Morning Must Reads: Front-Loaded

“Charles Krauthammer is convinced that Democrats got a really good deal.”
.
Nothing else need be said.

Unless I`m mistaken the House has already passed half the plan. Why doesn`t the Senate just pass that, while they argue about the rest. Everyone is focusing on the Liberals in the House, — Satan — when the real speed bump is sitting in the Senate.

Seems you have that a bit backwards, but that is no surprise. The Senate plan approved by the Senate and approved by the President–seems the roadblock is sitting in the House

What did I miss?

The Other Klein updates his ‘snowman’ graph.

(graph at link)

“All groups are getting more under this framework, but on an individual level, the wealthy are getting much, much more. The question, at the end of the day, is whether stopping them from getting it is worth cutting benefits for the unemployed, and tax cuts for middle-income Americans, and the Earned Income Tax Credit.”

What did I miss?

Nobel Prize–Seems the Committee has changed its policy this year. It’s awarding the prize to an empty chair–last year it was to an empty suit!
.
The Nobel Peace Prize committee held its award ceremony on Friday with an empty chair……

Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/12/10/105084/liu-xiaobos-nobel-peace-prize.html#ixzz17ia389OX

The graph above shows the middle-class tax cut represents 53% of the whole plan. Both sides are telling us how important it is to pass it. It has already passed in the House. I don’t see why it can’t pass easily, in the Senate.
.
There appears to be a major problem in the Senate.

I usually try to go with what’s current, but it’s done gone relevant again.

(or, A Few Reasons Why Lowering Taxes On The Wealthiest Americans Really Isn’t That Good Of An Idea)

“High top marginal tax rates—generally well above 60 percent—on rich people actually stabilize the economy, prevent economic bubbles from forming, prevent the subsequent economic crashes, and lead to steady and sustained economic growth as well as steady and sustained wage growth for working people.3

On the other hand, when top marginal rates drop below 50 percent, the opposite happens.

As Beinhart noted, the massive Republican tax cuts of the 1920s (from 73 to 25 percent) led directly to the Roaring Twenties’ real estate and stock market bubbles, a temporary boom, and then the crash and Republican Great Depression that started in 1929.

Then, from the 1930s to the 1980s, rates on the very rich went back up into the 70 to 90 percent range. As a result, the economy grew steadily, and for the first time in the history of our nation we went 50 years without a crash or major bank failure. It was also during this period that the American worker’s wages increased enough to produce the strongest middle class this nation has ever seen.

Then came Reaganomics.[...]

The math is pretty simple. When the über-rich are heavily taxed, economies prosper and wages for working people steadily rise. When taxes for the rich are cut, working people suffer and economies turn into casinos.”

“Known copywrite troll sues Drudge Report”
.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/12/copyright-troll-righthaven-sues-for-control-of-drudge-report-domain.ars
.
Righthaven is a law group that sues people for using it’s clients’ articles on their web pages. The catch however, is that generally it is just a short blurb (if that) with a link to the full article on the correct site. Most notably they once tried to sue a non-profit for posting a link to the article in the Las Vegas Review-Journal for which the non-profit was the main source.
.
In most cases they also ask for the defendant’s domain name, which is patently ridiculous. In this particular case, Drudge used a picture and linked to an article from some newspaper. And they want the Drudge domain name.
.
As much as I am not a fan of Drudge, I do hope they smack this group down for abusing the law system.

It’s because Mitch McConnell was standing in front of the conference room door holding a sign that said ‘Detour’.

“President Obama did not attend a White House meeting Thursday with members of his own debt commission, irking some of the Democrats on the panel who were expecting a high-level push from the commander-in-chief to show that its comprehensive deficit reduction plan is being taken seriously by the White House.

‘He should have at least dropped by,’ one Democratic member of the debt commission told CNN, speaking on the condition of anonymity because he wanted to speak more freely about the panel’s private meeting.

A second senior Democratic aide close to the panel added that commission members were miffed and privately believe the President did not attend because it would have been awkward ‘given the fact that he has just endorsed $900 billion in deficit spending’ with the tax cut deal.”

“Then, from the 1930s to the 1980s, rates on the very rich went back up into the 70 to 90 percent range. As a result, the economy grew steadily, and for the first time in the history of our nation we went 50 years without a crash or major bank failure”
.

In 1932 Personal income tax was pushed up to 63% FRI 25% which caused the bank panic in 1932.
.
In 1935 Roosevelt increased taxes for his spending (79% top rate) and in 1937 economy fell into recession. It recovered in 1938 as Congress passed (over Roosevelt’s objection) a reduced capital gains tax and reduced tax on undistributed profits tax. It became law without Roosevelt’s signature.
.
Following liberals tradition, repeating a lie over and over doesn’t make it true it just feeds their delusions!

..a $900 billion proposal that is 93.8% tax-cuts??! Liberals should shut-up and be happy because of 6.3% goes to unemployment benefits?!
.
Scrap the whole thing; take 1/3 of the money and invest it in hiring people to update the electrical grid (put solar panels on all Fed buildings, update air and sea ports) and pay for it by temporarily freezing new weapon development. Then let Bush tax cuts sunset and begin working on the deficit by pulling out of Afghanistan, no new nuclear weapons and allowing medicare to negotiate drug and medical device rates.

“Of those angry townhall participants, Krugman was sure that they were “reacting less to what Mr. Obama is doing, or even to what they’ve heard about what he’s doing, than to who he is.”
Krugman claimed that those against Obamacare were not mad at Obama’s policies, but were instead mad that Obama is a black man.”

Now we have…

.
“In the ultimate family feud, progressive House Democrats signed and sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) opposing the tax cut deal that Obama put in place. “He should not back down. Nor should we,” it lectured.
Just Wednesday, enraged Democrats in the House said that they will try to stop Pelosi from bringing a vote on the compromise to the floor”

.
I wonder if we will hear that these people who are now opposing Obama are racist?

George Soros is trying to stop the Revolution!
.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201012090046
.
General Glenn Beck has issued his orders! The Revolution begins yesterday! I’m already a day behind in my revolting!
.
What are we against? Soros and his world domination machine! What are we for? FREEDOM!
.
Real Americans, Rally ’round the National Fox Network! We can use their logo as our battle Flag! Who’s with me!?!?
.
Shout it from the rooftops: FOX! BECK! FOX! BECK! LONG LIVE THE REVOLTING!

“and then the crash and Republican Great Depression that started in 1929.”
.
PS the crash was the result of Smoot-Harley tariffs which coincidentally Democrats are now reviving. Fazio wants written in to tax bill that tax breaks be given only to those buying “Made in USA”.

.
At least we know why liberals keep repeating the lies. They keep making the same mistakes. The biggest- lying to themselves.

Nothing else needs to be said. But it could be said that the graph presented hides certain truths. If you had a bar graph that showed what the average person in each ten thousand dollar income group got, I think you’d see a very different picture. The poorest would owe more. The middle class would be ok. And the rich would do spectacularly well for themselves.
·
But who cares!?

