The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

I'm very interested to hear this year's State of The Union speech.  Will the president focus on restoring hope in America as a innovation and enterprise superpower.  Will he focus on American exceptionalism and individuality, or will he focus on a push towards collectivism?

We can be assured that this will be a campaign speech. In the economy that we have realized by dismissing the private sector in favor of public works, public assistance, and entitlement, I anticipate that he will focus on courting and motivating his union base.  This means that he will spend a great deal of time discussing manufacturing and economic equality.

Because he has no triumphant examples of policy that produced positive change, he will meander through descriptions of how future initiatives will create 600,000,000,0000 new imaginary manufacturing jobs.  He will avoid any discussion of solar, wind, or green energy, instead, he will talk about "clean air" and "clean water" and use those code words to be critical of any energy initiative or job initiative that he may have an opportunity to embrace but will not for political reasons.

I anticipate that he will probably offer half a dozen personal stories of "_____ from Detroit" who lost her medical insurance, or "_____ from Michigan" who without extended unemployment, would be homeless today.  I think he will also take this opportunity to mention "_____ from Nebraska" who is finally home with his family after 3 tours in Iraq.  All good stories, and positive, but not focused on any record of economic growth.

As his formula typically includes, there will be a surprise offering of some actual initiative that both Democrats and Republicans will cheer, because it will be a positive jobs initiative based on reducing uncertainty and proven historical performance in creating economic growth.  But then of course he will attach a hand grenade to it to ensure it cannot be passed.

I think, of course, that the resonating mantra will be "There is more work to do," and/or "Permanent change takes time."  Perhaps we could create an unfortunate drinking game of some sort?  I think the primary focus though will be on manufacturing and union labor jobs.  Perhaps if all of his plans come to fruition, we can once again be the manufacturing hub of the world, making key chains, cell phones, cars, and clothes for the Chinese.

All the other Presidents say the same things.

I do disagree that he "has no triumphant examples of policy that produced positive change."

He has done a great job on world issues. He brought our troops home from Iraq and was able to kill Osama bin Laden and most of the Al Quaeda network. He worked hard on improving veteran's benefits and ended don't ask, don't tell.

That is just one of his accomplishments that all Americans should appreciate.

Quote from: RecycleMichael on January 23, 2012, 08:33:35 AM
All the other Presidents say the same things.

I do disagree that he "has no triumphant examples of policy that produced positive change."

He has done a great job on world issues. He brought our troops home from Iraq and was able to kill Osama bin Laden and most of the Al Quaeda network. He worked hard on improving veteran's benefits and ended don't ask, don't tell.

That is just one of his accomplishments that all Americans should appreciate.

He fulfilled the Bush timeline on Iraq and did what any prudent president would have done once they had Bin Laden cornered.  To hear some of you tell it, it's as if he leapt from the helicopter and did the double tap.  The libs didn't get single-payer so that's about the only thing you guys have to cling to as positive policy moves.  IMO, he did a great job restraining our troop activity on Libya.  That's a far better example to cling to of his world relations.

Word around the campfire is that the speech will talk about income equality and economic justice. 

Big question is how many times will he blame President Bush directly or indirectly for the continued malaise?  I suspect he will at least make the excuse of: "What I walked into three years ago..." at least a few times.

Of course, had President Obama actually pulled the trigger on Bin Laden you would have given credit to Bush for saying "mission accomplished".

There is nothing I could say that will convince you of anything else. I give up.

Quote from: RecycleMichael on January 23, 2012, 09:06:11 AM
Of course, had President Obama actually pulled the trigger on Bin Laden you would have given credit to Bush for saying "mission accomplished".

There is nothing I could say that will convince you of anything else. I give up.

No, I think giving any president credit for what thousands of people who worked their tails off and risked or gave their lives to bring Bin Laden to justice is a complete disservice.  Getting Bin Laden was an obvious goal, and giving the go ahead for that mission was a no-brainer that any president would have authorized.

Quote from: Conan71 on January 23, 2012, 09:11:12 AM
No, I think giving any president credit for what thousands of people who worked their tails off and risked or gave their lives to bring Bin Laden to justice is a complete disservice.  Getting Bin Laden was an obvious goal, and giving the go ahead for that mission was a no-brainer that any president would have authorized.

We tend to blame presidents for everything others have done.  What should we credit them with?

Quote from: Townsend on January 23, 2012, 09:12:53 AM
We tend to blame presidents for everything others have done.  What should we credit them with?

Sending an asshat home to Allah is a whole lot different than millions of jobs being created by business-friendly policies proposed by a president and sold to Congress for approval.

Quote from: Conan71 on January 23, 2012, 09:15:43 AM
Sending an asshat home to Allah is a whole lot different than millions of jobs being created by business-friendly policies proposed by a president and sold to Congress for approval.

Even if those policies worked do you really believe they were originally his or did others come up with them?

"State of the Union to offer a 'blueprint' for the economy"

http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/23/politics/state-of-the-union/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/23/politics/state-of-the-union/index.html)

QuoteWashington (CNN) -- President Barack Obama will lay out a "blueprint for an economy that's built to last" in Tuesday's State of the Union address -- the third of his presidency.

That blueprint will focus on manufacturing, energy, education and middle-class values, according to a video released on the Obama's campaign website and Democratic sources who have been briefed on the address.

Tuesday night's speech will continue a theme the president began in Kansas last month -- that in today's economy the game has been rigged against the nation's middle class. He will say he wants to return to the "values" that define America, where hard work pays off and where responsibility -- not recklessness -- is rewarded.

In a December 6 address in Osawatomie, Kansas, Obama described stark differences between a Republican ideology he described as leaving people to fend for themselves and his vision of government that helps provide equal opportunity for all Americans regardless of where they begin in life.

"It's not a view that we should somehow turn back technology or put up walls around America," Obama said. "It's not a view that says we should punish profit or success or pretend that government knows how to fix all society's problems.

"It's a view that says in America, we are greater together -- when everyone engages in fair play, everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share."

Democratic sources told CNN Sunday that the bullet points of Obama's blueprint will focus on American manufacturing, including "insourcing" -- or bringing back jobs from overseas. The sources say he'll argue that during his term, the United States has seen the manufacturing industry grow for the first time in 15 years -- especially in the auto industry that he helped with bailout funds.

Under the topic of energy, the president will stress alternative energy and energy independence from unfriendly nations. He'll also tout his record of doubling fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks.

The address will include new proposals to prepare American workers and students for the jobs of the the future. Obama will also suggest job training for the long-term unemployed and veterans, the sources said. He'll also highlight his record of expanding Pell grants for college students.

Throughout his speech, the president will weave in an emphasis on middle-class values and that this is make-or-break moment for that segment of American society, likely putting it into stark terms, according to the sources. He'll suggest that the United States has a choice to either become a place where only the wealthy succeed, or it can level the playing field and give everyone an opportunity.

"They're big ideas, because we've got to meet the moment, and this speech is going to be about how we do it," the president's preview video released over the weekend said.

"We can go in two directions," Obama said. "One is toward less opportunity and less fairness. Or we can fight for where I think we need to go -- building an economy that works for everyone."

Here's a game Professor Query used to have us play in Communications Theory 20 years ago at TU. Pick out the strong thematic words and imagry from an article or speech.  What does it communicate?


Themes from that article:

"Blueprint"
"Rigged Economy"
"Responsibility"
"Recklessness"
"leaving people to fend for themselves"
"Equal opportunity"
"Greater together"
"fair play"
"fair shot"
"fair share"
"Focus on manufacturing"
"prepare American workers and students for the jobs of the the future - i.e. manufacturing jobs"
"middle class values"
"make-or-break moment"
"level the playing field"
"big ideas"
ONLY "two directions. . .One is toward less opportunity and less fairness. Or we can fight for where I think we need to go"

Now that we have that, I think we have all we need to make educated assumptions on the theme of his address.

US On Track To Meet Obama's Export-Doubling Goal

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/01/21/us_on_track_to_meet_obama_s_export_doubling_goal.html (http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/01/21/us_on_track_to_meet_obama_s_export_doubling_goal.html)

QuoteTwo years ago during his State of the Union address, Barack Obama issued a promise to double American exports over five years. Many found it unrealistic at the time, but Annie Lowrey points out that we're on pace to meet the target so far, in part because Obama picked a low point for exporting when launching the goal.

In general, I think the global case of export envy that everyone has these days is fascinating. If it turned out that Germany's export-driven low unemployment was really a mirage and all those manufactured goods are being dumped into the middle of the Pacific Ocean rather than consumed in Asia, everyone would be shocked and appalled. But the social and economic benefits of obtaining full employment by dumping manufactured goods into the Pacific would be similar to the benefits of obtaining full employment by running a large permanent trade surplus.

I imagine this might come up.

Quote from: Conan71 on January 23, 2012, 08:41:06 AM
He fulfilled the Bush timeline on Iraq and did what any prudent president would have done once they had Bin Laden cornered.  To hear some of you tell it, it's as if he leapt from the helicopter and did the double tap. 

And yet, under his direction, it was done in under 2 1/2 years - something that Bush couldn't get done in over 7 years.  But then, when so much of the family fortune is based on 'consulting fees' from Bin Laden's family, I guess it is pretty obvious what the hold up was.

Hopefully, POTUS OBAMA will turn the Nation's attention to the fact that deadlock and inflexibility is not the way forward for the country and emphasize the need to install democrats in both houses come the next election to gain a mjority. Time to move this country outward and upward.

Conan, it's not just Bin Laden....he got the entire 6 heads sans 1....they've been totally declawed. And it did not cost a trillion or two to accomplish.
Why do you not trust his abilities?

Quote from: Gaspar on January 23, 2012, 10:08:55 AM
Here's a game Professor Query used to have us play in Communications Theory 20 years ago at TU. Pick out the strong thematic words and imagry from an article or speech.  What does it communicate?


Themes from that article:

"Blueprint"
"Rigged Economy"
"Responsibility"
"Recklessness"
"leaving people to fend for themselves"
"Equal opportunity"
"Greater together"
"fair play"
"fair shot"
"fair share"
"Focus on manufacturing"
"prepare American workers and students for the jobs of the the future - i.e. manufacturing jobs"
"middle class values"
"make-or-break moment"
"level the playing field"
"big ideas"
ONLY "two directions. . .One is toward less opportunity and less fairness. Or we can fight for where I think we need to go"

Now that we have that, I think we have all we need to make educated assumptions on the theme of his address.

!!!?
Fairness? Values? Responsibility? Focus? Preparation? Equality? Synergy?
You mean those themes and images? How dare the man! What is he doing to our country?!!

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on January 23, 2012, 01:12:30 PM
And yet, under his direction, it was done in under 2 1/2 years - something that Bush couldn't get done in over 7 years.  But then, when so much of the family fortune is based on 'consulting fees' from Bin Laden's family, I guess it is pretty obvious what the hold up was.

Hello?  This is reality calling.  What about he observed Bush timelines do you not understand?  Would have been 2 1/2 years no matter who was president if they observed the Bush time lines.

Quote from: Conan71 on January 23, 2012, 01:20:42 PM
Hello?  This is reality calling.  What about he observed Bush timelines do you not understand?  Would have been 2 1/2 years no matter who was president if they observed the Bush time lines.

You mean Bush planned on leaving Bin Laden running around for two 1/2 more years.  Yeah...I bet that's what it was.

Bush would never have gone after Bin Laden in any serious fashion just due to the business connection to the family.

The administration has announced that they will delay the release of the President's 2013 budget until after the State of The Union address, just like last year, and the year before, and the year before.  This means that the President has missed his statutory requirement to present a budget on time for the 3rd year in a row.  

And. . .tomorrow marks the 1,000th day Senate Democrats have gone without any budget at all.

Why would he even release a budget?  If it's anything like the last one it will just be an embarrassment to him.  Perhaps this time he will present something  that at least the CBO will be able to score (fingers crossed).  It took them until April of last year to Score his budget and then they estimated it costing $46.2 trillion over 2012-2021, or 23.5% of GDP.

I wonder if he will use this address to talk up his budget just like last time?

Quote from: Gaspar on January 23, 2012, 02:41:50 PM
The administration has announced that they will delay the release of the President's 2013 budget until after the State of The Union address, just like last year, and the year before, and the year before.  This means that the President has missed his statutory requirement to present a budget on time for the 3rd year in a row.  

And. . .tomorrow marks the 1,000th day Senate Democrats have gone without any budget at all.

Why would he even release a budget?  If it's anything like the last one it will just be an embarrassment to him.  Perhaps this time he will present something  that at least the CBO will be able to score (fingers crossed).  It took them until April of last year to Score his budget and then they estimated it costing $46.2 trillion over 2012-2021, or 23.5% of GDP.

I wonder if he will use this address to talk up his budget just like last time?

I really wish you'd source any of that. 

Quote from: Gaspar on January 23, 2012, 10:08:55 AM
Here's a game Professor Query used to have us play in Communications Theory 20 years ago at TU. Pick out the strong thematic words and imagry from an article or speech.  What does it communicate?


Themes from that article:

"Blueprint"
"Rigged Economy"
"Responsibility"
"Recklessness"
"leaving people to fend for themselves"
"Equal opportunity"
"Greater together"
"fair play"
"fair shot"
"fair share"
"Focus on manufacturing"
"prepare American workers and students for the jobs of the the future - i.e. manufacturing jobs"
"middle class values"
"make-or-break moment"
"level the playing field"
"big ideas"
ONLY "two directions. . .One is toward less opportunity and less fairness. Or we can fight for where I think we need to go"

Now that we have that, I think we have all we need to make educated assumptions on the theme of his address.

What I like best about your list is that the only bolded term is the dog whistle one that means "COMMMUNISMMMMM" to all good Fox News viewers.  When in fact, in our current situation, a little leveling is very much in order. 

Quote from: we vs us on January 23, 2012, 03:01:24 PM
What I like best about your list is that the only bolded term is the dog whistle one that means "COMMMUNISMMMMM" to all good Fox News viewers.  When in fact, in our current situation, a little leveling is very much in order. 

How do you propose to level the field, Wev?  How does the government do such a thing without unintended consequences?

Quote from: we vs us on January 23, 2012, 03:01:24 PM
What I like best about your list is that the only bolded term is the dog whistle one that means "COMMMUNISMMMMM" to all good Fox News viewers.  When in fact, in our current situation, a little leveling is very much in order.  

"leveling"

Is that accomplished by raising up the poor with opportunity and education or by knocking down the successful?

I actually didn't go into what he released in his teaser video on tomorrow's speech, but since you are on the subject, the president actually uses these words:

". . .Fairness for all, and responsibility from all."

Now if you are a bit of a history buff, that has a strange familiar ring to it.  Thank God he paraphrased, because someone already used that line in 1875 to promote the Gotha Program in Germany: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!"  The program was designed to abolish wage inequality as well as other social inequality.  It seems that the theme has been reborn.  This was a precurser to Marxism, a soft primer to what would ultimately evolve into what we recognize as socialism.

You no longer have to listen with any filter to encounter this theme.  I think that perhaps movements like OWS have made such mantras more acceptable and less shocking.



So I ask again, what is the just path?  To raise up the poor with education and opportunity to to cut down the successful with hatchet axe and saw?  

Is this driven by the will to make everyone successful in the pursuit of happiness, or is it driven by invidiousness alone?

This is a predatory political strategy because, as Kant put it, "it preys on a reluctance to see our own well-being overshadowed by another's because the standard we use to see how well off we are is not the intrinsic worth of our own well-being but how it compares with that of others."  

This means that the worth or success of others has to be artificially tied to the inverse property among the invidious.  In other words, you have to make people believe that taking from the wealthy will somehow make the poor happy, or more successful.  

I have no doubt that this message will work.  It may not in this leaders reign, but ultimately this is the mechanism that topples liberty.  It is important that we recognize that.

Quote from: Conan71 on January 23, 2012, 03:29:47 PM
How do you propose to level the field, Wev?  How does the government do such a thing without unintended consequences?

There will always be unintended consequences and always have been.  It's the miracle of life.  smile happens. We make the smartest decisions we can based on fact and projection and then let the chips fall where they may.  C'est la vie and all that. 

Leveling the field will come with more taxes for the richies, sadly.  There's no way around it.  I'm actually in favor of all the Bush tax cuts sunsetting in 2012 but I'm pretty positive the upper tier will sunset first and the middle class cuts will be extended a couple of years. But carried interest, 15% capital gains rates, even just the billions of $'s we leave on the table every year because the IRS is understaffed, all of these things would make things more equitable.

And re: the richies . . . there's been simply no proof that the extra bushels of money they have has made them job creators (seen the unemployment rate?)  Once again, the trickle down mechanism we've been waiting for has failed to materialize, but what we have gotten are further excuses for why there aren't more jobs, and the excuses have boiled down to . . . don't make us feel awful about ourselves or we'll just hoard our wealth.  I don't buy it.  That's never happened in history.  People have never not invested money when there's money to be made.  My proof?  The drug trade.  Even crazy amounts of jail time can't dissuade people from chasing those juicy markets.  If the legit markets were juicy enough, if the return on investment was there, we'd see these fickle businessfolk invest with gusto.  But there's no money to be made because there's no demand because the middle class is evaporating before our eyes . . . .

But leveling the playing field is also about education, it's about entrepreneurialism, it's about social and spatial mobility and opportunity.  It's a big ole hairball that's been accumulating for years for a diverse number of reasons.  I think it starts with a more equitable tax set up but certainly doesn't end there.
 

Quote from: Gaspar on January 23, 2012, 03:45:33 PM

"leveling"

Is that accomplished by raising up the poor with opportunity and education or by knocking down the successful?

I actually didn't go into what he released in his teaser video on tomorrow's speech, but since you are on the subject, the president actually uses these words:

". . .Fairness for all, and responsibility from all."

Now if you are a bit of a history buff, that has a strange familiar ring to it.  Thank God he paraphrased, because someone already used that line in 1875 to promote the Gotha Program in Germany . . . .

. . . and Godwin (Marx?) wins again. 

We have to part ways if you seriously think that Obama or this imagined culture he represents is ready to sap our precious bodily fluids in a manner that resembles an obscure socialist pact from a newly industrialized Germany in 1875.  There is virtually no straight line imaginable between this and Obama's SOTU circa 2012.   

I can't answer to your satisfaction whether or not Obama's "leveling" has to do with raising up the poor or punishing the successful, because I don't think you're capable of believing that anything that touches the wealth of the top tier will be anything but punitive.  Therefore no matter what Obama does, if it touches in any way the top tier he's a revolutionary Marxist who's ready to take down the Republic. 

Is there any scenario where increased taxes on the rich will not be off limits for you? 

Quote from: we vs us on January 23, 2012, 04:45:49 PM
. . . and Godwin (Marx?) wins again. 

We have to part ways if you seriously think that Obama or this imagined culture he represents is ready to sap our precious bodily fluids in a manner that resembles an obscure socialist pact from a newly industrialized Germany in 1875.  There is virtually no straight line imaginable between this and Obama's SOTU circa 2012.   

