• Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, the built environment, planning adjacent topics, and anything else that comes to mind. No ads, no spam, and it's free. It's easy to join!

NEVERENDING ♾️ The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

ColoGI said:
Clearly the way we treat our service members is a hot button issue for me, apologies folks.
Click to expand...

I don't think you offended anyone. Clearly you have first hand knowledge of the subject versus my "dependent id card" status on the subject. But man, i do miss shopping at the commissary. ;)
 
Last night I got to hear a presentation from a great economist from the Ann Arbor area… He said that the value of our money is about to burst.

$800 Billion - early 2008 the total amount of us currency on the global market. (M1 money supply)
$800 Billion – Amount Bush added in late 2008 as part of the bail out.
$1 Trillion – Amount Obama added as part of Quantitative Easing #1 (because the bailout did not work)
$800 Billion – Amount Obama added as part of QE2 (Since QE1 did not work)
$1 Trillion – Amount Obama added as part of QE3 (Since QE1 and QE2 did not work)

So in a little more than 4 years, the money supply has increased 4.4 Trillion (well over 400%.). The cost of Food and food supplies have increased 42%, Gas and petroleum products have increased by 82% and Energy costs have increased by 86%. All three of those are left out of the most recent inflation calculation by the federal government. It is only a matter of time before our dollar is worth a quarter.

To make matters worse, according to one set of economic records that he sited, in 2011 our federal government:
Brought in $2.3 Trillion;
Spent $3.95 Trillion;
Borrowed $1.65 Trillion;
Which raised the debt to about $17 Trillion;
And we still have to deal with $110 Trillion in unfunded SSI debt which is set to kick in within the next few years.

I don’t care if you are Republican or Democrat… this is a problem and many economists are now saying that there is the real risk of economic collapse before we have a chance to elect the next president.
 
michaelskis said:
Last night I got to hear a presentation from a great economist from the Ann Arbor area… He said that the value of our money is about to burst.

$800 Billion - early 2008 the total amount of us currency on the global market. (M1 money supply)
$800 Billion – Amount Bush added in late 2008 as part of the bail out.
$1 Trillion – Amount Obama added as part of Quantitative Easing #1 (because the bailout did not work)
$800 Billion – Amount Obama added as part of QE2 (Since QE1 did not work)
$1 Trillion – Amount Obama added as part of QE3 (Since QE1 and QE2 did not work)

So in a little more than 4 years, the money supply has increased 4.4 Trillion (well over 400%.). The cost of Food and food supplies have increased 42%, Gas and petroleum products have increased by 82% and Energy costs have increased by 86%. All three of those are left out of the most recent inflation calculation by the federal government. It is only a matter of time before our dollar is worth a quarter.

To make matters worse, according to one set of economic records that he sited, in 2011 our federal government:
Brought in $2.3 Trillion;
Spent $3.95 Trillion;
Borrowed $1.65 Trillion;
Which raised the debt to about $17 Trillion;
And we still have to deal with $110 Trillion in unfunded SSI debt which is set to kick in within the next few years.

I don’t care if you are Republican or Democrat… this is a problem and many economists are now saying that there is the real risk of economic collapse before we have a chance to elect the next president.
Click to expand...

Well, right off the top of my head I see several issues with this analysis. The low-hanging facile assertions: increase in money supply did not make food prices increase, so guilt by association is implied. Second, the deficits are decreasing, not increasing. Third, if debt was in fact an actual issue, there would be pressure from the people that matter (the bankers and the few with real money) to do something about it. Fourth, the implication that the total amount of money flooding the market is still out there is flat wrong. Last time I looked, domestic energy costs at this time are not 86% higher than some starting point not given.

Next, the too-small amount of first addition [stimulus] to the money supply was in addition to the bankers refusing to lend because of the outcomes of their hubris. QE1 was also at a time of little lending + Yurp starting to contract.

Anyhoo, this sounds like a Pete Peterson "fix the debt" scare tactic. Our debt:GDP is nowhere near danger territory at this time or in the next several years. The money supply is being counted by the rich as they consolidate capital, which is what they want. If the politicians truly wanted to fix the debt they would get people working. Since that is not happening in both the short- and long-terms, what's the panic? [note I have not discussed how this issue affects the bottom three quintiles in the U.S.].
 