I’m assuming that graph is related to “The Presidential Plan”

The title of this says it all: “Sen. Conrad: Extend All Tax Cuts; Time to Get ‘Serious’ About Deficit”

“The chairman of the Senate Budget Committee told me this morning he ‘certainly hope[s]‘ Obama and Congress can come to an agreement before everyone’s taxes go up on Dec. 31.

‘I think the President’s remarks are constructive, as you know I proposed some weeks ago that we extend all the tax cuts for a period of time until we are able to fundamentally reform the tax system,’ he said.’Because that is what is required in part here along with spending reductions. Both are going to have to be done if we are going to get out of this deep hole.’[...]

‘Let’s get serious,’ he added.”

(A loud ‘boom!’ then sounded from somewhere in the interior of Conrad’s skull as the condradictory thoughts annihilated each other in a flash of energy. Conrad himself appeared unphased by the event.)

The extreme left have been blowing valves claiming Obama broke a campaign promise on taxes for the rich. But why have they been silent or even justifying another lie Obama has told

For all the times that President Obama promised “you’ll get to keep your doctor” under his health-care reforms, he apparently failed to ask any practicing doctors.

A recent survey finds that countless MDs will respond to ObamaCare by limiting which patients they’ll see.

Of course, many doctors already limit how many patients they’ll take on who depend on government insurance (whose fees rarely cover an MD’s costs). But it’ll get worse under ObamaCare: In the survey, some 87 percent said they would significantly restrict Medicare patients and 93 percent said they’d significantly restrict Medicaid patients.

How can the government claim its health programs are popular when folks who would actually deliver care are running away? I’m not worried about physicians (we’ll find ways to survive), but about our patients.

All in all, the survey found that 74 percent of doctors will alter how they practice.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/obamacare_flight_of_the_mds_2zWYU1R9DYG4K6dJ8oj8gP#ixzz17ikGT8gb

Thank you Free Pennsylvanian!
.
I’m glad The Physicians Foundation took time out of their busy day to fight against Obama’s attempt to steal our precious freedom by making us all healthy. It’s my right as a Real American to pull myself up by my own bootstraps if I’m sick. Or hope for charity. Either way, I’m a Free Man not dependent on the government!
.
And who are these brave souls in The Physicians Foundation? I’m not sure, but they have a picture of a black woman, so I’m sure they’re legit.
.
http://www.physiciansfoundations.org/About.aspx

But the Democrats are serious about the deficit and controlling waste and fraud…Yeah right!

The Senate Commerce Committee is defending two top Amtrak executives whom Republicans want investigated for failing to tell Congress about the removal of longtime Amtrak Inspector General Fred Weiderhold.
.
The commerce report also cites a 2009 letter to Mr. Carper from four former Amtrak chairmen and presidents not included in the Grassley-Issa report. The letter said Mr. Weiderhold had been in the job for 17 years longer than any other inspector general in federal government and that he had turned the position into “a personal fiefdom” while creating “a climate of fear.” (Must be why they are so profitable)
.
“Our 21-page report had 80 footnotes, attached 29 exhibits and relied on about a dozen witness interviews to support its conclusion,” Mr. Grassley said. “The Rockefeller report cites no witness interviews and does not at all deal with the core issue of whether Amtrak complied with the law in the way that it removed its inspector general.”
.
“That commerce committee report, among other findings, said Mr. Weiderhold’s inspector general’s office failed to protect sensitive information from public release and the office fell below federal government’s basic quality standards.”
.
And that standard is for Democrats to protect inefficient, fraudulent useless bureaucrats or large donors. Second IG to be fired for ratting at Dumo favorites

To me, nothing summarizes the state of affairs in Washington better than Joe Manchin’s explanation as to why he voted against DADT repeal:

“I do not support its repeal at this time,” he said in the statement. “I would like to make clear that my concern is not with the idea of repealing DADT, but rather an issue of timing.”

(In other words, I’m happy to vote against repeal now that it has a chance of passing but I might change my mind and vote for it next year, when it has NO chance of passing)

“While I may disagree with a repeal of DADT at this time, some believe that President Obama, as Commander-in-Chief, if he so chooses, has the authority to suspend discharges under DADT, if he deems it a matter of national security,” Manchin said. “If this is correct, and the President was to make such an order, while I may disagree with it, I would respect his authority as President to do so.”

(Of course, by saying “some believe” the President can suspend DADT discharges, that means others don’t and those others will either sue to block the move or, more likely, attack Obama for an abuse of power and start dropping the word “impeachment.” Then Manchin throws out this beauty: “while I may disagree with it, I would respect his authority as President to do so,” which translates to, “I’m not going to support him if he does it and when the people in West Virginia complain, I’ll pass the buck to the White House, and leave him hanging.”)

Joe Manchin: Profile in Courage.

“I’m glad The Physicians Foundation took time out of their busy day to fight”
.
Hopefully they can take a little more time out and treat whatever ails you!

I really wish this argument was more flushed out/studied.
·
If there were really graphs & data that comprehensively proved rich people with extra money cause bubbles it’d be an easy argument to make.
·
I’ve yet to see such data. But we do know reducing income taxes on the wealthy does not beget a good economy. And we know that because the last 30 years we’ve been doing exactly that and we’ve just suffered a near-depression crisis.
·
So, I’m skeptical of what Grape says, but I know freeinpa is a loon.

Hahahahahaha! Good one, Free Pennsylvania!
.
We know who the real racists are! As a Real American, I don’t see skin color. I don’t see gender, either. Which has been a bit of a problem in bars, but still! I don’t see anything but Real American or Marxomaoistsocialistcommie! Which Obama is! And that’s not a race! The only real racists and sexists in this country are those people! They’re the ones who keep shoving it in my face. I can’t walk down the street, heavily armed as all Real Americans should be (in case of Muslims!), without getting dirty looks from women and other minorities. And most of the other people. But that’s just white male guilt!
.
But that’s not important! What is important, is that Obama is a racist and I’m not!

Free Pennsylvania! Thank you for responding!
.
I have a sickness! It’s caused by lack of Freedom! The only cure is More Freedom, which I pay for out-of-pocket like all Real Americans should!
.
Long Live The Revolution! Long Live Gen. Beck! Lets Roll!

Krauthammer: It will pump a trillion borrowed Chinese dollars into the U.S. economy over the next two years.
.
No, no, no. That’s wrong. Lowering taxes does not add anything to the debt. I heard this from the Republicans themselves.
.
Is the GOP turning against its own tax cut?

“I’ve yet to see such data. But we do know reducing income taxes on the wealthy does not beget a good economy.”
.
You know no such thing you are either making an asinine assumption or are praying its true because otherwise any liberal beliefs you have die.
.
You may think I am a loon but you are pathetic.

But here is a study by UCLA that the left keeps denying.

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx

LINK: Across The Pond; Students revolt at taking a brunt of the cost of austerity

And its not that different from what’s being asked of Americans here. How long do you think you can make the young and poor take the brunt of punishment for your mistakes, oh elderly America? How long do you think we’ll sit and take it? Are you going to put us in time out?

Something to think about as we approach a new year. Maybe your resolution ought to include of thinking about those generations that will come after you, of your own children?