I can't answer to your satisfaction whether or not Obama's "leveling" has to do with raising up the poor or punishing the successful, because I don't think you're capable of believing that anything that touches the wealth of the top tier will be anything but punitive.  Therefore no matter what Obama does, if it touches in any way the top tier he's a revolutionary Marxist who's ready to take down the Republic. 

Is there any scenario where increased taxes on the rich will not be off limits for you? 

Increased taxes on anyone should not even be a subject of discussion.  Sweeping away the policies that perpetuate uncertainty, eliminating over-regulation, and encouraging energy independence in all forms, that is the answer.

This bizarre fairytale that confiscating wealth will fix the economy is ridiculous, but it makes people feel better.  As Aristotle said it quenches the pain caused by the good fortune of others.  It is psychological in it's entirety.

Beyond that, I do not believe that the President is channeling historic precursors on purpose.  It is simply the natural progression of liberal philosophy to push further and further towards collectivism.  In doing so, we see much of the language recycled.  The ghosts of past politics live again, as society's paths intertwine with history.  We are undeniably at a point where the opportunity for a spike in social justice, and entitlement is ripe for the plucking.  Politicians can't resist ripe fruit.

Somehow, I suspect that you're quite comfortable with bizarre fairy tales.

Quote from: AquaMan on January 23, 2012, 05:31:38 PM
Somehow, I suspect that you're quite comfortable with bizarre fairy tales.

Fractured Fairy Tales.  He is of the vintage of the Rocky and Bullwinkle Show, where they had those kind of thing.

Quote from: Gaspar on January 23, 2012, 07:44:16 AM
But then of course he will attach a hand grenade to it to ensure it cannot be passed.

This has got to be one of the stupidest things you have ever said about Obama. You do realize he can't attach anything to anything, not being part of the legislative branch? For someone who whinges about the Constitution whenever it suits him, you sure don't seem to understand much of it.

It seems that you're already more than halfway to a full on meltdown, so might I suggest not following politics until after the general election?

Edited to add: Conan, regarding inequality, you might take some time and watch this video. You may want to skip to 7:00 to get to the interview.

http://vimeo.com/35212458

Quote from: Gaspar on January 23, 2012, 04:57:16 PM
Increased taxes on anyone should not even be a subject of discussion.  Sweeping away the policies that perpetuate uncertainty, eliminating over-regulation, and encouraging energy independence in all forms, that is the answer.

This bizarre fairytale that confiscating wealth will fix the economy is ridiculous, but it makes people feel better.  As Aristotle said it quenches the pain caused by the good fortune of others.  It is psychological in it's entirety.

Beyond that, I do not believe that the President is channeling historic precursors on purpose.  It is simply the natural progression of liberal philosophy to push further and further towards collectivism.  In doing so, we see much of the language recycled.  The ghosts of past politics live again, as society's paths intertwine with history.  We are undeniably at a point where the opportunity for a spike in social justice, and entitlement is ripe for the plucking.  Politicians can't resist ripe fruit.

Are you saying you agree taxes must go up?

Which policies are those?  The Disciples of The Script are all about the policies, but never enunciate a particular one that is supposed to be crippling the economy.  Can you give us an example?

Those policies go hand in hand with The Disciples attacks on "regulations".  Also none of which is ever given as example of heinous government intrusion.  Can you give us an example of one of those?

I thought so....


Actually, the only ones talking about confiscating wealth (and no one actually doing anything to actually implement such a thing), there has been no such thing.  Oh, unless you count the stimulus package component that gave record tax cuts to the 99%ers.  Oh, wait...that's not taking from people, it's letting everyone else get a little taste of what the 1%ers have enjoyed for over 10 years. 

Well, I guess there just really isn't such a thing as onerous government regulation.  Or confiscatory taxation.  Or most of what the chicken little portion of The Script is spewing about....  Sadly, that just means The Disciples are doomed to not get back to reality in the near future.

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on January 23, 2012, 09:15:29 PM
Are you saying you agree taxes must go up?

Which policies are those?  The Disciples of The Script are all about the policies, but never enunciate a particular one that is supposed to be crippling the economy.  Can you give us an example?

Those policies go hand in hand with The Disciples attacks on "regulations".  Also none of which is ever given as example of heinous government intrusion.  Can you give us an example of one of those?

I thought so....


Actually, the only ones talking about confiscating wealth (and no one actually doing anything to actually implement such a thing), there has been no such thing.  Oh, unless you count the stimulus package component that gave record tax cuts to the 99%ers.  Oh, wait...that's not taking from people, it's letting everyone else get a little taste of what the 1%ers have enjoyed for over 10 years. 

Well, I guess there just really isn't such a thing as onerous government regulation.  Or confiscatory taxation.  Or most of what the chicken little portion of The Script is spewing about....  Sadly, that just means The Disciples are doomed to not get back to reality in the near future.

Sometimes I picture Gas furiously pounding away at the keyboard doing Google search after Google search trying to tie any nefarious government action to our current President.

I don't agree with what our current President has done in a lot of cases, but to say Gas has some form of ODS might have some weight there.  You push out alleged fact after alleged fact in many cases and when asked for it to be cited, you typically skirt the issue.

Skirt, wait, are you endorsing Newt?

;D

Quote from: Hoss on January 23, 2012, 09:24:08 PM
Sometimes I picture Gas furiously pounding away at the keyboard doing Google search after Google search trying to tie any nefarious government action to our current President.

I don't agree with what our current President has done in a lot of cases, but to say Gas has some form of ODS might have some weight there.  You push out alleged fact after alleged fact in many cases and when asked for it to be cited, you typically skirt the issue.

Skirt, wait, are you endorsing Newt?

;D

??

Are you talking about me pushing out facts or Gaspar?  I lost track...

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on January 23, 2012, 09:32:05 PM
??

Are you talking about me pushing out facts or Gaspar?  I lost track...

No, talking about Gas.

Quote from: Hoss on January 23, 2012, 09:35:38 PM
No, talking about Gas.

Well, while I, too, was sitting here pounding furiously on the keyboard, I found ODS.  Funny!  Gotta love it!  Better than 'Santorum' or Prince Albert...

Speaking of loony Republicans:

Quote
CNN/ORC Poll. Oct. 14-16, 2011. N=1,007 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.
                              

"In general, do you hope that Barack Obama's policies will succeed or do you hope that his policies will fail?"

	Succeed	Fail	Mixed	Unsure
	%	%	%	%
10/14-16/11	67	25	7	1
Democrats	92	5	3	-
Independents	66	24	8	2
Republicans	39	51	9	1

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on January 23, 2012, 09:32:05 PM
Are you talking about me pushing out facts literary exaggerations or Gaspar?  I lost track...

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on January 23, 2012, 09:15:29 PM
Are you saying you agree taxes must go up?

Mrs Penfield would be ashamed of your reading comprehension.

Come on guys, you know that I'm not phased when you start in with the ridicule and name calling.

I made some simple observations.  I'm sorry if they upset you, but they are none the less true.

Many in this country have begun the short journey to serfdom under the assumption that soaking the rich is the solution to all problems.  This is neither new, or unique.  The President, who has always embraced this concept to some extent is now ready to push "fairness" as his primary platform.  This is not because it offers any cure, but because it satisfies a growing movement fueled by envy.

The problem with this platform is that it ignores the primary economic issues.  Growth, jobs, prosperity, stability are not addressed in any fashion by turning on the successful.  What is accomplished is fodder for passion alone.

Again, this is not new.  Every society grows to a point where the people become infatuated by the comfort of entitlement.  Politicians turn to courting the invidiousness of some because it is easier than fixing the problems.  Eventually this grows to a point where funding for entitlement must come from the means of the wealthy, and shortly after this the enterprises, and the innovations of all people must be turned to fund government programs.  As the programs grow larger and the funds smaller, eventually the duty of all mens labors will be to their government.

Our economy is not sick with the cancer of wealth.  It suffers from an illness of uncertainty, rising energy costs, employment expenses, domestic and foreign demand concerns, and raw materials shortages due to acquisition expenses.  

In short, businesses are afraid of tomorrow, so they tiptoe into the future.

The decisions necessary to cure this illness are not a mystery, they are very simple.  The primary medicine is energy, and the only thing restraining the physician is government regulation.  This elixir alone would render the other ills far less important, and easier to cure.

Governments don't like to give up control, and economic freedom threatens power structures.  Courting base emotions like envy are easy, for every successful man there are a hundred who dream of taking that success from him.  

President Obama was stuck in-between a rock and a hard place from day one.  He tried several academic remedies to our economic situation, but no theory proved successful.  Private enterprise was his salvation, but it was also his philosophical and political enemy.  His Kenyan techniques were applied to turn out stimulus from internal public structures in hopes that it would be enough of an explosion in capital to trickle out to private enterprise without leaving any direct fingerprints on it.  That did not work.  He tried giving away carrots, each with a stick attached so as not to appear to capitalist.  That also did not work.  

In the end, he is back to courting envy and entitlement.  He is back to reliance on the emotional desire within a large movement of people to take from others. The primary issues are simply too hard for him to tackle, but the gift of his tongue is all the power he needs to motivate the envious. . .and it is easy.

You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot help the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves. – John Henry Boetker

Quote from: Gaspar on January 24, 2012, 07:25:52 AM
Come on guys, you know that I'm not phased when you start in with the ridicule and name calling.

I made some simple observations.  I'm sorry if they upset you, but they are none the less true.

Many in this country have begun the short journey to serfdom under the assumption that soaking the rich is the solution to all problems.  This is neither new, or unique.  The President, who has always embraced this concept to some extent is now ready to push "fairness" as his primary platform.  This is not because it offers any cure, but because it satisfies a growing movement fueled by envy.

The problem with this platform is that it ignores the primary economic issues.  Growth, jobs, prosperity, stability are not addressed in any fashion by turning on the successful.  What is accomplished is fodder for passion alone.

Again, this is not new.  Every society grows to a point where the people become infatuated by the comfort of entitlement.  Politicians turn to courting the invidiousness of some because it is easier than fixing the problems.  Eventually this grows to a point where funding for entitlement must come from the means of the wealthy, and shortly after this the enterprises, and the innovations of all people must be turned to fund government programs.  As the programs grow larger and the funds smaller, eventually the duty of all mens labors will be to their government.

Our economy is not sick with the cancer of wealth.  It suffers from an illness of uncertainty, rising energy costs, employment expenses, domestic and foreign demand concerns, and raw materials shortages due to acquisition expenses.  

In short, businesses are afraid of tomorrow, so they tiptoe into the future.

The decisions necessary to cure this illness are not a mystery, they are very simple.  The primary medicine is energy, and the only thing restraining the physician is government regulation.  This elixir alone would render the other ills far less important, and easier to cure.

Governments don't like to give up control, and economic freedom threatens power structures.  Courting base emotions like envy are easy, for every successful man there are a hundred who dream of taking that success from him.  

President Obama was stuck in-between a rock and a hard place from day one.  He tried several academic remedies to our economic situation, but no theory proved successful.  Private enterprise was his salvation, but it was also his philosophical and political enemy.  His Kenyan techniques were applied to turn out stimulus from internal public structures in hopes that it would be enough of an explosion in capital to trickle out to private enterprise without leaving any direct fingerprints on it.  That did not work.  He tried giving away carrots, each with a stick attached so as not to appear to capitalist.  That also did not work.  

In the end, he is back to courting envy and entitlement.  He is back to reliance on the emotional desire within a large movement of people to take from others. The primary issues are simply too hard to tackle, but the gift of his tongue is all the power he needs to motivate the envious. . .and it is easy.

You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot help the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves. – John Henry Boetker

Wow.  (Just to clarify, that's not a *good* wow)

Quote from: Red Arrow on January 23, 2012, 10:19:39 PM

Quote from Gaspar;
Increased taxes on anyone should not even be a subject of discussion.


And of course he is right.  There is nothing to discuss - if the Bush tax cuts don't expire, the deficits will keep declining slowly like they have through Blowbama's entire term, but it means fixing the debt will take that much longer.  I can understand how that really wouldn't matter to someone with no kids, but everyone else should hang their heads in shame.  Gaspar, you got kids?

And I really am dying to know how your reading comprehension would interpret that sentence...

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on January 24, 2012, 08:31:12 AM
Quote from Gaspar;
Increased taxes on anyone should not even be a subject of discussion.


And of course he is right.  There is nothing to discuss - if the Bush tax cuts don't expire, the deficits will keep declining slowly like they have through Blowbama's entire term, but it means fixing the debt will take that much longer.  I can understand how that really wouldn't matter to someone with no kids, but everyone else should hang their heads in shame.  Gaspar, you got kids?

And I really am dying to know how your reading comprehension would interpret that sentence...

I think the meaning you gleaned from that is very different than what was intended.  When I said, "Increased taxes on anyone should not even be a subject of discussion," I said that because that action has nothing to do with solving the primary problem of stagnation of economic growth.

It's like saying "Wow, I'm starving" and having someone suggest "Well, then you should go mow the lawn!"

Mowing the lawn will not satisfy my hunger, even though it may make my home look more attractive.

Chances are that mowing the lawn will also make me more hungry.

This is simple deflection, because an increase in taxes on anyone not only avoids the problem but serves to exacerbate it.

Again, Heiron, we see that the discussion boils down to the fact that you want to see taxes on the wealthy increased.  That is a fine motive, and I will not continue into a discussion of the true intensions behind that motive, but it does nothing to solve the true problem.

Your reading comprehension was accurate, you simply were deriving your own meaning from what you read.

Quote from: Hoss on January 24, 2012, 07:41:28 AM
Wow.  (Just to clarify, that's not a *good* wow)

Its The Script.  You know how that works - 1984 Doublespeak-ese.  State every one of your undesirable characteristics and internal inclinations as the opponent's.  And then vilify.

Quote from: Gaspar on January 24, 2012, 08:52:00 AM
I think the meaning you gleaned from that is very different than what was intended.  When I said, "Increased taxes on anyone should not even be a subject of discussion," I said that because that action has nothing to do with solving the primary problem of stagnation of economic growth.

This is simple deflection, because an increase in taxes on anyone not only avoids the problem but serves to exacerbate it.

Again, Heiron, we see that the discussion boils down to the fact that you want to see taxes on the wealthy increased.  That is a fine motive, and I will not continue into a discussion of the true intensions behind that motive, but it does nothing to solve the true problem.

Your reading comprehension was accurate, you simply were deriving your own meaning from what you read.

Except for the facts behind the economic performance of our economy for the last 70 years or so.

And as I have said repeatedly - once more in the attempt to break through The Shield of The Script - two things; reduce spending, increase revenue.  That means cut spending, of which too little is being done.  And let the Bush Cuts expire to reduce the deficits even faster than they are now.  And no, as I have actually said before, that will impact everyone - not just the 1%ers.


Deflection/dissemination/doublespeak...

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on January 24, 2012, 08:31:12 AM
And I really am dying to know how your reading comprehension would interpret that sentence...

Please have your next of kin post your funeral arrangements here on TNF.  I would like to attend, to make sure you are really dead.

;D

Quote from: Red Arrow on January 24, 2012, 09:40:32 AM
Please have your next of kin post your funeral arrangements here on TNF.  I would like to attend, to make sure you are really dead.

;D

Ahhhhh...how sweet!!!  Luv you, too!!  (Hint; bring wooden stakes!)


But still - interpretation??

Quote from: we vs us on January 23, 2012, 04:10:40 PM
There will always be unintended consequences and always have been.  It's the miracle of life.  smile happens. We make the smartest decisions we can based on fact and projection and then let the chips fall where they may.  C'est la vie and all that.  

Leveling the field will come with more taxes for the richies, sadly.  There's no way around it.  I'm actually in favor of all the Bush tax cuts sunsetting in 2012 but I'm pretty positive the upper tier will sunset first and the middle class cuts will be extended a couple of years. But carried interest, 15% capital gains rates, even just the billions of $'s we leave on the table every year because the IRS is understaffed, all of these things would make things more equitable.

And re: the richies . . . there's been simply no proof that the extra bushels of money they have has made them job creators (seen the unemployment rate?)  Once again, the trickle down mechanism we've been waiting for has failed to materialize, but what we have gotten are further excuses for why there aren't more jobs, and the excuses have boiled down to . . . don't make us feel awful about ourselves or we'll just hoard our wealth.  I don't buy it.  That's never happened in history.  People have never not invested money when there's money to be made.  My proof?  The drug trade.  Even crazy amounts of jail time can't dissuade people from chasing those juicy markets.  If the legit markets were juicy enough, if the return on investment was there, we'd see these fickle businessfolk invest with gusto.  But there's no money to be made because there's no demand because the middle class is evaporating before our eyes . . . .

But leveling the playing field is also about education, it's about entrepreneurialism, it's about social and spatial mobility and opportunity.  It's a big ole hairball that's been accumulating for years for a diverse number of reasons.  I think it starts with a more equitable tax set up but certainly doesn't end there.
 

(Warning: long Conan ramble)

Oil prices have hovered around $100 a barrel and gasoline between $3.00 and $3.75 a gallon for three years. That's sapped the consumer economy,  brutalized the poor, and helped to stifle job growth, but hey, smile happens!!!

Free trade agreements have resulted in the loss of millions of jobs overseas, but it's allowed us to export more goods manufactured by fewer Americans.  But hey, smile happens!!!

Obamacare is supposed to create lower cost healthcare, yet ever since the passage of this legislation, procedure costs and insurance costs keep going up in a desperate profit grab prior to new regulations (just found out our company's premium is going up 8.5%).  You don't think that's brutalized people without insurance or driven up payroll costs do you?  Not to mention the uncertainty to American employers who cannot plan budgets or payroll needs until they know for certain what this will cost them.  Damn the unintended consequences, we got health care reform!  Hey, smile happens!!!

(Our previous health insurer dropped out of the business as a direct result of that legislation.  So much for competition to help keep costs lower.  Don't you think it's hard to forecast costs from year to year when variables like health insurance keep rising?)

We created a huge new bureaucracy with Homeland Security and TSA which has choked foreign tourism to the United States (in case you missed that tidbit in the news last week http://overheadbin.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/19/10192546-travel-experts-applaud-obamas-pro-tourism-measures (http://overheadbin.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/19/10192546-travel-experts-applaud-obamas-pro-tourism-measures)) as well as air travel within our borders.  Rather than profile likely terrorists, security agents feel up 80 year old women and 5 year old children and make air travel such a hassle many people elect to drive even on long trips these days.  High fuel prices and lower passenger loads are choking the airline industry and killing airline jobs, but hey, smile happens!!!

The economy is in the crapper and your solution is "smile happens"?  That's not a solution.  Real jobs are lost when smile happens.  Costs to consumers go up when smile happens.

I don't see how there could be a more equitable tax set up than there is now.  Nearly half (or slightly over half depending on whose stats you look at) pay no federal income tax.  Lower income earners also qualify for all sorts of credits to help them along.  We give lower income earners all sorts of credits for all the kids they have, college tuition paid, childcare, etc.  We all pay into social security and medicare.  Everyone should be required to pay into their retirement or for a permanent disability and retirement healthcare plan, don't you think?

