Seeking Alpha

Republicans say they will refuse to raise taxes, but Peter Morici thinks they would be smart to...

Republicans say they will refuse to raise taxes, but Peter Morici thinks they would be smart to reconsider. Barry Ritholtz wants to hit high net worth individuals whose numbers and net worth have swelled during the past two years. The population of HNWIs rose 8.6% in 2010 to 3.4M after rising 16.6% in 2009, according to a CapGemini report, and their wealth jumped 9.1% to $11.6T.
Comments (210)
  • The Sane Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (357) | Send Message
     
    If Democrats are willing to budge on spending, Republicans will look foolish not to sacrifice some of their sacred cows, including taxes
    11 Jul 2011, 06:21 PM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (13204) | Send Message
     
    Here's the analogy:

     

    An alcoholic drinks four bottles a day, but is only given two, so he "borrows" (or steals) the other two. Now, he promises he'll only drink three bottles per day, if we just give him those three bottles, instead of only two. He promises --with sugar on top-- that, even with the extra gift bottle, he won't drink four bottles any more, or borrow or steal any additional bottles and drink those, too

     

    This is a bet for fools.
    11 Jul 2011, 06:34 PM Reply Like
  • D_Virginia
    , contributor
    Comments (2280) | Send Message
     
    Right, because the Republicans have never had any of their own spending problems....
    11 Jul 2011, 06:36 PM Reply Like
  • The Geoffster
    , contributor
    Comments (4011) | Send Message
     
    A Republican is a Democrat in disguise.
    11 Jul 2011, 07:20 PM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    G Dub was a repub?

     

    Really?

     

    More like his thousand points of light daddy. We read his lips too. Even better than Hellen Keller on crack.

     

    Naw.

     

    G Dub didn't rep-ruh-sent, shee. Get off it, fu.

     

    For seriously.
    11 Jul 2011, 07:25 PM Reply Like
  • halconnoche
    , contributor
    Comments (68) | Send Message
     
    I hope you realize that what politicians consider a cut is not really a cut. It is simply a decrease in the amount they were planning on spending. Ex: If the dems agree to "cut" the increase in spending from 10% to 8% on program X, they will claim they have cut spending by 20%. Nothing ever really gets cut. But an increase in taxes is an increase in the rate you are taxed on your income. Soon those who have had their tax rate increased simply change their behavior and reduce their income. Why work harder for the extra $ if you keep less of it anyway.
    Now I don't care if they raise taxes on HNWI, but don't think that it is actually going to put a dent in anything. People like Mr. Ritholtz simply want to raise their taxes out of jealousy and envy. Its just a deversion from the real problems.
    11 Jul 2011, 08:25 PM Reply Like
  • Sheik Rattle Enroll
    , contributor
    Comments (583) | Send Message
     
    Tack, what you're talking about is the "starve the beast" ideology that Reagan was so fond of. It didn't work then, and won't work now.
    11 Jul 2011, 08:49 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3332) | Send Message
     
    Reagan, God rest his soul,

     

    Did not in fact,, Starve the beast.

     

    The beast grew bigger under his auspices.

     

    Should it actually be a surprise that it grew exponentially under Obama then?
    11 Jul 2011, 08:54 PM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    It didn't work. Reagan got played by Tip O'neal's gang. Still doesn't invalidate the point. They should still starve the beast though on principle.

     

    Taxes are a Don Corleone Vig. In fact I'd rather we default on our debts *that we didn't create nor vote for* than pay more taxes.

     

    When you go to the zoo they have signs. Don't Feed The Bears.

     

    Govt., in all its disgusting intents & purposes can FOAD.
    11 Jul 2011, 08:56 PM Reply Like
  • The Geoffster
    , contributor
    Comments (4011) | Send Message
     
    Tack: Great analogy. Thanks.
    11 Jul 2011, 09:55 PM Reply Like
  • LuckyPick
    , contributor
    Comments (740) | Send Message
     
    i say both Democrats and Republicans should STFU (shut the F***** up) and do something already
    i rather see more actions that just words going around every single day and night, you have the same problems being debated, being discussed with no collective agreement and will to do something about it
    how long are we gonna witness this political brinkmanship? i am guessing the political games have long started, they are only interested in winning votes for the next elections, not much so about growing our country's economy

     

    i would like quote Warren Buffett here
    1) "Congress is playing Russian Roulette."

     

    2) "I could end the deficit in 5 minutes. You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP all sitting members of congress are ineligible for reelection."
    11 Jul 2011, 10:45 PM Reply Like
  • tigersam
    , contributor
    Comments (1711) | Send Message
     
    This is insult to Democrat. You can compare the people who sold their souls to devil.
    12 Jul 2011, 09:54 AM Reply Like
  • tigersam
    , contributor
    Comments (1711) | Send Message
     
    TSI:

     

    Every three dollars cut there was a one dollars in taxes. Not a single president including republican gave that chance to them. The only goal of republicans is bring down Obama. They are just playing politics.
    12 Jul 2011, 07:38 PM Reply Like
  • Sheik Rattle Enroll
    , contributor
    Comments (583) | Send Message
     
    I can't tell if you're serious or someone with a fake account trying to make republicans look stupid.

     

    I guess good job at representing the paranoid and delusional or being a hilarious parody of the paranoid and delusional.
    12 Jul 2011, 10:24 PM Reply Like
  • Sheik Rattle Enroll
    , contributor
    Comments (583) | Send Message
     
    I don't think Tip O'Neal dreamt up "Star Wars" and other brilliant Reagan ideas.
    13 Jul 2011, 02:46 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    Star Wars brought down the USSR and it did not even need to come to a realistic outcome. Probably the best government investment of the last 100 years. When the USSR fell we then had a peace dividend.

     

    Not sure you have the ability to connect those dots as you think the world starts over when we move from Rep to Dem to Rep to Dem.
    14 Jul 2011, 12:25 AM Reply Like
  • Sheik Rattle Enroll
    , contributor
    Comments (583) | Send Message
     
    Reagan's concept of Star Wars wasn't even theoretically possible during his lifetime, nevermind his presidency.

     

    Russia didn't go bankrupt attempting to counter it because there was nothing to attempt to counter.

     

    By the way I work in missile defense so don't even try and pretend superior knowledge.

     

    But brilliant strategy I guess, waste massive amounts of money during useless stuff and hope your opponent does the same.

     

    I think that was Bush's strategy for fighting Al Qaeda.

     

    Maybe Osama was killed because he went bankrupt after Bush spent trillions in Iraq! Yeah that must be it!
    14 Jul 2011, 08:46 AM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    Star Wars may not have been feasible but were you debreifing the USSR and telling them it would not work since you are supposedly so in the know? The USSR knew as much about us as we knew about them and it was not a very accurate potroyal.

     

    USSR went broke and they diverted money from butter to guns for decades and they finally realized their people were going to starve if they kept going down this road. It was unsustainable.

     

    Reagan pushed them from various angles to tap out their ability to fund expansionist policy. Star Wars was just one of them and in aggregate the USSR fell.

     

    If you don't want to give Reagan credit for personal reasons then it is only a reflection on you. It is no better than people not giving Obama credit for taking out Osama.

     

    GWB and AQ is an assymetrical comparison to Reagan and the USSR.
    14 Jul 2011, 08:59 AM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    Careful folks, the Iron Sheik is now a self proclaimed rocket scientist & a genius.
    14 Jul 2011, 10:43 AM Reply Like
  • Sheik Rattle Enroll
    , contributor
    Comments (583) | Send Message
     
    Not really asymmetrical, the idea is to bankrupt your opponent by making them waste money right?

     

    Bin Laden explicitly stated that his goal was to make us piss away all our money and bankrupt our country.

     

    We've diverted our money from butter to guns, what do you think will happen to us?

     

    As for Star Wars, my dislike has nothing to do with personal reasons, Reagan was an idiot who ran up massive debt on military projects his astrologer dreamed up that aren't even feasible with today's technology.

     

    You're failing to understand the concept of opportunity cost. For example:

     

    Let's assume the USSR believed that the U.S. had the capability to launch enough nuclear bomb powered single use laser satellites powered by fictional technology into space to counter the entire USSR's arsenal. Now let's assume that believing that the USSR didn't think to just wrap their missiles in aluminum foil or shoot off decoys.

     

    Well good job we wasted a bunch of money tricking idiots by building something useless. You're arguing that there's no possible useful application for that money that could have caused them to spend an equal or greater amount of money.
    14 Jul 2011, 10:54 AM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3332) | Send Message
     
    Scary,

     

    That we have somebody with the name "Sheik" working for a DOD contactor.

     

    Can you say "Fort Hood?"
    14 Jul 2011, 11:17 AM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3332) | Send Message
     
    Ironic that we have leftists that think all our fiscal problems can be solved soley by cutting defense spending, bragging about making their living off of defense spending.
    14 Jul 2011, 11:20 AM Reply Like
  • Sheik Rattle Enroll
    , contributor
    Comments (583) | Send Message
     
    Who's bragging? I'm just pointing out that I have knowledge specifically about what he's talking about because it's what I do for a living. If he was talking about food and I was a chef I think it'd be logical to point that out.

     

    Who says our fiscal problems can be solved solely by cutting defense spending? Not the president, and certainly not me. I'm all for cutting defense spending, cutting entitlements, and raising taxes. It's the only way the math works out.

     

    If I lose my job because of defense cuts, fair enough. The people here whining about not being able to make ends meet with a quarter million a year should man up the same.

     

    Obviously the only way "winning" debates for you works out is to make insane straw man arguments.

     

    You're absolutely right, it's obvious that I'm a muslim from my name (which is actually a parody, obvious to all who aren't humorless windbags). And of course all muslims kill the people they work with.

     

    But hey if Reagan based all his decisions on astronomy I guess it must make sense for you to base all yours on people's forum aliases. Put on your tin foil hats and get out your dowsing rods! Pull out your crosses, pray to your idols, and fire up your space lasers, here comes a Republican!
    14 Jul 2011, 11:39 AM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    SRE

     

    Nancy was the astrologer nut not Ronald.

     

    If you don't like Reagan or Bush just say it. If wasting money was a crime in this country we would turn WDC into a prison. Extrapolating whatever rocket wizardy you have into political mastery that runs counter to a lot of mainstream thinking is a big stretch but knock yourself out. You probably have a better view than everyone else walking on terra firma.

     

    I know opportunity cost very well as I have a pretty deep Econ background. So as an example I am writing this note in response to your intellectual spasms but I could be cleaning my garage instead.
    14 Jul 2011, 08:06 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3332) | Send Message
     
    Obama has run up more debt in 2 years, than Reagan did in 8.

     

    And Reagan inherited a recession with even worse unemployment than Obama has.
    14 Jul 2011, 08:11 PM Reply Like
  • Sheik Rattle Enroll
    , contributor
    Comments (583) | Send Message
     
    Debt to GDP wise they're pretty similar.