Krugman’s quote was: “Now, people who don’t know that Medicare is a government program probably aren’t reacting to what President Obama is actually proposing… they’re probably reacting less to what Mr. Obama is doing, or even to what they’ve heard about what he’s doing, than to who he is.”
.
He’s saying that people that love their medicare but hate government-run healthcare are probably reacting to Obama personally, rather than to the proposed HCR itself. He is referring to the portrayal of Obama as a socialist, foreigner, terrorist sympathizer, radical, liberal, etc. – including his color. All of which comprise the perception of “who he is”.
.
Is there not some truth to that?

“I really wish this argument was more flushed out/studied.
·
If there were really graphs & data that comprehensively proved rich people with extra money cause bubbles it’d be an easy argument to make.”
.
Grossly inequitable wealth distribution in society causes all sorts of problems, speculative bubbles are only one. The data is there but we just finished a 16-year experiment that proved without a doubt that somewhat higher top marginal rates don’t inhibit economic growth and job creation and that generally lower taxes on the rich do nothing to stimulate growth and job creation. The rational argument over the effects of higher taxes for the rich is over.

Snowe: “Therefore, if the Majority moves to consider New START under a framework that allows for sufficient debate and amendments, I intend to support the Resolution of Advice and Consent.”

Does this mean Snowe would oppose a motion to filibuster START, or only that she would vote yes on START if the Senate votes to have a vote on it?

Not that I have any reason to distrust the Eminent Moderate From Maine.

Obviously “motion to filibuster” is not the right term – but is Snowe saying that she would vote to have the vote?

This morning Michelle B. made the popular news morning show rounds and tried to say that cutting taxes wasn’t a deficit because it wasn’t a deficit for the people who had more money in their pockets. She sounded like a rambling idiot. But, she either really believes it or is a rambling idiot. I couldn’t decide. Of course, the news reporters pushed back on specific talking points but clearly didn’t know enough to actually grill her. CNN did the best from what I saw, and that’s not saying much.
·
M.B. outright lied when she said that people that sell $250,000 worth of stuff in a business (as a group) would see their taxes go up if just the middle class taxes were kept the same. She clearly didn’t understand the difference between a business selling things and an employee or owner taking money home.
·
How can you possibly expect anything good from these people when they can’t even talk about the issues without lying due to incompetence or a desire to manipulate. This is probably why we should only elect ugly short bald men.

“We know who the real racists are! As a Real American, I don’t see skin color. I don’t see gender, either. Which has been a bit of a problem in bars, but still! I don’t see anything but Real American”
.
And you can get medication for all of it!

Free, I think you have it wrong. Most liberals, I believe, are mad that he broke a campaign promise to provide a public option for all Americans, and none are satisfied with the reform we got. Many are just trying to hold onto the handful good components in the bill, like no rescission.

“I can’t walk down the street, heavily armed as all Real Americans should be (in case of Muslims!), without getting dirty looks from women and other minorities.”
.
Tell me, do you think maybe people want to see “Terminator” only in the movies, and not walking toward them on the street?
.
You have a very odd perspective on life…

I think it means that she will only vote to talk about it if any one is allowed to add amendments of any kind to it, in any number, that might further delay the proceedings and allow for further opposition.
·
What she wants you to hear is that she’s willing to compromise, but only Democrats are serious about compromise.
·
Of course what she wants and what she wants you to think she wants are two very different things.
·
We should just call the Republicans Lucy Teases from now on. It’d be more accurate.

“Shout it from the rooftops: FOX! BECK! FOX! BECK! LONG LIVE THE REVOLTING!”
.
You got it buddy:
.
Blaaaghggghhh kkkkllll aaakkkkk! GGggggggg!
.
…
.
One of your best! Excuse me.
.
This really is revolting. Bbllllbbbbggggg! arffff! kkkkaaaacccgggg!

“But here is a study by UCLA that the left keeps denying”
.
Hahahahahahaha! How could anyone deny such a terrific “study”:

Using data collected in 1929 by the Conference Board and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Cole and Ohanian were able to establish average wages and prices across a range of industries just prior to the Depression. By adjusting for annual increases in productivity, they were able to use the 1929 benchmark to figure out what prices and wages would have been during every year of the Depression had Roosevelt’s policies not gone into effect.

You see, all masters Cole and Ohanian – whoever the f@ck they are – had to do to prove FDRs policies prolonged the Depression was ignore the 1929 stock market crash and a whole bunch of other factors that just might impact wages byond what they “figure[d] out”.

I agree pintertwo. That’s why I’m disappointed.

As a scientist, it doesn’t seem to me that there is conclusive proof that high taxes = good economy. There is conclusive proof low taxes =/= good economy. So, I’m largely in agreement with a major portion of your thesis.
·
I’m just not sure I believe 100% that high taxes solve everything. And when people write what was written above, that’s what comes through to me.
·
You get what I’m saying?

I just looked it up and of course Senate ratification requires a 2/3rd vote from the Senate, not a simple majority. So it doesn’t work the way a regular bill does. My bad.
.
Apparently they are now just 3 votes short.
.
The endorsements by Schultz, Kissinger, Rice, GHW Bush, Powell, and Baker should help, but maybe not.

The revolt has to wait until gramps charge his scooter battery and fill up the oxygen tank. And Bob’s still looking for camo that fits over his beer belly.
.
Plus the whole revolting has to be done before sports and Sarah Palins Alaska is on since gramps can’t figure out the DVR because he hates his liberal grandson that showed him once.
.
Basically; the reason why the old geezer is alive is because Glenn Becks fearmongering is like a adrenalin shot to his heart when he OD’s on irrational hatred.
.
Go gramps!
.
Oh sh!t, gramps forgot that he’s working as a Walmart Greeter today. Happy Holidays plumber put leotard lady looking for a size 90 stretchy thingie and some new bright red lipstick. God bless.

Note to self:
.
The “realest American” seems to be a bit too real. I’m realizing that I might just be a wee bit behind some others on this blog…

As you can see from Shepwrong that it’s only good science when it agrees with liberal dogma unlike say global warming science where the original data doesn’t exist anymore and sensors are placed to get specific results or use traveling students to make some observation that is then passed on as fact.
.

See your whole reason for being dies. Now you know why Shepwrong is angry all the time. Deep down he knows liberals is crap but he is committed (or should be)

hippoath:
.
See my note to self at 18.

Obama, after having to shake hands with Boehner
.
aarrrgghhh! That was revolting!

53
.
Be careful, Poe’s Law is hard to spot. I think most people are confused as well.

i made a comment to that effect yesterday 53.

