U.S. Politics 19

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

And a good day to you, sir!

Oh hell, that certainly includes me too since I've been arguing about it as well. It's just that in the context of elections, it's a pointless argument because the average voter won't see a difference.

Oh, here's another candidate whose getting some run -- Herman Cain, the former CEO of Godfather's Pizza, and a black conservative. Here's what one of the open-minded progressives at Alternet had to say about him:

In the immortal words of Megatron in Transformers: The Movie, Herman Cain’s speech at CPAC really is bad comedy. As you know, I find black garbage pail kids black conservatives fascinating not because of what they believe, but rather because of how they entertain and perform for their White Conservative masters....

http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2011/02/12/black-history-month-is-herman-cain-playing-the-race-minstrel-for-cpac/

[Shryke]

This is just a weird discussion. Only anal-retentive message board geeks and political junkies with already fixed political opinions could possibly see a meaningful distinction between "you want to increase tax rates" and "you want to let tax rates increase."

Actually it's the difference between "You want to raise taxes" and "You want to let tax cuts expire".

And, in fact, it's only the people paying attention who will notice there's virtually no difference. Rhetorically and politically, the 2 are completely different.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

FLOW,

Now that little tyrade isn't racist, at all.

*rolls eyes*

[Swordfish]

The way you stated it, "picking a baseline from the past" IMO implied randomness. My apologies if I misinterpreted. At the very least, this wasn't just a baseline from the past. It has been, for the past 11 years the baseline. Its just we've put it off for ten years. If they wanted to change this, they had 10 years to do so.

In any event, I think the reason we argue over wording is that context matters. Saying simply, "The Democrats are trying to raise your taxes!" is politically loaded rhetoric. And its worth pointing out the context to give lie to the misrepresentation.

But... It isn't a lie. The democrats DO want to raise taxes. The mechanism is admittedly letting previous tax cuts expire, but if they DIDN'T want to raise taxes, they could easily prevent it.

That's sort of what I've been asking about.

Do you really think people who care about their taxes being raised are concerned about the distinction?

I get that the democrats don't want to be tagged with the label of wanting to raise taxes, i just can't really feel much sympathy for them since that is exactly what they want to do. (even if they just want to raise taxes back to a previous level)

Heh. :cheers:

Whereas I'm not always happy with the Dems, but by and large, I agree with their political philosophy, and they do actually try to enact it.

I can understand that. Although I think there's a level of ineptitude where 'has the same philosophy' is no longer good enough, and you have to focus on results.

But that limit is going to be different for everyone.

I guess it would be hard to decide who I disdained more, the hypocrites who claimed to represent me, or the party whose philosophy I consistently oppose.

I think I disdain them both more or less equally, depending on the day.

I do believe that if the story is told as having the rate revert back to the earlier rate, and that this reversion is part of the law, that fewer people will have a problem with that.

:laugh:

If you say so.

It's like making a promise. Most people wouldn't want to go back on an agreement. They will still feel bad about having to pay more in taxes, but they will at least accept that it was what the law said. As opposed to the GOP narrative, where this reversion to earlier rate is portrayed as a new law made to increase your tax rate.

What are you talking about? The people never made any such agreement. That's utterly absurd.

Show me when i agreed to have my taxes go up? For that matter, show me where I agreed to have them go down.

The people you are talking about don't want their current tax rates to go up. THAT is what they care about. Period.

Not this pedantic bullshit about 'Well, we TOLD you it was going to go up, so therefor it's isn't REALLY an increase, except in the sense that it's an increase back to the higher rates you used to have, so we're cool, right?'.

Your argument is utter nonsense.

And a good day to you, sir! :)

he meant it in the kindest possible way.

;)

So, looking at Obama's budget again, it has another weird little calculation in it.

Apparently, it's predicting that the basis point interest on the debt will go down.

How can we have deficits year over year yet borrow money more cheaply?

Well, in fairness, half of what he campaigned on was hope.

So at least he wasn't lying about that part.

ETA: This discussion reminds me of that old Jack Handy that goes something like:

"Marta got upset that i used the word puke. but to me, that's what her dinner tasted like.'

[Fez]

How can we have deficits year over year yet borrow money more cheaply?