ColoGI said:
Well, right off the top of my head I see several issues with this analysis. The low-hanging facile assertions: increase in money supply did not make food prices increase, so guilt by association is implied. Second, the deficits are decreasing, not increasing. Third, if debt was in fact an actual issue, there would be pressure from the people that matter (the bankers and the few with real money) to do something about it. Fourth, the implication that the total amount of money flooding the market is still out there is flat wrong. Last time I looked, domestic energy costs at this time are not 86% higher than some starting point not given.

Next, the too-small amount of first addition [stimulus] to the money supply was in addition to the bankers refusing to lend because of the outcomes of their hubris. QE1 was also at a time of little lending + Yurp starting to contract.

Anyhoo, this sounds like a Pete Peterson "fix the debt" scare tactic. Our debt:GDP is nowhere near danger territory at this time or in the next several years. The money supply is being counted by the rich as they consolidate capital, which is what they want. If the politicians truly wanted to fix the debt they would get people working. Since that is not happening in both the short- and long-terms, what's the panic? [note I have not discussed how this issue affects the bottom three quintiles in the U.S.].
Click to expand...

The panic is there is no way that we will be able to repay our debt, the value of our money will go down, and the measurement of inflation did not include important things like food, gas, and energy.

As for the information that he presented, he is a retired financial adviser who has been teaching and practicing economics since the 50's and still maintains all the alphabet soup of credentials for financial planning and investing. My guess is he knows a bit more about this information that you do. Maybe I am wrong. Maybe you are more qualified to explain it than he is.

My point is we WILL face another financial crisis.
 
michaelskis said:
Last night I got to hear a presentation from a great economist from the Ann Arbor area… He said that the value of our money is about to burst.

$800 Billion - early 2008 the total amount of us currency on the global market. (M1 money supply)
$800 Billion – Amount Bush added in late 2008 as part of the bail out.
$1 Trillion – Amount Obama added as part of Quantitative Easing #1 (because the bailout did not work)
$800 Billion – Amount Obama added as part of QE2 (Since QE1 did not work)
$1 Trillion – Amount Obama added as part of QE3 (Since QE1 and QE2 did not work)

So in a little more than 4 years, the money supply has increased 4.4 Trillion (well over 400%.). The cost of Food and food supplies have increased 42%, Gas and petroleum products have increased by 82% and Energy costs have increased by 86%. All three of those are left out of the most recent inflation calculation by the federal government. It is only a matter of time before our dollar is worth a quarter.

To make matters worse, according to one set of economic records that he sited, in 2011 our federal government:
Brought in $2.3 Trillion;
Spent $3.95 Trillion;
Borrowed $1.65 Trillion;
Which raised the debt to about $17 Trillion;
And we still have to deal with $110 Trillion in unfunded SSI debt which is set to kick in within the next few years.

I don’t care if you are Republican or Democrat… this is a problem and many economists are now saying that there is the real risk of economic collapse before we have a chance to elect the next president.
Click to expand...

First off M1 in 2008 was $1.4trillion and M2 was $7.7B, which if the point of the lecture was future risk of inflation, M2 is the better number. M1 is only currency in circulation and deposits in checking accounts. M2 counts M1 and investments and deposits like money markets, savings accounts, CD's and other financial instruments that can become cash very quickly and thus is a much better representation of the amount of money available in the economy. http://www.ny.frb.org/aboutthefed/fedpoint/fed49.html

In the near term deficits are not an issue for four reasons; there are plenty of people willing to lend the US money for a very small real return; the US has a very low effective tax rate (by effective I mean what people and corporations actually pay and not the quoted rate); 40% of the debt is owed to either the federal government or the Federal Reserve; and if the debt become insurmountable you just print more money thereby increasing inflation which makes the debt cheaper to service.

Focusing on the debt and deficit without also focusing economic growth and the impact of reduced government spending will have on the overall economy is much more concerning. Government spending is roughly 15% of the overall US economy. Furthermore by threatening to have the US not pay its already incurred debts by not raising the debt ceiling is far more damaging to economic growth then a large deficit at this point in time. Congress already voted to spend the money but they don't want to authorize the mechanism to pay for it. If you owe a lot of money you want people to know that you will pay them back. Those that want the government to default are actually working increase the cost of debt and thereby the size.
 
michaelskis said:
The panic is there is no way that we will be able to repay our debt, the value of our money will go down, and the measurement of inflation did not include important things like food, gas, and energy.
Click to expand...


