U.S. Politics, 15

[alguien]

King voted for the bill both times. He was pissed the first time because Democrats insisted on a 2/3 procedure they pretty much knew wouldn't pass. He said he understood the (mostly GOP) objections to the bill, so he didn't begrudge them voting against it. He just wanted it to pass. That's why Weiner blowing up at him was so odd.

I thought King was one of the people who objected to the procedure, even though he voted for the bill. And I'm almost positive Dems rushed it to avoid the lawsuit deadline.

BTW, Obama did hail its passage. So your claim that the WH didn't support isn't correct.

[Commodore]

I keep hearing Obama and others say the rich can "afford to pay more".

Does anyone have an issue with the premise that the state is entitled to any income "you can afford"?

As long as someone is "rich", they can afford to pay more, by definition, until they are no longer rich. Which brings us to the core motive, wealth redistribution.

[lokisnow]

I keep hearing Obama and others say the rich can "afford to pay more".

Does anyone have an issue with the premise that the state is entitled to any income "you can afford"?

As long as someone is "rich", they can afford to pay more, by definition, until they are no longer rich. Which brings us to the core motive, wealth redistribution.

Was this the theme of Rush today?

It's such a shame that we're redistributing rich people's money to kill people in afghanistan and iraq, maybe we'd redistribute less of their money that way if we had a smaller military? It's a shame everyone has to pay for things like roads. you should only be allowed to use a road if you can afford to build one yourself. There's a booming business waiting to happen in mortgaging personal roads that the evil socialist government is oppressing!!!!! Sewers too, you shouldn't be allowed to use a sewer--at work or at home--unless you've built your own sewer system. Evil government oppressing private industry!

one thing you can be certain of, since the cap on social security and medicare is at 106,000, the Rich have almost no money redistributed to those programs.

So the idea that we're robbing the rich to care for the elderly is pretty absurd, we tax the middle class to support the elderly, we quite clearly don't tax the rich to do that.

It's not the rich whose wealth is being redistributed, it's the middle Class' wealth that is being redistributed.

And we redistribute middle class monies because Rush et al have convinced folks like you that we're redistributing rich peoples moneys. Bzzt. wrong again.

[Lord Mord]

Commodore,

As long as someone is "rich", they can afford to pay more, by definition, until they are no longer rich. Which brings us to the core motive, wealth redistribution.

This would be much more frightening if I weren't already plenty alarmed at wealth disparity. If there's that much to be had, there's no need for, and more important there is no benefit in its being so intensely concentrated in so very few.

[CloudFlare]

I love when republican friends/family say they can't stand Obama. Because their party created him. He wouldn't have had a snowball's chance if the GOP was even marginally competent.

I loved it when Democratic acquaintances say they couldn't stand Dubya. Because their party created him. He wouldn't have had a snowball's chance in hell if Donna Brazile had been halfway competent.

(Seriously, thank God we dodged the McCain bullet. The fucker is beyond psycho.)

Edit: And thank you Bob Shrum. I forgot that he was involved in '00 as well as '04.

[Smashing Young Man]

So no one is going to mention Obama's symbolic abdication of the presidency to Bill Clinton during yesterday's press conference? This is why I say "fuck you" to all who voted for Obama. The nation is effectively leaderless.

[CloudFlare]

So no one is going to mention Obama's symbolic abdication of the presidency to Bill Clinton during yesterday's press conference? This is why I say "fuck you" to all who voted for Obama. The nation is effectively leaderless.

I was going to mention it, but I was watching Olberman's big fuck you to the President.

The mini-abdication is bizarre. Obama is tightly wound and needs frequent downtime to stay balanced... but I was flabbergasted with what happened. I think he's overmatched by the job. Not in the intellectual/curiosity way that Dubya was, but maybe more emotionally/energetically. Being president can wear down even the hardest charging personalities like a CEO. Being a community organizer didn't(and probably couldn't) prepare him to be president.

[Merentha]

I keep hearing Obama and others say the rich can "afford to pay more".