We can so long as there's no other more appealing safe option for investors to park their money. Or if the supply of money is outpacing the demand for it (Chinese inflation?)

[Shryke]

So, looking at Obama's budget again, it has another weird little calculation in it.

Apparently, it's predicting that the basis point interest on the debt will go down.

How can we have deficits year over year yet borrow money more cheaply?

Because it's the US. I'm not sure if it will get cheaper to borrow money as I'm not super familiar with how that's looking right now, but there's certainly no reason it couldn't and not much chance of it going the other way.

The US is still a secure investment.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

I saw my first Obama/Biden 2012 bumper sticker this morning. The slogan was "Change is Here".

[Shryke]

How the economy is going right now is a static analysis of limited value for business planners. They can address that with temps. What they care about when it comes to making capital or medium/long term investments is what the economy will be doing in the future. And that inherently requires them to have some opinion on how pending or current government actions/policies will affect their likelihood of making a profitable return on their investment. And what you don't seem to grasp is that whether or not their opinion is "correct" is irrelevant to the decisions they make.

There are companies paying lawyers right now to analyze things like the ACA and tell them how it will affect labor costs. Companies pay their finance people to run similar analyses on things like tax policies because they use that information to make future decisions. Whether you believe that happens or not doesn't change the fact that it does.

Why does the Chamber of Commerce care at all, Shryke? If the decisions of government do not affect the bottom line of businesses, why do they bother lobbying?

They care because they want to use their power to bend the rules to their advantage. It's the same reason they have lawyers pouring over this stuff, so they can find the best way to make money in the framework they have right now. That's business for you. Do the best within the system and work to change the system.

What they don't do is sit back and lose money till they get a better deal from politicians. Because that's losing money compared to the guy who says "fuck it" and goes out and makes money anyway in the climate that exists. You are positing some sort of grand business conspiracy where everyone is agreeing to sit on their hands till the White House treats them nicer and absolutely no one is trying to get ahead while everyone else is sitting around. It's ludicrous.

Right now, companies are potentially losing shitloads of potential revenue because they are sitting on huge piles of cash when interest rates are ridiculously low. (those low interest rates, btw, are there exactly to discourage this kind of behavior) They aren't doing this because Obama is mean, they are doing this because they don't see the potential in the market. Because they don't trust that the economy is in a position to allow them to make a profit. And because they think they will need that money later. They aren't holding out for a better deal from Washington, they are scared shitless.

But please, continue your argument for corporate oligarchy in the face of a startling lack of evidence that business retards investment because a democrat is in the White House. (and believe me, that evidence has been looked for)

[Guest Raids]

** coughs loudly **

or lawyers :P

** cough cough **

Orly? I think we've demonstrated that anal-retentive message board geek lawyers actually don't care as much as other anal-retentive message board geeks...

I saw my first Obama/Biden 2012 bumper sticker this morning. The slogan was "Change is Here".

Okay, I guess I know that for you that is self-evidently funny, and therefore I can't rip on you for thinking that, because if it's so ridiculous to think it's funny, how do I know that's what your meaning is here?

But, they can make a case. Right? Right? Bueller?

Goddamn it.

[alguien]

Do you really think people who care about their taxes being raised are concerned about the distinction?

I get that the democrats don't want to be tagged with the label of wanting to raise taxes, i just can't really feel much sympathy for them since that is exactly what they want to do. (even if they just want to raise taxes back to a previous level)

Probably dragging this out, as a proud card-carrying anal-retentive message board geek, but I think a substantial segment might care. In the world of politics, rhetoric makes a difference.

If the GOP claims "The Democrats want to raise taxes!" the uninformed might believe that this is just coming out of nowhere. I think its perfectly sensible to say, "No, they want to let the temporary cut expire. The 10 years of irresponsibly not paying for your government is over. Those tax cuts--which were remarkably ineffective btw--were never meant to be permanent. So you will be returning to the same rate you had 10 years ago. As was planned."

One could then follow up with the point, "And if the GOP had wanted them to be permanent, they had 11 years to bring forth legislation of that kind."

ETA: and they could follow that up with, "And if you don't like that option, prepare for CUTS. Not those pansy pork programs that account for 1% of our problems: Medicare, SS, and Military. Here's the machete. Hack away at your own benefits."