     

    So much for a hero of fiscal responsibility I guess.
    14 Jul 2011, 08:14 PM Reply Like
  • Sheik Rattle Enroll
    , contributor
    Comments (583) | Send Message
     
    Regan used an astrologer to help select his running mate. It wasn't just Nancy.

     

    I don't like Reagan or Bush. I thought that was pretty obvious but I'll say it in exactly those terms since you desperately want me to for some reason.

     

    So if you know opportunity cost so well, explain to me again how developing a non functional missile defense system was the best use of our funds? One where even if the technology needed to make it could be transported back in time could still be defeated by aluminum foil or decoy missiles?

     

    It's funny, in another thread someone is telling me that selling Saddam Hussein anthrax and bubonic plague and then invading him was a good use of funds too.

     

    Republicans have really really really really weird pet projects.

     

    I mean you read about Democrats blowing a few million on a nonsensical study, but trillions on turning a dictator into a biological weapon powered super dictator and then blowing him up is really far out there.
    14 Jul 2011, 08:21 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    SRE

     

    Instead of ripping on someone who is dead in the ground and who was undeniably a great President with the only the disturbed and jealous types in denial why don't you say something useful, current and insightful?
    14 Jul 2011, 08:23 PM Reply Like
  • Sheik Rattle Enroll
    , contributor
    Comments (583) | Send Message
     
    Right, because Republicans never pull him out of the ground in poor taste.

     

    So because he's dead there can never be a counter argument to anything anyone says positive about him. Convenient.

     

    On the other hand it seems OK in your book for Wyatt to say bad things about dead Democrats. Also convenient.

     

    I think Wyatt is a vile person but it doesn't really bother me for him to talk about dead politicians, because we're still debating their policies today.

     

    If we never say anything bad about dead politicians you're talking about going all the way to thought police state.
    14 Jul 2011, 08:35 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    SRE

     

    The issue is that you have bad things to say about Reagan that are really not all that important in the big picture so it is just partisan noise. You don't like Star Wars and you believe you have a better but unsubstantiated perspective than anyone else. So what and you are probably some fat kid in a black t-shirt eating M&M's and wishing you had a date. You think he ran up debt. So what. We would take that amount of debt in a heart beat today. He only took down the USSR which was a dangerous and expansionist military dicatorship and police state. And plenty of Dems with the exception of the left wing nuts speak well of Reagan and wish someone like him was back.

     

    Cracking on LBJ and FDR for implementing structural changes that we are now living with and are institutionalized is a fair debate. They undoubtedly had good intentions but now we pay the price of those good intentions on steroids. Nothing personal to them but they unwittingly created a debt machine.
    14 Jul 2011, 08:53 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    SRE

     

    Gee I am so shocked you don't like Reagan or Bush. You seemed so objective and balanced and lo and behold you are not a fan. Who knew?

     

    Why are you bothering everyone with Trivial Pursuit? Get a life.

     

    How many defense dollars do you think have no return? A hell of a lot.
    14 Jul 2011, 09:02 PM Reply Like
  • Sheik Rattle Enroll
    , contributor
    Comments (583) | Send Message
     
    Are you seriously talking about how bad partisan noise and unsubstantiated claims are, then saying I'm a fat kid in a black t-shirt (they collect lint, but other than that what's the negative cultural stereotype against black t-shirts again?).

     

    It's true Republicans have no concept of hypocrisy. You're like a preacher with one hand on the bible and the other on a male prostitute. Or the classic "I just have a wide stance".

     

    I think it's pretty easy to substantiate my claims about Star Wars actually. I claim that 1) we never managed to make it work 2) Reagan spent a lot of money on it 3) the Russians could work around it even if we did manage to make it.

     

    Which are you disputing? 1 & 2 seem like a lock, so I guess #3 is it. I guess you'll just have to assume I'm lying and call me names. Or you could bother to read what weapons experts have to say about it. I mean whichever you like I guess.
    14 Jul 2011, 09:02 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    SRE

     

    You mistake me for someone who really cares deeply about your Star Wars history. You are the first person who I have met in over 20 years that even thinks about it. Yawn. I don't even dispute some or even all of your 3 points above. It is so trivial at this point in history.

     

    Breaking News: Did you know that Richard Nixon once turned around a battleship to pick up his little dog that was left behind? Nobody cares.

     

    Your hard on for Rep hypocrisy just shows you are just a political hack for the Dems or Reagan or Bush bombed your pup tent. Most people are hypocrites in some way big or small never mind politicians.
    14 Jul 2011, 09:14 PM Reply Like
  • Sheik Rattle Enroll
    , contributor
    Comments (583) | Send Message
     
    Wow you backed away from calling them inaccurate pretty fast. Quickest backpedaling I've seen here yet.

     

    You care deeply about it when you're calling it inaccurate, but as soon as you're asked to back up your claims you seem to think it's not very important.

     

    You're right, why should it matter if we waste government money on defense systems that can't possibly be built, or giving dictators biological and chemical weapons and then bombing them for it.

     

    The waste that really needs to be cut: roads and schools.
    15 Jul 2011, 02:40 PM Reply Like
  • tigersam
    , contributor
    Comments (1711) | Send Message
     
    Ugly Jalopy 1980:

     

    I saved this country including you.
    15 Jul 2011, 03:37 PM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    It is interesting, but history need to be regarded. Iran was always Russia's proxy. Iraq, therefore, was ours. This was the leftover phantom pains from the Cold War as both the Soviet Union & the United States were positioning themselves like chess for control of regional oil in the ME.

     

    Saddam was the monster we created, the Frankenstein, and like a dog that bites someone, needed to be put down. Unfortunately, now Iran has free reign of influence in the void. A shame, really. They will do much more harm than we realize once we pull out of the region and oil goes to $300/brrl.

     

    Hey, if you want a course study, I'm gonna have to charge you. I know more than most professors.

     

    Don't say you weren't warned however about the oncoming oil nightmare, which is why I am very long energy & alt energy since the imminent crunch is on its way. Hopefully it won't morph into a panic.
    15 Jul 2011, 04:32 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    SRE

     

    I don't even know if you are talking to me since your claims are not tied back to anything I can find. So either you are a deceitful slick polemist or a moron. I did not backpedal from anything. I just don't care about your immaterial points of view. They are noise and you are noise. My point using Richard Nixon was too subtle for you I guess.

     

    Good bye to you and your pathetic left wing cheerleading lap dog self.
    15 Jul 2011, 06:36 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3332) | Send Message
     
    TVP,

     

    My guess would be Moron.
    15 Jul 2011, 07:07 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3332) | Send Message
     
    Perhaps they would.

     

    But spending cuts ALWAYS get defined as reductions in spending growth vs true spending cuts.

     

    I'm sure many could accept some tax hikes.

     

    But they NEVER amount to either meaningful spending cuts, or deficit reduction.

     

    Just Look at Connecticut 20 years since implementing an income tax.

     

    #1 in per Capita State Debt.

     

    Pop the Corks!

     

    One of only two states with negative job growth the last 20 Years.
    11 Jul 2011, 06:37 PM Reply Like
  • superpatrol
    , contributor
    Comments (616) | Send Message
     
    Connecticut has had growth problems because the rest of the nation is skimming off 30% of the taxes that CT sends to the Federal gov. CT would be running a nice budget surplus if they received a refund check from the Feds, instead of that money plowing into states like Tennessee and Alabama.
    www.taxfoundation.org/...
    11 Jul 2011, 09:14 PM Reply Like
  • Freedoms Truth
    , contributor
    Comments (851) | Send Message
     
    It's CT's own fault for sending politicians to Washington who keep voting for more spending and higher taxes. Send some real fiscal conservatives and things would change for you.
    11 Jul 2011, 10:36 PM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    Indeed.

     

    CT is pathetic.
    12 Jul 2011, 09:57 PM Reply Like
  • superpatrol
    , contributor
    Comments (616) | Send Message
     
    your "fiscal conservatives" are the ones yanking the CT, CA, NY, and IL tax dollars into Alabama, Tennessee, Arizona, AK. Go again to my link above, and look at the data. Do you see a pattern having to do with political allegiance?

     

    the irony is hilarious. Which are the states that are spending what doesn't belong to them? and why do you think that happens? ... "fiscal conservatives"
    13 Jul 2011, 02:02 AM Reply Like
  • Papaswamp
    , contributor
    Comments (2198) | Send Message
     
    I think they should go for it...raise the taxes. It won't create jobs and only reduces deficit spending by a few hours a month. Then when they increase taxes on everyone and still no jobs, GDP goes negative and the deficit spending is only reduced by a week per month it will dawn on everyone that the real problem is the government. The duocracy is an epic fail and it's greed will cause the next depression....if it hasn't already.
    11 Jul 2011, 06:40 PM Reply Like
  • Poor Texan
    , contributor
    Comments (3529) | Send Message
     
    "it will dawn on everyone that the real problem is the government."

     

    If they haven't figured that out already, they're either part of the government or never will figure it out.
    11 Jul 2011, 07:15 PM Reply Like
  • Carismar
    , contributor
    Comments (15) | Send Message
     
    Even if they hit the HNWIs hard, it would only cover a fraction of the deficit. Not to mention that some HNWIs would expatriate and take their investments offshore. The Dems have still not come with serious cost-cutting proposals. When DC and Wall St. hit 20% unemployment, then I'll start to believe they're serious.
    11 Jul 2011, 06:41 PM Reply Like
  • bob adamson
    , contributor
    Comments (4557) | Send Message
     
    Until recently, we had been seeing some fairly classic public negotiation strategies in play.
    1. The Tea Party true believers were digging in and promising to make life difficult for any (whether within or outside the Republican Party) who break ranks with their vision.
    2. The Republican Party leadership in the House and Senate were rhetorically siding with several of the core Tea Party demands while indication that, provided they significantly achieved these stated aims, they were prepared to compromise on details (and may, in fact, compromise further provided that these compromises can be profiled in terms not opposed to core Tea Party demands).
    3. The President focused on the potential weak point in the Republican Party leadership in the House and Senate position (rigidity on the issue of tax increases for the top 5% income earners) and continually broadens the scope of discussions in the hope that, with more elements in play, avenues for future compromise would open up (and, if a breakdown in negotiation threatened, then he could assert that he was always prepared to discuss all issues and seek a broad and deep compromise).
    4. The Democratic Party House and Senate leadership asserted that they would continue to stand up for the interests of those dependent on social programs while advocacy groups for such beneficiaries strongly asserted that these programs should not be the focus of cuts.
    5. Advocates for business and agriculture likewise advocated against cuts to programs which benefit them while many of them and social conservatives more vigorously advocated deep cuts in government programs (but not necessarily those related to the military).

     

    The real question was the extent to which the leadership of both Parties were capable of maintaining sufficient party discipline and flexibility so as to be able to negotiate a compromise with the leadership of the other party and the extent that the US system of government would allow the preparation and enactment in a timely fashion of a suitable compromise in this political environment. The choppy history of the TARP program legislation in 2008 gave one pause on this score.