That said, letting the Bush tax cuts expire won't seriously affect job growth once the economy is in a full and sustained recovery.  Even prominent Democrats (including President Clinton) recognize that a down economy is not the time to start increasing income taxes or re-writing the tax structure.  Obviously the tax code seemed to work during the Clinton era, but we also were in an explosive growth mode due to a wealth of new technologies and the exploitation of the internet during the 1990's.  I don't think we need any new tax cuts at this juncture.  I won't vote for a candidate who promises that this next election either.  We simply need a leader who inspires confidence in the free markets, not fear and hatred of those at the top.  That's not how you create jobs, that's how you secure votes from the underclass, giving them false hope that penalizing the wealthy will make them whole.  

Even still, taxation like the Clinton era won't lift all classes.  Even a draconian tax code with a 90% maximum rate and reissuing money to the under and middle class wouldn't raise all classes, it would simply create a bigger entitlement mentality.  The wealthy would simply move their wealth to safe havens and the ruling oligarchy would retain most of the remaining wealth, it's proven time and again throughout history.  Cuba, USSR, anyone?  There will still be an underclass and no "economic" or "social" justice as the left is so fond of.  You don't lift the underclass by confiscating from the successful.  Those who have successfully gotten out of the underclass or moved upward in the middle class or moved from the middle class to upper class, didn't do so via any sort of wealth redistribution, economic justice, social justice or spatial mobility plan put forth by the government.  They did it via their own efforts and motivation to improve their lot in life.  There's no shortage of grants, loans, free Vo-Tech programs, and low cost in-state college tuition programs that people simply don't take advantage of.

You've been sold a bill of goods with the rhetoric of social justice, economic justice, and social and spatial mobility.  The government simply cannot create enough incentives nor high paying jobs in the government budget to raise the entire middle class.  That's a fairy tale campaign promise and nothing more.  You cannot illustrate a specific model with real numbers to show how this mechanism works, because it doesn't exist.  I implore you to search to your heart's content and other than vacuous figures or theory, you will not be able to come back with a model that shows if you take X amount from the wealthy or raise the tax rate by a given amount, you can create X amount of net jobs which are all above the poverty line.

Social and economic mobility is available for those with work ethic, imagination, and education.  The people I hear complain the loudest are not doing anything to mobilize themselves.  What productivity has come out of someone sitting (or sh!tting should I say?) at an occupy rally for four months?  None.  It's gotten the attention of the media, but it's not brought that person any closer to gainful employment.  Bitching about the problem  and not looking for work or attempting to get education in a field that will bring gainful employment is being a part of the problem.

It would appear you've been indoctrinated with the idea that money will cure any problem.  We've tossed billions upon billions into education and paid some of the supposed best and brightest to lead the education system through one reform after another and yet, we still have an education problem.  It's not the facilities, it's not the teachers, it's the lack of priority placed on education and bettering ones self within the home.  If the parents are not examples of success and/or they constantly shove a paradigm of hopelessness and dependency into their children's heads, education will never be a priority and that child will end up in the underclass.  A parent stressing the importance of education and being there to mentor their child's education will do far more for social and economic mobility than a thousand tax increases on the wealthy.

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on January 24, 2012, 09:31:52 AM
Except for the facts behind the economic performance of our economy for the last 70 years or so.

And as I have said repeatedly - once more in the attempt to break through The Shield of The Script - two things; reduce spending, increase revenue.  That means cut spending, of which too little is being done.  And let the Bush Cuts expire to reduce the deficits even faster than they are now.  And no, as I have actually said before, that will impact everyone - not just the 1%ers.


Deflection/dissemination/doublespeak...

I am glad you are open to a reduction to spending.  Where should that come from?  All agencies across the board or a chosen few?

How much do you think that the "top 1%" pay in taxes?  For instance, Romney just released his tax returns.  He paid about 15% over the last two years returns (13.9%, 15.4%) .  Most of his income was from investment.  If he paid 15% in taxes on investment income, what does that make his tax rate?

I'll give you some help.  When you purchase a stock in a company, you become a partial owner, and are granted corporate governance rights.  All of the profits of that company are taxed (usually at the corporate rate of 35%).  So, as an owner, income on your investment is taxed at 35% (sometimes as high as 44.75%).  When you sell your ownership in that company, or are paid dividends, you are taxed at 15%.  So, Mr. Romney's taxes on investment were somewhere between 50% and 60%, but since these are filed on separate forms, we only see the 15% and that in convenient for vilifying the wealthy.

Now, when you also consider that on top of that 50% to 60%, Mr. Romney also gave an additional 15% of his total income to charity.  10% probably went to the Mormon Church, and the rest to various groups.  This means little because the only charity that most liberals care about is government.

The 1% is responsible for paying a significant amount of taxes.  Far more than the middle or lower classes are responsible for.  In fact when you look at the true bottom line you see a tax structure that looks something like this.
(http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/ED-AO800_1morem_D_20120119183304.jpg)

Now, nothing posted above will make a lick of difference.  This is a total waste of my time because the motivation to confiscate the wealth of the successful is based solely on emotion.  Envy is the prime mover here.  The important subject of economic growth is rendered meaningless as all conversations can be turned on the subject of "fairness" because envy is a basal brain emotion that carries more power than higher thought.

Heiron, I know from your posts that you are intelligent.  There is no reason for you to fall prey to the disconnected idea that somehow tax increases on anyone are a remedy to our economic situation.  Yes, they may help the debt, but cuts in the ridiculous spending increases we've seen will do that far better and also help to reduce some of the uncertainty caused by what is perceived as a lack of control.

The crap truck stopped by here and illegally unloaded.

Best I can tell, several people around here seem to think because increasing taxes is a slower boat to prosperity than slash and burn, that we should just ignore such remedies because they are related to "basal" emotions of fairness and equality, both actually Communist/Socialist ploys to simply take money from the upper classes.

I remember laughing in psychology about the arguments between behaviorists and those who believed in "wired" genetics. Nature/nurture. Just like Gas they argued passionately that only their side was right. Now we know 30 years later that it is both. Can we afford to wait 30 years for Gas et al to learn the same lesson in economics even though it goes against their script? I think not.

Quote from: AquaMan on January 24, 2012, 10:14:08 AM
The crap truck stopped by here and illegally unloaded.

Best I can tell, several people around here seem to think because increasing taxes is a slower boat to prosperity than slash and burn, that we should just ignore such remedies because they are related to "basal" emotions of fairness and equality, both actually Communist/Socialist ploys to simply take money from the upper classes.

I remember laughing in psychology about the arguments between behaviorists and those who believed in "wired" genetics. Nature/nurture. Just like Gas they argued passionately that only their side was right. Now we know 30 years later that it is both. Can we afford to wait 30 years for Gas et al to learn the same lesson in economics even though it goes against their script? I think not.

Great!  Add some mechanics to the conversation then.  What do you propose is a workable tax rate and why?  

Talking about tax increases on the 1% is great for politicians because it creates a bogeyman to take the focus off how their incompetence has contributed to the lack of job growth the last 4 years.  It's an interesting smoke screen because they've managed to benefit a lot of 1%'ers with stimulus spending and government loans which will never be repaid.

Quote from: AquaMan on January 24, 2012, 10:14:08 AM
The crap truck stopped by here and illegally unloaded.

Yes it did.
It's just a question of who was driving.

;D


Added:  I love your concept that "raising taxes is a slow boat to prosperity."  May I use that?

In fact the concept that taxation has a causal relationship on prosperity is so very powerful.  That's like saying theft is the path to security, or rape is the path to love.  So very uniquely liberal.  You've made my day.

Quote from: Gaspar on January 24, 2012, 10:05:53 AM
I am glad you are open to a reduction to spending.  Where should that come from?  All agencies across the board or a chosen few?

How much do you think that the "top 1%" pay in taxes?  For instance, Romney just released his tax returns.  He paid about 15% over the last two years returns (13.9%, 15.4%) .  Most of his income was from investment.  If he paid 15% in taxes on investment income, what does that make his tax rate?

Again...as I have said repeatedly....how about if we go back to the Fountain From Which All Goodness supposedly flows...Reagan.  He is the gold standard to which all is compared, isn't he?

Actually, no, that is not where I would take it.  See the response following for specific answers - also repeated repeatedly - to Conans specific question about what and why.

Conan, lets just take a minute to see what we're trying to accomplish here and how. For me to get into the mechanics of it all means, like alot of other people around here, I'm going to have to go Google, Wiki and website searching to find the materials to substantiate what I already believe. Is that helpful? What I believe has been accumulated over a lifetime of education, reading, watching and experiencing. It is distilled into a framework of beliefs as to what works or doesn't work, what is fantasy or logic, and what is simply noise. From this framework I derive my "script". Others are doing the same.

So, in the end, no one benefits from me doing so anymore than I benefit from Gas's $5 explanations of 50 cent logic. Just have to wade through it and remember when I was forty. Mostly this is all just noise. Come on, "Basal" emotions? Fairness and equality are now bad things?

However, I do find much to believe in your last sentence. 1%ers are just as much a scapegoat for a system that has been failed by its operators. Decades of mismanagement of our resources to benefit smaller and smaller populations using "noise" as a cover has damaged us severely.

Quote from: Gaspar on January 24, 2012, 10:29:33 AM
Yes it did.
It's just a question of who was driving.

;D


Added:  I love your concept that "raising taxes is a slow boat to prosperity."  May I use that?

In fact the concept that taxation has a causal relationship on prosperity is so very powerful.  That's like saying theft is the path to security, or rape is the path to love.  So very uniquely liberal.  You've made my day.

Not who was driving...who pulled the lever to dump!

I am honored you find anything I say important enough to repeat. I do fail to understand how you jump from taxation being a causal relationship to prosperity over to criminal activities. If taxation is not causal, then why did so many companies jump over to Ireland to operate, which added a fair amount of money into their economy, thus keeping them more prosperous.

Any one tactic or change in strategy or change in leadership at this point in time means a slow road to prosperity. Why you find that adjective humorous tells me something about your misunderstanding of how we got here, and how long it took. Impatience.

Heiro, I have forgotten more about 1983-84 than I care to admit. Reagan made a speech around that time about taxes. He said that there had been too many who had abused our tax system and had not paid their fare share. He proposed that Capital Gains be taxed at the same level as ordinary income. Forgive me if that is not totally accurate. I just saw the clip on cable a couple days ago.

Can you imagine that? He said "fair share"!! He said "tax Capital Gains"!! What a liberal.

Quote from: AquaMan on January 24, 2012, 10:42:07 AM
Conan, lets just take a minute to see what we're trying to accomplish here and how. For me to get into the mechanics of it all means, like alot of other people around here, I'm going to have to go Google, Wiki and website searching to find the materials to substantiate what I already believe. Is that helpful? What I believe has been accumulated over a lifetime of education, reading, watching and experiencing. It is distilled into a framework of beliefs as to what works or doesn't work, what is fantasy or logic, and what is simply noise. From this framework I derive my "script". Others are doing the same.

So, in the end, no one benefits from me doing so anymore than I benefit from Gas's $5 explanations of 50 cent logic. Just have to wade through it and remember when I was forty. Mostly this is all just noise. Come on, "Basal" emotions? Fairness and equality are now bad things?

However, I do find much to believe in your last sentence. 1%ers are just as much a scapegoat for a system that has been failed by its operators. Decades of mismanagement of our resources to benefit smaller and smaller populations using "noise" as a cover has damaged us severely.

Increasing taxes because it makes us feel better or gives the appearance of fairness is no more a reason to raise taxes than it would be to lower them.  Even when the marginal rate was 70%+ we had ghettos and extremely poor rural areas.  It should be for purely economic reasons and the reasons stated in President Obama's fairness rhetoric are not economic realities.  He cannot lift the underclass or create hope by increasing taxes on the rich.  All he's doing is promising the peasants their pound of flesh.  The reality is, he's not done anything to improve the underclass, he's done what previous administrations have done: funneled more money and favors toward his major supporters.  He has zero intention of raising taxes on the wealthy, he's simply in campaign mode as usual.

QuoteIf taxation is not causal, then why did so many companies jump over to Ireland to operate, which added a fair amount of money into their economy, thus keeping them more prosperous.

Proof that lower taxes helps create jobs, wouldn't you say? 

Quote from: AquaMan on January 24, 2012, 10:56:10 AM
Heiro, I have forgotten more about 1983-84 than I care to admit. Reagan made a speech around that time about taxes. He said that there had been too many who had abused our tax system and had not paid their fare share. He proposed that Capital Gains be taxed at the same level as ordinary income. Forgive me if that is not totally accurate. I just saw the clip on cable a couple days ago.

Can you imagine that? He said "fair share"!! He said "tax Capital Gains"!! What a liberal.

http://news.yahoo.com/arkansas-democrats-cat-killed-painted-liberal-211435575.html

the usual suspects.....

Conan, how do you rationalize Reagan's proposals to increase taxes on the rich because of inherent unfairness? Yet now you think that should just be a decision based on economics? Truth is that if we eliminate taxes on the top tier of taxpayers altoghether, it will have a tremendous effect on the economy. So, is that the best path?

And, yes, thanks for reinforcing my tax prosperity causality argument. No one doubts that companies with short sighted leadership, no restraints, no loyalty, no patriotism and no morals will follow the path of least resistance every time. And the people they bless with the results of those characteristics, prosper. Just like a drug dealers girlfriend!

Quote from: Conan71 on January 24, 2012, 10:25:49 AM
Great!  Add some mechanics to the conversation then.  What do you propose is a workable tax rate and why?  

Talking about tax increases on the 1% is great for politicians because it creates a bogeyman to take the focus off how their incompetence has contributed to the lack of job growth the last 4 years.  It's an interesting smoke screen because they've managed to benefit a lot of 1%'ers with stimulus spending and government loans which will never be repaid.

Specifically - let the Bush tax BS expire.  Let the capital gains return to its previous level.

And why?  Because that is exactly what was working very well before the Bush Debacle.  We had surpluses - even if not as many as Newt is claiming for his credit.  The economy was doing well before Bush under that structure - actually was the best expansion we have ever had, then followed by years of lackluster muddling along.  There was plenty of money to satisfy all but the most egregious excesses of appetite.  There was investment in new fields of technology.  In general, the economy was working better than it has since. 

It operated at a point that allowed ongoing operation of the economy.


And biggest of all, we had not condemned our grandkids to being loaded down with the tangible expression of this generation's greed, hubris, and narcissism.



It would also be nice if as a side note we could get out of this loop of continuous war as our main economic policy.

Quote from: AquaMan on January 24, 2012, 10:56:10 AM
Heiro, I have forgotten more about 1983-84 than I care to admit. Reagan made a speech around that time about taxes. He said that there had been too many who had abused our tax system and had not paid their fare share. He proposed that Capital Gains be taxed at the same level as ordinary income. Forgive me if that is not totally accurate. I just saw the clip on cable a couple days ago.

Can you imagine that? He said "fair share"!! He said "tax Capital Gains"!! What a liberal.

Even with his tax cuts and adjustments, he understood that deficit spending was a dead end trap - even if he was the biggest deficit spender in over 200 years.  (Until Bush and Bush came along.)  That's why we had the biggest tax hikes in the history of the country up to that point under him.


The extreme right that is running around today invoking the name and memory of Reagan would have him crucified if he were running today.  The tax rate for more than 3/4 of his term was OVER 50%.  (Today we are at 33% and expiration of the Bush cuts would take it to 36%.  And long term capital gains would go to 25% from 15%)

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on January 24, 2012, 11:43:07 AM
Specifically - let the Bush tax BS expire.  Let the capital gains return to its previous level.

And why?  Because that is exactly what was working very well before the Bush Debacle.  We had surpluses - even if not as many as Newt is claiming for his credit.  The economy was doing well before Bush under that structure - actually was the best expansion we have ever had, then followed by years of lackluster muddling along.  There was plenty of money to satisfy all but the most egregious excesses of appetite.  There was investment in new fields of technology.  In general, the economy was working better than it has since.  

It operated at a point that allowed ongoing operation of the economy.


And biggest of all, we had not condemned our grandkids to being loaded down with the tangible expression of this generation's greed, hubris, and narcissism.



It would also be nice if as a side note we could get out of this loop of continuous war as our main economic policy.

I agree, the Clinton era tax code worked at the time.  It seems we finally hit a magic equilibrium between GDP, government receipts, and government spending during that period.  There was also the decided advantage of massive investment in new bio technologies which resulted in many new treatments for diseases real or imagined, the rapid growth and exploitation of the internet, new telecom technology and (over)expansion, new IT technologies, etc.  

That was a true time of greed, hubris, and narcissism.  What made an upstart company which had lost millions over the previous three years with a very sketchy business plan suddenly worth $500 million or so overnight?  

The unfortunate part is all those happened within roughly the same time frame which lead to bubbles everywhere you looked: housing, venture capital, IPO's, etc.  A whole lot of mortgages out there (literally and figuratively) that we are charging off now.  Had the growth come in waves rather than pretty much all at once, we might not be in this mess now.

No less than Bill Clinton has said though, that now is not the time to go back to the tax rates of the 1990's.  We need to be in more of a recovery mode prior to increases.

All that said, we don't know that the Clinton era tax codes would be the proper equilibrium in this day and age any more than whether or not Keynesian measures taken during the Great Depression are still as relevant today.  It was an entirely different economic climate in the private sector 12-15 years ago.

Think this might come up in the SOTU address tonight?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-24/payrolls-rose-in-25-u-s-states-in-december-while-jobless-rate-fell-in-37.html

Very optimistic article. Not just December. Texas and Cali joblessnes declined for the year. Bama sucks, but still came out on top in joblessness growth. Of course you know, its only Bloomberg. A business magazine. Better get this Obama character out of office before someone notices. :)

sorry for the constant edits. Left handed, aged, alcohol deprived. bad combination.

Quote from: Gaspar on January 24, 2012, 07:25:52 AM
Come on guys, you know that I'm not phased when you start in with the ridicule and name calling.

I made some simple observations.  I'm sorry if they upset you, but they are none the less true.

And this is just further evidence of your delusion when it comes to politics. The ridicule and name calling come out because you say ridiculously outlandish things worthy of name calling. I still find it hilarious that you can't tell the difference between a Republican moving to the right and a Democrat moving to the left. You constantly make inane posts and use cherry picked statistics in an attempt to justify your position.

I'm sorry that makes me laugh and poke fun. I should be a better person, but I'm not. I just can't wrap my head around why on God's green earth you'd continually carry water for the group of people who have seen their after tax income triple since 1979. Why should I care what they make, you ask? Well, maybe I should care because they're actively taking it from the rest of us through tax and other policy while the income share of everyone below them have at best remained stagnant (for the rest of the top 80%) or declined since that time.

Yet still you think that the problem is too much taxes? It's like you're stuck in 1972 with no way to get home or something.

(http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-QG980_cbo_E_20111025152346.jpg)

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on January 24, 2012, 09:31:52 AM
Except for the facts behind the economic performance of our economy for the last 70 years or so.

It is amazing how for a while there raising taxes increased economic growth. You'd think the acolytes of St. Reagan would be against the loopholes in the tax code that allow the lucky duckies to get away with paying a very low income tax rate. I guess they don't realize that it was the 1986 loophole-closing and not the decrease in the marginal rate that brought tax receipts up. ;)

Quote from: Conan71 on January 24, 2012, 09:54:56 AM
Don't you think it's hard to forecast costs from year to year when variables like health insurance keep rising?