“M.B. outright lied when she said that people that sell $250,000 worth of stuff in a business (as a group) would see their taxes go up if just the middle class taxes were kept the same. She clearly didn’t understand the difference between a business selling things and an employee or owner taking money home.”
.
But what can you expect from people who confuse take home salary of a poor CEO with the hiring practicing of the company he’s CEO over and the need to hire people based on demand?
.
That a CEO would refuse hiring someone because his personal taxes are to high when his business desperately need it to compete?
.
I heard the same idiotic explanation from someone claiming he had a business. He said that he makes over 250k and now can’t afford to hire because his taxes are going up. If he has a business it was doomed to fail before it takes off. Not only is he taxed differently on the first 250k than the money above 250k, but the tax rates don’t explode so significantly over 250k that it amounts to not being able to afford to hire someone else. Plus if he’s not incorporated yet and ‘take’ out a salary under 250k and pay a different lower corporate tax rate, he’s not a very savy business person.
.
I’d fire the board of directors who would refuse to hire people needed to continue making a profit if their only reason was their personal taxable income. Unless this directly hurts small businesses, and it doesn’t its a game of BS.

releast American is just spoofing a diehard off the charts ‘rightwinger’. My addition to his post was simply a continuation of the whole ‘revolution’ spoof. I hope with a little less insanity and more lighthearted fun.
Releast American is projecting textee for what he is, a charicature of a sane conservative.

“Many are just trying to hold onto the handful good components in the bill, like no rescission.”
.
Exactly so how does this differ from the tax bill? No matter how you play it, every bill is about taxing the rich or punishing business. But then act surprise that unemployment is rising and the economy is stalling. ( I am assuming they are surprised)

It took me a while, huh?
.
Hopefully, I’ll be a bit quicker scrabbling that gun out of the holster in the future…

I know its the case, but I was Hoping Colbert had decided to start posting in the Swamp. :0

“I’m just not sure I believe 100% that high taxes solve everything. And when people write what was written above, that’s what comes through to me.
·
You get what I’m saying?”
.
I get what you’re saying. You don’t get what I’m saying.

freep, you have no idea what you are talking about… just… just stop…

”
But what can you expect from people who confuse take home salary of a poor CEO with the hiring practicing of the company he’s CEO over and the need to hire people based on demand?”
.
Yes I guess it’s no different than thinking the keeping tax rates where they are is spending and will increase the deficit. If you keep tax rates the same the increase in spending is the deficit- not the taxes. But then you can’t expect liberals to understand that concept since the think all income is actually the government’s money.

“As you can see from Shepwrong that it’s only good science when it agrees with liberal dogma…”
.
Oh please, I’ve known grade-schoolers who understand scientific empiricism better than you. Way better. You’re denying the existence of global warming for god’s sake.

“And its not that different from what’s being asked of Americans here.”
.
Yes years of free spending entitlements has caught up with much of Europe. Wait until the trillion dollar public employee bomb hits here.
.
Oh and before we here the “raise the tax on the wealthy”,
if we tax 100% of all income it won’t pay all the outstanding liabilities

Actually, one of the things left out of this equation is the birth, growth and maturity of IT.
.
It really should be included as a major factor in any debate about growth since the early ’80s.
.
Taxation, to a point is not the be-all end-all issue in the economic equations.
.
During Fordist days (post WWII), taxation on higher incomes had little or no impact on the growth exhibited, and that was the primary period of America’s ascendancy to the top of the ladder, ecoomically.

freeinpa and science are not on speaking terms. For one, he doesn’t know the language, and for another, he knows almost nothing about it….

Yes always with well nothing but bile and a bankrupt philosophy. Guess its hard to realize you life’s beliefs are a farce

“As you can see from Shepwrong that it’s only good science when it agrees with liberal dogma unlike say global warming science where the original data doesn’t exist anymore and sensors are placed to get specific results or use traveling students to make some observation that is then passed on as fact.
.
See your whole reason for being dies. Now you know why Shepwrong is angry all the time. Deep down he knows liberals is crap but he is committed (or should be)”
.
Thank you for adding a completely unrelated red herring into it. I think shep is saying that the people you get your information from ignored data to make theirs. That’s not good science. Nor liberal or conservative. That’s just wrong. I see why you like it because unlike shep you found something that agree with what you already believed in. I’m not shep so I can’t project how he thinks, but I usually draw the conclusion after I have all the facts.
.
I understand why you don’t – that way you don’t have to change a great deal of your worldview. So it’s easier for you to make science a matter of tribal understanding rather than science about facts.
.
Good luck with that.

“he doesn’t know the language, and for another, he knows almost nothing about it…”
.
Yes I guess my chemical engineering degree, syn fuels patents and published books were the result of …
and you have a lifetime of stupidity and over 20 years of pushing racism.

Shepherd, I think I do understand what you’re saying. You said, lower taxes for the rich cause problems & that the last 15 years has proved that lower taxes don’t fix anything. And I really do think I’m almost ready to buy into the argument that higher taxes stabilize the economy by limiting the drastic buying power of the rich, which they often use to accidentally f- everything up.
·
The point though, is not that taxes fix that, its that curbing excess income fixes the problem And you could achieve that either by raising taxes or by balancing incomes a little better. Taxes aren’t THE solution, and they won’t work in all cases.
·
53, is right to point out the growth of IT. It had massive effects on the economy of the 90s. And you can’t divorce that from the argument and pick taxes as the reason the economy did well.
·
Taxes might affect how strong the acceleration of the economy is, but they aren’t likely to be the root cause of anything either.

Speaking for myself, I don’t like either one. My point is that liberals are not rallying around Obama to defend these plans. Liberals see no kinship with these compromise “solutions”.
.
Read the posts here. Many don’t think $55 billion in extended unemployment benefits is worth $845 billion in tax cuts, or that a private insurance mandate will cut costs, add competition and improve quality of care. We’re bitter that we’re asked to be happy with the few positives in either bill when we believe there were much better solutions available.

“But what can you expect from people who confuse take home salary of a poor CEO with the hiring practicing of the company he’s CEO over and the need to hire people based on demand?”
.
Yes I guess it’s no different than thinking the keeping tax rates where they are is spending and will increase the deficit. If you keep tax rates the same the increase in spending is the deficit- not the taxes. But then you can’t expect liberals to understand that concept since the think all income is actually the government’s money.”
.
So your argument against demand is what decides hiring practices is that technically taxes is a revenue and not spending so technically it doesn’t have an impact on the deficite. So if you borrow money to give people less taxes it’s not deficite spending because only ‘spending’ is spending? And taxes is just a form of less or more revenue? You’re right. The loan I took on my house was just me making 300k more suddenly and sinking it into a property. Kind of a longterm revenue payback.
.
But lets get back to the main issue before you tried to change the goal posts again like you always do. CEOs don’t base their hiring practices on whether or not their company need more people to hire. Overwhelmingly most small businesses don’t even make 250k a year. Most businesses base their hiring practices on demand. No demand, no hiring. Otherwise the magic of tax cuts would already have fixed the economy since we’ve had the same tax level since 2002 and even less on middle class since 2008. The problem isn’t the level of taxes unless it’s too high. The problem is demand. We’re moving good paying jobs abroad and left increasingly with jobs that don’t pay well enough to give people a disposable income to fuel consumption.
.
But that’s not what you’re arguing against. You’re making higher and lower taxes into a technicality, not based on the reality of it, but how you see revenue and spending. techically taxes are a revenue base so if you somehow just lower spending it all evens out. Just ignore borrowing money to do it pretending there’s enough spending you can realistically cut.
.
Again, good luck with that.
.
I understand your tribal position…just marry it with reality if you can.

freeinpa:
.
If that is true, then why have I trashed you so soundly when you step into that arena.
.
I always seem to come heavily armed with facts and you just provide opinions and rhetoric.
.
Anyone who’s been here a while remembers any of several spankings I’ve handed you.
.
Keep on talking…

So, I’m skeptical of what Grape says, but I know freeinpa is a loon.
.
I’m just offering this for your consideration. I didn’t actually write the whole thing. Please, be skeptical..it’s good that you are. I am too…that’s why I looked up this:
.
[A graph of the top marginal income tax rates]
.
and this:
.
[Shares of aggregate income 1947-2005]
.
And, at least on the surface, there seems to be a correlation. I would like to see more data, as well as be able to identify other factors affecting this.

