in the cause. I guess my thoughts are I'm not convinced there's a problem that requires fixing. My comment about it causing more problems than it prevents is: What would be the resulting +/- in voters being 'prevented' from voting vs. +/- fraudulent votes being prevented. I think that requires further exploration and was wondering if you too see some merit in that.

I'll hang up and listen.

It's interesting, the only demographic of the dozens polled by the WAPO on this issue that opposed voter ID was those who identified themselves as liberal Democrats. All other demographics, including African Americans, to varying degrees, supported the use of ID's to vote. Probably because they have to show ID's all the time for all sorts of common activities.

As John Fund points out, the numbers of those potentially "disinfranchised" in Pennslyvania are grossly inflated. The number is less than 1%. These inflated numbers are arrived at, in part, by counting all those without a state issued ID card, even though many of them have some other form of approved ID. The Pennsylvania law provides for provisional ballots for those who can't produce an ID, with ample opportunity for those folks to establish their bona fides after the voting, to get their ballots counted.

How can one measure fraudlent ballots not cast or counted? Beats the sh*t out of me. The undeniable fact is, providing ID is a daily occurrence for just about all of us. And creating one more occasion where we have to flash ID is just not a huge imposition. This notion that providing ID before voting will take us back to Bull Connor and his cattle prod is hysterical hyperbole, and not an argument.

Are Republicans anxious to "suppress" whatever illegal voting is going on in Philadelphia? You bet your a*s. And do they also think reducing the number of illegal ballots will help them in state wide races? Of course. Are Democrats interested in maintaining whatever illegal voting is going on in Philadelphia? Apparantly, yes. Are they also interested in the resulting advantage in statewide races of whatever illegal voting goes on? Again, apparantly yes. Philadelphia has been an electoral outhouse for years. And the requirement to identify yourself if you vote in person or to provide the last four of your SSAN (whenever I deal with the VA they are far less interested in my name than they are my "last four.") if you're voting absentee, may in fact "suppress" the votes of people who aren't entitled to vote. Or who may be attempting to vote more than once. Or who may be attempting to vote under someone else's name. And we should be concerned about this why?

Where have I heard "I'll hang up and listen before?"

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/314273/voter-fraud-keystone-state-john-fund

 

[Slap Shot]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

Thoughtful reply OP and that is the type of post that keeps me coming back despite the occasional, "Did he really say that?".

 

[Old Pio]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

If that decade does not include 2009, then he can't. The statute of limitations for IRS auditing is 3 years.

How thoughtful of that cheap suit, not wanting to over burdon the IRS with cases that are beyond their jurisdiction. It there no end to his altruism?

 

[Old Pio]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

Thoughtful reply OP and that is the type of post that keeps me coming back despite the occasional, "Did he really say that?".

Gotta rile 'em up. Get 'em calling. Talk show hosts are like DJ's, but instead of playing records they play callers. Only the tiniest percentage of any audience, including Limbaugh's, ever considers calling. Of course in his case, a tiny percentage of his enormous audience is a lot of callers.

 

[Hammer]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

If that decade does not include 2009, then he can't. The statute of limitations for IRS auditing is 3 years.

For the most part. If the IRS has reasonable cause to suspect fraud, then there is no statute of limitations. But if that's the case, the taxpayer better have some really good legal counsel.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

Came across this....

Wealth and poverty are catalysts for bringing the rich and the poor together in community, and community is the hallmark of the church's mission on Earth. Government is not community. Government is one of community's tools, a coercive one we use when it is necessary to force people to behave in ways they would not otherwise behave voluntarily.

That word — "voluntarily" — is key... Charity can only be charity when it is voluntary. Coerced acts, no matter how beneficial or well-intentioned, cannot be moral. If we force people to give to the poor, we have stripped away the moral component, reducing charity to mere income redistribution. And if one really is as good as the other, the Soviets demonstrated long ago that it can be done far more efficiently without the trappings of church and religion.

All people have the moral obligation to care for those who are less fortunate. But replacing morality with legality is the first step in replacing church, religion and conscience with government, politics and majority vote. Coercing people to feed the poor simply substitutes moral poverty for material poverty.[emphasis added]

To me, this is the crux of difference between the old-fashioned liberal and today's progressives. The old-fashioned liberal used moral suasion and a sense of shared values to induce people to act with the common social good in mind; the "thousand points of light" trope for those who aren't very good at "the vision thing." Notice how many of our foundations were endowed by rich people to help the rest of society.

It seems to me that any forced redistribution scheme must necessarily fail because of its own internal contradictions. It's like we want to line people up at the start of a race, ask them all to run as fast as they can, and yet somehow force them all to end up at the finish line at the same time too.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

Came across this....



To me, this is the crux of difference between the old-fashioned liberal and today's progressives. The old-fashioned liberal used moral suasion and a sense of shared values to induce people to act with the common social good in mind; the "thousand points of light" trope for those who aren't very good at "the vision thing." Notice how many of our foundations were endowed by rich people to help the rest of society.

It seems to me that any forced redistribution scheme must necessarily fail because of its own internal contradictions. It's like we want to line people up at the start of a race, ask them all to run as fast as they can, and yet somehow force them all to end up at the finish line at the same time too.

Forced redistribution?

Romney and now Ryan pay a lower effective rate than me. I find your line of rhetoric offensive.

 

[mookie1995]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

Came across this....



To me, this is the crux of difference between the old-fashioned liberal and today's progressives. The old-fashioned liberal used moral suasion and a sense of shared values to induce people to act with the common social good in mind; the "thousand points of light" trope for those who aren't very good at "the vision thing." Notice how many of our foundations were endowed by rich people to help the rest of society.

It seems to me that any forced redistribution scheme must necessarily fail because of its own internal contradictions. It's like we want to line people up at the start of a race, ask them all to run as fast as they can, and yet somehow force them all to end up at the finish line at the same time too.

it's not giving people charity. it is giving them what they deserve, because if other people have it - they deserve it too.

 

[mookie1995]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

Forced redistribution?

Romney and now Ryan pay a lower effective rate than me. I find your line of rhetoric offensive.

gov'ment spends money, they don't spend % signs. therefore the only argument that matters is how much $$ you pay.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

A conservative who supports Obama's administrative decision on not using ICE resources to deport people under 30 who came to US under age 16.

Here's her conservative reasoning.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/where_bam_is_right_D25qKocLhAohhSx3A3QgnI