I can understand that. Although I think there's a level of ineptitude where 'has the same philosophy' is no longer good enough, and you have to focus on results.

But that limit is going to be different for everyone.

Sure. To be honest, given the vitriolic opposition nowadays, I'm satisfied with the progress made thus far.

[TerraPrime]

Re: FLoW

This is just a weird discussion. Only anal-retentive message board geeks and political junkies with already fixed political opinions could possibly see a meaningful distinction between "you want to increase tax rates" and "you want to let tax rates increase."

It's about message control. Telling people that Democrats are raising your taxes is different than telling people that the original law has now come into full effect. It's similar to the GOP tactic of hurling the term "death panels" or asking whether we want the government to decide whether grandma should die or not. These serve to distract and befuddle.

Re: Swordfish

What are you talking about? The people never made any such agreement. That's utterly absurd.

Show me when i agreed to have my taxes go up? For that matter, show me where I agreed to have them go down.

What? So you oppose the entire system of representative democracy in a federated framework?

We agree by proxy through our elected officials. That's how the system works.

The people you are talking about don't want their current tax rates to go up. THAT is what they care about. Period.

And you can speak with such authority because... ?

Not this pedantic bullshit about 'Well, we TOLD you it was going to go up, so therefor it's isn't REALLY an increase, except in the sense that it's an increase back to the higher rates you used to have, so we're cool, right?'.

I think we should appeal to the rational side of our voters, and not pander to the irrational knee-jerk selfish instincts. But, apparently, you disagree.

Your argument is utter nonsense.

Right back at you.

[Swordfish]

Probably dragging this out, as a proud card-carrying anal-retentive message board geek, but I think a substantial segment might care. In the world of politics, rhetoric makes a difference.

If the GOP claims "The Democrats want to raise taxes!" the uninformed might believe that this is just coming out of nowhere. I think its perfectly sensible to say, "No, they want to let the temporary cut expire. The 10 years of irresponsibly not paying for your government is over. Those tax cuts--which were remarkably ineffective btw--were never meant to be permanent. So you will be returning to the same rate you had 10 years ago. As was planned."

it may well be sensible to say that, I just see no reason to believe that people who are going to be upset about their taxes going up are going to care about that level of hair splitting.

People who wouldn't care about increased taxes aren't going to care either way, people who do care are going to be pissed either way.

And let's face it, the democrats DO want to raise taxes, in this area (whether that's keeping them from staying where they are, or directly raising them) and others. They just don't want to be PERCEIVED as raising taxes.

Which is reasonable politics, but not particularly meaningful from a practical standpoint.

One could then follow up with the point, "And if the GOP had wanted them to be permanent, they had 11 years to bring forth legislation of that kind."

ETA: and they could follow that up with, "And if you don't like that option, prepare for CUTS. Not those pansy pork programs that account for 1% of our problems: Medicare, SS, and Military. Here's the machete. Hack away."

Sure. They could do that i guess. But of course, they aren't really interested in cuts, so i doubt that they would.

What? So you oppose the entire system of representative democracy in a federated framework?

We agree by proxy through our elected officials. That's how the system works.

yes, I know how the system works.

But that mechanism is not meaningful in the CONTEXT it was being used in, and which i responded to.

The notion that we feel some obligation to a SPECIFIC piece of legislation as though we'd agreed to it personally rather than by proxy? Is just idiotic.

Thanks for the social studies lesson though.

And you can speak with such authority because... ?

I back up the fact that people don't generally want their taxes to increase with... the history of the way that people react to increases in taxes in this country.

Your assertion that people care more about the pedantic details of why their taxes are going up than they do about the basic fact that their taxes are being increased is backed up by...... I don't know what, actually. Obama's campaign speeches I guess?

:dunno:

I think we should appeal to the rational side of our voters, and not pander to the irrational knee-jerk selfish instincts. But, apparently, you disagree.

You are entitled to pander to whoever you want. I could care less who you pander too, although the people being pandered to might have something to say about it.

Rational voters though, are likely to understand that an increase in taxes is the same thing as a tax increase though, even if they are ok with their taxes going up, and the reasons behind the tax increase.