     

    Unfortunately over the past five or so days there have been growing indications that the process to settlement has bogged down in partisan rancor with the hardliners in each Party (especially the Republican Party) unduly narrowing the negotiation options of those conducting the negotiations. The really troubling aspect of this turn of events is that it may have removed any reasonable avenue for a viable and constructive compromise. In the absence of such a timely compromise, the possibility for a really disastrous impasse (compounded by the current European crisis) increases considerably
    11 Jul 2011, 06:47 PM Reply Like
  • Freedoms Truth
    , contributor
    Comments (851) | Send Message
     
    The Democrats have yet to put ANY serious spending cuts on the table. The Democrats have yet to pass a budget.
    The Democrats have attacked every entitlement reform.

     

    The Democrats take a 'my way or highway' position, demanding that the deal include exactly what the Republicans have said for months is off-limits - tax increases.

     

    A very simple spending cuts plus debt ceiling increase deal could happen in 2 hrs if the President just would stop being so stubborn and insisting of demanding his agenda.

     

    Last, the Democrats refuse to admit that there is NO NEED AT ALL to threaten default. Default is both unnecessary and unconstitutional. The President must pay bondholders out of tax revenues. If he chooses to not do it, he himself will blow up the system.

     

    Conclusion: The Democrats want to have a crisis. ... the question is why?
    11 Jul 2011, 10:40 PM Reply Like
  • Terry330
    , contributor
    Comments (867) | Send Message
     
    Republicans always say the wealthy are broke.
    11 Jul 2011, 06:54 PM Reply Like
  • tigersam
    , contributor
    Comments (1711) | Send Message
     
    Terry:

     

    You are correct. They are broke to fly to International space station. It cost them $20M.
    11 Jul 2011, 08:51 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3332) | Send Message
     
    Terry330,

     

    No, they don't say they are broke.

     

    But, considering the top 10% already pay about 86% of all taxes, what more equitable solution do you propose, other than the usual class warfare rhetoric?

     

    If they paid 100% it would not even make a dent.
    11 Jul 2011, 07:01 PM Reply Like
  • Poor Texan
    , contributor
    Comments (3529) | Send Message
     
    1980, here's what Terry is incapable of understanding.

     

    The democrats have defined the cutoff for the rich as $250,000.

     

    A congressman makes ~$135,000 a year, has an almost unlimited expense account, the ability to hand out staff positions paid for by the government to anyone (including paramours), and guaranteed pension and medical care for life. He's paying his fair share of taxes.

     

    A doctor is running a practice with three or four employees paid from his earnings, following a myriad of federal, state and local regulations, paying a hugh medical malpractice insurance bill, with a battery of lawyers watching to sue if a patient is dissatisfied with treatment, paying for continuing education and trying to save up for his retirement out of his earnings. He makes $300,000. That greedy capitalist is not paying his fair share.

     

    She or Barry Ritholtz will never understand the real world.
    11 Jul 2011, 07:29 PM Reply Like
  • Sheik Rattle Enroll
    , contributor
    Comments (583) | Send Message
     
    The doctor is making $300,000 after paying his employees, not before. Salaries, malpractice insurance, lawyers, etc. all come off taxes just like with any other business.

     

    What about a CEO who makes 10 million a year almost entirely in long term capital gains and pays 15%?

     

    It's the rich who have it the easiest, same for corporations. The US corporate tax rate is high, but the rich corporations only pay 1% because of all the loopholes the republicans refuse to close, even if it meant dropping the overall tax rate.
    11 Jul 2011, 08:54 PM Reply Like
  • Papaswamp
    , contributor
    Comments (2198) | Send Message
     
    How excited would you be to cough up $1.5 million of your pay to a government that subsidizes studies on the effect of cocaine on the libido of Japanese quail and other pet projects?
    www.cnsnews.com/node/6...

     

    The point should be that the government doesn't deserve anymore money until it can show it can spend the people's money wisely.

     

    It should be a 2 pronged program. First get spending under control and eliminate wasteful programs (there are 18 levels of management between the oil rig inspector and the Secty of Interior...in 1960 there were 7). In other words a balanced budget...there hasn't been a budget (balanced or otherwise) in over 800 days.

     

    Once the govt has done that then taxes can be raised (on everyone) to impact the debt. We are all responsible for letting the idiots get out of control.
    11 Jul 2011, 09:18 PM Reply Like
  • superpatrol
    , contributor
    Comments (616) | Send Message
     
    I think you are being fooled by an article that is hand-picking a research study, without properly mentioning the scientific context, probably to make a political statement. Maybe the Japanese quail has some particularly useful qualities for this type of experiment, which drastically saves money compared to it being conducted on other animals, or if it had to be gleaned from observations of humans. I personally don't know anything about that realm of science, and of course it sounds odd to me. But there are more obvious places to save money in government, even in supposedly "scientific" fields. For example, the International Space Station is an absurd $100 billion black hole, which actually has very little scientific utility. It was largely built as a disgusting pork project for Boeing, and other space industry contracters, and partly out of some misplaced ideal of cooperation with Russia.
    11 Jul 2011, 09:37 PM Reply Like
  • talbano
    , contributor
    Comments (324) | Send Message
     
    nicely put- the average person just doesn't get it.
    they just think i don't have it so make them pay.

     

    The only think I would add is most doctors spend ten plus years in school, work 10plus hours a day and usually have significant educational debt.

     

    We have a family business My Brother in Law owns and husband runs and has a minority stake. My brother in law is taxed at a very high level, plus HC(50k for 2 families) Unemployment insurance, fica and payroll tax.
    We pay for dental out of pocket and employee about 60 people.
    It is risky to run a business, so one year you may do well and the next year not so much. Extra money needs to be conserved for the down times so you can continue to keep things going during the not so great times.
    Why would anyone agree with paying higher taxes especially when it never reduces debt, deficit or spending.
    I think government needs to restructure, reduce size, pay and benefits.
    How can you ask the average small business to kick in more?
    When Washington has not done anything to live within it's means.
    I digress, It is very frustrating and 250k is not rich,especially if you are independently employed and are responsible.
    Between mortgage, insurance state, local and misc taxes, Utilities, cars, college, 401 and savings. It all goes pretty quick especially when the government is taking 40-50% of it.
    Keep taking from the top tax payers until they are no longer there to pay then who will pick up the check?
    I do think closing some loopholes would be fine, like the Hedgefunds @ 15% is absurd but so is giving a tax refund to someone that doesn't pay taxes.
    At what point is what the government takes is enough?
    I think at this point it will never be enough.
    Sad state of affairs.
    Sorry kinda ended up venting, tired of hearing Obama "the King" wanting everything his way and failing to do anything positive for this country.
    Have a good night:)
    12 Jul 2011, 12:23 AM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    talbano

     

    That is also a prescription for depressing the economy. High taxes suppress economic activity.
    12 Jul 2011, 04:48 PM Reply Like
  • Sheik Rattle Enroll
    , contributor
    Comments (583) | Send Message
     
    Really now. Let's look at your chart of deficit levels vs tax rates. Oh you mean you don't have that chart and were just making stuff up?

     

    Washington is trying to live within its means. That means massive spending cuts, the rolling back of some tax breaks, and the closing of some loopholes.

     

    I live like a king and manage to put away a ton of money and I make a lot less than 250k.

     

    Maybe it's just that I buy used cars?

     

    I'm sorry you don't want to pay more money, but everyone is being asked to sacrifice to fix this problem. Your employees are going to have to work far longer and see less in social security, kids are going to get a lower quality education, our roads and bridges are in disrepair, and so on.

     

    I'm sorry some of that 250k will need to go away, but maybe you can get a new car every 13 months instead of 12 months.

     

    Or I guess we can just build a giant woodchipper and throw all the poor children into it. It's cheaper than educating them.
    13 Jul 2011, 02:58 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    SRE

     

    People should be allowed to make and spend what they want. If you make $250K and save a lot and want to send checks to the government for any number of things then knock yourself out. That should be your choice. However I suspect you are like the Hollywood liberals who espouse government programs paid for by someone else as they hoard their millions and invest in muni bonds and LTCG investments.

     

    Freedom is not just a concept to be applied to a few facets of life like speech and then the steel boot of an authoritarian government comes down through levers like taxes and excess regulation. All kinds of examples exist to point to a government that has replaced King George as an economic tyrant even though they espouse good intentions so therefore the sacrifice of economic liberty is for the greater good. The old saying "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" has survived for a reason.

     

    So an example. China is very intrusive in the lives of their citizens and prohibits more than one child per family. Apparently that is for the greater good but then again baby girls are aborted or given up for adoption as a result. Obviously if those baby girls had a voice they would not think it is for their good. In the US the government intrudes in peoples' lives by insisting that one set of citizens pays for the support of another set of citizens to have children and support them all their life. It is good to make sure children are taken care of because they need a start in life and will end up in jail, etc. The fallout is that single mothers have babies with no fear that they are at risk and fathers don't hang around because they are not needed and it is more fun to run around. The working class labors to support this irresponsibility and hopefully their marriages hang together as they deal with the stress of making a living. As their marriages fail their children realize the consequences of parents stretched too far and the cycle worsens across all economic classes. This feeds back into government programs and debt issuance.

     

    But anyways the intentions and the mechanics of how the US and Chinese governments behave is the same. The gap between the US and China is not that large and ironically popular well intentioned government programs have closed that gap tremondously through a command and control approach to the economy.
    14 Jul 2011, 12:48 AM Reply Like
  • Sheik Rattle Enroll
    , contributor
    Comments (583) | Send Message
     
    Actually you just made that up, like every "fact" you use.

     

    Here's the truth:
    www.slate.com/id/2245781/
    14 Jul 2011, 08:52 AM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    Slate blows. The reason why the American economy boomed in 1951 - 1963 when marginal tax rates were over 90% was because of a net inflow of productivity & winning the war. War ponzi was over and the nation could now look at growing their real economy without the costly burden of increased war spending. The real boom occurred when the marginal rates came down, and especially when Reagan whittled them down from 69.13% to 50%. In 1983, the economy took off like a rocket in response to the incentive with GDP growth in the high 7s.

     

    It never ceases to amaze me those who choose to rewrite history even as history destroys their ideology point by point.
    14 Jul 2011, 10:53 AM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    Which is why I agree the GOP should allow the Dems to raise taxes...

     

    ...on the middle, lower middle and the poor.

     

    They need to pay their fair share. C'mon. Let's get real! Time to be patriotic! Eat some peas.

     

    I don't have a problem with taxes, as long as we make it fair.

     

    The poor need to pay up.

     

    Tax their damn food stamps, Sec. 8 ghetto 'partments, the Wic and their baby momma welfare Lyndon B Johnson checks. Tax the crap out of them.
    11 Jul 2011, 07:15 PM Reply Like
  • bigbenorr
    , contributor
    Comments (764) | Send Message
     
    Hell yeah, no more free rides!
    11 Jul 2011, 07:23 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3332) | Send Message
     
    Wyatt,

     

    This country was founded on "Taxation without Representation".