Yes, but HCR did not cause it. It was already doing that.

(http://facts.kff.org/upload/jpg/large/Cumulative%20Increases%20in%20Health%20Insurance%20Premiums,%20Workers%e2%80%99%20Contributions%20to%20Premiums,%20Inflation,%20and%20Workers%e2%80%99%20Earnings,%201999-2011.jpg)

The fact of the matter is that the situation we're in is a direct result of years of government policy by lobbyist steering us in the wrong direction. Perhaps we should fix those policies before we give up and tell people to just hope for the best.

Telling people to go out and get $10-20,000 in debt for a technical degree in an environment where the unemployment rate in that cohort is less than 1% below the overall average while a four year degree (and being over 25) nets you a much better chance at being employed. Of course, as you're well aware, that college degree is something of a boat anchor when your employment is at Best Buy or Target.

Quote from: nathanm on January 24, 2012, 01:18:24 PM

I'm sorry that makes me laugh and poke fun. I should be a better person, but I'm not. I just can't wrap my head around why on God's green earth you'd continually carry water for the group of people who have seen their after tax income triple since 1979.

Because I do not care in the least what someone else makes.  I actually admire people who amass wealth.  I have friends that started from nothing and are stupid-wealthy now and I am proud of them.  

The wealth of others affects me in no way.  It does not change my ambition, nor does it provide any benchmark that I wish to judge myself by.  If they make more, I am not harmed. . .unless I allow myself to be through the poisonous sickness of envy.  

You can tax a wealthy person 90% of their income, and if they still desire to be wealthy, they will.  Any tax, tariff, or fee you levy on them, they will pass to their product, service, or manufacture.  

The poor are not getting poorer, they too are becoming wealthier, your beef is that they are not doing it as fast as the wealthy, ambitious, and innovative.  

There is no such thing as a person's "fair share" of wealth. The gross national product is not a pizza that must be carefully divided because if I get too many slices, you have to eat the box. The economy is expandable and, in any practical sense, limitless. – P. J. O'Rourke

Quote from: Gaspar on January 24, 2012, 01:40:14 PM
The wealth of others affects me in no way.  It does not change my ambition, nor does it provide any benchmark that I wish to judge myself by.  If they make more, I am not harmed. . .unless I allow myself to be through the poisonous sickness of envy.  

You can tax a wealthy person 90% of their income, and if they still desire to be wealthy, they will.  Any tax, tariff, or fee you levy on them, they will pass to their product, service, or manufacture.  

The poor are not getting poorer, they too are becoming wealthier, you beef is that they are not doing it as fast as the wealthy, ambitious, and innovative.  

When you're quoting PJ, you know you've run out of ideas..

Actually, the wealth of others does affect you. No man is an island. I'm not going to bother writing a long screed about the ill effects of wealth inequality on a society and the extreme costs that it brings because I know it's a futile effort. I'll just say that this has been extensively studied and the studies are pretty easy to find on teh Googles.

Basic economics says getting wealthy at a slower rate (IOW, having a declining share of income) is in fact the same as getting poorer. (Inflation adjusted wage growth among nonsupervisory workers averaged 0.1% a year since 1979 and 2007. Higher incomes at the top drive the price of all sorts of things up, making them unaffordable to those lower on the income distribution. So no, economic understanding fail on that one. Even the Randian acolytes get this one, they just don't think it matters. What they miss is that at some point, there will be nobody left to sell their products and services to.

(http://www.cbpp.org/images/cms//6-25-10inc-f1.jpg)

That ain't getting richer.

It's not about taking from the rich, it's about having a working society.

By the way, your claim of displacement has been debunked for years now. Even if it did hold true, I would say that it's good to have people pay income taxes. Including the corporate peoples. It promotes a shared sense of society and togetherness that is essential for holding a country together.

And if you think I envy people for being rich, all that shows is that you don't know jack smile about me. But yeah, keep channeling Atlas Shrugged. I know it was the best novel you ever read. It must be as much as it seems to influence your thinking.

Quote from: Gaspar on January 24, 2012, 01:40:14 PM

The poor are not getting poorer, they too are becoming wealthier, your beef is that they are not doing it as fast as the wealthy, ambitious, and innovative.  

This is where you get tripped up every time - since about 1981, the real live "standard of living" income for all but the richest has actually been going down, so yes indeed, the poor are getting poorer.  And yest, the rich are getting richer at, and by hugely disproportionate and disparate rates and amounts.

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on January 24, 2012, 01:54:44 PM

This is where you get tripped up every time - since about 1981, the real live "standard of living" income for all but the richest has actually been going down, so yes indeed, the poor are getting poorer.  And yest, the rich are getting richer at, and by hugely disproportionate and disparate rates and amounts.

No, this is where you get tripped up.  Liberals still subscribe to The Law of Increasing Poverty.  This requires them to ignore income mobility.  "Poor" is not a group of people.  It is a snapshot in time.  15 years ago, I was one of the "poor."  Today, someone else lives in my apartment and works my old $hit job.  They actually make more than I did, and the apartment has been renovated, but only rents for slightly more than it used to.  They are better off, but still poor.  Today, I am middle class, and within the next 10-20 years I will be wealthy.  No one will stop me, because I won't allow it.  Failure can only be my fault.

The reality is that poor and wealthy move up and down (mostly up) in these snapshots.  "The Poor" and "The Rich" are not the same people from one day to another, yet their classification based on income remains the same.

Quote from: Gaspar on January 24, 2012, 02:05:11 PM
No, this is where you get tripped up.  Liberals still subscribe to The Law of Increasing Poverty.  This requires them to ignore income mobility.  "Poor" is not a group of people.  It is a snapshot in time.  15 years ago, I was one of the "poor."  Today, someone else lives in my apartment and works my old $hit job.  They actually make more than I did, and the apartment has been renovated, but only rents for slightly more than it used to.  They are better off, but still poor.  Today, I am middle class, and within the next 10-20 years I will be wealthy.  No one will stop me, because I won't allow it.  Failure can only be my fault.

The reality is that poor and wealthy move up and down (mostly up) in these snapshots.  "The Poor" and "The Rich" are not the same people from one day to another, yet their classification based on income remains the same.

I hope you do get more every year, forever.  Hopefully it will be enough to get beyond the reality of 99% of the population.  I hope for the same for myself.

By the way, what color did you say the sky is in your world?

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on January 24, 2012, 02:12:07 PM
I hope you do get more every year, forever.  Hopefully it will be enough to get beyond the reality of 99% of the population.  I hope for the same for myself.

By the way, what color did you say the sky is in your world?

And I wish the same for you.

I have no power to change the color of the sky, but I can change what I think and feel about that color.

Blaming others because the sky is not the color you would like it to be will have little affect on the sky.

Cmon Nate, I figured you would be done with your response by now.

(http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lmhv8muOCU1qzrgug.gif)

Quote from: Gaspar on January 24, 2012, 02:31:55 PM
Cmon Nate, I figured you would be done with your response by now.

Nate has God-like powers?

Quote from: Townsend on January 24, 2012, 02:33:07 PM
Nate has God-like powers?

He's a good critical thinker.  I'm sure he will have an excellent response.

Here is tonights game, have fun!


- If Obama says, "Let me be clear...", take 1

- "Millionaires and Billionaires", take 1

- "Fair share", take 1

- "high-speed rail", take 2

- There's an outburst during the speech, take 4

- You notice Joe Biden nodding in agreement, take 1

- "We can't wait", take 1

- If Speaker Boehner is seen shaking his head, take 2

- If Obama calls out SCOTUS, take 3 and yell out "Objection!!!" while pointing your finger at the TV

- If Obama tries to highlight ObamaCare as an accomplishment, take 1

- If Obama tries to highlight the stimulus as an accomplishment, take 1

- If Obama references Mitt Romney in mentioning ObamaCare, take 5. Mitt Romney supporters must chug.

- If Obama asks Congress to raise the debt ceiling, take 3 and yell out, "BUT WE'RE ALL OUT OF BEER!"

- "Green jobs", take 2

- Obama criticizes Super PACs, take 3

- If Obama mentions illegal immigration, take 3 from a Mexican beer or a shot of tequila, then announce your racism to the world for perpetuating stereotypes

-  "And there are those who say", take 1

Quote from: Gaspar on January 24, 2012, 03:35:19 PM
Here is tonights game, have fun! ...

I can't afford that much beer.  Well, I'm not willing to buy and drink that much in one sitting.

Quote from: Red Arrow on January 24, 2012, 03:41:29 PM
I can't afford that much beer.  Well, I'm not willing to buy and drink that much in one sitting.

Do it for your country.

Quote from: Gaspar on January 24, 2012, 02:05:11 PM
No, this is where you get tripped up.  Liberals still subscribe to The Law of Increasing Poverty.  This requires them to ignore income mobility.  "Poor" is not a group of people.  It is a snapshot in time.  

You might consider opening your eyes to sources not involved in your religion. If you did, you would know that income mobility, both intergenerational and intragenerational, has decreased significantly since the middle of the century.

This is not, as you attempt to argue, anything like the color of the sky. This is due to a systematic effort on the part of both political parties (at the behest of the Randian loons) to reshape the income distribution to look more like that of a third world country, largely through preferential tax treatment of income that mainly accrues to those at the top of the distribution. It's not a force of nature, it's a force of politics.

Edited to add: Perhaps the Wall Street Journal can explain it in terms you understand: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204224604577030720603515022.html

Quote from: nathanm on January 24, 2012, 03:42:20 PM
You might consider opening your eyes to sources not involved in your religion.

Nice opener.  What is my religion Nate?

Quote from: nathanm on January 24, 2012, 01:38:19 PM
Yes, but HCR did not cause it. It was already doing that.

(http://facts.kff.org/upload/jpg/large/Cumulative%20Increases%20in%20Health%20Insurance%20Premiums,%20Workers%e2%80%99%20Contributions%20to%20Premiums,%20Inflation,%20and%20Workers%e2%80%99%20Earnings,%201999-2011.jpg)

The fact of the matter is that the situation we're in is a direct result of years of government policy by lobbyist steering us in the wrong direction. Perhaps we should fix those policies before we give up and tell people to just hope for the best.

Telling people to go out and get $10-20,000 in debt for a technical degree in an environment where the unemployment rate in that cohort is less than 1% below the overall average while a four year degree (and being over 25) nets you a much better chance at being employed. Of course, as you're well aware, that college degree is something of a boat anchor when your employment is at Best Buy or Target.

I guess our health insurance agent is lying to us as well as FMC who also markets a health insurance line.  I'll have to have a discussion with her about that.  ;D

Just because the job picture is weak right now, doesn't mean someone should not pursue a better education.  Not everyone is suited for a four year college degree and it's not necessary to get a job even in this economic environment if someone has a trade or skill. The right person with the right attitude and skills is going to go to work.  In this economy there's still vacancies for mechanical engineers, auto body mechanics, chefs, chiropractors, attorneys, physicians, auto mechanics, carpenters, interior designers, insurance agents, hair stylists, morticians, etc- a general mix of technical and college degree type jobs.

My daughter will graduate with a bachelor's degree in interior design in less than four months.  You'd think that's a tricky field to hire into right now and it is.  She sets herself apart because she's a very hard worker, has amazing vision, has an engaging personality, and has taken advantage of every opportunity that's come her way to get her work in front of people she may be able to work for when she's done with school.  She tells me she's got great prospects and expects and offer prior to graduation from a large commercial design firm.

Of course this is a child of a broken home who had to suffer through a public school education after 4th grade. ;)  

My brother got his business degree from TU in 1986.  After graduation, he paid too much for a business he'd worked for four years, thinking he knew all the shortcomings of the previous owner's mismanagement and he could improve it.  Turns out, he was wrong and it failed within two years.  He found himself working at Target for a year waiting for some sort of opportunity to come about.  Was that degree wasted while he was under-employed?  Of course not, it helped him land a gig in the lending industry where he worked his way up the ladder until his death in 2000.  They never even questioned that he was under-employed, it showed work ethic even if the work was well beneath and totally irrelevant to his degree.  He found the finance job during the downturn of the early 1990's when many others were having trouble finding work.
 

Oh, and heard on the radio this afternoon: Warren Buffett's secretary will be part of the perp walk at the SOTU.

Also heard that the suggestion of moving all that oil from Alberta to Houston could be done in a greener method by train.  Guess who owns a big chunk of BNSF?

That's right, Warren Buffett.  Seems fairly ironic now that Nebraska is the sticky wickett in the Keystone Pipeline.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2012/01/23/bloomberg_articlesLY20WE6K50Z001-LY9YF.DTL

More influence peddling? Coincidence? Crony capitalism?

Stick to the potty party line...."Get ready for the biggest, hate filled, class warfare speech ever tonight."



This theory is much in play if you read some of Gaspar these posts.

Quote from: nathanm on January 24, 2012, 03:42:20 PM
You might consider opening your eyes to sources not involved in your religion. If you did, you would know that income mobility, both intergenerational and intragenerational, has decreased significantly since the middle of the century.

This is not, as you attempt to argue, anything like the color of the sky. This is due to a systematic effort on the part of both political parties (at the behest of the Randian loons) to reshape the income distribution to look more like that of a third world country, largely through preferential tax treatment of income that mainly accrues to those at the top of the distribution. It's not a force of nature, it's a force of politics.

Edited to add: Perhaps the Wall Street Journal can explain it in terms you understand: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204224604577030720603515022.html

Good article and I would be very interested to see the results of that study.  

I have spent a great deal of time in 3rd world countries.  They make you appreciate the freedoms we enjoy here and provide a deep prospective as to what it means to be poor and wealthy.  Your Randian loons may have come home to roost, because long after her death, the characters have changed but the story continues to play out.  Just last week there was another proposal for the creation of a "Reasonable Profits Board" to regulate corporate profits for oil companies.  Stolen from the pages of the loon bible.  They didn't even cite the text.

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/205085-dems-propose-reasonable-profits-board-to-regulate-oil-company-profits

You think POTUS OBAMA might finally attack the silent politicians?....not the one's who come out to proclaim their lies as truth but the politicians who refuse to refute hate and tolerances... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/media-violent-rhetoric_b_1225552.html

Quote from: Teatownclown on January 24, 2012, 04:09:28 PM
You think POTUS OBAMA might finally attack the silent politicians?....not the one's who come out to proclaim their lies as truth but the politicians who refuse to refute hate and tolerances... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/media-violent-rhetoric_b_1225552.html

No, I think he will blame Bush.

Quote from: Teatownclown on January 24, 2012, 04:09:28 PM
You think POTUS OBAMA might finally attack the silent politicians?....not the one's who come out to proclaim their lies as truth but the politicians who refuse to refute hate and tolerances... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/media-violent-rhetoric_b_1225552.html

Come on now, enough of the reach-around logic here.  By extension, let's blame an entire political party or talk radio for the actions of some sick f*ck.  Really?

Oh, that's right individual accountability is so 1950's.

You're right. That link belonged on a different thread....people who hate liberals don't understand collectivism. We live in progressive times these sick f*cks don't like.

This will be in POTUS OBAMA's 2015 State of the Union: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9031855/Its-time-to-end-the-failed-war-on-drugs.html

Quote from: Teatownclown on January 24, 2012, 04:44:36 PM
This will be in POTUS OBAMA's 2015 State of the Union: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9031855/Its-time-to-end-the-failed-war-on-drugs.html

I think he will be watching the 2015 SOTU from Honolulu

Quote from: Gaspar on January 24, 2012, 03:51:43 PM
Nice opener.  What is my religion Nate?

I believe it's called Objectivism.

Quote from: Conan71 on January 24, 2012, 05:40:25 PM
I think he will be watching the 2015 SOTU from Honolulu

Unless the current spate of GOP hopefuls gets better, he may indeed.  He'll wind up moving the White House to the 50th state.

Oh, hey, it's a live stream that will supposedly have charts and graphs!

Quote from: nathanm on January 24, 2012, 06:34:46 PM
Oh, hey, it's a live stream that will supposedly have charts and graphs!

More propaganda from the state-run media ;)

Did you notice how the comments on something as simple and common sense as banning insider trading by members of Congress - Republicontins all stayed seated. 

Quote from: Conan71 on January 24, 2012, 09:54:56 AM
(Warning: long Conan ramble)

Oil prices have hovered around $100 a barrel and gasoline between $3.00 and $3.75 a gallon for three years. That's sapped the consumer economy,  brutalized the poor, and helped to stifle job growth, but hey, smile happens!!!

Free trade agreements have resulted in the loss of millions of jobs overseas, but it's allowed us to export more goods manufactured by fewer Americans.  But hey, smile happens!!!

Obamacare is supposed to create lower cost healthcare, yet ever since the passage of this legislation, procedure costs and insurance costs keep going up in a desperate profit grab prior to new regulations (just found out our company's premium is going up 8.5%).  You don't think that's brutalized people without insurance or driven up payroll costs do you?  Not to mention the uncertainty to American employers who cannot plan budgets or payroll needs until they know for certain what this will cost them.  Damn the unintended consequences, we got health care reform!  Hey, smile happens!!!

(Our previous health insurer dropped out of the business as a direct result of that legislation.  So much for competition to help keep costs lower.  Don't you think it's hard to forecast costs from year to year when variables like health insurance keep rising?)

We created a huge new bureaucracy with Homeland Security and TSA which has choked foreign tourism to the United States (in case you missed that tidbit in the news last week http://overheadbin.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/19/10192546-travel-experts-applaud-obamas-pro-tourism-measures (http://overheadbin.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/19/10192546-travel-experts-applaud-obamas-pro-tourism-measures)) as well as air travel within our borders.  Rather than profile likely terrorists, security agents feel up 80 year old women and 5 year old children and make air travel such a hassle many people elect to drive even on long trips these days.  High fuel prices and lower passenger loads are choking the airline industry and killing airline jobs, but hey, smile happens!!!

The economy is in the crapper and your solution is "smile happens"?  That's not a solution.  Real jobs are lost when smile happens.  Costs to consumers go up when smile happens.

I don't see how there could be a more equitable tax set up than there is now.  Nearly half (or slightly over half depending on whose stats you look at) pay no federal income tax.  Lower income earners also qualify for all sorts of credits to help them along.  We give lower income earners all sorts of credits for all the kids they have, college tuition paid, childcare, etc.  We all pay into social security and medicare.  Everyone should be required to pay into their retirement or for a permanent disability and retirement healthcare plan, don't you think?

That said, letting the Bush tax cuts expire won't seriously affect job growth once the economy is in a full and sustained recovery.  Even prominent Democrats (including President Clinton) recognize that a down economy is not the time to start increasing income taxes or re-writing the tax structure.  Obviously the tax code seemed to work during the Clinton era, but we also were in an explosive growth mode due to a wealth of new technologies and the exploitation of the internet during the 1990's.  I don't think we need any new tax cuts at this juncture.  I won't vote for a candidate who promises that this next election either.  We simply need a leader who inspires confidence in the free markets, not fear and hatred of those at the top.  That's not how you create jobs, that's how you secure votes from the underclass, giving them false hope that penalizing the wealthy will make them whole.  