You missed some of the finer points of the argument from the link. The ones that say prolonged unemployment and ignoring a segment of the population leads to a build up of anger & frustration that escapes in the form of a riot.
·
How long do you think you can ignore the poor and unemployed in this country in order to make sure the rich get their tax cuts?

There is corroborative evidence of IT’s influence. One is the flattening of growth following the dot com debacle, which was the high-water mark for IT.
.
Ever since then, IT in the US has been bleeding jobs at a ferocious rate, which helped stoke the flames for the current recession/averted depression by reducing the robustness of the producer side of the economic equation.
.
I’m not qualified to say how big an influence that growth was, but I can say that the fact that in the cyclical Fordist economy after WWII taxation made almost no difference.
.
And given that, and the influence of IT, I would be willing to go so far as to say that taxation isn’t nearly as significant as it’s claimed to be by some.
.
I’m guessing that if the tax cut sunsets, or passes w/o benefits for the rich, the stock market might go down a couple hundred points. No more

“”And its not that different from what’s being asked of Americans here.”
.
Yes years of free spending entitlements has caught up with much of Europe. Wait until the trillion dollar public employee bomb hits here.
.
Oh and before we here the “raise the tax on the wealthy”,”
.
Germany and other nations are doing just fine. Those are the nations, just like here that didn’t give their finance industry a free range to build up a financial bubble and move all their industy abroad. Note that germany is doing well because they still manufacture things and pay their people well to consume. Despite having a higher average tax rate and a healthcare system that covers everyone.
.
Your example only highlights the one thing about our society that you see in England and Greece – a free for all financial system that had to be bailed out because of it’s unregulated excess and as a result there wasn’t enough of an economic foundation to lift up that bail out. By contrast Germany emmediatly put a stimulus package together that took in account the one strength that nation has – it’s manufacturing sector and have since done very well.
.
And look at Canda across the border. Their fully regulated finance sector didn’t implode and needed bail out since it was not allowed to use the same kind of voodoo ours did.
.
Look at the data before you start jumping in talking points.

“The point though, is not that taxes fix that, its that curbing excess income fixes the problem And you could achieve that either by raising taxes or by balancing incomes a little better. Taxes aren’t THE solution, and they won’t work in all cases.”
.
Correct, which is why I first talked about grossly inequitable wealth distribution. Taxes are an imperfect remedy for the imperfect wealth distribution endemic to market capitalism. It’s why “conservatives” pretend that that wealth distribution, as a product of the “free market”, must necessarily be right and good. Once you abandon that lie, the argument becomes over the optimal rate of taxation, which is far above what the greed-headed psychopaths at the top of the economic food chain feel they deserve, the health and future of the country be damned.

Another episode of either a shameless Democrat or a clueless one.
.
More than 609,000 jobs disappeared during Gov. Granholm’s eight years in office, and Michigan lead the country with the highest unemployment rate for 49 months. Now, she is giving advice to the country … about how to create jobs.

Unbelievable!

As last week’s jobs numbers reminded us, emerging from the biggest economic crisis since the Great Depression isn’t going to be easy. We need to be creative and daring. We need a moon shot — a Jobs Race to the Top. The goal: Create 3 million jobs in three years

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1210/46143.html#ixzz17jEuP4gm

“If that is true, then why have I trashed you so soundly when you step into that arena.
.
I always seem”
.
Very simply and you answered it yourself. Note the verb SEEM.
.
You ramble incoherently with nonsense YOU deem is fact, drool, bark , then throw up your arms declare victory and then take a victory lap. Stupidity wrappe din delusion!

But above all, don’t forget just what party had complete control of the government for the first six years!

Of course, I’m referring to the Federal Government…

We’ll, if referenced facts aren’t good enough…

“Yes I guess my chemical engineering degree, syn fuels patents and published books were the result of …
and you have a lifetime of stupidity and over 20 years of pushing racism.”
.
I didn’t know that an engineering degree and published books also insulated you from refusing to apply empirical data to support what you’re arguing.
.
For most part you support your argument by calling opposition stupid.
,
Safe to say I hope your books are more about your actual field of knowledge than a commentary about you as a person because I wouldn’t find anything useful in it if it mimics your lack of data that you display here.
.
Or to put it more simply – why do tribal ideologues always prove the strength of argument by saying they’re something and than running away from it by showing an absolutely lack of what you’d find in that field?
.
Like earl the doctor, 3x the wise and rdw the atheist. I could tell you what my line of work is but it won’t say one iotta whether I’m right or wrong. Only the facts (or lack of facts) I present does. Good that you have a degree and patents and write books. But that aside why don’t you support your argument with facts instead?

“The “realest American” seems to be a bit too real.”
.
It is easy to understand your confusion. Real Americans sometime overwhelm the less patriotic. You need to FEEL it in your red, white and blue heart.!
.
Can you feel the realness, 53_3?

“It took me a while, huh?
.
Hopefully, I’ll be a bit quicker scrabbling that gun out of the holster in the future…”
.
Don’t be hard on yourself. I usually call what people like freedom and freeinpa writes as ironic because it’s so unreal it’s almost like they’re spoofing a realistic common sense argument. It’s hard to detect synicism if you compete against that backdrop.

I think you are all forgetting that changing the Estate Tax was (alleged to be) one of Sen. Kyl’s requirements before he would support the START treaty. This is not just about dollars and cents.

Yes I guess my chemical engineering degree, syn fuels patents and published books

Wait, what? Maybe I’m confusing you with Rusty, but the profound lack of understanding of anything scientific from conservatives on these boards makes me seriously doubt this statement.
.
It could also explain why you are so fundamentally against global warming – your industries are the ones that most negatively affect it.

“Terminator”
.
Arnold!
.
Now, there’s a Real American! So Manly! So potent! Even the liberals ladies swoon at his glistening manliness!

I’ll also add onto what hippo said by saying every engineer in my company knows how to back up an argument with actualy facts. They all will refuse to make any changes unless there is enough data to back it up. Combine that with the complete lack of common sense and the penchant for insults, I really find it hard to believe you have patents and books.

53, is right to point out the growth of IT. It had massive effects on the economy of the 90s. And you can’t divorce that from the argument and pick taxes as the reason the economy did well.
.
Did well for whom, exactly? If you look at the share of aggregate income received by families, the dot-com boom mostly benefited higher-income Americans.