     

    We should try some "No representation without Taxation"

     

    If those that feel "Entitled" to not have to pay taxes, were not allowed to vote, we just actually may see, some genuine Hope & Change.
    11 Jul 2011, 07:29 PM Reply Like
  • Freedoms Truth
    , contributor
    Comments (851) | Send Message
     
    "Which is why I agree the GOP should allow the Dems to raise taxes... "
    This is what Speaker Boehner knows and the talking head pundits are clueless about: The Tax hikes CANNOT PASS CONGRESS.

     

    Go ahead, Mr President, pass your tax hikes through the Congress. Try. guess what? Even the Democrats will vote it down.

     

    Boehner is trying to the President and the rest of us a favor by being perfectly clear that IT WONT PASS so lets stop wasting our time on an idea that wont happen.

     

    Go ahead, Democrats, pass your debt ceiling increase in the Senate first, pass your tax hikes there, and then we can talk compromise. Until then, its just blowing smoke up our rear ends.
    11 Jul 2011, 10:44 PM Reply Like
  • Derek A. Barrett
    , contributor
    Comments (3534) | Send Message
     
    Glad to see the same clowns complaining about "class warfare" against the rich ("boo hoo how am I going to afford the chrome on the yacht anchor now!"), have turned the subject back to where it originated - the 1970s GOP good ole boys class warfare attacks on the underprivileged.

     

    What are we, in a time warp? Someone want to call Newt Gingrich out of retirement (oh wait). What about good ole Jesse Helms?

     

    Please, can we see the mythical welfare mom and illegal immigrant are literally vacuuming dollar bills out of my bank account!

     

    Quick someone call the Minutemen (lol) and the Tea Party (bigger lol) and let's get this mess straightened out.

     

    What is the next lame Revolutionary War metaphor group to surface?

     

    Oh wait, the past decade of tax cuts for the rich and big bank bailouts were the biggest ENTITLEMENT programs in the history of the world.

     

    -- Your "Summer Solider" Col. Lightway
    12 Jul 2011, 02:40 AM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    Yeah, the richest 10% shouldn't pay 90% of taxes. They should pay 150%(including inflation)!

     

    LOL.

     

    Meanwhile the millions of cholos get as much government corn they need for their baby machine lifestyles, including free healthcare(medicaid) and LBJ welfare and enough foodstamp tuition not for college but more tats.

     

    Genius!
    12 Jul 2011, 10:04 PM Reply Like
  • Sheik Rattle Enroll
    , contributor
    Comments (583) | Send Message
     
    Here's an idea, let's complain about people being baby machines while at the same time outlawing sex education, supporting the child tax credit, and trying to cut funding for planned parenthood.

     

    You basically want to keep people stupid and impoverished and then also complain about it.

     

    Don't worry, if we fix the country you can still find something else to whine about.
    13 Jul 2011, 12:02 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    Can we have a rule that everyone is responsible for their own private parts? Or should we start another agency to track private parts and subsidize private parts of people based on idiotic use of said parts. Maybe we have awards for people who use their parts in ways that the government deems appropriate.

     

    This could be an award show that rivals the Oscars and the award could be shaped in a similair fashion.
    13 Jul 2011, 01:50 PM Reply Like
  • Sheik Rattle Enroll
    , contributor
    Comments (583) | Send Message
     
    Can we have a rule where we run the country as stupidly as possible based on your idiotic folksy wisdom.

     

    Contraception and sex education bring down birth rates and poverty. You want higher birth rates, and greater poverty then just keep on I guess. It gives you something to complain about at least, right?
    14 Jul 2011, 08:50 AM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    Freedom to be a failure and feel the consequences. I don't have a problem with Sex Ed but not one dime to pay for someone elses kids.
    14 Jul 2011, 09:00 AM Reply Like
  • Sheik Rattle Enroll
    , contributor
    Comments (583) | Send Message
     
    The Republicans want me to pay for everyone else's kids, it's called the child tax credit.

     

    It's like welfare, except for people who already have money.

     

    That makes a lot of sense, right?
    14 Jul 2011, 10:56 AM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    The real problem is actually quite the opposite. After 60 million abortions since Wade we no longer have the young demographics such as the emerging economies do(Vietnam, Singapore, Indonesia) to pay into FDR's failed social safety nets. Used to be 10 workers paid for one geriatric's SS check. Now we are nearing 2 and soon we will be at 1. Your entire working life just to prop up a State dependent.

     

    This is what is called middle class poverty. We are not Haiti or Africa with 90% AIDS rates and babies up to their ears. Just the opposite, save a few ghettos. The real problem now is the intelligent urban whites who would rather raise a pair of pure bred Whippets than a family with loud, noisy, messy kids who spill their pudding cups on the berber carpet. And still want to retain a cozy, unrealistic socialism all the while.

     

    The problem isn't higher taxes. At this point they are punitive disincentives. The problem is there just aren't enough taxpayers contributing into the programs on the lower economic ladder. FDR never understood the actuarial tables combined with how empires grow more selfish and lazy over time would crater his bullcrap ideology.
    14 Jul 2011, 10:57 AM Reply Like
  • ColdLogic
    , contributor
    Comments (81) | Send Message
     
    Do you agree then that sterilization should be a prerequisite to anyone before they receive govt-assistance, such as welfare?
    14 Jul 2011, 02:59 PM Reply Like
  • Sheik Rattle Enroll
    , contributor
    Comments (583) | Send Message
     
    Any government assistance, no. A short term safety net is important to encourage people to take risks and innovate, etc.

     

    Long term welfare, yeah maybe.

     

    At the same time you'd have to eliminate the child tax credit which is essentially welfare for people who don't need it.
    14 Jul 2011, 04:42 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3332) | Send Message
     
    I would prefer Castration
    14 Jul 2011, 04:43 PM Reply Like
  • The Geoffster
    , contributor
    Comments (4011) | Send Message
     
    We've seen these kind of arguments between the political parties before. The last time things got this heated, the Republicans started a civil war.
    11 Jul 2011, 07:25 PM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (13204) | Send Message
     
    Sorry, Geoff:

     

    It was the Dems. Lincoln was a Republican. But, he did force their hand.
    11 Jul 2011, 07:44 PM Reply Like
  • The Geoffster
    , contributor
    Comments (4011) | Send Message
     
    I was baiting Tack and I trapped you. S.C. slave owning Dems thought their state was sovereign and that they were firing on Union occupiers. Lincoln thought differently and These United States became The United States.
    11 Jul 2011, 08:16 PM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (13204) | Send Message
     
    Uhh, how was I trapped?

     

    The SC militia were Dems (or at least former Dems). They fired the first shot. The North (USA) was run by Republicans. The U.S. forces in Sumter refused to vacate the Fort, then considered part of the Confederacy, but unrecognized by Lincoln.

     

    Did I miss something?
    11 Jul 2011, 08:24 PM Reply Like
  • The Geoffster
    , contributor
    Comments (4011) | Send Message
     
    Yes, Tack, you missed the part about S.C. being a sovereign state. The Union occupiers were asked to leave, but didn't. Lincoln could have respected the wishes of the sovereign state of S.C. to self determination. Of course, he ignored the wishes of the Indians as well, but that is another story. History is written by the victors. Seen any Neandethals lately?
    11 Jul 2011, 08:37 PM Reply Like
  • apberusdisvet
    , contributor
    Comments (2874) | Send Message
     
    I see loads of Neanderthals, with brains to match, whenever I view a session of Congress. Term limits, anyone?
    11 Jul 2011, 08:58 PM Reply Like
  • The Geoffster
    , contributor
    Comments (4011) | Send Message
     
    Perhaps I was wrong.
    11 Jul 2011, 09:23 PM Reply Like
  • coddy0
    , contributor
    Comments (1182) | Send Message
     
    Peter Morici
    The strongest evidence I can cite is that the President's approval ratings have improved through these budget negotiations, even as economic news gets darker and darker.
    ======================...
    Peter needs to reconsider his strongest evidence
    www.realclearpolitics....
    11 Jul 2011, 07:31 PM Reply Like
  • coddy0
    , contributor
    Comments (1182) | Send Message
     
    Peter Morici
    The hard reality is that Cantor is politically tone deaf, and Barack Obama is not. That explains why the former is a Congressman and the latter is a President....
    ======================
    Did he mean to say that GWB should replace Cantor as GOP negotiator
    11 Jul 2011, 07:42 PM Reply Like
  • warrenrial
    , contributor
    Comments (559) | Send Message
     
    The GOP should not accept raising taxes, let Obama and the Democrats fix the mess they created. The first thing to go in Obamacare.
    11 Jul 2011, 07:53 PM Reply Like
  • Topcat
    , contributor
    Comments (423) | Send Message
     
    Ironic, since Obamacare will SAVE taxpayer money in the long run...
    11 Jul 2011, 08:21 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3332) | Send Message
     
    Topcat,

     

    Given your Grammar,

     

    You must be a Tigerscam Alias.

     

    Perhaps we do need some Public Sector "Investment" in education.
    11 Jul 2011, 08:23 PM Reply Like
  • Sheik Rattle Enroll
    , contributor
    Comments (583) | Send Message
     
    I think you mean the mess Bush created.

     

    Regardless, I don't see how eliminating tax breaks for corporate jets, etc. is a real tax increase.

     

    If Democrats are willing to slash social security for the good of the country, you'd think Republicans could pony up something.
    11 Jul 2011, 08:56 PM Reply Like
  • The Geoffster
    , contributor
    Comments (4011) | Send Message
     
    We would have to get rid of the teachers' unions and corrupt school boards if there was any chance to educate the inner city poor.
    11 Jul 2011, 08:59 PM Reply Like
  • tigersam
    , contributor
    Comments (1711) | Send Message
     
    SRE:

     

    Republican will not give up anything. It is a "no" party. If you ask any republican law maker "What is your name?" and he will answer "No". Republican party should change the name to "No Party".
    11 Jul 2011, 09:09 PM Reply Like
  • The Geoffster
    , contributor
    Comments (4011) | Send Message
     
    No, and I'm a libertarian.
    11 Jul 2011, 10:00 PM Reply Like
  • Poor Texan
    , contributor
    Comments (3529) | Send Message
     
    "If Democrats are willing to slash social security for the good of the country,"

     

    How about if the democrats set the example by slashing congressional salaries and retirement benefits and leave the widows alone.
    11 Jul 2011, 10:28 PM Reply Like
  • Freedoms Truth
    , contributor
    Comments (851) | Send Message
     
    Ironic, since Obamacare will SAVE taxpayer money in the long run... "

     

    ROLFMAO. You sure have drunk the koolaid! Obamacare is chock full of massive increases- about $1 trillion over 10 years, AND it carves up medicare, all to pay for another massive entitled, and massive new burdens on states, businesses and individuals ( the individual mandate). This bill is single-handedly responsible for much of the terrible job numbers in the past 15 months, its a wet blanket on hiring.
    11 Jul 2011, 10:49 PM Reply Like
  • Freedoms Truth
    , contributor
    Comments (851) | Send Message
     
    "I think you mean the mess Bush created."