Does anyone have an issue with the premise that the state is entitled to any income "you can afford"?

As long as someone is "rich", they can afford to pay more, by definition, until they are no longer rich. Which brings us to the core motive, wealth redistribution.

Right. Obama wants to redistribute wealth. Bullshit. Man's incredibly pro-corporation

First, some problems with your assumptions. If you'd bothered to actually listen to the pretty amazing 8.5hr speech Sanders just gave, you'd have heard nice statistics on income disparity and some human interest stories on the topic. In addition, you'd realize that by "afford to pay more" they effectively mean "would notice absolutely no practical difference in their means of living or, in fact, even realize they didn't have as much until their financial planner told them." Second, the quoted statement does not logically follow to mean that any or all of affordable income should be taxed. Third, you imply that wealth distribution being wrong is a statement of uncontested fact. You also rely on assumptions that people will use connotations of complete wealth redistribution to understand that all wealth will be equally spread. That, again, is false.

However, interpreting the statement as saying that "currently, the tax burden to the grossly rich is nowhere near close to being unnecessary and there is a need for their money to sustain the basic needs of others, so raising (or, more accurately, ending a cut of) their taxes is in no way overly harsh" means that suddenly, your logic train (even if you take all subsequent leaps of logic to be true) no longer ends with "Obamer wants you to be poor!"

[Shryke]

The important part is everyone needs to go watch Bernie Sanders Great Epic Speech.

The fact that he had a continuous stream of visual aids for it is itself a fucking miracle of biblical proportions.

The content though ... goddamn. Incredibly good.

[lokisnow]

So no one is going to mention Obama's symbolic abdication of the presidency to Bill Clinton during yesterday's press conference? This is why I say "fuck you" to all who voted for Obama. The nation is effectively leaderless.

I'm sort of speechless at this allegation. Was Clinton so successful at turning things in favor of the tax bargain that republicans find this the only line of attack?

Seriously? Obama attending a holiday party is now abdicating the presidency?

What the fuck is wrong with you guys, is it cause he's black? ;)

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Don't you think that the GOP could do a lot to dim such uncertainty on the ACA if they stopped talking about repealing it? Not saying there isn't still some uncertainty with the law fully in tact.

I think there is so much uncertainty in that bill that the possibility of repeal doesn't change the business calculus much, if at all. That uncertainty is going to last at least through 2014, so the possibility of repealing is maybe the only hope for stability out there.

Focusing solely on the uncertainty factor, this bill much worse than a single-payer system. It permits/maintains the existence of employer-based insurance, but subjects businesses to the inherently unknowable vagaries of commission rules regulating such insurance, including taxes and penalties for noncompliance with those unknowable standards, etc.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

If you'd bothered to actually listen to the pretty amazing 8.5hr speech Sanders just gave....

Well, I didn't listen to Castro's 4 hour rants, or Chavez's 6 hour rants, so why would I listen to Bernie "Red" Sanders 8 hour rants?

The flaw in the argument Sanders made, assuming your summary is correct, is that a great many of the "rich people" supposedly being hit by this tax are actually businesses that file as individuals. So, what you're really going to be doing is increasing business taxes significantly smack in the middle of an economic downturn.

For a class warrior like Sanders, whether raising taxes on those businesses results in fewer jobs for the little people he claims to represent really doesn't matter. As long as it punishes "the rich", he's all for it.

[Rhom]

So no one is going to mention Obama's symbolic abdication of the presidency to Bill Clinton during yesterday's press conference? This is why I say "fuck you" to all who voted for Obama. The nation is effectively leaderless.

This was my initial reaction as well. Was Clinton such a masterful motivator of men that we now have him for half a term?!!? It was bizarre theater.

I generally avoid this thread, but seeing the whold thing go down on Good Morning America this morning was sufficiently bizarre to make me check in and get the pulse of other people.

My wife is a huge Obama supporter and even she felt like it was a symbolic statement of "I can't handle this... so here's someone who can."