“More than 609,000 jobs disappeared during Gov. Granholm’s eight years in office, and Michigan lead the country with the highest unemployment rate for 49 months. Now, she is giving advice to the country … about how to create jobs.”
.
Because it’s her fault that our domestic car industry continued making bigger and less innovative cars, while the opposition made what Americans wanted. THEN the final insult is that she imploded the finance industry so people lost their jobs and couldn’t buy any more cars and get financing to buy one. What a evil democrat.
.
Did I get it right? She shouldn’t talk about job creation because the industry in her state blew the pooch on what Americans really want?
.
And since you’re at it. What great republican ideas are rising tides anywhere? Lets ignore her ideas because she ‘personally’ lost all those work, but lets also ignore the ideas of the political party preciding in 10 million jobs lost at the same token. I know, your snappy partisan comeback will be liberals because they took back power in 2006. Just ignore everything before that. Like a good chemical engineer that write books and create patents because imperical data is for sissies.

Thank you, Grape Crush. The Hartmann article is truly fascinating. It’s my econ lesson for the week. As for you naysayers, seems most likely you are among the brainwashed Hartmann alludes to. Or maybe you’re really, really rich.

The Constant Weader at http://www.RealityChex.com

53 and evil twin hippo with the combined IQ can’t break the double digit mark.
.
“if referenced facts”
.
Not when your the reference!
.
“It could also explain why you are so fundamentally against global warming – your industries are the ones that most negatively affect it.”
.
Great argument, so we should not believe anything from Sierra Club or Algore or global warming scientists because they are the one most positively affected by it.
.
“I didn’t know that an engineering degree and published books also insulated you from refusing to apply empirical data to support what you’re arguing.
.
For most part you support your argument by calling opposition stupid”

It doesn’t but when dealing with liberals they have their own set of “empirical facts” or dismiss out of hand because it doesn’t agree with what they want just as shepwrong did with the UCLA study. 53 is th e”King of liberal facts”. And as far as calling the opposition stupid. When I do that is a fact and its only reserved for a handful of knuckleheads here like you and 53 among others. I have perfectly reasonable disagreements with other liberals and we just agree to disagree. You special but mom probably told you that

.

.

Evil twins:
.
“don’t forget just what party had complete control of the government for the first six years!”
.
So the other 49 states (56 if your Obama) should have had the same result, right? Or was MI the only state under federal government control?
.
“Because it’s her fault that our domestic car industry continued making bigger and less innovative cars”
.
Well your evil twin seems to think it was Bush’s fault that happened. So which is it? governments fault or not?
.
Now you know why I call you stupid!

“It doesn’t but when dealing with liberals they have their own set of “empirical facts” or dismiss out of hand because it doesn’t agree with what they want just as shepwrong did with the UCLA study. 53 is th e”King of liberal facts”. And as far as calling the opposition stupid. When I do that is a fact and its only reserved for a handful of knuckleheads here like you and 53 among others. I have perfectly reasonable disagreements with other liberals and we just agree to disagree. You special but mom probably told you that”
.
NOTHING puts me in my place like ignoring the basis of an argument and replacing it with a insult and adding ‘yo mama’ in the end.
.
That’s like text book stuff. I get it. You don’t have to argue against what I present, because you have already decided I use special liberal facts and it’s far more convincing to replace it with the ‘I’m an @sshole so get off my lawn’.
.
I should have known. Always the goal post mover. If you can’t find any data refuting a argument call it dumb and yourself king of the hill.
.
is that what you wrote in your ‘moving the goal post for dummies’. Can I get a signed copy?

Once you abandon that lie, the argument becomes over the optimal rate of taxation…
.
[Which makes me remember something else]…
.
“‘I would like to be proven wrong,’ says Niskanen. No wonder: for the modern conservative coalition, the implications of his findings are discomfiting, and in a sense tragic.
.
First, the root-canal economics of pre-Reagan conservatism was right all along: the way to limit the growth of government is to force politicians, and therefore voters, to pay for all the government they use—not to give them a discount.
.
Second, conservatives who are serious about halting or reversing the dizzying Bush-era expansion of government—if there are any such conservatives, something of an open question these days—should stop defending Bush’s tax cuts. Instead, they should be talking about raising taxes to at least 19 percent of the GDP. Voters will not shrink Big Government until they feel the pinch of its true cost.
.
Third, the most effective constraint of all is to raise taxes and cut spending: exactly the sort of anti-deficit package that anti-tax conservatives pummeled the first President Bush and President Clinton for approving, and exactly the sort of package that the current President Bush and his anti-tax allies are sworn to block.
.
The conservative movement is in no position to accept or even acknowledge those implications, now that tax cutting has become the long pole in the Republican tent. Therein lies the element of tragedy. By turning a limited-government movement into an anti-tax movement, conservatism has effectively gone into business with the Big Government that it claims to oppose. It is not starving the beast. It is fueling the beast’s appetite. And the beast has a credit card.”

(italics mine)

“53, is right to point out the growth of IT. It had massive effects on the economy of the 90s. And you can’t divorce that from the argument and pick taxes as the reason the economy did well.”
.
No that’s a right-wing canard designed to confuse you about taxes. And the point isn’t that higher taxes created high economic growth, the point is they didn’t impede high economic growth – the “conservative” lie that won’t die. In any event, the “.com effect” was simply a speculative financial bubble, not that different from any other speculative financial bubble and not the product of “the growth of IT, which is ongoing.

Great argument, so we should not believe anything from Sierra Club or Algore or global warming scientists because they are the one most positively affected by it.

Here’s the thing you are missing: no one benefits from global warming. No one wants global warming. However, you vehemently argue against global warming and the only evidence to support your position I’ve seen you post is either anectodal or snapshot data and you outright ignore anything contrary to your pre-set beliefs.
.
I’ll also add that I never said we should discount your point of view because you claim to be in an industry that would be very affected by global warming legislation. I merely pointed out why you might have that point of view. Do I think it’s incorrect? Yes. But as a fellow engineer (assuming thats truthful, like “Dr” Earl) I’ve come to a different conclusion.

Here’s an idea, how about we lower everyone’s tax rates and close/fix offshore corporate tax evasion!

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/10/21/google-doesnt-pay/

“And, at least on the surface, there seems to be a correlation. I would like to see more data, as well as be able to identify other factors affecting this.”
.
The trouble with macroeconomics is that it’s a highly complex and variable system operated and used by human beings. Like most social science, there are simply too many confounding variables for the data to “prove” a simple hypothesis, in the scientific sense. However, with enough experiments – different societies with different economic systems and choices – we can get a pretty good idea of what’s true, if we keep the politics of money out of it. Then, we still have entire schools of economics that are corrupted by the politics of money and the inability to produce scientific certainty.