I hear this all the time. These are anectodal whines - there is zero evidence for this fear.

P130116-17.png
P130116-2a.png

Source

The sharp spikes in "all items" is what people remember and think it persists. Food price volatility is from a number of factors, all related to man-made climate change, population increase, and decreasing arable land/capita.


michaelskis said:
As for the information that he presented, he is a retired financial adviser who has been teaching and practicing economics since the 50's and still maintains all the alphabet soup of credentials for financial planning and investing. My guess is he knows a bit more about this information that you do. Maybe I am wrong. Maybe you are more qualified to explain it than he is.

My point is we WILL face another financial crisis.
Click to expand...

Of course there will be another financial crisis. We let FIRE do this to us because we don't keep them in control We are in an era of disaster capitalism and that's how they roll. But the Pete Peterson-esque fear-mongering distracts away from how we can fix these shock-doctrine paradigms.
 
michaelskis said:
Last night I got to hear a presentation from a great economist from the Ann Arbor area… He said that the value of our money is about to burst.

$800 Billion - early 2008 the total amount of us currency on the global market. (M1 money supply)
$800 Billion – Amount Bush added in late 2008 as part of the bail out.
$1 Trillion – Amount Obama added as part of Quantitative Easing #1 (because the bailout did not work)
$800 Billion – Amount Obama added as part of QE2 (Since QE1 did not work)
$1 Trillion – Amount Obama added as part of QE3 (Since QE1 and QE2 did not work)

So in a little more than 4 years, the money supply has increased 4.4 Trillion (well over 400%.). The cost of Food and food supplies have increased 42%, Gas and petroleum products have increased by 82% and Energy costs have increased by 86%. All three of those are left out of the most recent inflation calculation by the federal government. It is only a matter of time before our dollar is worth a quarter.

To make matters worse, according to one set of economic records that he sited, in 2011 our federal government:
Brought in $2.3 Trillion;
Spent $3.95 Trillion;
Borrowed $1.65 Trillion;
Which raised the debt to about $17 Trillion;
And we still have to deal with $110 Trillion in unfunded SSI debt which is set to kick in within the next few years.

I don’t care if you are Republican or Democrat… this is a problem and many economists are now saying that there is the real risk of economic collapse before we have a chance to elect the next president.
Click to expand...

Quite a few things wrong with this post. But I'll just limit my reply to one particular issue. There is no such thing as an unfunded SSI debt. It's a fundamental lack of understanding about how SSI works both through the accuaries and as how SSI is required to operate by law. It's a scare tactic. SSI remains fully funded for another 2 decades, at which point if nothing is changed it will be forced, by law, to decrease benefits approximately 25% but will then continue to operate fully funding the 25% decreased benefits. The supposed unfunded liability (which by law can not happen) is a really large number that has no meaning other than to scare people who do not understand how SSI works.
 
Isn't unfunded liability essentially if everyone were to cash out at once? That obviously doesn't happen.

In other random news. Fox News hired Dennis Kucinich as a contributor. Of course they had to hire one of the most far left former politicians out there to make Democrats look bad.
 
imaplanner said:
Quite a few things wrong with this post. But I'll just limit my reply to one particular issue. There is no such thing as an unfunded SSI debt. It's a fundamental lack of understanding about how SSI works both through the accuaries and as how SSI is required to operate by law. It's a scare tactic. SSI remains fully funded for another 2 decades, at which point if nothing is changed it will be forced, by law, to decrease benefits approximately 25% but will then continue to operate fully funding the 25% decreased benefits. The supposed unfunded liability (which by law can not happen) is a really large number that has no meaning other than to scare people who do not understand how SSI works.
Click to expand...