Even still, taxation like the Clinton era won't lift all classes.  Even a draconian tax code with a 90% maximum rate and reissuing money to the under and middle class wouldn't raise all classes, it would simply create a bigger entitlement mentality.  The wealthy would simply move their wealth to safe havens and the ruling oligarchy would retain most of the remaining wealth, it's proven time and again throughout history.  Cuba, USSR, anyone?  There will still be an underclass and no "economic" or "social" justice as the left is so fond of.  You don't lift the underclass by confiscating from the successful.  Those who have successfully gotten out of the underclass or moved upward in the middle class or moved from the middle class to upper class, didn't do so via any sort of wealth redistribution, economic justice, social justice or spatial mobility plan put forth by the government.  They did it via their own efforts and motivation to improve their lot in life.  There's no shortage of grants, loans, free Vo-Tech programs, and low cost in-state college tuition programs that people simply don't take advantage of.

You've been sold a bill of goods with the rhetoric of social justice, economic justice, and social and spatial mobility.  The government simply cannot create enough incentives nor high paying jobs in the government budget to raise the entire middle class.  That's a fairy tale campaign promise and nothing more.  You cannot illustrate a specific model with real numbers to show how this mechanism works, because it doesn't exist.  I implore you to search to your heart's content and other than vacuous figures or theory, you will not be able to come back with a model that shows if you take X amount from the wealthy or raise the tax rate by a given amount, you can create X amount of net jobs which are all above the poverty line.

Social and economic mobility is available for those with work ethic, imagination, and education.  The people I hear complain the loudest are not doing anything to mobilize themselves.  What productivity has come out of someone sitting (or sh!tting should I say?) at an occupy rally for four months?  None.  It's gotten the attention of the media, but it's not brought that person any closer to gainful employment.  Bitching about the problem  and not looking for work or attempting to get education in a field that will bring gainful employment is being a part of the problem.

It would appear you've been indoctrinated with the idea that money will cure any problem.  We've tossed billions upon billions into education and paid some of the supposed best and brightest to lead the education system through one reform after another and yet, we still have an education problem.  It's not the facilities, it's not the teachers, it's the lack of priority placed on education and bettering ones self within the home.  If the parents are not examples of success and/or they constantly shove a paradigm of hopelessness and dependency into their children's heads, education will never be a priority and that child will end up in the underclass.  A parent stressing the importance of education and being there to mentor their child's education will do far more for social and economic mobility than a thousand tax increases on the wealthy.

Not sure how best to respond to all of that.  For one thing, when I say "smile happens" I mean that unintended consequences shouldn't be an excuse not to engage government to improve our lives.  There're unintended consequences in private industry, too, but that's never brought up as a reason not to act.  As I said in my original response, we should rely on facts, make educated decisions using the best resources available and then let the chips fall where they may.  That's not nihilism, that's pragmatism.

As for taxes, no one in any corner of the government is proposing taxes at a rate that outstrip the Clinton era.  In fact, we can barely bring ourselves to talk about them outside of internet chat rooms (because that's where the Bush tax cuts, if they sunset, will place us -- back to Clinton era levels).  Of course, the Clinton era itself was pretty permissive as far as the tax code goes, especially in comparison with the heyday of American wealth confiscation, which was the 1950's. 

As far as class mobility goes, there're plenty of good hard data that says -- pretty definitively -- that we're much less mobile than we have been in a generation.  We're not only more unequal but there's far less movement between income groups.  What the data says is, the American dream that you and Gassy lionize is a pale shadow of itself.  Hard work, good education, timely investments -- these things pay off far far less than they ever have.  This is not to say they don't at all, but it's getting rarer and rarer.  This is my personal frustration with our political talk in this country.  I want the exact same thing that you do, which is to say opportunity for my daughter.  I want her to earn her education, her career and her success.  I want her to work for it and enjoy having done the work. But I want there a chance for her work to pay off.  And at this point, that chance is vanishingly small.  But you and I still want the same things for our kids, we just disagree about the availability of it.  You think it's common and achievable and I think it's going down the tubes.  Unfortunately, I've got numbers to back me up, and I wish it were otherwise . . . .

And just FYI, if we were to let the Bush tax cuts go, the money should go to deficit reduction, infrastructure repair, and R&D.  You know, all that investment in our future crap.  The point isn't to take money out of the pockets of rich people and hand it out in the form of krugerrands down on Skid Row.  The point is that we should use it to repair the many things that make us great as a nation that have started to decay in front of us.  Bridges, roads, rail, ports, airports, the electric grid, etc etc etc.  There's so much of it to be done.  Of course there's always the next internet to invest in, and shoring up the finances of the country.  Essentially good business practices.  That's what tax money should be for. 

Quote from: we vs us on January 24, 2012, 09:34:45 PM
The point isn't to take money out of the pockets of rich people and hand it out in the form of krugerrands down on Skid Row. 

You have some convincing to do even though I expect your example is somewhat figurative.

Quote from: we vs us on January 24, 2012, 09:34:45 PM
Not sure how best to respond to all of that. 

And just FYI, if we were to let the Bush tax cuts go, the money should go to deficit reduction, infrastructure repair, and R&D.  You know, all that investment in our future crap.  The point isn't to take money out of the pockets of rich people and hand it out in the form of krugerrands down on Skid Row.  The point is that we should use it to repair the many things that make us great as a nation that have started to decay in front of us.  Bridges, roads, rail, ports, airports, the electric grid, etc etc etc.  There's so much of it to be done.  Of course there's always the next internet to invest in, and shoring up the finances of the country.  Essentially good business practices.  That's what tax money should be for. 

I know, reality is like kryptonite to your liberal way of thinking, that's why you are struggling for a response ;)

Unfortunately, the way in which President Obama frames his discussion on the rich not paying their fair share does give the underclass and those less educated than you the notion that they will be getting their "Obama money" if we soak the rich.

I agree that we need to re-invest in our infrastructure and start paying down the debt.  I even agree a return to the Clinton era tax policies are far from draconian.  In fact I think you and I are in total agreement on your last paragraph.

Still though, it doesn't erase income inequality or social injustice or whatever one wants to call it.  I suspect the upper, middle, and lower income levels are always going to remain roughly the same as a percent.  Every economy must have business leaders, professions which require advanced degrees, professions which require baccalaureate-level degrees, skilled trades which require technical training, and unskilled trades.  And then there is the wildcard in all this: the entrepreneur.

None of that indicates there's any inherent barrier to bar anyone from rising from nothing to being the next Barack Obama or Warren Buffett.

Quote from: Conan71 on January 24, 2012, 11:29:56 PM
Still though, it doesn't erase income inequality or social injustice or whatever one wants to call it.  I suspect the upper, middle, and lower income levels are always going to remain roughly the same as a percent.  Every economy must have business leaders, professions which require advanced degrees, professions which require baccalaureate-level degrees, skilled trades which require technical training, and unskilled trades.  And then there is the wildcard in all this: the entrepreneur.

This is true. Nobody, or at least nobody credible, wants everyone to earn the same income or anything silly like that. There will always be a top and a bottom. What I and others want is a return to the days when there was more class mobility and, beyond that, to the days when there was a larger middle class. The fact of the matter is that the tax code has been rigged to advantage one form of income that accrues mainly to those at the top over the form that most all of us share. How about we treat them equally and see how that works out?

Quote from: Conan71 on January 24, 2012, 11:29:56 PM

I agree that we need to re-invest in our infrastructure and start paying down the debt.  I even agree a return to the Clinton era tax policies are far from draconian.  In fact I think you and I are in total agreement on your last paragraph.

And yet, you still argue against what you believe.


How about insider trading?  ...and this question is open to everyone... Is it right that the members of Congress should have the special privilege of being allowed to gain information unavailable to the general public and then freely trade and profit based on that information?


(And yeah, we know all about how anyone else who did that would be rewarded with a soft, cushy vacation in a Federal golf resort detainment center...)

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on January 25, 2012, 08:09:46 AM
And yet, you still argue against what you believe.


How about insider trading?  ...and this question is open to everyone... Is it right that the members of Congress should have the special privilege of being allowed to gain information unavailable to the general public and then freely trade and profit based on that information?


(And yeah, we know all about how anyone else who did that would be rewarded with a soft, cushy vacation in a Federal golf resort detainment center...)

Huh?  Argue against what I believe?  Where the hell do you get an idea like that?

Quote from: nathanm on January 24, 2012, 11:54:13 PM
This is true. Nobody, or at least nobody credible, wants everyone to earn the same income or anything silly like that. There will always be a top and a bottom. What I and others want is a return to the days when there was more class mobility and, beyond that, to the days when there was a larger middle class. The fact of the matter is that the tax code has been rigged to advantage one form of income that accrues mainly to those at the top over the form that most all of us share. How about we treat them equally and see how that works out?

There's a few nature/nurture issues which will restrain class mobility on the environmental conditions or "nature" side.  Pure conjecture on my part, but three important things have happened in the last 20 years that have truly hurt the middle class: free trade agreements, a big box mentality amongst consumers, and no cohesive energy policy that the U.S. could have taken the lead on.

I don't think anyone could argue successfully that free trade agreements have helped create American manufacturing jobs.  IIRC, when NAFTA was passed the thinking was the only jobs which would go to Mexico were menial manufacturing jobs that we needed out of the way so that Americans could populate more skilled occupations.

Look at the explosion of big box stores over the last two decades: smaller local or regional chains have been replaced by huge big box retailers who control much of the consumer durable goods market.  Wal-Mart, Best Buy, Lowe's, Home Depot, Target, etc.  The prices on consumer goods remaining relatively unchanged over 20 years has given the middle class more buying power, but at what cost?  Our thirst for cheap goods necessarily forces jobs to manufacture those goods into much cheaper labor markets.  In many cases you can actually buy some items for less than you could 20 years ago.  If consumers were willing to pay more for the products they use, this trend would reverse. Only problem is, we've become a society that looks for a bargain first and quality seems to be a distant second.

While consumer goods prices have not trended upward significantly, energy prices have.  We've taken a lackadaisical approach to energy conservation as a nation and individually.  We've also allowed for trading practices which allow speculators to make tons of money off the backs of consumers at the pump.  Sustained high gas prices have brutalized the middle class and left consumers at the lower end with the tough choice of gas or groceries and has limited their discretionary spending.

The maddening part to me is to listen to politicians demonize corporations and their larger investors as greedy and evil when it's their own actions and lack thereof to protect American jobs in the first place that have made it necessary for so many companies to move operations off-shore to remain competitive.  

Again, all conjecture on my part, not anything scientific.

Quote from: Conan71 on January 25, 2012, 09:23:03 AM
There's a few nature/nurture issues which will restrain class mobility on the environmental conditions or "nature" side.  Pure conjecture on my part, but three important things have happened in the last 20 years that have truly hurt the middle class: free trade agreements, a big box mentality amongst consumers, and no cohesive energy policy that the U.S. could have taken the lead on.

I don't think anyone could argue successfully that free trade agreements have helped create American manufacturing jobs.  IIRC, when NAFTA was passed the thinking was the only jobs which would go to Mexico were menial manufacturing jobs that we needed out of the way so that Americans could populate more skilled occupations.

Look at the explosion of big box stores over the last two decades: smaller local or regional chains have been replaced by huge big box retailers who control much of the consumer durable goods market.  Wal-Mart, Best Buy, Lowe's, Home Depot, Target, etc.  The prices on consumer goods remaining relatively unchanged over 20 years has given the middle class more buying power, but at what cost?  Our thirst for cheap goods necessarily forces jobs to manufacture those goods into much cheaper labor markets.  In many cases you can actually buy some items for less than you could 20 years ago.  If consumers were willing to pay more for the products they use, this trend would reverse. Only problem is, we've become a society that looks for a bargain first and quality seems to be a distant second.

While consumer goods prices have not trended upward significantly, energy prices have.  We've taken a lackadaisical approach to energy conservation as a nation and individually.  We've also allowed for trading practices which allow speculators to make tons of money off the backs of consumers at the pump.  Sustained high gas prices have brutalized the middle class and left consumers at the lower end with the tough choice of gas or groceries and has limited their discretionary spending.

The maddening part to me is to listen to politicians demonize corporations and their larger investors as greedy and evil when it's their own actions and lack thereof to protect American jobs in the first place that have made it necessary for so many companies to move operations off-shore to remain competitive.  

Again, all conjecture on my part, not anything scientific.

One note: You mention that consumer prices have not trended upwards, and that is true, however consumables have, significantly. I know you address this when you talk about energy, but I just wanted to clarify.

The items we purchase to live every day have skyrocketed.  Mostly due to energy costs, but also due to other factors that increase the cost of their production.  While a 30% increase in the cost of meat or milk doesn't affect me or you too much it does have a big impact on the poor.

In the president's speech last night, he said a number of encouraging things, but then again we are used to him "saying" encouraging things.  Embracing an "all of the above" energy policy is the most important thing he can possibly do, if he really cares for the poor and the middle class.  Typically the SOTU is an opportunity for a president to report on the health of the country and to expand on the budget presented to congress.

President Obama has always delayed his budget until after his address.  This is unfortunate, because the budget is where we find all of the sticks he has tied to his carrots.  I am hopeful that when he releases his budget on February 14th, it will include a comprehensive energy policy that will bring down the cost of living for the poor and middle class.  I also hope the incentives he is willing to grant to enterprise will not be bound with barbed wire.

Quote from: Gaspar on January 25, 2012, 10:14:27 AM
One note: You mention that consumer prices have not trended upwards, and that is true, however consumables have, significantly. I know you address this when you talk about energy, but I just wanted to clarify.

The items we purchase to live every day have skyrocketed.  Mostly due to energy costs, but also due to other factors that increase the cost of their production.  While a 30% increase in the cost of meat or milk doesn't affect me or you too much it does have a big impact on the poor.

In the president's speech last night, he said a number of encouraging things, but then again we are used to him "saying" encouraging things.  Embracing an "all of the above" energy policy is the most important thing he can possibly do, if he really cares for the poor and the middle class.  Typically the SOTU is an opportunity for a president to report on the health of the country and to expand on the budget presented to congress.

President Obama has always delayed his budget until after his address.  This is unfortunate, because the budget is where we find all of the sticks he has tied to his carrots.  I am hopeful that when he releases his budget on February 14th, it will include a comprehensive energy policy that will bring down the cost of living for the poor and middle class.  I also hope the incentives he is willing to grant to enterprise will not be bound with barbed wire.

And we also hope that anything promising and hopeful that makes its way through the chambers doesn't get filibustered to hell and back.

Quote from: Hoss on January 25, 2012, 10:28:26 AM
And we also hope that anything promising and hopeful that makes its way through the chambers doesn't get filibustered to hell and back.

I was under the impression nothing positive could be allowed through a GOP controlled house until his two terms are up.

Quote from: Hoss on January 25, 2012, 10:28:26 AM
And we also hope that anything promising and hopeful that makes its way through the chambers doesn't get filibustered to hell and back.

Let's hope he doesn't play games with Congress and the Senate by tying a massive tax increase on the wealthy that even members of his own party don't want to see right now.  He will though because come November, Democrats will continue the theme of do-nothing Republicans who are blocking any attempt at social and economic justice to protect their rich and greedy 1%'er contributors.

I think GOP members ought to take him up on a huge tax increase and listen for the sound of smile rolling down both of his legs and their Democrat counterparts in Congress when they call his political bluff.

Quote from: Conan71 on January 25, 2012, 10:33:50 AM
Let's hope he doesn't play games with Congress and the Senate by tying a massive tax increase on the wealthy that even members of his own party don't want to see right now.  He will though because come November, Democrats will continue the theme of do-nothing Republicans who are blocking any attempt at social and economic justice to protect their rich and greedy 1%'er contributors.

I think GOP members ought to take him up on a huge tax increase and listen for the sound of smile rolling down both of his legs and their Democrat counterparts in Congress when they call his political bluff.

I'm sure that we will.  Springboarding off of the release of Romney's tax returns will provide an awesome and irresistible opportunity for him to both campaign and push legislation.  He will call for increases to capital gains taxes because he understands that the vast majority of Americans do not understand the multiple taxation levied on these funds.

Of course the legislation will not pass, because neither Republicans or Democrats will support it.  As we've proven again and again, capital gains taxes have a far more profound effect on government revenue than other tax structures because they are more closely related to corporate growth and therefore corporate tax revenue.  Decrease the income from investment and people seek other instruments for growth.

Between 1968 and 1972 rates increased by 10 percentage points and revenues fell 21%.
In 1978 the rate fell by 15 points from 35% to 20% and revenues increased by 46%.
In 1986 the rate was raised by 8 points to 28% and by 1991 15% less revenue was being raised.
In 1996 the rate was reduced by 8 points to 20% again and by 2000 revenues had grown by some 50%
In 2003 the rate was cut to 15% and revenues grew by 45% over the following three years.

The President knows the history, and how this mechanism works, he also understands that a proposal will never pass, so it offers an awesome opportunity to showcase a do-nothing congress, attack his opponent, and even herd the sheeple in the OWS crowd to his pasture.

I will seriously question his intelligence if he chooses not to do this.

Quote from: Gaspar on January 25, 2012, 11:00:25 AM
I will seriously question his intelligence if he chooses not to do this.

So you'd stay the course.

Quote from: Townsend on January 25, 2012, 11:03:12 AM
So you'd stay the course.

Chortle.

Quote from: Conan71 on January 25, 2012, 10:33:50 AM
Let's hope he doesn't play games with Congress and the Senate by tying a massive tax increase on the wealthy that even members of his own party don't want to see right now. 

Can you clarify what you're referring to?  Has he done that in the past?  And if he has, why hasn't the GOP done the time honored thing and negotiated him down to something acceptable?

If we know anything about Obama, we know he's willing to give most anything away. 

Quote from: Gaspar on January 25, 2012, 11:00:25 AM
In 2003 the rate was cut to 15% and revenues grew by 45% over the following three years.

And what happened after that?

Quote from: CharlieSheen on January 25, 2012, 12:29:06 PM
And what happened after that?

Stock market decline and recession after 2001.  Some moron knocked a couple of buildings down 3,000 people lost their lives and our economy was thrown into recession.  The Bush tax cuts were enacted (tax relief and reconciliation acts of 2001 and 2003) this had an immediate negative effect on revenue as receipts decreased in the short term, and as expected, the following year (2004) revenues increased by 13%.

Don't bother. He has an answer for anything that looks weird to the rest of us. Like a tax raise in 1986 that took 5 years to show revenue decreases. Just ignore all the details in between like wars and stuff.

edit: unless it helps to prove his thesis like he just did to you.

Quote from: AquaMan on January 25, 2012, 01:03:25 PM
Don't bother. He has an answer for anything that looks weird to the rest of us. Like a tax raise in 1986 that took 5 years to show revenue decreases. Just ignore all the details in between like wars and stuff.

edit: unless it helps to prove his thesis like he just did to you.

Not sure I see your statistic, but go with what ya know!
 