     

    5.5% average unemployment, 3+% growth, ah, the good old days ... until Pelosi became speaker.

     

    "Regardless, I don't see how eliminating tax breaks for corporate jets, etc. is a real tax increase."

     

    liberals cant do math.

     

    "If Democrats are willing to slash social security for the good of the country,"

     

    they arent. They are willing to do smoke and mirrors. Show me the bill the Democrats passed in the US Senate that does this.

     

    "you'd think Republicans could pony up something."

     

    We pony up the repeal of Obamacare and withdrawal from Libya.
    11 Jul 2011, 10:52 PM Reply Like
  • Freedoms Truth
    , contributor
    Comments (851) | Send Message
     
    The Republicans want to cut $7 trillion from the Obama budget.

     

    Now we are talking only cutting $2 trillion.

     

    That's a deal that is 2/3rds closer to the Democrats than the Republicans.

     

    And yet Obama can't even agree to that. He's just a stubborn "Mr NO" when it comes to compromise and fair dealing.
    11 Jul 2011, 10:54 PM Reply Like
  • anonymous-JohnD
    , contributor
    Comments (100) | Send Message
     
    No is their last name, their first name is Hell.
    11 Jul 2011, 11:20 PM Reply Like
  • talbano
    , contributor
    Comments (324) | Send Message
     
    seeing how every person and/or company had seen their rates increase and will continue to do so. The only winners in HC is the insurers.
    As far as Medicaid/Medicare, many doctors are heading towards no longer taking them on as patients.
    Instead of creating a marketplace for HC with competition they created more customers required to buy it.
    We pay more for prescription drugs than any other place.
    12 Jul 2011, 12:30 AM Reply Like
  • talbano
    , contributor
    Comments (324) | Send Message
     
    Wasn't he the president that was going to bring everyone together?
    He cannot even keep a staff, has created a greater divide in government and started class warfare.
    Really pathetic.
    12 Jul 2011, 12:32 AM Reply Like
  • talbano
    , contributor
    Comments (324) | Send Message
     
    so true
    12 Jul 2011, 12:32 AM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    It is a wet blanket on hiring. I should know. It has suppressed hiring and Zero's new law just sent everybody's healthcare costs up by 30% last year. Gee, thanks Blammy. You're awesome!

     

    Besides the fact that it robs $500 billion from medicare Advantage seniors and YOU STILL get the AARP applauding Zero like some kind of deranged Roman emperor and front loads taxes in for 4 years without any net benefit in each of those years. My God, this is destroying the hiring process. I put a freeze on hiring ever since 'the Act' was passed waiting for the other shoe to drop.

     

    But, the Huffpo clowns will just blame Bush even when his term ended in 2006 with Nancy's gang.
    12 Jul 2011, 10:08 PM Reply Like
  • kcr357
    , contributor
    Comments (560) | Send Message
     
    Just donate to obama's campaign fund, then file for an exemption. or unionize. Let me pay for your employees' HC.
    12 Jul 2011, 10:27 PM Reply Like
  • Sheik Rattle Enroll
    , contributor
    Comments (583) | Send Message
     
    Have you ever started a small business or worked as an independent contractor?

     

    If so you'd understand the value of nationalized health care.

     

    If such measures choke hiring and innovation, why is Scandinavia doing so well?
    13 Jul 2011, 11:51 AM Reply Like
  • Sheik Rattle Enroll
    , contributor
    Comments (583) | Send Message
     
    Explain to me again how my paying subsidies for corporate jets is good for me or good for the country.

     

    Please, we're just doing support in Libya and those ships would be at sea anyway. The actual costs are almost non-existent.

     

    On the other hand, distracting people from your impotent failure to capture a terrorist by blowing trillions on wars isn't really helpful, now is it.
    13 Jul 2011, 12:08 PM Reply Like
  • talbano
    , contributor
    Comments (324) | Send Message
     
    we don't subsidize corp jets - they are depreciated like any other asset and Obama signed a bill that increased the rate of depreciation schedule at the beginning of the year. No he attacks it.
    Makes no sense.
    13 Jul 2011, 12:23 PM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    SRE, stop while you're ahead. You're embarrassing yourself, you just don't realize it yet. What are 'subsidies' for corporate jets? Those subsidies(Obama's word bear in mind) are deductions. ALL BUSINESSES are given deductions. Depreciation, equipment leasing, bad debts, cars and truck expenses, bank fees, employee benefits, gifts to customers, insurance and interest, meals and entertainment, legal and professional services, repairs and maintenance, lease and rent expenses, supplies and materials, services performed by independent contractors, and yes, even advertising.

     

    This is because the government wants to encourage businesses to hire and help promote the general economy by providing incentives. And now the government wants to attack one industry over another of its commonality with all businesses among the business community. They want to attack oil also which is just insane since it will keep us addicted to foreign sources(people who hate us) and more addled(ie dependent) and weaken us. The only reason Obama is doing this is because he thinks there's a general sentiment against these industries within his base that hates the rich which really aren't the rich at all, they are jobs, middle class jobs, and lots of them that will be severely affected.

     

    This is something Hugo Chavez would do, attacking one industry and taking over another like Obama did to GM and pumping up solar with tax subsidies.

     

    How come no one is pissed off about his subsidies to the solar industry, hmmm? Because its green?

     

    It can't turn a profit on its own and it has actual subsidies, not just business deductions like the ones I mentioned above, no, real green corpy welfare.

     

    Admit defeat. You are in way over your head, kid.
    13 Jul 2011, 12:24 PM Reply Like
  • Sheik Rattle Enroll
    , contributor
    Comments (583) | Send Message
     
    Or something George Bush Sr. would do with Enron?

     

    I'm not sure you understand the corporate jet issue. The accelerated depreciation schedule was tacked into the stimulus bill by Republicans.

     

    It's not a regular business deduction. Obama isn't talking about removing the deduction. He just wants to restore it to pre-stimulus levels.

     

    A stimulus is something which I believe you are against.

     

    Something about picking winners?

     

    Bad to do with public transit, good to do for corporate jets?

     

    Brilliant plan for economic recovery.
    13 Jul 2011, 12:30 PM Reply Like
  • Sheik Rattle Enroll
    , contributor
    Comments (583) | Send Message
     
    He signed it because he gets the bill as a package.

     

    It's a stimulus, free market intrusion, etc. why don't the Republicans just let it go?
    13 Jul 2011, 12:38 PM Reply Like
  • talbano
    , contributor
    Comments (324) | Send Message
     
    Why pick on one tiny little thing that will barely move the needle.
    There are much bigger things to address.

     

    Obama had not been able to keep a staff, He has gone after so many different business sectors it is unreal.

     

    Then he and Admin going after Boeing for creating jobs in a right to work state?

     

    I have never been so disgusted by a president than this one and I was no fan of Bush.
    13 Jul 2011, 12:50 PM Reply Like
  • talbano
    , contributor
    Comments (324) | Send Message
     
    Glad your ok with Obama using taxpayer money to fly to Fund raising events for his campaign.
    Like when he hosted the 38k/plate dinner last week on wall street.
    Wake up.
    Maybe we should ask employers to reimburse people mileage when they go to a new job interview
    13 Jul 2011, 12:52 PM Reply Like
  • Derek A. Barrett
    , contributor
    Comments (3534) | Send Message
     
    Here is a typical rider from the stimulus of 2008:

     

    www.irs.gov/newsroom/a...

     

    Ritholtz (who was mentioned in the original article) notes that this typically results in higher capex spending, not jobs.

     

    www.ritholtz.com/blog/.../

     

    Here's his analysis the first time of what happened the first time this was tried, from 2004, where companies spent most of the money on ERP systems:

     

    www.ritholtz.com/blog/.../

     

    The trickle down effect of creating jobs through private jets was a good example, but not always the case. Here we have the case of the a-holes at Citi (who were bailed out with our tax money), who tried to buy French jets, built in France, before people like us got pissed off at them, and Obama told them to stuff it.

     

    I would have personally attached a rider that forced those douche bags to fly in coach, preferably in the back, and preferably close to a screaming baby:

     

    abcnews.go.com/Busines...

     

    It's also interesting that Capgemeni was in the original article, they are huge outsourcers, and typically promote it, and their presentations are typically framed in the context of how awesome outsourcing is. They pitch to executives, that is their audience.
    13 Jul 2011, 01:10 PM Reply Like
  • Sheik Rattle Enroll
    , contributor
    Comments (583) | Send Message
     
    If there are bigger things to address, it's not a big deal, and it would be in alignment with their principles why did the Republicans walk out of talks over it?

     

    Could it be they really don't care about their principles or the economy and just want to throw their weight around?
    14 Jul 2011, 08:01 AM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    You mean like the president just did yesterday, right? The petulant child?
    14 Jul 2011, 11:05 AM Reply Like
  • Sheik Rattle Enroll
    , contributor
    Comments (583) | Send Message
     
    He walked out of talks yesterday because of corporate jets?

     

    Oh wait, no he didn't. Good try though, I guess, sort of?

     

    Seriously, you're not in the position to call anyone a child and you still haven't answered my question.
    14 Jul 2011, 11:40 AM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    I guess Learjet corp should just pack up and leave Kansas then and go overseas and we can kiss all those jobs goodbye because Obama wants to make a point about 'fat cats'.

     

    Meanwhile, he'll kill 20,000 middle class jobs to prove his point.

     

    Tell me when you're ready. We can do this with the coal industry too. Petroleum is next.

     

    Here's your hero, in his own words.

     

    www.youtube.com/watch?...
    14 Jul 2011, 01:44 PM Reply Like
  • Sheik Rattle Enroll
    , contributor
    Comments (583) | Send Message
     
    So the government should pick winners, so long as it's the corporate jet industry?

     

    I thought you wanted a free market?

     

    How is an accelerated depreciation schedule for corporate jets not a case of the government picking winners?

     

    You might also have missed the other poster pointing out about how a lot of the jets were not being purchased from the US anyway.
    14 Jul 2011, 02:06 PM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    "So the government should pick winners, so long as it's the corporate jet industry?"

     

    Don't you mean so long as its the solar industry or the ethanol industry or the(fill in the blank) industry? Right? RIGHT?

     

    Solar is subsidized by as much as 40%!!!

     

    And you're bitching about depreciation?

     

    What world do you live in?
    14 Jul 2011, 04:31 PM Reply Like
  • Sheik Rattle Enroll
    , contributor
    Comments (583) | Send Message
     
    I'm OK with the government subsidizing solar to some degree although I vastly prefer nuclear. It's either that or subsidize oil through wars.

     

    The point is though - it's not at odds with my ideology, but it is at odds with yours.

     

    You drool froth everywhere screaming about how important a free market is, unless we start talking about corporate jets, and then all of a sudden the free market isn't important anymore.

     

    You want the government to pick winners and losers, but you also want to pretend a phony purity of ideology and demonize others for doing exactly what you do.

     

    Self deception is kind of a hallmark of your brand of conservatism I suppose.