That is not entirely true. Starting sometime this decade (2015-2017) SSA will stop collecting more than its owes each year. (This happened in 2010 and 2011 with the temporary reduction in social security payroll tax) At that time SSA will start redeeming its holding of treasury bonds to cover the difference. In or around 2040 all of the bonds that are held by SSA will be redeemed resulting in a "deficit" of approximately 25%. The good news is all of the debt (roughly 17% of the total outstanding US debt) will be retired. The bad news is later that decade this will become an ongoing expense. At that time Congress will have to determine how to cover the shortfall through more borrowing from outsiders, increase taxes, reduced spending or a combination of the three.

Given the several fixes that Social Securtiy has recieved there is little reason to assume it won't happen again. In 1982 when SSA was about to go into a decifit President Reagan increased taxes to ensure the stability of the fund. My guess is in the next few years the tax rate will increase to ensure the stability of the program probably through an increase in the upper level of exemptions, social security tax being assessed on capital gains and divided or something else.

Medicare and Medicaid are far greater problems to the long term fiscal health of the country.
 
Brocktoon said:
Medicare and Medicaid are far greater problems to the long term fiscal health of the country.
Click to expand...

Not because we are becoming a welfare state or that welfare states always fail - it is due to the changing demographics of the population, the rapid increase in our health care costs (due to our poor habits, our food products, our "health" system, yada etc.), and rising inequality making this part of the safety net groan under the changes.
 
ColoGI said:
Not because we are becoming a welfare state or that welfare states always fail - it is due to the changing demographics of the population, the rapid increase in our health care costs (due to our poor habits, our food products, our "health" system, yada etc.), and rising inequality making this part of the safety net groan under the changes.
Click to expand...

The only thing I would add is the myth of he private healthcare market before the ACA. If you are 65 years old and want healthcare outside of an employer sponsored plan your only option is Medicare.
 
Media Trust

Speaking of not trusting the media and the Fix the Debt scam, here is a piece of investigative journalism that tracks which corporate-media journalists have fed at the trough of Pete Peterson. This is part of the reason why the...erm..."argument" upthread has traction - our media are not doing their job and shooting this cr@p down when it rears its head (to get a gun-control phrase in there too).


An essential and successful element of the Peterson strategy is to create an environment where it is widely if not universally believed that there is no alternative to his vision. In this view, it’s “not realistic” to believe the country can afford the same programs it once did. Those who are prepared to be “adults” will look at these “hard truths” without flinching and recognize that it is time to take citizens-have-to-do-with-less medicine.

The conceit is that those with “courage” will see past narrow, partisan concerns and embrace an ideal: a bipartisan consensus that has the strength to demand “shared sacrifice” from a childish and selfish populace.

A review of the proceedings of the Fiscal Summits of the last three years ...

Virtually none of the reporters thought to ask about or suggest an alternative path, such as preserving Social Security benefits and bolstering the system’s reserve by raising the cap of wages subject to Social Security taxes (currently annual wages above approximately $110,000 are not subject to any Social Security tax).
...
And most questioning proceeded either on the false assumption that deficits were derived from excessive spending on entitlements or as though they had mysteriously, but inevitably, come to pass.
...​
 
I don't care what anyone says about Hillary Clinton. The fact is the Republicans have absolutely nothing on her about Benghazi and that was made crystal clear yesterday.
 
Benghazi was never anything more than Republicans trying to generate a scandal to damage Obama in the elections. Now that they're over, you have jackasses like Rand Paul trying to position themselves for the next one. I honestly laughed when I heard him say he expected Hillary to read every single diplomatic cable. It just shows how clueless he is.
 
hilldweller said:
I don't care what anyone says about Hillary Clinton. The fact is the Republicans have absolutely nothing on her about Benghazi and that was made crystal clear yesterday.
Click to expand...

Truth. I was glad to see her fire back like she did--just the right amount of indignation. Rand Paul made a complete ass of himself--and honestly McCain kind of did as well.
 
imaplanner said:
So what do people think of the strategy of the republican party to gerrymander congressional districts to effectively silence minorities and then award electoral votes for president based on congressional districts?
Click to expand...
It bugs me greatly but I honestly don't think anything will come of this. The big reason is that many battleground states would lose their significance if they did something like that. Then another reason is that Republicans don't want to be at a disadvantage if their roles were somehow reversed with the Democrats.
 
imaplanner said:
So what do people think of the strategy of the republican party to gerrymander congressional districts to effectively silence minorities and then award electoral votes for president based on congressional districts?
Click to expand...