(http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10871/Chapter4.08.1.01.png)
Presented as a % of GDP

You wrote:

Between 1968 and 1972 rates increased by 10 percentage points and revenues fell 21%. this is a period of time that had lots going on not just Nixon raising taxes
In 1978 the rate fell by 15 points from 35% to 20% and revenues increased by 46%. In one year? Weird. You going to give Carter credit for that?
In 1986 the rate was raised by 8 points to 28% and by 1991 15% less revenue was being raised. It took 5 years for a tax hike Reagan put in to drop 15%? Yet again the "mother of all wars" was in their somewhere, the collapse of the Berlin Wall and lots of other stuff. But you act as if its directly related to a tax hike. Yeah.
In 1996 the rate was reduced by 8 points to 20% again and by 2000 revenues had grown by some 50% Really. Ignore the bubble expanding, credit relaxing and general revenue growth from the maturing of technology like internet and cell. Nah, it was that tax reduction way back 4 years ago.
In 2003 the rate was cut to 15% and revenues grew by 45% over the following three years. Same as above.

Then you're more than willing to justify the possible failure of your thesis by telling Sheen, ..."some morons knocked a coupla buildings down, causing a recession but Bush saved the day by cutting taxes...and that only took two years to hit 13%."

You'll pull stats to prove anything and stretch them to fit.

Oh Aqua, there is always "lots going on" and you can use a whole host of historical variables to justify your/my position.

The only thing that remains static is the increases/decreases in rates.  If you would like to argue that I cannot possibly make a causal connection between rate changes and revenues, then so be it.  It does not change the fact that every time we raise rates we observe a revenue decrease.  Sure we can attribute that to whatever you like, but it still happens.

Perhaps this will not be the case in the future.  Perhaps we can try it again, and if revenues decrease we can find some other war, or "lots of stuff" to blame it on.  Statistics are only important to the people that use them as tools.  I concede that.

Quote from: Gaspar on January 25, 2012, 11:00:25 AM
Between 1968 and 1972 rates increased by 10 percentage points and revenues fell 21%.
In 1978 the rate fell by 15 points from 35% to 20% and revenues increased by 46%.
In 1986 the rate was raised by 8 points to 28% and by 1991 15% less revenue was being raised.
In 1996 the rate was reduced by 8 points to 20% again and by 2000 revenues had grown by some 50%
In 2003 the rate was cut to 15% and revenues grew by 45% over the following three years.

Wow, you have a great penchant for conflating what happens after recessions end and what the tax code does (and the effects of inflation). You also conflate financial wealth and real wealth.

First off, 190 billion is more than 160 billion. 160 billion being federal receipts in 1968, 190 being federal receipts in 1972. So no.
Secondly, between 1972 and 1978, revenues grew from $200 billion to around $380 billion. So that increase you crow about was already in progress. Way to take credit for the weather.
Thirdly, in 1986, the trend line was already positive and federal revenue continued to grow at approximately the same rate.
Same story in 1996.
In 2003, there was indeed a trend reversal of the sort that happens after every recession. The growth rate of revenue was no better than that achieved in the 90s.

So basically, your post was full of smile.

Edited to add: Raise rates, lower rates, revenue growth was positive every year from 1983 straight on until 2001. If tax policy is such a strong effect, it sounds like those policies are the ones that produce sustained growth. Not the Bush giveaway tax policies, which seem to produce financial crises by increasing speculation.

Also, good job cherry picking. I'm glad to see that you know what the term means.

(http://i0.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/000/554/facepalm.jpg)

Nate,
We're talking about revenues on capital gains taxes, not total revenues. Total revenues better have seen an increase or we would have been screwed a long time ago! :D

http://www.adamsmith.org/sites/default/files/resources/capital-gains-tax.pdf

Quote from: we vs us on January 25, 2012, 11:41:30 AM
Can you clarify what you're referring to?  Has he done that in the past?  And if he has, why hasn't the GOP done the time honored thing and negotiated him down to something acceptable?

If we know anything about Obama, we know he's willing to give most anything away.  

I don't recall every instance, but let's start with the "jobs bill" back in September which had the tax increases for hedge fund managers and those who own corporate jets for one.  You can Google from there, there's plenty to choose from.  

Wow, Nate way to conflate the numbers, or was that fellating the numbers?

Anybody else notice who here had to wait to weigh in on the verdict until they'd gotten their talking points?

Look, cap gains tax is only part of this equation. When the rate was dropped, there was a helluva lot of selling to capture the new rate and roll over into new assets.

The big number is $250,000. Otherwise, relax.

There will be no tax package until the session goes lame duck in December of this year. So keep you panties dry. I seriously doubt many here will face a huge tax increase thereby missing some meals. Meanwhile, study the positives of collectivism in beating down debt and giving a hand up to those in need.

GOP/Teabagging whiners need to offer up ideas....

(http://www.tulsaworld.com/articleimages/2012/20120125_105080_600.jpg)

Gassy,

So you're also cherry picking one specific type of revenue. Good call. Given the fungible nature of income in the upper echelons of our society, I would hope that they would be smart enough to shift their income around to produce realized capital gains when capital gains rates are lower. What's foobared up aren't the people who are, perfectly reasonably, calculating their taxes in the way that causes them to owe the least to the government, but the government favoring capital gains over wage income.

When did we become a country that values work less than investment?

Also, debunk from budgetary experts incoming: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1286

Quote from: nathanm on January 25, 2012, 03:19:41 PM
Gassy,

So you're also cherry picking one specific type of revenue. Good call. Given the fungible nature of income in the upper echelons of our society, I would hope that they would be smart enough to shift their income around to produce realized capital gains when capital gains rates are lower. What's foobared up aren't the people who are, perfectly reasonably, calculating their taxes in the way that causes them to owe the least to the government, but the government favoring capital gains over wage income.

When did we become a country that values work less than investment?

Investment ostensibly creates jobs.

He's on a roll.

Quote from: Conan71 on January 25, 2012, 03:24:27 PM
Investment ostensibly creates jobs.

Ostensibly being the key word.

There is some correlation, as there obviously has to be, but investment turns more into capital gains than increased employment.

(http://www.nwacg.net/gallery3/var/albums/random-stuff/employment-vs-investment-vs-profit.png)

Um, ok.  Here's a graph of seismic activity.
(http://inter-intelligence-communications.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/seismogram.jpg)


I'm waiting for an AND WE'RE BACK moment.

How about something germane. If you need me to translate, the graph is YoY change in percentage of the following: Red is employment, blue is investment, green is corporate profit. You could have just read it from the graph, but I don't mind being condescending when you ask for it.

Quote from: nathanm on January 25, 2012, 03:49:57 PM
How about something germane. If you need me to translate, the graph is YoY change in percentage of the following: Red is employment, blue is investment, green is corporate profit.

Yay!. . .or YoY I guess.

I applaud your desire to shift the topic, but your segue is a bit jagged.

I would have first rolled into an explanation of the connection between revenue, payroll taxes, and the contraction of the workforce, then moved to how that correlates to investment.  Then I would have been free to completely ignore the topic fumble.

Your graph is a fine graph.  Keep it and we will discuss it some other time, i'm sure.

Quote from: Gaspar on January 25, 2012, 03:56:09 PM
Yay!. . .or YoY I guess.

I applaud your desire to shift the topic, but your segue is a bit jagged.

I was responding to Conan, which you might have noted given that I quoted him.

Quote from: Conan71 on January 25, 2012, 03:24:27 PM
Investment ostensibly creates jobs.

Bain capitalism (financial capitalism) takes money out of the public. It hurts workers. Keep trying....

Quote from: Teatownclown on January 25, 2012, 04:01:46 PM
Bain capitalism (financial capitalism) takes money out of the public. It hurts workers. Keep trying....

So we are saying investment doesn't create jobs now?  Berkshire Hathaway doesn't create jobs and hurts workers as well I take it?

Quote from: Conan71 on January 25, 2012, 04:07:30 PM
So we are saying investment doesn't create jobs now?  Berkshire Hathaway doesn't create jobs and hurts workers as well I take it?

Berkshire does not represent financial capitalism. REAL capitalism is not government welfare for the rich....

Warren does not churn he creates jobs by enhancing value through productivity and efficiency in economies of scale. You do not see Warren buying, cutting, feeing and spinning his companies off to capture a profit.

Keep trying...

Quote from: Conan71 on January 25, 2012, 04:07:30 PM
So we are saying investment doesn't create jobs now?  Berkshire Hathaway doesn't create jobs and hurts workers as well I take it?

If that's what TTC was trying to claim, TTC is wrong. Investment clearly can and does create jobs. If it didn't, the economy would never work. However, past a certain point, larger investment appears to only create larger corporate profits. I presume, but do not have the data at hand to support the presumption, that is because much of the so-called investment is actually speculation in the stock market.

Quote from: nathanm on January 25, 2012, 04:13:48 PM
If that's what TTC was trying to claim, TTC is wrong. Investment clearly can and does create jobs. If it didn't, the economy would never work. However, past a certain point, larger investment appears to only create larger corporate profits. I presume, but do not have the data at hand to support the presumption, that is because much of the so-called investment is actually speculation in the stock market.

I am not wrong! And definitely not right! >:(

Quote from: nathanm on January 25, 2012, 04:13:48 PM
If that's what TTC was trying to claim, TTC is wrong. Investment clearly can and does create jobs. If it didn't, the economy would never work. However, past a certain point, larger investment appears to only create larger corporate profits. I presume, but do not have the data at hand to support the presumption, that is because much of the so-called investment is actually speculation in the stock market.

And in good economic times, companies usually will plough large profits back into the company and create more jobs.  As we've seen during uncertain times, they are piling up cash rather than reinvesting.  Survival instinct.

Quote from: Teatownclown on January 25, 2012, 04:13:25 PM
Berkshire does not represent financial capitalism. REAL capitalism is not government welfare for the rich....

Warren does not churn he creates jobs by enhancing value through productivity and efficiency in economies of scale. You do not see Warren buying, cutting, feeing and spinning his companies off to capture a profit.

Keep trying...

You make it sound as if all Bain does is dismantle companies and sell off the pieces for profit.  That's not an accurate representation from someone who purports to being a truth teller.  Secondly, why did you bring up Bain in the first place?  We were talking about investment creating jobs.  I never mentioned Bain.

Quote from: Conan71 on January 25, 2012, 04:16:38 PM
And in good economic times, companies usually will plough large profits back into the company and create more jobs.  As we've seen during uncertain times, they are piling up cash rather than reinvesting.  Survival instinct.

Wrong again. Warren would be plowing money into potential if he sees some. Problem is the lack of confidence. He doesn't need survival instinct. You'd wake up one morning to see Berkshire bought a company only to say to yourself, "wow, why didn't I see that?"

Bain capitalism is financial capitalism....obviously.

The chart clearly shows that large profits don't create job growth in proportion no matter whether the economy is in recession or expansion. Profits are correlated with job growth, as is investment, but they are nowhere near the same magnitude. Purely from a fiscal standpoint, reducing capital gains rates to stimulate corporate profit is not the way to create jobs.

FRED (http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/) is easy to use, you might want to give it a try.

http://financeinternational.info/2012/01/11/robert-reich-the-bain-of-capitalism/

Robert Reich: The Bain of Capitalism

QuoteIt's one thing to criticize Mitt Romney for being a businessman with the wrong values. It's quite another to accuse him and his former company, Bain Capital, of doing bad things. If what Bain Capital did under Romney was bad for society, the burden shifts to Romney's critics to propose laws that would prevent Bain and other companies from doing such bad things in the future.

Don't hold your breath.

Newt Gingrich says Bain under Romney carried out "clever legal ways to loot a company." Gingrich calls it the "Wall Street model" where "you can basically take out all the money, leaving behind the workers," and charges that "if someone comes in, takes all the money out of your company and then leaves you bankrupt while they go off with millions, that's not traditional capitalism."

Where has Newt been for the last 30 years? Leveraged buyouts became part of traditional capitalism in the 1980s when enterprising financiers began borrowing piles of money, often at high interest rates, to buy up the stock of ongoing companies they believe undervalued. They'd back the loans with the company assets, then typically sell off divisions and slim payrolls, and resell the company to the public at a higher share price — pocketing the gains.

It's a good deal for the financiers (the $ 25 billion buyout of RJR-Nabisco in 1988 netted the partners of Kohlberg, Kravis, and Roberts around $ 70 million each — and most of Mitt Romney's estimated $ 200 million fortune comes from the same maneuvers), but not always for the company or its workers.

Some workers lose their jobs when the company downsizes. Others, when the company, now laden with debt, can't meet its payments to creditors and has to go into bankruptcy. According to the Wall Street Journal, of 77 companies Bain invested in during Romney's tenure there, 22 percent either filed for bankruptcy or closed their doors by end of eighth year after Bain's investment.

But, hey, this is American capitalism — at least as it's been practiced for the past three decades. Is Newt proposing to ban leveraged buyouts? Or limit the amount of debt a company can take on? Or prevent financiers — or even CEOs and management teams — from taking a public company private and then reselling it to the public at a higher price?

None of the above.

Rick Perry criticizes Romney and Bain pushing the quest for profits too far. "There is nothing wrong with being successful and making money," says Perry. "But getting rich off failure and sticking someone else with the bill is indefensible."

Yet getting rich off failure and sticking someone else with the bill is what Wall Street financiers try to do every day. It's called speculation — and at least since the demise of the Glass-Steagall Act, investment bankers have been allowed to gamble with commercial bank deposits, other people's money.

So is Perry proposing to resurrect Glass-Steagall? Not a chance.

Gingrich, Perry, and others are putting particular focus on the people who lost their jobs as a result of Romney's Bain Capital. Gingrich's Super PAC will be running $ 3.5 million of ads featuring emotional interviews with some of them.

But what, exactly, are Romney's opponents proposing to do about layoffs that harm so many people? Millions of Americans have lost their jobs over the last four years — and as a result have often lost their health insurance, their homes, and their savings.

Are Gingrich, Perry, and others proposing to expand health insurance coverage for jobless Americans and their families? All I hear from the Republicans is their determination to repeal the law that President Obama championed — which still leaves millions of Americans uninsured. Do Romney's opponents have plans to keep people in their homes even when they've lost their jobs and can't pay their mortgages? No. Do they propose expanding unemployment insurance? If memory serves, most of them were opposed to the last extension.

I'm all in favor of reforming capitalism, but you'll permit me some skepticism when it comes to criticisms of Bain Capital coming from Romney's Republican opponents. None of these Republican candidates has exactly distinguished himself with new ideas for giving Americans more economic security. To the contrary — until the assault on Romney and Bain Capital — every one of them has been a cheerleader for financial capitalism of the most brutal sort.

The party that has repeatedly saved capitalism from its own excesses and thereby preserved capitalism is the Democratic Party. So the only serious question here is what kind of serious reforms Obama will propose when, assuming Romney becomes the Republican nominee, Obama also criticizes Bain Capitalism.

Robert Reich is the author of Aftershock: The Next Economy and America's Future, now in bookstores. This post originally appeared at RobertReich.org.

Try harder....

Quote from: Teatownclown on January 25, 2012, 04:21:50 PM
Wrong again. Warren would be plowing money into potential if he sees some. Problem is the lack of confidence. He doesn't need survival instinct. You'd wake up one morning to see Berkshire bought a company only to say to yourself, "wow, why didn't I see that?"

Bain capitalism is financial capitalism....obviously.

This is not a singular discussion of Berkshire nor Bain.  I'm quite well read on Buffett and his investment strategies.  

Quote from: nathanm on January 25, 2012, 04:24:12 PM
The chart clearly shows that large profits don't create job growth in proportion no matter whether the economy is in recession or expansion. Profits are correlated with job growth, as is investment, but they are nowhere near the same magnitude. Purely from a fiscal standpoint, reducing capital gains rates to stimulate corporate profit is not the way to create jobs.

FRED (http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/) is easy to use, you might want to give it a try.

Nathan, what happens to those profits when they are not reinvested in a business?

Quote from: Conan71 on January 25, 2012, 04:31:59 PM
This is not a singular discussion of Berkshire nor Bain.  I'm quite well read on Buffett and his investment strategies.  

Quote from: Conan71 on January 25, 2012, 04:33:05 PM
Nathan, what happens to those profits when they are not reinvested in a business?

Those profits most often go to the top officials in the company. Or, as contributions to a PAC or a candidate who furthers the fight against labor. Sometimes, they increase divies...those are the well run companies...

Fooled me on that Buffet line above. You're just not trying today....

Quote from: Conan71 on January 25, 2012, 04:33:05 PM
Nathan, what happens to those profits when they are not reinvested in a business?

Whatever it is, the multiplier is clearly low. My default assumption would be speculation, but I can't prove it.

Apropos of nothing (other than an attempt to find the answer to the above question), this is sort of interesting:

(http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?&id=NFCPATAX&scale=Left&range=Max&cosd=1947-01-01&coed=2011-07-01&line_color=%230000ff&link_values=false&line_style=Solid&mark_type=NONE&mw=4&lw=1&ost=-99999&oet=99999&mma=0&fml=a&fq=Quarterly&fam=avg&fgst=lin&transformation=lin&vintage_date=2012-01-25&revision_date=2012-01-25)

What caused the massive growth in corporate profit?

Edited to add: Since about 2000, there has been a strong correlation with the S&P 500. It seems that before 2000, there was speculation on business. After the ensuing recession, it seems speculation was by business. Not the strongest evidence, though.

Quote from: Teatownclown on January 25, 2012, 04:37:33 PM
Those profits most often go to the top officials in the company. Or, as contributions to a PAC or a candidate who furthers the fight against labor. Sometimes, they increase divies...those are the well run companies...

Fooled me on that Buffet line above. You're just not trying today....

Buffet line?  I like what you did there, but I quit eating at Luby's years ago.  I still like the line at the Y.

Quote from: nathanm on January 25, 2012, 04:38:12 PM


What caused the massive growth in corporate profit?

Easy money!

Quote from: nathanm on January 25, 2012, 04:38:12 PM
Whatever it is, the multiplier is clearly low. My default assumption would be speculation, but I can't prove it.

Apropos of nothing (other than an attempt to find the answer to the above question), this is sort of interesting:

(http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?&id=NFCPATAX&scale=Left&range=Max&cosd=1947-01-01&coed=2011-07-01&line_color=%230000ff&link_values=false&line_style=Solid&mark_type=NONE&mw=4&lw=1&ost=-99999&oet=99999&mma=0&fml=a&fq=Quarterly&fam=avg&fgst=lin&transformation=lin&vintage_date=2012-01-25&revision_date=2012-01-25)

What caused the massive growth in corporate profit?

Profits get taken as dividends and get spent on luxury items, travel, or other passive investments like speculation as you suggested.  Money is never static unless it's being hoarded and even then it's usually on "loan" for some sort of return.

Quote from: Teatownclown on January 25, 2012, 04:42:33 PM
Easy money!

Shifts in the money supply are not anywhere near the same magnitude as those in either the S&P 500 index or corporate profits. There appears to be little correlation, at least for nonfinancial business.

Quote from: Conan71 on January 25, 2012, 04:43:40 PM
Profits get taken as dividends and get spent on luxury items, travel, or other passive investments like speculation as you suggested.  Money is never static unless it's being hoarded and even then it's usually on "loan" for some sort of return.