     

    You're a socialist at heart so you scream about socialism the same way closeted republicans scream about family values.

     

    Hypocrites are disgusting.
    14 Jul 2011, 04:37 PM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    Then consider yourself a hypocrite.

     

    If one industry can't have a depreciation deduction, then take them all away from EVERY industry.

     

    In fact, let's take away all deductions, apply it fairly, and offset it with a lower corpy tax rate, say 15%? I would probably settle for 20%.

     

    But nah, can't have that. You still believe the government should be picking winners and losers in industries. And you probably don't have a problem with purple lips in that youtube vid of him saying he thinks shutting down the coal industry is fine, or better, in his words 'bankrupting them' with fees.

     

    Meanwhile, letting people freeze to death in their homes because they can't afford heat sounds just great, eh? NTM lost jobs in mining. Or jobs lost overseas in airplane manufacturing or refining or E&P, etc. etc.

     

    Your kind is foul, you who is perfectly fine with Hugo Chavez command & control, Soviet-style central planning.

     

    Winners and losers. heh. Sounds just like your dream, kid. Turn the entire economy into a damn football game, winners and losers. And you on the sideline with the other Huffpo cheerleaders, screaming for more big government intervention.
    14 Jul 2011, 04:49 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3332) | Send Message
     
    You Tell 'em Wyatt.
    14 Jul 2011, 04:57 PM Reply Like
  • Sheik Rattle Enroll
    , contributor
    Comments (583) | Send Message
     
    How can I be a hypocrite? I'm OK with the government subsidizing some industries so long as it does so intelligently.

     

    You on the other hand say you're against anything that's not free market, then later on you say we need tax breaks for corporate jets.

     

    I don't think you understand the definition of the word hypocrite.

     

    You're literally defending socialism and attacking it at the same time.

     

    You hate government intrusion but you also want it.

     

    You say it's bad to pick winners and losers but you also want to do it.

     

    Like a closeted republican politician or religious leader who rails against gay marriage, you are what you hate.
    14 Jul 2011, 05:06 PM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    "How can I be a hypocrite? I'm OK with the government subsidizing some industries so long as it does so intelligently." - SRE

     

    Some industries? And... not others? That's hypocrisy nutjob. You believe in Big Bro statism. This becomes arbitrary, subjective to whoever is in power and thus corrupt as it becomes a vote buying mechanism, pay-to-play, quid pro quo.

     

    OTOH, all businesses have depreciation as a line item deduction among many other legal deductions. If you take them away from one industry and let other industries keep theirs, this is favoritism, the government picking winners and losers. The government should get out of their central command, arbitrary attempts at industrial blackmail. You think its okay to act whimsically, on a dime, against one industry this year and another one next year.

     

    I want consistency, a lower tax rate, no deductions.

     

    Do you want to continue flinging poo now with further desperation and changing the meaning of words? Or do you want to actually accept, like an adult, what the meaning of the word hypocrisy is, hypocrite?

     

    Tell me when you're ready to grow the hell up. We'll continue then.

     

    Until then, you are a waste of my time. Everyone here who can read knows it.
    14 Jul 2011, 05:28 PM Reply Like
  • Sheik Rattle Enroll
    , contributor
    Comments (583) | Send Message
     
    "a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess."

     

    I say I am for limited government free market intervention, then support it.

     

    You say you are against it, then support it.

     

    That's hypocrisy. You don't have to take my word for it, a dictionary is only a click away.

     

    You continue to misconstrue the jet issue. It's not regular deprecation. It gets accelerated depreciation and favored tax status. That's right, you're advocating picking winners and losers through taxing some industries more and others less.

     

    I have no idea why you continue to real against the evils of government intervention in the free market while at the same time supporting it. At this point you might as well cut your losses and admit to being the socialist that you are.
    14 Jul 2011, 05:39 PM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    Infinity plus one.

     

    Done now kid?
    14 Jul 2011, 05:42 PM Reply Like
  • Sheik Rattle Enroll
    , contributor
    Comments (583) | Send Message
     
    Not very good at admitting you're wrong, are you?
    14 Jul 2011, 06:15 PM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    Infinity plus one to the power of 2.

     

    Really, desperate child, is the last word that important to you?

     

    Go ahead, I'll give you a handicap for free: infinity plus one to the power of 2 plus one. Its yours, for the taking.

     

    Now, go away.
    14 Jul 2011, 06:30 PM Reply Like
  • Sheik Rattle Enroll
    , contributor
    Comments (583) | Send Message
     
    You're shouting "infinity plus one" while simultaneously accusing me of being a child and needing the last word. I still think maybe you haven't fully grasped the concept of hypocrisy.

     

    Sorry, I'm not going away just because you're crying uncle. But I will depart this particular sub-chain since you're just trying to distract attention away from factual evidence and your glaring mistakes.

     

    So you can win the "I'll call you a child while acting like a child" battle if you like, you do deserve some kind of "special participant" ribbon at least I guess.
    14 Jul 2011, 06:51 PM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    Hypocrisy? Time to move to a new word, child.

     

    Its official. You're now hysterical.

     

    Let's throw that one around for awhile.
    14 Jul 2011, 06:56 PM Reply Like
  • puravidavid@yahoo.com
    , contributor
    Comments (142) | Send Message
     
    The transfer of wealth from the middle class to HNWI has been accomplished through changes in payroll, income and corporate tax law. This transfer has impeded the ability of the middle class to consume, bringing down the 70% of the economy this represents. The drop in demand has kept slack capacity higher than historic norms, along with unemployment. If jobs really matter, restoring the balance of wealth creation and reward must occur. Failing this, the gate guarded HNWI will need more than private armies to protect their ill got gains.
    11 Jul 2011, 07:54 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3332) | Send Message
     
    puravida

     

    Actually, I believe much of which you claim to have taken place has been via Crony Capitalism.

     

    We do need a strong, vibrant middle class, but wealth redistribution is not the proper way to achieve such, IMHO.
    11 Jul 2011, 08:00 PM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    Agreed, but it was never 'capitalism' which is why I prefer to use the name I invented for it, Crony Stalinism.
    11 Jul 2011, 08:49 PM Reply Like
  • Sheik Rattle Enroll
    , contributor
    Comments (583) | Send Message
     
    A good solution would perhaps be to lower the income tax but tax capital gains as income.

     

    No more $1 salary, $10 million stock option CEO pay packages.
    11 Jul 2011, 08:57 PM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    Naw. That would make the Steve Jobs of our world suddenly feeling very uncreative.

     

    I vote to make them feel very appreciated instead.

     

    The best thing to happen to Apple was paying Jobs a buck. It makes the CEOs get off their duff and DO SOMETHING.
    11 Jul 2011, 08:59 PM Reply Like
  • AnchorMan
    , contributor
    Comments (115) | Send Message
     
    puravida, correct me if Im wrong but I do not think you are suggesting "wealth distribution" as 1980 suggests?

     

    This is the problem, anyone stands up for the middle class and suggests "restoring the balance of wealth creation and reward" as puravida puts it, it is immediately labeled "wealth redistribution".

     

    Yet no one has a problem (at least no one on the right, including poor and middle class folks on the right) with cutting taxes for the wealthy, which is just another way to redistribute wealth!!
    11 Jul 2011, 09:11 PM Reply Like
  • The Geoffster
    , contributor
    Comments (4011) | Send Message
     
    In 1960, CEOs were paid @ 20 times the salary of the average employee. Their wealth was acquired through stock appreciation. Thanks to corrupt, crony capitalism, an oligarchy of corporate statists and hedge fund vultures has been allowed to devour the taxpayer. The politicians did this while lining their pockets with the filthy lucre of the Wall Street lobbyists, whilst enslaving the former middle class to the dole.
    11 Jul 2011, 09:14 PM Reply Like
  • Freedoms Truth
    , contributor
    Comments (851) | Send Message
     
    If you are implying the middle class in overtaxed, how on earth will more taxes fix that?
    11 Jul 2011, 10:56 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    pura

     

    Consumer demand has been the most dependent demand force in our economy for the past 30 years and it still is 2/3rds of the economy. In a recession it obviously will go down or you likely will not have a recession.
    11 Jul 2011, 11:35 PM Reply Like
  • Sheik Rattle Enroll
    , contributor
    Comments (583) | Send Message
     
    Then he can still be paid all in stock and just actually have to pay income tax on it.

     

    It doesn't make sense to have a tax rate that rapidly increases then suddenly switches to incredibly low.

     

    A more moderate but comprehensive progressive increase would be logical.
    13 Jul 2011, 11:54 AM Reply Like
  • Sheik Rattle Enroll
    , contributor
    Comments (583) | Send Message
     
    The middle class aren't being paid entirely in stock.

     

    Treating capital gains as income removes a loophole used mostly by the incredibly rich. I don't know anyone who makes under half a million a year who is paid mostly in stock.

     

    It's the same thing as removing the tax loopholes that allow some businesses to only pay 1% tax. If you remove them, then you can reduce taxes on the businesses that can't afford fancy attorneys.
    13 Jul 2011, 11:58 AM Reply Like
  • Sheik Rattle Enroll
    , contributor
    Comments (583) | Send Message
     
    Are we talking about the Republican "Crony Stalinism" that gave us Enron?
    13 Jul 2011, 12:00 PM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    World Com and LTCM came out of Clinton's bowels. Look it up. Enron was an extension of that corruption. You're a decade late to the party, kid.
    13 Jul 2011, 12:01 PM Reply Like
  • Sheik Rattle Enroll
    , contributor
    Comments (583) | Send Message
     
    Hmm you've obviously been confusing skinhead weekly with reality.

     

    Here, let snopes set you straight:
    www.snopes.com/politic...
    13 Jul 2011, 12:43 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    Unions were too stupid to ask for stock because it would go against their anti capital beliefs. DUMB and DUMBER.

     

    One man's trash is another man's treasure.
    13 Jul 2011, 01:54 PM Reply Like
  • neutrinoman
    , contributor
    Comments (700) | Send Message
     
    Do something simple, consistent, without demagoguery, and above all, PERMANENT. No more temporary tax code gimmicks.