They can't win with their ideas, so all they have is dirty tricks and subterfuge. I can't wait until their demographic is too senile to vote.

Lord! save us from outrage fatigue!
 
Blide said:
It bugs me greatly but I honestly don't think anything will come of this. The big reason is that many battleground states would lose their significance if they did something like that. Then another reason is that Republicans don't want to be at a disadvantage if their roles were somehow reversed with the Democrats.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure. The Virginia one looks to be likely to pass and the GOp is pushing proposals in other states, supported by the GOP Chairman who said they should do this. There was significant talk after November that the GOP needed to reach out to minorities to stay relevant, but as I have learned from the last few months of listening to right-wing talk radio, the right wing truly does believe that minorities are all takers who are destroying this country and that we specifically need marginalize the takers if we are going to save America from too many lazy minorities who want free things from hard-working patriotic white americans. I'm not sure most people realize how mainstream this view of minorities is among the right-wing, but force yourself to listen to a few hours a day of right-wing radio and it's undeniable that this is a mainstream view.

If this scheme passes in the states that are currently proposing it, republicans will win the presidency and the house for the foreseeable future even while losing the popular votes in thiose states by millions. GOP leaders have expressed support for the scheme, and I see no reason to believe they won't move forward on it.
 
imaplanner said:
I'm not so sure. The Virginia one looks to be likely to pass and the GOp is pushing proposals in other states, supported by the GOP Chairman who said they should do this. .
Click to expand...

It is disenfranchisement.

Say what you will about the incompetence of Dems and their inability to stop these odious troglodytes, at least they wouldn't dream to stoop so low as these tactics. Why does the GOP hate the poor (that don't vote for them)?
 
imaplanner said:
I'm not so sure. The Virginia one looks to be likely to pass and the GOp is pushing proposals in other states, supported by the GOP Chairman who said they should do this.
Click to expand...
Pennsylvania was talking about doing the same thing a couple years back but ended up deciding against it because it'd make their state irrelevant in the election. They went ahead and disenfranchised minorities in other ways though.

Then for Virginia, I'm not even sure they could get something like that passed in their current political environment. After the GOP's recent redistricting stunt and an election for governor later this year, I just don't see it happening. Now if the mid-term redistricting stands and that Tea Party AG wins the governors race, I could maybe see it happening.
 
Blide said:
Pennsylvania was talking about doing the same thing a couple years back but ended up deciding against it because it'd make their state irrelevant in the election. They went ahead and disenfranchised minorities in other ways though.

Then for Virginia, I'm not even sure they could get something like that passed in their current political environment. After the GOP's recent redistricting stunt and an election for governor later this year, I just don't see it happening. Now if the mid-term redistricting stands and that Tea Party AG wins the governors race, I could maybe see it happening.
Click to expand...

PA troglodytes just introduced a bill to carve up electoral votes, such that last election Head Socialist and ex-Kenyan B Barry Bamz would have lost the state.

What the GOP is doing under the radar - we're distracted by Manti T'eo and fake fiscal cliffery, yaknow - is undemocratic. Full stop.
 
ColoGI said:
PA troglodytes just introduced a bill to carve up electoral votes, such that last election Head Socialist and ex-Kenyan B Barry Bamz would have lost the state.

What the GOP is doing under the radar - we're distracted by Manti T'eo and fake fiscal cliffery, yaknow - is undemocratic. Full stop.
Click to expand...
I don't doubt there's a push within the GOP to do things like that. I'm just skeptical they'll actually pull it off when the party is in such disarray. The conservative elements of the party want to disenfranchise voters to win elections while the moderates want to expand the base. It'll be interesting to see who ultimately wins but I don't see the Republicans making many gains until they solve this issue.
 
'big, big deal'

Josh Marshall and his staff "http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archi...hua+Micah+Marshall)&utm_content=Google+Reader the VA gerrymandering to disenfranchise the poor is a big deal:

A week ago I noted a new Republican push to gerrymander the electoral college to make it almost impossible for Democrats to win the presidency in 2016 and 2020, even if they match or exceed Barack Obama's vote margin in 2012. Is something like that really possible? Yes, very possible.