Are they buying all the stuff from China and investing in Chinese companies or something? The very high profits don't seem to bring up employment much.

Quote from: nathanm on January 25, 2012, 04:49:37 PM
Shifts in the money supply are not anywhere near the same magnitude as those in either the S&P 500 index or corporate profits. There appears to be little correlation, at least for nonfinancial business.

I was speaking about the ability to loan to those who could not afford to pay it back....

Extremely frustrating to watch you guys at work. Gas when your posts are challenged you throw them off as so much chaff.  "Stuff happens"? "Good chart. We'll talk about it sometime."? It makes you look arrogant and cultist. Maybe you are and don't care. You play with others badly.

Anyway, sorry I got suckered in. I know better. The SOTU was fabulous. These posts...not so much.

Quote from: nathanm on January 25, 2012, 04:13:48 PM
If that's what TTC was trying to claim, TTC is wrong. Investment clearly can and does create jobs. If it didn't, the economy would never work. However, past a certain point, larger investment appears to only create larger corporate profits. I presume, but do not have the data at hand to support the presumption, that is because much of the so-called investment is actually speculation in the stock market.

Not what TTC is saying - it is Conan trying to deflect.

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on January 25, 2012, 07:55:52 PM
Not what TTC is saying - it is Conan trying to deflect.

You are so hard-wired against anything I've got to say, I don't think you have a clue what we are talking about here.

Quote from: Conan71 on January 25, 2012, 04:31:59 PM
This is not a singular discussion of Berkshire nor Bain.  I'm quite well read on Buffett and his investment strategies.  

Then you know he has never bought a company with the intent to disassemble, sell off the parts, and then write himself a big bonus check to celebrate the raping and pillaging of yet another company.

He is a Capitalist and builder/supporter of Capitalism along the line of what Peter Drucker wrote about.

Quote from: Conan71 on January 25, 2012, 08:04:55 PM
You are so hard-wired against anything I've got to say, I don't think you have a clue what we are talking about here.

Not everything.

There was a back and forth about financial capitalism (defined as Bain approach) versus real capitalism as represented by Berkshire.  Then you said;

So we are saying investment doesn't create jobs now?  Berkshire Hathaway doesn't create jobs and hurts workers as well I take it?

Which is NOT what was said at all.  Investment is good, investment is necessary, investment can be excellent.  And it is very different from raping and pillaging capitalism - defined in this specific string of posts by TTC as financial capitalism, which is actually pretty close, with investment capital firms taking the place of banks.

Berkshire has been spectacularly successful at making money for its investors.  Berkshire doesn't actually seem to create jobs very much at all - last I heard a number, it was that there are about 20 people working for the company.  What is seems to do very well is identify good, well run companies; buy them; and let the existing management continue to run them successfully, with the intervening step of injecting capital by way of said purchase that allows the companies to continue and most of the time, enhance their growth/performance.  Except maybe Coca-Cola for the last 15 years....  (I know - you already know this.)

And then was when I jumped in and said you were trying to deflect - which brings us back to the difference between Berkshire - an example of good (if not excellence!) in corporate America and Bain - a mediocre at best example of corporate America.  

And we could go one step further to an example of absolutely toxic corporate America, like Cerberus Capital Management.  A "company" whose sole purpose is to do to corporate and working America what a baby does to a diaper.  The 'poster child' company of why Congress should act, but is so badly 'bought and paid for' that it never will.

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on January 25, 2012, 08:33:40 PM
And we could go one step further to an example of absolutely toxic corporate America, like Cerberus Capital Management.  A "company" whose sole purpose is to do to corporate and working America what a baby does to a diaper.  The 'poster child' company of why Congress should act, but is so badly 'bought and paid for' that it never will.

It's more an example of what happens when you privilege a certain class of income over another, thereby providing strong incentives to be on the money shuffling side of capitalism rather than the productive side.

Quote from: nathanm on January 25, 2012, 10:37:17 PM
It's more an example of what happens when you privilege a certain class of income over another, thereby providing strong incentives to be on the money shuffling side of capitalism rather than the productive side.

Or at least delineating between the actions of individual investors (i.e. middle class people with investment accounts they manage on their own) vs. a different rate for larger scale speculators. 

I suspect Romney will become a whipping boy and example of American greed, when in actuality, venture capitalists have helped create many jobs and saved many jobs when companies had nowhere else to turn for survival or growth.  Our business landscape would look a whole lot different without venture capitalists.  They take huge risks that banks and traditional institutional investors won't. 

Quote from: Conan71 on January 25, 2012, 10:45:24 PM
I suspect Romney will become a whipping boy and example of American greed, when in actuality, venture capitalists have helped create many jobs

Bain was not a VC firm. VC firms invest near the beginning. Bain is a private equity firm. They're the sort that buy up and (often) part out businesses. There have been a long line of profitable businesses bought up and run into the ground by PE firms. Since they're just after the assets, they don't give a smile about the long term viability of the business.

Quote from: nathanm on January 25, 2012, 10:49:29 PM
Bain is a private equity firm. They're the sort that buy up and (often) part out businesses. There have been a long line of profitable businesses bought up and run into the ground by PE firms.

I don't doubt that it happens.  Have any numbers to put to "often"?

Quote from: Red Arrow on January 25, 2012, 11:21:09 PM
I don't doubt that it happens.  Have any numbers to put to "often"?

The company I work for was bought by an equity firm at one point.  They sold us off after we had some good financials for about 3 quarters and made a profit.  So that's one for one as far as I know how they work.

;D

Quote from: Hoss on January 25, 2012, 11:26:43 PM
The company I work for was bought by an equity firm at one point.  They sold us off after we had some good financials for about 3 quarters and made a profit.  So that's one for one as far as I know how they work.

I was hoping for a statistical sample larger than one.

;D

Quote from: nathanm on January 25, 2012, 10:37:17 PM
It's more an example of what happens when you privilege a certain class of income over another, thereby providing strong incentives to be on the money shuffling side of capitalism rather than the productive side.

Our tax code is full of behavior modifying privileges.  Home mortgage interest deduction.  Deductions for dependents.  IRA deduction. 401K contributions are before tax (at least I get one). Student loan interest deduction.

Quote from: Conan71 on January 25, 2012, 10:45:24 PM
They take huge risks that banks and traditional institutional investors won't. 

And they deserve to pay a lot higher tax rate for such risky behavior.  We should also remove the capability to deduct any losses from their income.  A $3000. cap (according to Bill O) is just too much.  They knew what they were getting into.
/sarcasm

Quote from: Conan71 on January 25, 2012, 08:04:55 PM
You are so hard-wired against anything I've got to say, I don't think you have a clue what we are talking about here.

Heiron has his own little script that he follows. 

Quote from: Red Arrow on January 25, 2012, 11:42:17 PM
Our tax code is full of behavior modifying privileges.  Home mortgage interest deduction.  Deductions for dependents.  IRA deduction. 401K contributions are before tax (at least I get one). Student loan interest deduction.

Those are mostly examples of areas in which the tax code privileges specific ways of spending your money. Those higher on the income scale can donate money to charity, or in many cases get the same deduction a lower income person gets. Some, like student loan interest, phase out, but a lot don't. Pre-tax contributions get taxed when you withdraw, by the way.

What I'm talking about is privileging a certain form of income over another. As if it wasn't bad enough, they get several large loopholes that those of us who don't own private equity firms or hedge funds don't get to use to turn wage income into long term capital gains. How do you think it came to be that Romney's rate is around 14%?

Edited to add: Come to think of it, even all the minor rich are at a disadvantage here. Why do private equity fund managers/partners pay a lower rate than a boots on the ground entrepreneur? That makes no sense.

Quote from: nathanm on January 25, 2012, 11:54:39 PM
Those are mostly examples of areas in which the tax code privileges specific ways of spending your money. Those higher on the income scale can donate money to charity, or in many cases get the same deduction a lower income person gets. Some, like student loan interest, phase out, but a lot don't. Pre-tax contributions get taxed when you withdraw, by the way.

What I'm talking about is privileging a certain form of income over another. As if it wasn't bad enough, they get several large loopholes that those of us who don't own private equity firms or hedge funds don't get to use to turn wage income into long term capital gains. How do you think it came to be that Romney's rate is around 14%?

They are all examples of privileged money vs. just privileged income. Yours and my standard deduction and exemption for ourselves plays a lot larger role in reducing our taxable income than for Warren Buffet.  If someone chooses to have children, some of the money spent on them is privileged by not being taxable via the deduction for dependents.  Pre-tax contributions to my 401K are privileged due to the assumption that withdrawls will be made when my overall income will be a lot less and therefore at a lower marginal rate.  The way things are going, that rate may be 15%.  Due to the standard deduction, personal exemption, and 401K contributions, my overall tax rate (Federal Income tax) is in the mid teens, a little over 1/2 of my top marginal rate.

Quote from: Red Arrow on January 25, 2012, 11:21:09 PM
I don't doubt that it happens.  Have any numbers to put to "often"?

How about every time with Cerberus and Blackstone?  And never with Berkshire Hathaway.  And sometimes by Bain with Mitt involved. 

I don't have a big gripe about Mitt at Bain at all.  And granted, I don't know very much compared to what must be the reality of his tenure, but at worst, it would seem to be neutral.


Also, it doesn't have to be a VC who does the deed.  We have a classic example of how that works with a little company in town called Oil Dynamics, when the "parent" company (Franklin Electric) dug a deep debt hole for it (to take cash out), then let the company pay it off.  Then sold it to the big conglomerate (Baker Hughes) for another, even bigger pile of free and clear cash.  Assimilation ensued.

Quote from: Red Arrow on January 25, 2012, 11:50:42 PM
Heiron has his own little script that he follows.  

Yep.  It's the script of rational, reasoned thought.  Direct opposite of The Script....

Quote from: nathanm on January 25, 2012, 11:54:39 PM

Edited to add: Come to think of it, even all the minor rich are at a disadvantage here. Why do private equity fund managers/partners pay a lower rate than a boots on the ground entrepreneur? That makes no sense.

Exactly!  It's because of a "bought and paid for" Congress that wrote the laws to let that happen, and then let themselves do insider trading based on information provided by their "good buddy" friends in private equity fund world.

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on January 26, 2012, 08:41:31 AM
How about every time with Cerberus and Blackstone?  And never with Berkshire Hathaway.  And sometimes by Bain with Mitt involved. 

More literary exaggeration?  Your credibility is pretty thin, at least with me on this type of subject.

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on January 26, 2012, 08:43:26 AM
Yep.  It's the script of rational, reasoned thought.  Direct opposite of The Script....

Your old-timers disease is corrupting your perception of reality, what is rational, and what is reasoned.  I will agree that your script is somewhat opposite of what you claim "The Script" is.

Bain and its ilk are interesting creatures to me.  They don't directly create jobs (not like the Widget Company, that owns a factory), but they do perform something of a service to the overall economic environment.  That service is to function as something of a digestive enzyme, breaking down companies into constituent parts and passing them along as nutrients (of a sort) back into the economic bloodstream. 

Sorta.  I guess.  My point is that what they do certainly isn't illegal, and serves some function to the economy at large, but it also can be predatory.  If Bain takes an ailing company and turns it around for a profit, good on them.  If Bain takes a fully functioning company and decides it's worth more -- to Bain -- in pieces rather than as a complete unit, then bad on them.   In that case, Bain is a job destroyer and a net negative (IMO). The unfortunate part, to me, is that they are wholly unrelated to the primary product or management of a given company.  They judge a target solely as a series of entries on a ledger, rather than from a more holistic standpoint (holistic = as an employer, a producer, a part of a given community -- city, state, otherwise).  This makes some people money (primarily Bain stakeholders) but again is unrelated to actual target company itself, more than likely leaving those stakeholders holding some form of "the bag." 

Quote from: we vs us on January 26, 2012, 12:49:04 PM
Bain and its ilk are interesting creatures to me.  They don't directly create jobs (not like the Widget Company, that owns a factory), but they do perform something of a service to the overall economic environment.  That service is to function as something of a digestive enzyme, breaking down companies into constituent parts and passing them along as nutrients (of a sort) back into the economic bloodstream.  

Sorta.  I guess.  My point is that what they do certainly isn't illegal, and serves some function to the economy at large, but it also can be predatory.  If Bain takes an ailing company and turns it around for a profit, good on them.  If Bain takes a fully functioning company and decides it's worth more -- to Bain -- in pieces rather than as a complete unit, then bad on them.   In that case, Bain is a job destroyer and a net negative (IMO). The unfortunate part, to me, is that they are wholly unrelated to the primary product or management of a given company.  They judge a target solely as a series of entries on a ledger, rather than from a more holistic standpoint (holistic = as an employer, a producer, a part of a given community -- city, state, otherwise).  This makes some people money (primarily Bain stakeholders) but again is unrelated to actual target company itself, more than likely leaving those stakeholders holding some form of "the bag."  

Bain is really no different than how a bank helps create jobs via investment and lending.  It's not that strange an animal.  One function they serve is to provide capital to those who otherwise might not be able to attract investment or loans to expand or survive.

Any business can be predatory.  Big box stores are a classic example.  They move into an area and underprice the local mom and pops and smaller regional outfits and run them out of business.  In the process though, they usually end up providing more net jobs and benefits than the smaller retail operations were able to.  They provide more retail, transportation, and service industry jobs as well as good paying mid level and high level management positions.  Their net negative is their emphasis on cheap prices has forced production of many of the goods they sell overseas to cheaper labor markets so the goods they sell are in many cases even cheaper than they were 10-20 years ago.

Certainly there are some businesses which end up being parted out, physical assets sold off, and jobs lost after being bought by a private equity firm.  The parceling out part doesn't always mean shutting down factories.  There are instances where units are parceled out from a parent corporation and there's no loss of employment when they are bought by another company from a PE firm.  

You need to be careful what you digest about PE and VC firms, that's going to be the target on Romney's back and I can assure you there will be plenty of misinformation spewed forth to make Romney look like an evil job killer.

Quote from: nathanm on January 25, 2012, 10:49:29 PM
Bain was not a VC firm. VC firms invest near the beginning. Bain is a private equity firm. They're the sort that buy up and (often) part out businesses. There have been a long line of profitable businesses bought up and run into the ground by PE firms. Since they're just after the assets, they don't give a smile about the long term viability of the business.

You might want to cite something other than talking points before you make claims about what Bain does and doesn't do.

From the Bain Capital website:

QuoteEstablished in 1984, Bain Capital is one of the world's leading private investment firms managing approximately $60 billion in assets under management. Our affiliated advisors make private equity, public equity, leveraged debt asset, venture capital, and absolute return investments across multiple sectors, industries, and asset classes. Since our inception, our competitive advantage has been grounded in a people-intensive, value-added investment approach that has enabled the firm to deliver industry-leading returns for our investors.

http://www.baincapital.com/AboutBainCapital/Default.aspx

Quote from: Conan71 on January 26, 2012, 01:53:16 PM
You might want to cite something other than talking points before you make claims about what Bain does and doesn't do.

A VC firm might have some equity investments in public companies, but that doesn't make them a hedge fund.

Quote from: Red Arrow on January 26, 2012, 11:42:18 AM
More literary exaggeration?  Your credibility is pretty thin, at least with me on this type of subject.

There is no need whatsoever to let my thoughts have any weight on these four.  It is something that you can investigate/research/study on your own with a little bit of effort.  Berkshire is the easiest - go read all their annual reports for the last 14 million years or so (now THAT is a literary exaggeration!) and Buffet is very up front about what is going on.  Plus there are probably a dozen or more books about him and his methods out there.

Bain is probably the second easiest.  Hey, they made Staples!!  That was easy....

Cerberus is tougher.  Ya gotta dig and it seems to be mostly through news articles and company propaganda.  Blackstone (BX) should be easier.

Quote from: we vs us on January 26, 2012, 12:49:04 PM
Bain and its ilk are interesting creatures to me.  They don't directly create jobs (not like the Widget Company, that owns a factory), but they do perform something of a service to the overall economic environment. 

Sorta.  I guess.  My point is that what they do certainly isn't illegal, and serves some function to the economy at large, but it also can be predatory.  If Bain takes an ailing company and turns it around for a profit, good on them.  If Bain takes a fully functioning company and decides it's worth more -- to Bain -- in pieces rather than as a complete unit, then bad on them.   In that case, Bain is a job destroyer and a net negative (IMO). The unfortunate part, to me, is that they are wholly unrelated to the primary product or management of a given company.  They judge a target solely as a series of entries on a ledger, rather than from a more holistic standpoint (holistic = as an employer, a producer, a part of a given community -- city, state, otherwise).  This makes some people money (primarily Bain stakeholders) but again is unrelated to actual target company itself, more than likely leaving those stakeholders holding some form of "the bag." 

Can be predatory, but look here - interesting list of some of what they own or have owned;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bain_Capital

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on January 26, 2012, 03:55:03 PM
Can be predatory, but look here - interesting list of some of what they own or have owned;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bain_Capital

Reading that article, they don't sound too dooshy, now do they?

This article states that what Berkshire and Bain both do is the same thing.  Make no mistake, Berkshire is every bit as worried about pleasing shareholders as Bain is.

QuoteBuffett the "Good" Capitalist?
There has been a media uproar about Mitt Romney and Bain Capital and how evil private equity firms, like Bain Capital are and how they "prey" upon other companies that are less fortunate. The media and others are claiming that Bain destroyed jobs and businesses and represent evil bad capitalists. Yet Warren Buffett and Berkshire Hathaway are heralded as the epitome of "good" capitalists, even though there is no difference between what Buffett's job is with Berkshire and what Romney's job was with Bain.

It is this utter simplistic ignorance with which people haphazardly wonder through life reeking intellectual havoc that creates controversy where there is none. Unfortunately, those talking about private equity are either intentionally lying to you, such as the case with Newt Gingrich or they have absolutely no clue as to what a private equity fund does within the scope of the financial services industry, such as the case is with Barrack Obama.

The question is not some quaint socialistic concept about a business' responsibility to society in creating jobs. It is instead the fundamental capitalistic Darwinian proposition of whether or not private equity companies created value for the shareholders. Because if they are creating value for their shareholders, then definition they are also creating value for society.

Many claim that private equity firms are evil Wall Street companies when in fact the vast majority of private equity firms are not located at Wall and Broad. Instead they are located all over the country in places such as Wyoming, Florida, California, Nebraska, and offshore in countries like the Caymans or the British Virgin Islands.

Private equity are the cowboys that risk capital to build or rebuild companies. And by doing so they often times create jobs. In fact, without private equity there would be approximately 60 to 70 percent fewer jobs created every year. Furthermore, there would be virtually no new companies created. Therefore, there would be no competition and in short there would be no capitalism.