     

    "High net worth individuals" is more demagoguery. A lot of small businesses have ended up on the personal tax code, for bad reasons. The collapse of tax revenue, apart from the recession, has little to do with "high net worth individuals" and everything to do with so many people being taken off the tax rolls by the EIC. Ritholtz proposes to make the tax code even more distorted and heavily dependent on a narrow base of high-income earners whose income and worth fluctuate a lot. It guarantees boom and bust in tax revenue. This destructive tendency began in the 90s and was expanded by Bush. We need something radical to fix it, like the 1986 tax reform: eliminate special breaks, broaden the base, and keep the rates reasonable. End extra-territorial taxation; no other civilized country does this.
    11 Jul 2011, 07:56 PM Reply Like
  • tigersam
    , contributor
    Comments (1711) | Send Message
     
    Republicans are just playing politics. They are just saying no to everything Obama ask. Simple "no" to everything.
    11 Jul 2011, 08:07 PM Reply Like
  • tigersam
    , contributor
    Comments (1711) | Send Message
     
    I said this before it was a wrong idea to invited them to White house. Obama has constitutional power to raise the debt limit.
    11 Jul 2011, 08:08 PM Reply Like
  • Freedoms Truth
    , contributor
    Comments (851) | Send Message
     
    Correction: Obama has constitutional OBLIGATION to pay the bondholders. He cannot legally default / repudiate debt. That's what the 14th amendment REALLY says.
    11 Jul 2011, 10:57 PM Reply Like
  • warrenrial
    , contributor
    Comments (559) | Send Message
     
    Obama's only mission is to destroy the American economy and he is doing a good job at that.
    11 Jul 2011, 08:32 PM Reply Like
  • tigersam
    , contributor
    Comments (1711) | Send Message
     
    That job was gone. Jr Bush took care of that. Economy was destroyed by him beyond repair.
    11 Jul 2011, 08:53 PM Reply Like
  • buybuybear
    , contributor
    Comments (389) | Send Message
     
    Commenter's here can't even agree in this forum...

     

    'We're doomed!' -C3PO
    11 Jul 2011, 08:42 PM Reply Like
  • 7footMoose
    , contributor
    Comments (2266) | Send Message
     
    Ladies and Gentlemen this is a conflict which will produce no victors only the vanquished to varying degrees. The real losers are the American People they will pay the price no matter the political outcome.
    11 Jul 2011, 08:44 PM Reply Like
  • warrenrial
    , contributor
    Comments (559) | Send Message
     
    Vote Obama out in 2012.
    11 Jul 2011, 08:46 PM Reply Like
  • tigersam
    , contributor
    Comments (1711) | Send Message
     
    And turn clock to 50 years back.
    11 Jul 2011, 08:54 PM Reply Like
  • Sheik Rattle Enroll
    , contributor
    Comments (583) | Send Message
     
    Because he's willing to compromise?

     

    He's the only adult in Washington as far as I can tell.
    11 Jul 2011, 08:57 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3332) | Send Message
     
    Tigerscan,

     

    At least 50 yrs ago, most knew how to read & write.
    11 Jul 2011, 09:00 PM Reply Like
  • mike8599
    , contributor
    Comments (587) | Send Message
     
    obama in '12.... why ?

     

    because the last 3 years have been so pleasant ?
    11 Jul 2011, 10:09 PM Reply Like
  • Freedoms Truth
    , contributor
    Comments (851) | Send Message
     
    Obama refused to agree to mini-deal.

     

    Obama refused to agree to spending-only deal.

     

    Obama repeatedly insists and demands provision that he has been told point blank WILL NOT PASS the Congress. He is like a child demanding an ice cream in a candy shop. NO CAN DO.

     

    Obama chided Congress about getting things done before jetting off to vacation and another round of golf.

     

    Obama has repeatedly insulted, blasted and berated the very folks he is negotiating with. He is thin-skinned and unwilling to listen.

     

    He's the biggest narcissistic man-child in DC as far as most people can tell. And his poor leadership and lack of good faith is the #1 reason this is heading for the rocks.
    11 Jul 2011, 11:01 PM Reply Like
  • warrenrial
    , contributor
    Comments (559) | Send Message
     
    You mean man boy.
    12 Jul 2011, 12:21 AM Reply Like
  • Sheik Rattle Enroll
    , contributor
    Comments (583) | Send Message
     
    So the congress is all that matters, not the senate or the presidency?

     

    Your argument seems to be essentially that the republicans don't want to budge so the democrats should give them 100% of what they want because they control congress.

     

    The spoiled children are the one demanding that they get exactly what they want, no compromises at all.

     

    Obama has been pretty even handed with blame, I'm hearing much much worse from the Republican side.

     

    If the Democrats are willing to give up some of what they hold dear than the Republicans should too.

     

    It's the essence of compromise.
    13 Jul 2011, 12:54 PM Reply Like
  • talbano
    , contributor
    Comments (324) | Send Message
     
    The Speaker's Comment about it being Obama's problem was off based and out of line yesterday but Obama has not taken any blame what so ever.

     

    Obama has circumvented congress in so many ways and trashed the checks and balances in the process.

     

    Implementing Czars, creating an agency and appointing Liz Warren with out congressional approval it unconstitutional.
    He acts more like a king than a president.
    13 Jul 2011, 01:06 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    SRE

     

    I thought the Senate was part of Congress. I guess I missed the memo that we have restructured our government. Thanks for the heads up.
    13 Jul 2011, 01:56 PM Reply Like
  • Sheik Rattle Enroll
    , contributor
    Comments (583) | Send Message
     
    If he was acting like a king things wouldn't be deadlocked.

     

    "Implementing Czars"? We've had the concept of someone in the executive branch tasked with overseeing a policy for 80 years.

     

    If you mean there's a lot more now than there used to be, then sure but the explosion happened under Bush.
    13 Jul 2011, 02:40 PM Reply Like
  • Sheik Rattle Enroll
    , contributor
    Comments (583) | Send Message
     
    1980XLS, your post is irony in the purest form.
    14 Jul 2011, 05:09 PM Reply Like
  • valueinvestor123
    , contributor
    Comments (327) | Send Message
     
    I love how people think there is a difference between Republicans and Democrats. Both parties are equally to blame for this mess. They are the same people who generally take money from the same lobbyists. You want change, vote for Ron Paul. Otherwise, you are just voting for the status quo.
    11 Jul 2011, 08:50 PM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    Moses died just outside of the Promised Land. The Lord allowed him to see it, however, on a hilltop. Then he died.

     

    It will be the same here.

     

    I prefer Rand Paul.
    11 Jul 2011, 08:52 PM Reply Like
  • tigersam
    , contributor
    Comments (1711) | Send Message
     
    I thought he went to Fort Nox to count the gold bars. I heard right wingers in Swiss invited him to count their gold after that. This nut job will be busy for a while.
    11 Jul 2011, 09:12 PM Reply Like
  • Terry330
    , contributor
    Comments (867) | Send Message
     
    Many Americans don't have a bible in there home, for good reason,myth and superstition.
    11 Jul 2011, 09:55 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    Terry

     

    Yeah they have the National Enquirer and Star Magazine instead. So now they have no morals, they are fat and they don't know anything except that Charley Sheen has a love baby with a Martian.

     

    We have come a long ways.
    11 Jul 2011, 11:38 PM Reply Like
  • tigersam
    , contributor
    Comments (1711) | Send Message
     
    TP:

     

    Morality comes from parents and not from Bible.
    12 Jul 2011, 10:01 AM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    tiger

     

    You mean the divorced parents that are struggling to make it or the parents that are missing? What if the parents all disagree what is moral?
    12 Jul 2011, 04:51 PM Reply Like
  • tigersam
    , contributor
    Comments (1711) | Send Message
     
    Also morality comes from heart and not from Bible.
    12 Jul 2011, 06:33 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    Hilarious. My heart is dark today. I think I will run someone over.

     

    Shouldn't be a problem as that is what my heart is telling me.
    12 Jul 2011, 06:43 PM Reply Like
  • tigersam
    , contributor
    Comments (1711) | Send Message
     
    TP:

     

    I thought republicans are heartless.
    12 Jul 2011, 07:42 PM Reply Like
  • Sheik Rattle Enroll
    , contributor
    Comments (583) | Send Message
     
    The Lord? Oh man you're even scarier than I thought.
    12 Jul 2011, 10:21 PM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    Guns n God son.

     

    Guns n God.

     

    Maybe we'll throw a little gold in there too.

     

    I'm all in, with the 3 G.
    12 Jul 2011, 11:42 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    Tigger

     

    Would not say I am a Rep. I am just fathoming the depth of your logic.

     

    I need to go clean off my bumper.
    13 Jul 2011, 12:08 AM Reply Like
  • Sheik Rattle Enroll
    , contributor
    Comments (583) | Send Message
     
    Well if it works for Pakistan I guess we can't go wrong with the 3 Gs.
    13 Jul 2011, 11:52 AM Reply Like
  • Sheik Rattle Enroll
    , contributor
    Comments (583) | Send Message
     
    Actually crime and obesity are highly correlated with religion.

     

    And yes, we have come a long way since witch trials, forced conversions, and blaming ptomaine poisoning on ghosts.

     

    If you want to divest yourself of all science has brought, feel free. I for one would love to see your brand of ignorance vanish from the internet.
    14 Jul 2011, 08:20 AM Reply Like
  • Sheik Rattle Enroll
    , contributor
    Comments (583) | Send Message
     
    Why Ron Paul and not Gary Johnson.

     

    He's basically Ron Paul without the racist newsletter and KKK funding baggage, and also without the paranoid delusions.

     

    There's definitely a difference between Republicans and Democrats. Republicans spend a shit ton and borrow money to pay for it. Democrats spend a shit ton and raise taxes to pay for it.

     

    Obviously actually paying for stuff is better which is why I favor Democrats.

     

    But I'd vote for Gary Johnson over Obama, easy.

     

    Ron Paul, not so much.
    14 Jul 2011, 08:28 AM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    SRE

     

    You must have flunked statistics or you believe I did. Don't bother with simple correlations, that you don't even reference, as if they show a relationship.

     

    Your view of exclusivity between religion and science is quaint.
    14 Jul 2011, 09:06 AM Reply Like
  • Sheik Rattle Enroll
    , contributor
    Comments (583) | Send Message
     
    I didn't say they proved a causation, only that there was a correlation.

     

    You're the only one doing what you're talking about: making up non-existent correlations, then implying a causal relationship.

     

    Here's my data, where's yours?
    obesity: www.suntimes.com/44907...

     

    crime: www.atheismresource.co...
    14 Jul 2011, 10:59 AM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    "Actually crime and obesity are highly correlated with religion."

     

    Actually obesity and ignorance as well as low levels of intelligence are more correlated to those who vote democrat. They are lazy by and large, uneducated and mostly helpless blobs of weight on the republic. Katrina showed us all the democrat base of helpless scapegoaters screaming for their FEMA check whereas in Texas they were proactive DIYers. And none of them had the sense to buy insurance in a flood zone? And we were supposed to feel sorry for them, why? Just vote democrat then, keep burying your head in the gooey wet piles of camp town excrement waiting to get helicoptered away. They wouldn't even get out of their Lazy Boy chair so they attached wires around the recliner as well.

     

    Let's talk about voodoo and superstition, with the black community voting 95% democrat, what does that tell you? With the blue urban liberal puppy mills and their outer ghetto rings of banished degentrified sub-classes scattered on the outskirts we have modern day plantations where the politicians play patronage, extracting votes by making them dependents, literally wards of the state. This is slavery in its most cynical form, even as the media purposefully fails to connect the dots. Everyone else with an ounce of intelligence knows the real story of what's been going on since LBJ codified this sickening symbiotic behavior of codependence.

     

    Vote democrat. Its easier than work.

     

    Yes we can.
    14 Jul 2011, 11:19 AM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    You must have gotten Ron Paul confused with democrat and Grand Wizard, Robert Byrd, friend.