To review, here's how it works. The US electoral college system is based on winner take all delegate allocation in all but two states. If you get just one more vote than the other candidate you get all the electoral votes. One way to change the system is go to proportional allocation. That would still give some advantage to the overall winner. But not much. The key to the Republican plan is to do this but only in Democratic leaning swing states — not in any of the states where Republicans win. That means you take away all the advantage Dems win by winning states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan and so forth.

But the Republican plan goes a step further.

Rather than going by the overall vote in a state, they'd allocate by congressional district. And this is where it gets real good, or bad, depending on your point of view. Democrats are now increasingly concentrated in urban areas and Republicans did an extremely successful round of gerrymandering in 2010, enough to enable them to hold on to a substantial House majority even thoughthey got fewer votes in House races than Democrats.

In other words, the new plan is to make the electoral college as wired for Republicans as the House currently is. But only in Dem leaning states. In Republican states just keep it winner take all. So Dems get no electoral votes at all.

Another way of looking at this is that the new system makes the votes of whites count for much more than non-whites — which is a helpful thing if you're overwhelmingly dependent on white votes in a country that is increasingly non-white.

This all sounds pretty crazy. But it gets even crazier when you see the actual numbers. Here's a very illustrative example. They're already pushing a bill to do this in the Virginia legislature. Remember, Barack Obama won Virginia and got 13 electoral votes. But as Benjy Sarlin reported today in a series of posts, if the plan now being worked on would have been in place last November, Mitt Romney would have lost the state but still got 9 electoral votes to Obama's 4. Think of that, two-thirds of the electoral votes for losing the state. If the Virginia plan had been in place across the country, as Republicans are now planning to do, Mitt Romney would have been elected president even though he lost by more than 5 million votes.

Remember, plans to do this are already underway in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio and other states in the Midwest.

This is happening.​


One party doesn't like democracy. One reason to get rid of the electoral college right here.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Currently it sounds like only Virginia is looking at allocating electoral votes based on Congressional districts. The rest of the states just want to do a proportional system which I honestly have no problem with since it increases the influence of third parties.
 
I actually believe that people are leaving France over the thought of 75% taxes.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...es-Belgium-avoid-new-socialist-super-tax.html

I don't think it is unreasonable for people to leave a country because they are taxed so much. At some level, you are either providing enough service to that person for them to value the cost, or you aren't.

I think this is the trouble we have in the U.S. There is a line, and I will agree that it is very fine and tough to agree on, but there is a line. If you try and get revenue by only taxing the wealthy, you will lose the investment, and the ability to tax them because they will leave. The U.S. is pretty harsh on their changing of nationality stuff (Edwardo Savrin anyone?), but in general we must be aware of that line.

Does anyone feel that 75% of your taxes should go to the government?
 
Hink said:
Does anyone feel that 75% of your taxes should go to the government?
Click to expand...
I think it depends what you get for your taxes. I'd definitely have a hard time paying that amount if there was no appreciable difference in quality of life. If our infrastructure was well maintained, there was universal healthcare, free access to higher education, and a robust social safety net, I don't think I'd have a problem paying a 75% tax rate.
 
http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/25/opinion/mccaffery-mickelson-taxes/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

Extremely clear to me. Tax spending, not work.


The Mitt-Lefty paradox has a simple explanation: In America, we tax work. And highly. We do not tax capital or wealth much at all. Indeed, if you have wealth already, taxes are essentially optional under what I call tax Planning 101, the simple advice to buy/borrow/die.
Click to expand...

Yet one fact not making news is that it is still the case that the highest marginal tax rates in America do not fall on the highest incomes, like Lefty, but on certain of the working poor, many of them single parents, who are being taxed at rates approaching 90% as they lose benefits attempting to better themselves.
Click to expand...

But this should worry us, for two reasons.

One, the fact that the high incomers do flee jurisdictions, or flee from the productive activity of working, is a bad thing for the U.S.

Two, the very risk that the rich and famous might leave, aided by the appearance that some do, holds tax reform hostage. We have struggled to raise rates at all on the rich, blocked by the mostly mythical Joe the Plumber as much as by the realities of Mickelson or the Rolling Stones. When we do finally raise rates, as we did at the fiscal cliff, we do so on the wrong rich, in the wrong way. Lefty's taxes went up, Mitt's need not.
Click to expand...