“I merely pointed out why you might have that point of view. Do I think it’s incorrect? Yes. But as a fellow engineer (assuming thats truthful, like “Dr” Earl) I’ve come to a different conclusion.”
.
And I am pointing out by your reasoning the same conclusion can be drawn about the interest groups an dthe scientists that study it. Remember, they don’t have a job in large part without research grants to study global warming. The fear and ridicule has led many of them to acquiesce or stay silent in order to maintain a job.
.
No idea who Dr. Earl is? You have come to a different conclusion and you assume you are correct. It seems that leaves an area of doubt. But as an engineer (if you are indeed one) how can you accept science in which the original data wad discarded/destroyed? Have you ever participated in research (my background) in which original data is EVER discarded?

“Combine that with the complete lack of common sense and the penchant for insults, I really find it hard to believe you have patents and books.”
.
I don’t know, I’ve read more than a few books that lacked so much common sense, they were truly insulting. In freeper’s case, the basic illiteracy is the tell.

“So the other 49 states (56 if your Obama) should have had the same result, right? Or was MI the only state under federal government control?
.
“Because it’s her fault that our domestic car industry continued making bigger and less innovative cars”
.
Well your evil twin seems to think it was Bush’s fault that happened. So which is it? governments fault or not?
.
Now you know why I call you stupid!”
.
I know why you call me stupid – because other than addressing the irony of my points with any data that proves me wrong and you right the only figleaf of a excuse you have is to discard it all as bullcr@p, declear yourself as above that kind of stupidity and me an idiot.
.
Why else would you spend a majority of the times moving the goal posts, premises and adding insults?
.
So tell me? Why should we discard her point of view if she lost all those jobs and why did she lose all those jobs? Who’s fault is it that our country lost 10 million jobs? Only the liberals fault? The fault of a speculative bubble without a firm economic base to recover? What is your argument about why we shouldn’t listen to her other than I’m stupid?
.
Is that really the best you have?

The reason these companies go off-shore is for several reasons: lower wages for qualified employees, less regulation and the fact that the US has the highest or one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world.

“I don’t know, I’ve read more than a few books that lacked so much common sense, they were truly insulting. In freeper’s case, the basic illiteracy is the tell.”
.
I don’t personally don’t think who anyone is, what they do and have done is any more relevant than what they present. He could be the king of Moldavia for all I care if the basis of his argument is that everyone else are idiots and he’s not.
.
I think that unless the statement is not support by a factual foundation it’s fairly irrelevant if it’s support by a fancy title. He might very well be a chemical engineer have patents and write books. None of that makes his points any more or less accurate.

(56 if your Obama)
.
you do know the difference between “your” and “you’re” don’t you? You have used this a couple of times before now and I thought they were just typos, now I’m beginning to think you don’t know the difference, with your degree in Chemical Engineering and all …..

If Sarah Palin isn’t the Republican nominee, I would be happy with Rick Santorum. He was such a prize when he was PA Senator. Although as KT points out, he has changed since then. Heh.

“Is that really the best you have?”
.
With your arguments its more than sufficient.
.
“my points with any data”
.
exactly why do I need to address your opinions (of course you believe these are facts) with data? You offered none. What is fact is the bloated salaries, pension and benefits made cars made by the Big 3 not competitive. Coupled with he poor work by the same folks receiving those benefits compounded the problem. And now the same issues that brought on the demise of the auto industry will drag down governments and by extension our economy.
.
“Did I get it right? She shouldn’t talk about job creation because the industry in her state blew the pooch on what Americans really want?”
.
Well yes, since she sat idly buy or more exactly instituted policies that help the decline of the state. What woke her up after 8 years, the bulldozers clearing out vacat houses?
.
“because other than addressing the irony of my points”
.Nearly every post you make includes the word -irony- flip your vocab page. The true irony is you defending someone who is telling us how to create jobs while she was in charge of a state that lost more than anyone else. That is irony.
.
“What is your argument about why we shouldn’t listen to her other than I’m stupid?”
.
As I have given this twice it does nor bear repeating but thanks for proving that indeed you are stupid who likes the “irony” of asking the same questions that have been answered.

“US has the highest or one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world.”
.
It doesn’t of course – it’s no higher then other nations that still manage to keep their manufacturing base. Perhaps they haven’t made a point to undermine their domestic industry by allowing companies to move their profits abroad through tax cuts and pay nothing in return for taking advantage of our infrastructure back home. They can manufacture all the stuff they want, assemble it here and take the profits abroad again without paying a dime.
.
Germans don’t do that. Canadians don’t do that. We love cheap stuff even if it costs us in the long run.
.
Ironically – we’re allowing China to prosper as a socialist country and keep their totalitarian state in place doing it. We’re directly fueling their ability to stay in power and getting more powerful because the pretence of a free global market is far more important than ensuring our market strength in the long run.
.
Give it another 10 years or so and China will be the new place for all innovation, all education and the preffered nation where people go to as suppose to our universities. We’ve decided that oil is the bestest way for our energy needs while other countries and China primarily see that as a limiting factor of their growth. They’re using the money we’re pumping into their nation to build a premium infrastructure a stronger military and a more modern nation.
.
We?
.
We can’t even spend any money on our infrastructure and modern energy needs unless we first also make sure that our most rich people can continue to pump their money somewhere else in moving manufacturing jobs abroad.
.
A free market is an illusion if the primary goal is to make someone rich and not ensure that we’re all rich enough to keep our country steaming ahead.
.
That’s not socialism or communism. That’s concentrating our economic power in a few induvidual that’ll flip a switch and move elsehwere with all their money as soon as someone else have to economic strength to grease their wheels.
.
I rather that be us. Republicans seems to think it should be China and India.

“…the US has the highest or one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world….”
.
…that no US corporations actually have to pay:

(Reuters) – Most U.S. and foreign corporations doing business in the United States avoid paying any federal income taxes, despite trillions of dollars worth of sales, a government study released on Tuesday said.

You lying hack.
.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1249465620080812

“You have used this a couple of times before now and I thought they were just typo”
.
And just yesterday hippo called me the grammar nazi. The typical double standard liberals can do but not conservative. Liberals make honest mistakes while conservatives are stupid.
.
And yet you keep getting gout smarted by conservatives. All that education so much waste.

so, do you know the difference or not?
.
Your book must have required a lot of editing, except it was a Chemical Engineering book, full of structures and equations.
.
by the way, I’m not liberal by any stretch, just some guy with common sense (at least, it should be common)

“”You have used this a couple of times before now and I thought they were just typo”
.
And just yesterday hippo called me the grammar nazi. The typical double standard liberals can do but not conservative. Liberals make honest mistakes while conservatives are stupid.
.
And yet you keep getting gout smarted by conservatives. All that education so much waste.”
.
I called you a spellin’ nazi because that seemed to be the most important argument for you to make.
.
You’re ‘philosophying’ about me being an idiot above because you don’t have to worry about no stinking facts when you deal with liberals as long as you can cornhole your point into something about how liberals are.
.
Nothing explains better how morally corrupt you are than the exchange above.
.
Your entire argument about what I wrote was because I didn’t spell right (previous post related to me calling you a spellin’ nazi). Not the content, not the data, not my argument. But my spelling. So you get the taste of the same irrelevant argument above, but instead of making the point that it doesn’t matter, you make a point that our appareance of doublestandard (like we’re all the same and the responder and I live in the same apartment like twins) is not the same as yours. That incredibly enough your double standard is the liberals fault because we break the rules that you are now forced to break yourself.
.
Give me a break and cry me a river. You’re a spelling nazi, he’s a grammar nazi and that’s the end of it. The only idiot in this conversation is the one who cornhole logic so bad that it’s the liberals fault. What a whiny baby you are. I don’t think you’re wrong, morally corrupt or lack integrity because you’re ‘conservative’, I think so because you display it. The best argument you can make in a sea of stupidity ‘on your side’ is that I’m a ‘librul’. That’s your whole argument.
.
And that’s just ironic.

freeinpa,

Back to the point you made in 5.1 of this blog. You point out that income taxes were raised from 25% to 63% and you tie it to the argument made by Conservatives that Roosevelt’s policies prolonged the Depression and did not solve it.