     

    The latter is historical record BTW, not your pretend charges on Mister Paul.
    14 Jul 2011, 11:22 AM Reply Like
  • Sheik Rattle Enroll
    , contributor
    Comments (583) | Send Message
     
    Well Wyatt, I provided my data, where's yours?

     

    Oh wait yours doesn't exist, all you have are psuedo-folksy charmless non-sequitors.

     

    Obesity and crime are correlated with religion and there's actual data to prove it.

     

    You can spit all the hate gibberish you want, you're wrong and the facts show it.
    14 Jul 2011, 11:45 AM Reply Like
  • Sheik Rattle Enroll
    , contributor
    Comments (583) | Send Message
     
    Pretend charges? He signed his name to racist articles and then published him in his newsletter.

     

    David Duke was a campaign contributor.

     

    If my charges are pretend, why are the newsletters out there for people to see, plain as day?

     

    And if he never got contributions from David Duke, why did he say he wouldn't return them?

     

    Is he making up pretend charges against himself?

     

    MAYBE RON PAUL IS IN ON THE SHEIK CONSPIRACY TOO!
    14 Jul 2011, 11:47 AM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    Oh noes, a racist wrote him a check. I guess that makes him a racist.

     

    Meanwhile...

     

    Your Kleagle poster boy.

     

    www.google.com/#hl=en&...

     

    Read up. There's lots more where that came from.
    14 Jul 2011, 01:29 PM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    Yeah, because the oh-so-important church = obese non-sequitur U-turn added tremendous value to the discussion. Can I get a pie graph too? With whip cream on top?

     

    So, the church throws potlucks. They graze a lot. Who gives a FF? What's your point? That they should be doing drugs instead? Yeah, let's get some graphs on this one, STAT! Why is this even in the comments section?

     

    Meanwhile, tardnation is all about the left.

     

    www.facebook.com/pages...
    14 Jul 2011, 01:40 PM Reply Like
  • Sheik Rattle Enroll
    , contributor
    Comments (583) | Send Message
     
    Wyatt, don't bother jumping in if you can't be bothered to read.

     

    The person I was replying to said there was a causal relationship between nontheism and obesity.

     

    I showed there's instead a correlation between theism and obesity.

     

    Your frothing version of folksy wisdom is obviously much better than facts.

     

    Perhaps Glenn Beck will stain you a map to the promised land in his underwear next.
    14 Jul 2011, 06:33 PM Reply Like
  • Sheik Rattle Enroll
    , contributor
    Comments (583) | Send Message
     
    I'm not advocating that Robert Byrd be elected president, but you are advocating Ron Paul be elected president.

     

    Do you even understand what a straw man argument is?

     

    You called me a liar for saying the KKK gave him campaign contributions but now you admit it. Maybe you should be more careful?

     

    But sure, outside of the fact that you said it wasn't true and now say it is true, it's only mildly shady.

     

    Now how about publishing a racist newsletter with his name signed to racist articles? That one seems to have just *poof* slipped your mind.
    14 Jul 2011, 06:45 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    SRE

     

    If there is no causation why bother? It is just noise. There is a correlation between black men in prison and black crime. Does that mean that all black men are criminals? The correlation means nothing.

     

    And perhaps people are religious because they are fat.

     

    You are trying to make a point with statistics which when called on you shuffle your feet and and say quite accurately that it does not show causality. Then why mislead everyone with this sleight of hand?

     

    I don't understand what you are referring to with this comment: "You're the only one doing what you're talking about: making up non-existent correlations, then implying a causal relationship."
    14 Jul 2011, 07:52 PM Reply Like
  • Sheik Rattle Enroll
    , contributor
    Comments (583) | Send Message
     
    I'm not shuffling at all. My data is there only to prove that your alleged link between atheism and obesity is non-existent.

     

    I'm not implying anything other than the simple fact that you're wrong.
    14 Jul 2011, 08:02 PM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    I know SRE's point was a dumb non-sequitur from the beginning, but the reason why I think the church(if true) is fatter than the non-churched is because food is a crutch. And probably the last crutch they have since the Bible is less concerned with overeating than fornication which gets more negative press.

     

    Eating at a group social two heaping bowls of ice cream is a lesser vice that won't get you into as much trouble as knocking up the organ player.

     

    Also, less drug use by churchgoers. For pot smokers that means more weight. For meth users that means Iggy Pop.
    14 Jul 2011, 08:04 PM Reply Like
  • The Geoffster
    , contributor
    Comments (4011) | Send Message
     
    When I was a little boy growing up in a nice, safe middle class neighborhood, my mother told me if you took away all the money from the rich people, they would get it all back. As a HNWI who never aspired to be an UHNWI, I have no intention of giving up what I have earned through hard work and thrift, but if the redistributionists take it away, I'll get it back.
    11 Jul 2011, 08:53 PM Reply Like
  • Jolly_Rancher
    , contributor
    Comments (550) | Send Message
     
    Republicans are terrified that Obama has taken important issues from them. 1) Nuclear energy. 2) Cutting government -- yes, 500,000 fewer gov workers today since Obama took office. 3) Drilling. 4) Corporations - yes, drug and insurance companies got everything they wanted from Obama-care; many corporation still pay no taxes. 5) tax cuts. Over and over, to the consternation of his direst supporters, Obama has shown a willingness to compromise. Republicans have few issues left to cling to: the mega-rich, abortion, gay marriage. I'm certain the latter are being saved and nurtured for maximum effect in the presidential campaign.
    11 Jul 2011, 09:25 PM Reply Like
  • Terry330
    , contributor
    Comments (867) | Send Message
     
    Its very clear, Conservatives intend to turn the US into another Mexico, low taxes and 80% of people working for minimum wage, the wealthy will sell there products to Brazil, China who have increasing wages.
    11 Jul 2011, 09:51 PM Reply Like
  • mike8599
    , contributor
    Comments (587) | Send Message
     
    That's clear ? I'll take what you're having....

     

    The government picks winners - that is the Mexican way - don't think it matter if its dem or repub. Both are screwed - I think that's pretty clear.

     

    They either tax or regulate everyone but their "friends", and the courts seeem to suck as well. It's pretty much human nature....
    11 Jul 2011, 10:03 PM Reply Like
  • The Geoffster
    , contributor
    Comments (4011) | Send Message
     
    Terry: I follow your stuff, so I know you're a gadfly. Care to add something thoughtful?
    11 Jul 2011, 10:05 PM Reply Like
  • Teutonic Knight
    , contributor
    Comments (2055) | Send Message
     
    Okay, the number of HNWI has grown over the past two years. Does LOGIC (in italics and bold) dictate that those individuals would or should be taxed more?

     

    No! The HNWI's could invest more and generate more wealth and in turn create more jobs. The HNWI's could donate more to charities which they have more say or indirect control. The HNWI's could embark on a journey of service and sacrifice using their wealth, knowledge, and energy to do good for all.

     

    The Socialist's answer would be Yes, let's spread it around through the government.

     

    But government has proven itself to be an abysmal failure.

     

    What is your choice?
    11 Jul 2011, 10:05 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    More importantly how does one tax HNWI's? Seems they will just go on vacation while the rates are high or just move their capital offshore.

     

    I am waiting for someone to state they are going to confiscate net worth. Then we have crossed the Rubicon.
    11 Jul 2011, 11:41 PM Reply Like
  • Teutonic Knight
    , contributor
    Comments (2055) | Send Message
     
    TomasViewPoint

     

    Thanks for expressing your views.

     

    I am just attempting to suggest that there would be alternate and better ways and means to better humanity vice government and government alone, and in my humble opinion, especially this failed government.

     

    One needs to have vision, no matter the humble beginning. A notable example would be in my view the work of Saint De La Salle (1651-1719) the Teacher Patron Saint as a result of whose work there are now 1,000 La Sallie schools in 80 countries around the world educating 800,000 students.

     

    I repeat, this government is a failure and we need to seek alternative.
    12 Jul 2011, 12:08 AM Reply Like
  • Sheik Rattle Enroll
    , contributor
    Comments (583) | Send Message
     
    It's weird in this thread I see Republicans arguing simultaneously that it's impossible to tax HNWIs, and that HNWIs pay the majority of taxes.

     

    HMMMMMMM
    14 Jul 2011, 08:06 AM Reply Like
  • warrenrial
    , contributor
    Comments (559) | Send Message
     
    The socialists are monitoring these comments at Alpha.
    11 Jul 2011, 10:13 PM Reply Like
  • Teutonic Knight
    , contributor
    Comments (2055) | Send Message
     
    Mr. Obama is still being wrapped up in his days as a community organizer for the government to spread it around.
    11 Jul 2011, 10:41 PM Reply Like
  • Tony Kau
    , contributor
    Comments (36) | Send Message
     
    Those evil HNWI... making money while the rest of us are unemployed... they must have put their money to work in the stock market which has, coincidentally, risen over that same time period. I'd like to know what HNWI wealth did during 2008...
    11 Jul 2011, 11:47 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3332) | Send Message
     
    Kau,

     

    Well, they did not get to be HNWI by being Stupid.

     

    What do you think there were doing in 2008?

     

    They were shorting your 401K.

     

    That's partly why they are presently HNWI, LOL.
    11 Jul 2011, 11:59 PM Reply Like
  • Tony Kau
    , contributor
    Comments (36) | Send Message
     
    should have closed my previous post with <end sarcasm> lol
    12 Jul 2011, 12:17 AM Reply Like
  • bob adamson
    , contributor
    Comments (4557) | Send Message
     
    It may be interesting to US readers to read how the US current budget ceiling dispute is interpreted in the Canadian and UK press.

     

    Canada’s two leading newspapers

     

    www.theglobeandmail.co.../

     

    www.theglobeandmail.co.../

     

    fullcomment.nationalpo.../

     

    UK

     

    www.economist.com/node...

     

    www.economist.com/node...
    12 Jul 2011, 01:08 AM Reply Like
  • kcr357
    , contributor
    Comments (560) | Send Message
     
    Interesting thing about those links is that they seem to mirror our press-the articles are by and large bashing the rich and advocating tax increases; the commentors are more in line with SA it seems.
    12 Jul 2011, 11:30 AM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    It seems the hosers & the bankrupt bean eaters, while trying to keep their intellectual head above water, are hostage to a similar MSM as ours, full of pompous gassbaggery.
    12 Jul 2011, 10:17 PM Reply Like
  • bob adamson
    , contributor
    Comments (4557) | Send Message
     
    Wyatt -

     

    No discussion of a somber topic is complete until you have peremptorily dismissed the arguments of many with a few well chosen gratuitous dismissive put downs. If you didn't do this (at least most of the time) so well (except when you go over the top), you'd be a tedious bore.
    12 Jul 2011, 11:00 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Tools
Find the right ETFs for your portfolio:
Seeking Alpha's new ETF Hub
ETF Investment Guide:
Table of Contents | One Page Summary
Read about different ETF Asset Classes:
ETF Selector

Next headline on your portfolio:

|