[alguien]

it may well be sensible to say that, I just see no reason to believe that people who are going to be upset about their taxes going up are going to care about that level of hair splitting.

People who wouldn't care about increased taxes aren't going to care either way, people who do care are going to be pissed either way.

I think you've set up a false dichotomy, to be honest. Its not like everyone is one way or the other. There exists a substantial portion who ask, "So why are my tax rates going up?"

And in those cases, reasonable explanations do matter. I mean, its not like I like having less money, but knowing why that's the case makes a big difference.

And let's face it, the democrats DO want to raise taxes, let the law expire in this area (whether that's keeping them from staying where they are, or directly raising them)

Fixed. (sorry I couldn't resist) But at least they want to be somewhat fiscally solvent by actually paying for what they're spending. It maybe getting kicked in the left nut for you, but its not the gangrenous right nut for me.

[Swordfish]

I think you've set up a false dichotomy about those being taxed, to be honest. Its not like everyone is one way or the other. There exists a substantial portion who ask, "So why are my tax rates going up from what they were the past 10 years?"

And in those cases, reasonable explanations do matter.

Possibly.

But again, I don't think that pretending that taxes going up is not a tax increase is a reasonable explanation that the kind of rational voter you are talking about is going to buy.

It's sort of condescending to be honest.

If you can sell a lot of people on a tax increase, more power to you.

I just don't think waging war on the phrase 'Tax increase' is a particularly effective way to do that. Reasonably intelligent, rational voters may very well be able to stomach a tax increase if the justification is good enough.

But I doubt there going to be very amenable to the argument that that their taxes going up is not really a tax increase.

It's sort of a 'don't piss down my neck and tell me it's raining' situation.

[/ARMBG]

Fixed. (sorry I couldn't resist)

No. It was correct the way it was. I was not referring specifically to just this situation.

Unless you're disputing that they would be raising taxes significantly, at least for the 'rich', if they thought it was more politically acceptable?

But at least they want to be somewhat fiscally solvent by actually paying for what they're spending. It maybe getting kicked in the left nut for you, but its not the gangrenous right nut for me.

Not YET.

;)

[Dinsdale!]

So, looking at Obama's budget again, it has another weird little calculation in it.

Apparently, it's predicting that the basis point interest on the debt will go down.

How can we have deficits year over year yet borrow money more cheaply?

The US Debt market seems immune to that logic. I think it's because the massive trade deficit puts a lot of dollars (trillions!) in the hands of foreigners, and their options to spend them on in that quantity are treasuries or American real estate. And treasuries are safer.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Dinsdale,

What happens if this... optimistic forecast turns out to be incorrect?

[Dinsdale!]

Dinsdale,

What happens if this... optimistic forecast turns out to be incorrect?

Well, if it happens because trade surplus countries don't want to be that anymore, bond rates will go up, but US manufacturing and domestic employment will improve so that's good. I don't think that will happen without a great deal of warning. They can't dump their holdings because they'd lose a lot of money doing so (motivated sellers do not make profits, as a rule).

If it happens suddenly for reasons I do not fathom... The US would be unable to buy, the (mostly Asian) countries that sell to us would have inventory gluts for stuff their domestic markets perhaps don't even need and would take a bath because of their massive dollar holdings. So pretty much total global economic catastrophe. Quite possibly worse than the 2008 crisis.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Dinsdale,

Doen't the growing Chinese domestic market make you nervous? We will never be able to match that kind of buying power.

[Shryke]

Dinsdale,

Doen't the growing Chinese domestic market make you nervous? We will never be able to match that kind of buying power.

Who cares?

[Dinsdale!]

Dinsdale,

Doen't the growing Chinese domestic market make you nervous? We will never be able to match that kind of buying power.

Not really. In a world of resource shortfall, high population can be a blessing and a curse. Ability to consume doesn't bother me if the question is rising Chinese power. Ability to innovate is more relevant. Despite what Tom Friedmann* says, Chinese research is deeply flawed. But research in plenty of Chinese ethno-cultural areas (Taiwan,Hong Kong and Singapore) is not, so I think they will figure it out in the future.

* Easy algorithm to understanding the world. Read one of his columns. Assume the opposite is true.