The problem -- and it is the same problem as with Mitt's taxes -- is that we are taxing the wrong thing, in the wrong way. In sum, we tax work, not wealth. This is backward.

We should be taxing the act of spending, not the socially beneficial ones of work and savings. Then we could raise tax rates without fear of ill effects.
Click to expand...
 
Hink said:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/25/opinion/mccaffery-mickelson-taxes/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

Extremely clear to me. Tax spending, not work.
Click to expand...

I agree that we should tax bads and not goods. But in our current system if a few perpetual malcontents want to leave because of high taxes, see ya. Not happening in this country, as our taxes are so low. But when I lived in Europe we did have friends whose parents moved to the low tax-high amenity USA.

Aside but relevant: Obama should not approve KXL pipeline until some sort of carbon tax scheme is begun. We can tax that and offset some payroll tax. As the WH has signaled they won't tax carbon, we will continue our descent.
 
It was bad enough when there was "Bush is a Nazi!" hyperbole from the progressive crowd. Now I'm seeing "Obama is worse than Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mussolini, Kim Jong Il, Castro, Idi Amin, and Chairman Mao!" forwards. This is what our civic discourse is being reduced to.

Regardless of what you think of President Obama, it's offensive to so many when he's compared to tyrants that killed millions of their own people, just for advocating gun control or universal health care. How many Jews, Roma, Catholics, Poles, Russians, gays, socialists, and intellectuals did President Obama order into death camps? And, for those on the progressive left, you're not entirely innocent - drones in Afghanistan don't make Obama some kind of warlord or tyrant either. Be fortunate you live in a country where people are free to make such comparisons, and face absolutely no consequences or reprisals. That certainly wouldn't be the case in Nazi Germany, the USSR, North Korea, and the like.

Debate and dissent are a signs of a healthy democracy. Nazi comparisons, though ... c'mon.
 
Dan said:
It was bad enough when there was "Bush is a Nazi!" hyperbole from the progressive crowd. Now I'm seeing "Obama is worse than Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mussolini, Kim Jong Il, Castro, Idi Amin, and Chairman Mao!" forwards. This is what our civic discourse is being reduced to.

Regardless of what you think of President Obama, it's offensive to so many when he's compared to tyrants that killed millions of their own people, just for advocating gun control or universal health care. How many Jews, Roma, Catholics, Poles, Russians, gays, socialists, and intellectuals did President Obama order into death camps? And, for those on the progressive left, you're not entirely innocent - drones in Afghanistan don't make Obama some kind of warlord or tyrant either. Be fortunate you live in a country where people are free to make such comparisons, and face absolutely no consequences or reprisals. That certainly wouldn't be the case in Nazi Germany, the USSR, North Korea, and the like.

Debate and dissent are a signs of a healthy democracy. Nazi comparisons, though ... c'mon.
Click to expand...

Godwin’s Law: As an internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.
 
otterpop said:
Godwin’s Law: As an internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.
Click to expand...

I seem to recall the extension to that law is that the person that invokes the Nazi comparison automatically loses by virtue that nothing can compare to the atrocities committed by Hitler & the Nazi Party.
 
otterpop said:
Godwin’s Law: As an internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.
Click to expand...

I tell my friend's about that law all the time. Now that they're looking for it, they realize that it's true. Nazi comparisons are a great fallacy.
 