What you fail to mention was that in 1932, Republican Herbert Hoover was president. Hoover was president until March 1933. Furthermore, at that time, it was Republicans who controlled Congress, so the bank panic of 1932 is clearly belongs to Mr. Hoover and not Roosevelt. What is clear was that Hoover and the Republicans greatly raised income tax rates and that helped make the Great Depression.

That aside, while I agree that raising taxes will not solve our deficit problem, raising marginal rates will not cause a “double dip” recession. Clinton raised marginal rates in the 1990s and our economy boomed. It boomed because of Bill, no, not Bill Clinton, but Bill Gates. The 1990s boom was technology driven.

What President Obama understands is that the way to grow our economy is by innovation. He is trying to push us towards innovation to kick start the economy. His mistake is that it has to be market-driven and not dictated by government. People have to want electric cars and energy saving light bulbs. The government can’t mandate their use.

I know you and a number of your Conservative friends have argued that Obama was out of his league as President. I would recommend you and your friends read Krauthammer’s opinion of Obama. Clearly he is not an Obama lover, but he understands that Obama is a lot smarter than Conservative commentators on this blog suggest.

“The reason these companies go off-shore is for several reasons: lower wages for qualified employees, less regulation and the fact that the US has the highest or one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world.”

Yeah, so we should lower their taxes to almost nothing, get rid of environmental projection laws, dismantle unions created to insure worker safety and workers rights, get rid of the idea that businesses should provide workers benefits, and lower the minimum wage.

That about sums up the republican agenda. We can compete with third worlds by becoming one. Everyone can have a job then. $1 an hour job working in dangerous conditions, with zero benefits while trashing the land and polluting our environment that directly takes a toll on human health. When we talk about saving the planet we are talking about saving humans. Just for the record.

If you think corporate America has your best interest at heart, go look at the working conditions in 3rd worlds. Hell, while we are at it, lets start the practice of child labor again. Poor families who desperately need loans for food over winter can sell their 4 year olds into basic slavery to carpet factories, like Iqbal Masih.

Why in the world people think corporate America has their best interest at heart is baffling to me. It must be ignorance. They must not know about the coal mines 100 years ago.. or friggen anything.

“I’m not liberal by any stretch”
.
I apologize if I offended your common sense.

.
hippo– again paragraphs where you say nothing.

Replying to my own comment, talk to me about effective corporate tax rate or don’t talk at all. I don’t care what the law says they should pay, I only care about what they actually pay.

“…that no US corporations actually have to pay”
.
And it their fault for following the tax code? Did you notice that the companies mention in the article GE and Google big Demo supporters.
.
Hippo now you whine for paragraphs with your opinions and no facts. Talk about moving goal posts.

“hippo– again paragraphs where you say nothing.”
.
True – so very true. I should do like you and say nothing in a haiku.

Okay, one more time, the fact that we are arguing about who should get lower taxes, while corporations essentially rape our economy by taking advantage of the infrastructure our country provides them to grow and thrive while paying nothing back in, tells you everything you need to know about what’s wrong with our government (and I mean everyone, executive, legislative and judiciary). The GOP and the DEMS have set up a system where it’s the rich fighting with the middleclass and while they’re distracted the corporations are robbing the American people blind. They is literally no one in our Government who gets it. We just had an “election” that was almost entirely paid for with corporate money, on both sides! Where is the outrage?!

And guess what else? The media are all corporate owned, so they have no incentive to rock the boat or question the practice. So throw the media in with the executive, legislative and judicial branches.

“Hippo now you whine for paragraphs with your opinions and no facts. Talk about moving goal posts”
.
Now you change the definition of changing the premise, moving the goal posts?
.
I’m glad you’re confident enough to change reality to suite you.
.
How about your prove me wrong since you have all the facts. Should be easy for someone like you.

You are correct. I forgot to mention it was Hoover who raised taxes. That coupled with the Republicans insistence on Smoot-Hawley was the real initial problem.

But regardless of the letter after the name, raising taxes was at least partially responsible for the bank run in 1932.
.
raising marginal rates will not cause a “double dip” recession. Clinton raised marginal rates in the 1990s and our economy boomed. It boomed because of Bill, no, not Bill Clinton, but Bill Gates. The 1990s boom was technology driven.”
.
I disagree about the double dip and so do many economists. That aside Clinton faced an economy that was well on its way to recovery even though he campaign that (it was the worst economy in 50 years). But one thing you fail to mention that the Republicans took over Congress and restrained Bubba’s big plans for spending the peace dividend. Also the tech boom was also responsible for a big squeeze on the middle class as productivity reduced the ranks of mid-level employees.

there, you use “your” correctly now …. I’m still all confused, will you ever address my main question of whether you know the difference or not? You know you could get some help if you just ask.

Let’s rally for Santorum.
.
The ever virginal Katherine Jean Lopez of NRO loves him so.
Believer in intelligent design
Equates pedaphelia, incest, beastiality with homosexuality
Liberal culture in Boston caused priestly pedaphelia
Fine the people who didn’t evacuate before Hurricane Katrina
Scammed children’s tuition fees
Bogus claim WMD found
Privatize SS
Supported state interference in Schiavo case
.
But, he does work for the Fox Propaganda Network. I think that requires he run for President.

“Santorum — That’s Latin for a$$hole”.
Bob Kerry

freeinpa,

Granted, a Republican Congress probably did keep Clinton from spending too much money. Unfortunately a Republican Senate and House did not stop the free-wheeling era of spending from George W. Bush.

Bush squandered that surplus with two wars not paid for and an unfunded drug benefit plan. When you go to war, it has to be paid for and the country has to make sacrifices. Bush told us to go shopping and left it to future generations to pay for his folly in Iraq.

If anything, that is a strong case to re-elect Obama and keep a Republican Congress.

As far as the tech boom squeezing the mid-level management, they have being squeezed for more than a generation. We no longer make things in this country. All of our manufacturing has moved overseas. We saw how our economy was hurt during the 1970s and the 1980s.

You can argue that Clinton benefited from a recovery, but it was a mild one at best. And what about George H.W. Bush, didn’t he benefit from a much stronger recovery from Reagan, only to lose the Presidency because of a mild recession in 1991? By then, all the benefits of the “Reagan” recovery were gone, while we continue to recover from all the “deregulation” which allowed for the development of the economic bubbles which have recently bursed.