[Swordfish]

I think there is so much uncertainty in that bill that the possibility of repeal doesn't change the business calculus much, if at all. That uncertainty is going to last at least through 2014, so the possibility of repealing is maybe the only hope for stability out there.

Focusing solely on the uncertainty factor, this bill much worse than a single-payer system. It permits/maintains the existence of employer-based insurance, but subjects businesses to the inherently unknowable vagaries of commission rules regulating such insurance, including taxes and penalties for noncompliance with those unknowable standards, etc.

HIPPA and SOX, I'm looking at you.

[Swordfish]

I haven't seen it yet, but I read a bit about it. It sounds like a terrible move for Obama because it does seem to project weakness.

NVM. Found it.

[Altherion]

The flaw in the argument Sanders made, assuming your summary is correct, is that a great many of the "rich people" supposedly being hit by this tax are actually businesses that file as individuals. So, what you're really going to be doing is increasing business taxes significantly smack in the middle of an economic downturn.

A business should not be filing as an individual in the first place so these people will have the option of filing as what they actually are or paying the higher rate. Furthermore, businesses are currently sitting on the money just as individuals are so there's little harm in taxing them.

I have not heard the speech, but from what I have read, there is no flaw in his reasoning. What he is saying is correct, although for obvious reasons, it is not a popular opinion within the ruling class. It's almost certainly not going to be enough to stop the tax deal in the Senate, but if things don't get better soon, this way of thinking will carry more and more weight. IMHO, if Obama followed FDR's example and played this card from the start of the administration, he would be in a much better position than he is now. The incident with Clinton and the press is just bizarre.

[Shryke]

Well, I didn't listen to Castro's 4 hour rants, or Chavez's 6 hour rants, so why would I listen to Bernie "Red" Sanders 8 hour rants?

The flaw in the argument Sanders made, assuming your summary is correct, is that a great many of the "rich people" supposedly being hit by this tax are actually businesses that file as individuals. So, what you're really going to be doing is increasing business taxes significantly smack in the middle of an economic downturn.

For a class warrior like Sanders, whether raising taxes on those businesses results in fewer jobs for the little people he claims to represent really doesn't matter. As long as it punishes "the rich", he's all for it.

Yeah, sure FLOW. You know all this cause you didn't listen. Makes perfect sense....

[Merentha]

The flaw in the argument Sanders made, assuming your summary is correct, is that a great many of the "rich people" supposedly being hit by this tax are actually businesses that file as individuals. So, what you're really going to be doing is increasing business taxes significantly smack in the middle of an economic downturn.

How many of those people are actually businesses? Because, for instance, the estate tax targets less than 0.5% of the population, so a "great many" is not exactly true in the case of the estate tax. This talking point is constantly repeated and I never see data on how many of these "businesses filing as people" actually would be affected. Furthermore, its already been said earlier in this thread that a huge problem with businesses avoiding spending money is the uncertainty, not the increased taxes.

You...do know that taxes are at a historic low, right?

For a class warrior like Sanders, whether raising taxes on those businesses results in fewer jobs for the little people he claims to represent really doesn't matter. As long as it punishes "the rich", he's all for it.

He was pretty isolationist in his speech and was in favor of increasing infrastructure as a way of creating jobs and benefiting the people running the company. He does care, and if you or anyone else could prove that raising taxes would result in fewer jobs rather than repeating it as an article of faith, I'd love to hear it.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

A business should not be filing as an individual in the first place so these people will have the option of filing as what they actually are or paying the higher rate. Furthermore, businesses are currently sitting on the money just as individuals are so there's little harm in taxing them.

Well, whether they "should" be permitted to do that or not is a separate question. But if you think there's no problem with increasing business taxes during a downturn, then I guess I'll just say that I disagree, and leave it at that.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Yeah, sure FLOW. You know all this cause you didn't listen. Makes perfect sense....

I suppose the "assuming your summary is correct" part escaped your notice....