The list of organizations on the NRA's current "enemies list":
AARP
AFL-CIO
Ambulatory Pediatric Association
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Civil Liberties Union
American Academy of Ambulatory Care Nursing
American Medical Women`s Association
American Medical Student Association
American Medical Association
American Association for the Surgery of Trauma
American Trauma Society
American Federation of Teachers
American Association of School Administrators
American Alliance for Rights and Responsibilities
American Medical Association
American Bar Association
American Counseling Association
American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Association for World Health
American Ethical Union
American Nurses Association
American Association of Neurological Surgeons
American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences
American Firearms Association
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
American Jewish Committee
American Trauma Society
American Psychological Association
American Jewish Congress
American Public Health Association
Americans for Democratic Action
Anti-Defamation League
Black Mental Health Alliance
B`nai B`rith
Central Conference of American Rabbis
Children`s Defense Fund
Church of the Brethren
Coalition for Peace Action
Coalition to Stop Gun Violence
College Democrats of America
Committee for the Study of Handgun Misuse & World Peace
Common Cause
Congress of National Black Churches, Inc.
Congress of Neurological Surgeons
Consumer Federation of America
Council of the Great City Schools
Council of Chief State School Officers
Dehere Foundation
Disarm Educational Fund
Environmental Action Foundation
Episcopal Church-Washington Office
Florence and John Shumann Foundation
Friends Committee on National Legislation
General Federation of Women`s Clubs
George Gund Fun
Gray Panthers
H.M. Strong Foundation
Hadassah
Harris Foundation
Hechinger Foundation
Interfaith Neighbors
Int`l Ladies` Garment Workers` Union
Int`l Association of Educators for World Peace
Jewish Labor Committee
Joyce Foundation
Lauder Foundation
Lawrence Foundation
League of Women Voters of the United States*
Lutheran Office for Governmental Affairs, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
Manhattan Project II
Mennonite Central Committee-Washington Office
National Safe Kids Campaign
National Association of Police Organizations
National Coalition Against Domestic Violence
National Black Nurses` Association
National Association of Chain Drug Stores
National Network for Youth
National Assembly of National Voluntary Health & Social Welfare Organizations
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People
National Association of School Psychologists
National Association of Counties*
National Association of Pediatric Nurse Associates & Practitioners
National Association of School Safety and Law Enforcement Officers
National Education Association
National Association of Elementary School Principals*
National Association of Public Hospitals
National Coalition Against Domestic Violence
National Association of Secondary School Principals
National Association of Social Workers
National Association of Children`s Hospitals and Related Institutions
National Association of School Psychologists
National Council of La Raza
National Center to Rehabilitate Violent Youth
National Commission for Economic Conversion & Disarmament
National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA
National Council of Negro Women
National Association of Community Health Centers
National People`s Action
National Education Association*
National League of Cities
National Council on Family Relations
National Council of Jewish Women
National Organization for Women
National Political Congress of Black Women
National Parks and Conservation Association
National Peace Foundation
National Urban League, Inc.
National Parent, Teachers Association*
National Urban Coalition
National SAFE KIDS Campaign
National Organization on Disability
National Spinal Cord Injury Association
NETWORK: A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby
Ortenberg Foundation
Peace Action
People for the American Way
Physicians for Social Responsibility
Police Foundation
Project on Demilitarization and Democracy
Public Citizen
SaferWorld
Society of Critical Care Medicine
Southern Christian Leadership Conference
The Council of the Great City Schools
The Synergetic Society
20/20 Vision
U.S. Catholic Conference, Dept. of Social Development
Union of American Hebrew Congregations
Unitarian Universalist Association
United States Catholic Conference
United Methodist Church, General Board & Church Society
United Church of Christ, Office for Church in Society*
United States Conference of Mayors
War and Peace Foundation
Women Strike for Peace
Women`s National Democratic Club
Women`s Action for New Directions (WAND)
Women`s Int`l League for Peace and Freedom
World Spiritual Assembly, Inc.
YWCA of the U.S.A.
​
*The national organization only endorses federal legislation.
 
Linda_D said:
The list of organizations on the NRA's current "enemies list":
Click to expand...

Wow. Just wow. And if you go to their website, they also include individuals (who are mostly actors, musicians and artists), national figures (a mixed bag of politicians, doctors and journalists), corporations/corporate heads (including the Kansas City Royals and the Kansas City Chiefs) and media outlets (Knight-Ridder Newspapers, LA Times, Miami Herald and that most unreasonable of media outlets - NBC. Oh, and don't forget Motorcycle Cruiser Magazine) who also support what they call "anti-gun policies". The list is ginormous. Which you think might make them reflect a little on their own position. In fact, this is the same list I might put out to show all the reasonable entities that are in support of enhancing gun control legislation. Crazy!
 
Hitler hitler hitler hitler. Also, Hitler.

Hitler (verb): 1) To murder millions, or 2) having a reasonable disagreement with.

Use in a sentence: Those tax hikes are the Hitler!
 
Back
Top