Private equity covers a broad spectrum of different types of companies and investors. Types of private equity groups are hedge funds, venture capital groups, angel investors, and family offices. Within each of these groups there are a variety of business models. All private equity funds exist to invest money, make profits and protect capital for clients

The hedge fund manages the money and invests their client's money based on their business model. Some hedge funds are created to invest in other hedge funds. These companies focus on buying stocks and bonds or commodities. They may focus on large cap blue chip stocks only or diversify into acquiring extremely well managed profitable medium and small cap companies. Some may focus on growth companies, while others seek value or companies that have been beaten up or that may be takeover targets in mergers and acquisitions (M&A). And still some hedge funds may be M&A funds that buyout distressed properties.

The venture capital (VC) groups are those that invest in startup companies. These guys take big risks to fund a company that banks will not fund. Between 60 to 70 percent of American jobs are created by entrepreneurs starting their own businesses and it is the VCs that take the risk and fund these companies. Some firms only invest in technology while others only invest in commodity type companies. Like hedge funds these guys invest other people's money.

Then there are the angel investors who are responsible for providing the seed capital to startup companies in order to get them to the next level of funding with a VC or hedge fund. These are wealthy investors that invest their own money into companies. Angels must be "accredited" investors meaning they have at least $1 million in assets excluding their home and make $300,000 per year.

The Family Office is another type of private equity firm, which consists of a single or group of extremely wealthy families, such as the Rockefeller and Kennedy families. These investors generally consist of old family money, but are no longer in business and the only way they continue to protect and increase their wealth is through investing.

As stated earlier there are a variety of private equity fund types and each has a specific area of expertise, business model and function within the capital funding process. The darling investor adored by almost everyone (except me) is Warren Buffett who heads the private equity fund Berkshire Hathaway and then there is of course Bain Capital.

The difference between the two business models provides an interesting dichotomy. Berkshire is viewed as the good and moral capitalistic private equity fund, while Bain is perceived as the evil morally bankrupt "vulture" capital firm, at least as Newt Gingrich would have you believe.

Analyzing these two business models, coupled with the two men that ran Berkshire and Bain brings about many questions. The first of which is whether or not either business model is more or less moral than the other? Should Warren Buffett to be revered as a savior and portrayed as the model "good" capitalist any more than any other private equity guy? Isn't Warren Buffett's business model the same as all the others when it comes down to the final analysis -- he makes money for his investors? And if this is case, then isn't Buffett as evil and greedy as all the others? Or instead, are all the other private equity guys simply good moral capitalists like Buffett?

Two Opposing Private Equity Capitalist Business Models

To begin with Buffett only invests in companies that he understands. His other criteria are that they be well managed and very profitable. Buffett also invests in the big blue chip companies like Coca Cola and his primary industries are insurance and banking. Furthermore, Berkshire does not invest in startup companies, distressed companies (unless the distressed company is a large blue chip company that Buffett has inside information on coupled with a taxpayer funded backstop).

Buffett therefore, does not invest in companies that create jobs he invests in companies that already have created jobs. He makes extremely large profits because the companies he buys are the best companies in the industry with great cash flow, no debt, as well as having abundant assets and cash on the balance sheet. This allows him to strip out cash.

Also Buffett has never invested in a technology company in his history, that was until recently when he invested in IBM. Although IBM is more of a technology services company than a tech company like Cisco, Compaq, Motorola or Intel who actually manufacture tech products.

Therefore, it was companies like Bain that were responsible for all the technology capital investment that generated hundreds of thousands of jobs, built fortunes, created companies that went public which permitted pensions, mutual funds and 401k managers to invest in and build the retirement savings for people to retire. It also produced innovation throughout the world over the past 30 years that enhanced the productivity of existing companies and spawned new industries. However, Berkshire did provide the insurance to insure tech workers, and the banks where the tech employees opened bank accounts and the coke they drank while working all night writing code and creating new products.

http://lionsdenmedia.hubpages.com/hub/How-Private-Equity-Firms-Like-Bain-Capital-Berkshire-Hathaway-Make-Money

No, it's Silicon Valley VC firms that provided startup funding for thousands of high tech companies. They don't buy companies outright like PE firms do. They invest, sometimes getting a seat on the board in return, but rarely do they have control of management.

Weird that people are trying to equate PE firms like Cerberus or Carlyle Group with angel investors and VC firms. Oh wait, of course it's not weird. They're trying to associate themselves with those who are actually economically useful. Apparently they're having some success at muddying the waters.

And at least between Berkshire and Bain there is a qualitative difference: Berkshire buys and holds for a long period. Bain buys and sells within a few years. (generally. obviously there are exceptions)

Quote from: nathanm on January 26, 2012, 04:55:20 PM
No, it's Silicon Valley VC firms that provided startup funding for thousands of high tech companies. They don't buy companies outright like PE firms do. They invest, sometimes getting a seat on the board in return, but rarely do they have control of management.

Weird that people are trying to equate PE firms like Cerberus or Carlyle Group with angel investors and VC firms. Oh wait, of course it's not weird. They're trying to associate themselves with those who are actually economically useful. Apparently they're having some success at muddying the waters.

And at least between Berkshire and Bain there is a qualitative difference: Berkshire buys and holds for a long period. Bain buys and sells within a few years. (generally. obviously there are exceptions)

Yep, Carlyle bought us.  Then sold us...

Quote from: nathanm on January 26, 2012, 04:55:20 PM
No, it's Silicon Valley VC firms that provided startup funding for thousands of high tech companies. They don't buy companies outright like PE firms do. They invest, sometimes getting a seat on the board in return, but rarely do they have control of management.

Weird that people are trying to equate PE firms like Cerberus or Carlyle Group with angel investors and VC firms. Oh wait, of course it's not weird. They're trying to associate themselves with those who are actually economically useful. Apparently they're having some success at muddying the waters.

And at least between Berkshire and Bain there is a qualitative difference: Berkshire buys and holds for a long period. Bain buys and sells within a few years. (generally. obviously there are exceptions)

Obviously, a PE would add some sort of perceived or actual value (i.e. better management structure implemented after the purchase) otherwise they could not sell off a company at a profit.

Quote from: Conan71 on January 26, 2012, 05:46:09 PM
Obviously, a PE would add some sort of perceived or actual value (i.e. better management structure implemented after the purchase) otherwise they could not sell off a company at a profit.

Perceived being the key word in most cases. Oftentimes it's a matter of the assets being worth more than the company as a going concern, even when the company is at least somewhat profitable. At one time it wasn't uncommon to see profit-making factories here in the US shut down in favor of selling the equipment to Chinese companies because doing so is a big wad of cash now rather than a steady stream of cash over many years. In most cases, there were PE firms standing in the middle. From their perspective, it makes perfect sense to double their money in a few months rather than take the income stream.

I guess you can call that creating value. It seems to me that it's more like appropriating value from workers and communities and selling it to China. I'm not saying they don't or shouldn't have the legal right to do it, but that doesn't mean it's not objectionable.

Quote from: nathanm on January 26, 2012, 09:12:59 PM
Perceived being the key word in most cases. Oftentimes it's a matter of the assets being worth more than the company as a going concern, even when the company is at least somewhat profitable. At one time it wasn't uncommon to see profit-making factories here in the US shut down in favor of selling the equipment to Chinese companies because doing so is a big wad of cash now rather than a steady stream of cash over many years. In most cases, there were PE firms standing in the middle. From their perspective, it makes perfect sense to double their money in a few months rather than take the income stream.

I guess you can call that creating value. It seems to me that it's more like appropriating value from workers and communities and selling it to China. I'm not saying they don't or shouldn't have the legal right to do it, but that doesn't mean it's not objectionable.

Look at it this way.  There's far fewer opportunities to sell that equipment to India or China these days since most of the equipment is over there.

Back to Bain, have they exhibited a track record of parcelling physical assets in this manner?

Quote from: Conan71 on January 26, 2012, 10:42:53 PM
Back to Bain, have they exhibited a track record of parcelling physical assets in this manner?

They do have a track record of bleeding companies dry with management fees and overloading them with debt. I haven't looked much into Bain specifically, though, so I don't know how far beyond that it goes. My real question is this, though: Why do PE partners get to pay long term capital gains rates? Even if you think that Bain and its ilk are economically necessary, which I don't completely disagree with, by the way, why (if you do) do you think they should get special tax treatment for what they do?

I'm not convinced that PE firms aren't mostly a drain on the nonfinancial economy, much less that they are so socially and economically useful that we should offer them a steady diet of carrots to keep them in the same line of business.

Quote from: Conan71 on January 26, 2012, 04:13:29 PM
Reading that article, they don't sound too dooshy, now do they?

I didn't say there are - I said they have a mixed bag of performance.  The list of companies on that one link showed a pretty good performance overall to my way of thinking.  When they rip something up, there seems to be a little more thought put into it than average and ripping a company apart is pretty much by definition a violent act.


The example I gave was a bleeding dry and overloading with debt example for sure - and it wasn't a VC that did it....

Quote from: Conan71 on January 26, 2012, 05:46:09 PM
Obviously, a PE would add some sort of perceived or actual value (i.e. better management structure implemented after the purchase) otherwise they could not sell off a company at a profit.

Slap a coat of paint on the buildings, put a little lipstick on that pig and get it out the door as quick as possible...


....better management structure....

Man, I just love some of the little quips you come up with sometimes!  They bring a humorous little touch to the discussion!

LOL!  ...better management structure....  still chuckling to myself.  Thanks for that one!

Quote from: nathanm on January 26, 2012, 11:05:30 PM

I'm not convinced that PE firms aren't mostly a drain on the nonfinancial economy, much less that they are so socially and economically useful that we should offer them a steady diet of carrots to keep them in the same line of business.

It is not due to any social or economic benefit.  It is because they know exactly the right people to buy in Congress.  And offer exciting insider tidbits that the insider traders of Congress get to benefit from.  Tit for tat.  Quid pro quo (sp?).

If one is gonna talk about VC or PE or hedge fund guys, then should probably just go to the biggest.  Bridgewater Associates.

Ray Dalio has published an interesting treatise called "Principles".  Required reading at BW.  Haven't made my way through the whole thing, but it certainly is shaping up to be an interesting read.

http://www.bwater.com/Uploads/FileManager/Principles/Bridgewater-Associates-Ray-Dalio-Principles.pdf

http://video.msnbc.msn.com/the-last-word/46158377

Consumer protection bureau.... tweek it up a bit!

Elizabeth Warren, Oklahoma hall of famer!

This is good!

Texas Congressman Invites Ted Nugent, Who Threatened The President's Life, To The State Of The Union

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2013/02/11/1571751/texas-congressman-invites-ted-nugent-who-threatened-the-presidents-life-to-the-state-of-the-union/


The disrespect that the GOP/Scumbaggers show for the office of President is nutty. How would they respond had the dims brought Jane Fonda into the chambers in 1970?

Amazing. Congressman Steve Stockman (R-TX) must be a complete loon.

Yada yada yada green jobs. Yada yada yada bold plan.  Yada yada yada teachers, police, and firemen.  Yada yada yada fair share.  Yada yada yada number one priority.  Yada yada yada will work with congress.  Yada yada yada most comprehensive yada yada.  If congress won't yada yada yada yada yada yada.  Yada yada yada we can't afford yada yada yada.  Yada yada yada all I'm askin is yada yada.  Yada yada yada vision for America.

No need to actually watch this one. 

QuoteNugent called President Obama a criminal and denounced his "vile, evil America-hating administration" which is "wiping its donkey with the Constitution." Taking it a step further, he said that "If Barack Obama becomes the president in November, again, I will either be dead or in jail by this time next year."

Hardly a threat on someone's life.  How does it feel to be a mindless pawn in the war on common sense being waged from the left?

Quote from: Conan71 on February 11, 2013, 04:19:47 PM
Hardly a threat on someone's life.  How does it feel to be a mindless pawn in the war on common sense being waged from the left?

Oh yea, let's see your opinion when the dims bring fresh baked pies in for Christie's first SOTU. I bet it's Hillary who has one of these pissants hosting the likes of Monica Lewinsky. :-*

Apparently it's after 4:20.

Quote from: Gaspar on February 11, 2013, 04:18:03 PM
Yada yada yada green jobs. Yada yada yada bold plan.  Yada yada yada teachers, police, and firemen.  Yada yada yada fair share.  Yada yada yada number one priority.  Yada yada yada will work with congress.  Yada yada yada most comprehensive yada yada.  If congress won't yada yada yada yada yada yada.  Yada yada yada we can't afford yada yada yada.  Yada yada yada all I'm askin is yada yada.  Yada yada yada vision for America.

No need to actually watch this one.  

Yes, but it would be interesting if POTUS OBAMA speaking on background checks and weapon distribution took past quotes of Ted Nugent to exhibit what law enforcement finds to be harmful to their purpose. Many Americans would be angered if the POTUS slapped Nuge from the podium. Many more would find it refreshing.

I guess I'm trying to figure out who the hell cares about Ted?

Seems to offer an odd distraction from any real substance.  Reminds me of that time when we had high unemployment, were printing money like it was going out of style, forign relations around the globe were collapsing, and everyone wanted to talk about vaginas.

Quote from: Gaspar on February 11, 2013, 04:49:52 PM
everyone wanted to talk about vaginas.

The tea party wouldn't shut up about them.

Quote from: Gaspar on February 11, 2013, 04:49:52 PM
I guess I'm trying to figure out who the hell cares about Ted?

Apparently not those that thought inviting Cindy Sheehan to Bush's SOTU. Or that invited those clowns that interrupted McCain during his Convention speech. Here's hoping Ted does the same...Meh. Not caring on second thought.

Quote from: guido911 on February 11, 2013, 11:35:11 PM
Apparently not those that thought inviting Cindy Sheehan to Bush's SOTU. Or that invited those clowns that interrupted McCain during his Convention speech. Here's hoping Ted does the same...Meh. Not caring on second thought.

Talk about false equivalencies....comparing the mother of a dead soldier who was against war to a nut case who has threatened the President with violence? Did Ted Nugent ever serve in the military?

Quote from: Teatownclown on February 12, 2013, 08:38:36 AM
Talk about false equivalencies....comparing the mother of a dead soldier who was against war to a nut case who has threatened the President with violence? Did Ted Nugent ever serve in the military?

Please provide the quote where he specifically said he would harm the President.

Quote from: Conan71 on February 12, 2013, 10:49:24 AM
Please provide the quote where he specifically said he would harm the President.

He might crap on him...

Quote from: Conan71 on February 12, 2013, 10:49:24 AM
Please provide the quote where he specifically said he would harm the President.

I thought he would try to kill himself the way I read it.  Maybe crossbow to the temple.

TW FB post:

QuoteWASHINGTON, D.C. -- First District Congressman Jim Bridenstine said Tuesday morning he expects more "irresponsibility" from President Barack Obama's State of the Union address.

I think they've taught him about the whole running with scissors thing so Jimbo can calm himself and enter back into his world of tea.

BBC is saying an announcement will be that 34,000 troops will be coming home from Afghanistan this year.  (Half)

Quote from: Townsend on February 12, 2013, 11:13:22 AM
TW FB post:

I think they've taught him about the whole running with scissors thing so Jimbo can calm himself and enter back into his world of tea.

Here's hoping they don't ask Markwayne his thoughts, er lack thereof.

Quote from: Conan71 on February 12, 2013, 11:42:42 AM
Here's hoping they don't ask Markwayne his thoughts, er lack thereof.

He's the leader of all Oklahoma "tornado witnesses" interviewed on national news.  Head held high staring into the sun.

Quote from: Conan71 on February 12, 2013, 11:42:42 AM
Here's hoping they don't ask Markwayne his thoughts, er lack thereof.

And what's with MW being on so many of his plumbing company's commercials lately?  Does he think face time will get him more business?

Quote from: Conan71 on February 12, 2013, 11:42:42 AM
Here's hoping they don't ask Markwayne his thoughts, er lack thereof.

2nd district obviously lost their collective minds this last election, but hey, when ya got an education system that is bouncing along the bottom, I guess that's all ya can expect from the electorate.

He (and Bridenstein) voted against aid to hurricane Sandy area.  Gotta wonder how he is gonna vote when the next big tornado blasts something in the 2nd district - and the insurance companies all claim it was "flood damage"??  Think the people that voted for him will pull their heads out then??

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on February 12, 2013, 12:31:48 PM
Think the people that voted for him will pull their heads out then??

No.  Even if they figured it out most wouldn't want to admit they screwed up.

Quote from: Townsend on February 12, 2013, 11:44:26 AM
He's the leader of all Oklahoma "tornado witnesses" interviewed on national news.  Head held high staring into the sun.

"And then them sigh-reens started a-goin' off so I run outside and you'd never believe what I seen! I 'bout loaded my shorts, I tell ya!"

QuoteAnd what's with MW being on so many of his plumbing company's commercials lately?  Does he think face time will get him more business?

Meh, he's always done his own commercials for Mullin except during campaign season.

So, do we have a real plumbing company in Tulsa area?

I am really amazed that the State got big national recognition last night regarding George Kaiser's efforts in Early Childhood Development and very little mention anywhere in the state.

Then again being the Nation's meth capitol and considering Jimmi Bridenstine and MarkyWayne are our reps this type of exceptionalism fails to impress the typical Okie...

Great speech last night.

Then there was Marco...what a complete joke...here's a spot on comment from the NYT!

QuoteSad, very sad. This is the first time I ever heard Sen. Rubio speak. Banal sentiment and trite cliches do not a become a worthy statesman. He spoke a lot but said nothing. If this is the best the Republican Party has to offer I greatly fear for our two-party system. Such a system should serve to balance opposing views, each side providing a check on the excesses of the other. The Republican Party is not doing its job in providing this balance. Sad, very sad. Recommended60

Tea Party Nation...can you stand up to your own tribe and put down this horrendous discourse? Or, do you support "State of the Union: Liberals are the New Nazis" dumbspeak coming from the recalcitrant and obstinate right?
Read more at http://wonkette.com/501275/tea-party-nation-hitler-hitler-hitler-hitler-hitler-hitler-hitler-also-hitler#IfdxgCshOa5YTES7.99

Where are all you bashers?

(http://ace.mu.nu/archives/seatingdiagram.jpg_large.jpg)

Quote from: Teatownclown on February 13, 2013, 01:12:09 PM
I am really amazed that the State got big national recognition last night regarding George Kaiser's efforts in Early Childhood Development and very little mention anywhere in the state.

With Oklahoma City teacher watching, President Barack Obama mentions Oklahoma's priority on early childhood education

http://newsok.com/with-oklahoma-city-teacher-watching-president-barack-obama-mentions-oklahomas-priority-on-early-childhood-education/article/3754851 (http://newsok.com/with-oklahoma-city-teacher-watching-president-barack-obama-mentions-oklahomas-priority-on-early-childhood-education/article/3754851)

QuoteSusan Bumgarner was in a parent-teacher conference at Wilson Arts Integration Elementary School in Oklahoma City when her cellphone started ringing Friday. Wanting to finish, the prekindergarten teacher ignored her phone. Then the phone on the wall started ringing. After she finished the conference, she found out the White House was calling to find experts on early education. Bumgarner certainly qualifies. She has been teaching prekindergarten students for 20 years and has bachelor's and master's degrees from the University of Oklahoma in early education. She was recently nominated for Oklahoma City public schools teacher of the year. On Tuesday, Bumgarner was among the guests of first lady Michelle Obama at the State of the Union speech at the Capitol.