U.S. Politics - More of it

[SpicyTurkey]

The rich benefiting more from progressive taxation is a very non-direct benefit whereby they benefit from the society that progressive taxation creates.

That makes no economic sense.

[Shryke]

Don't need to. I understand the origins just fine.

Neither did Canada, or any other country of which I'm aware. But if you have examples of other western nations that have anti-filibuster rules built-in to their written constitutions, I'd like to know. Otherwise, you seem to be picking on the framers of the U.S. Constitution for a problem nobody else addressed constitutionally either, which seems pretty unfair given that they were the first ones to draft a modern constitution.

"picking on the framers of the U.S. Constitution"? :rofl:

Sorry FLOW, I was trying to give you credit for some sort of actual objection to my point and not just some idiotic nationalistic chest-thumping whereby you can't take any criticism of your nation's founders. I'll refrain in the future.

You haven't actually contradicted anything I said btw.

[Horza]

never mind

[Shryke]

Yes, it is. The rich get more benefits from society and their actions cause more negative externalities on society; that is the only justification for their paying a higher tax rate to society. If the only reason was, "the government needs the money", it never would've flown.

No it isn't. It's not even the one used. Progressive taxation is used because the rich can afford to pay more. It's an argument based on the diminishing marginal utility of money.

When you say "it never would've flown" you are both wrong and not even making an ethical argument, only a political image one.

[Shryke]

That makes no economic sense.

Wha?

I guess I'm not surprised you wouldn't understand how the society progessive taxation pays for would benefit the wealthy. It's not like a stable secure society with an educated workforce with disposable cash to spend being of benefit could make any economic sense. No sir, that's just madness.

[Brienne the Beauty]

It's quite a purge, sad a gay man can't publicly work for Romney per the national party. lucky for the GOP they don't have to fire (yet) all their gay speech writers, aides and assistants.

Romney, he liked gays until he didn't. Etch that sketch.

Yeah. I'm sure his aide being gay was a non-issue for Romney right up until he realised he needed the bigot vote.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

I wonder if he was pushed to resign or not. Seems like this is the Romney campaign wavering again. Anyone read Transmetropolitan by Warren Ellis. Romney == Smiler.

Totally. I hope Obama hires some filthy assistants to counter him.

[DanteGabriel]

I wonder if he was pushed to resign or not. Seems like this is the Romney campaign wavering again. Anyone read Transmetropolitan by Warren Ellis. Romney == Smiler.

I thought John Edwards was the Smiler... Let's face it, most of those pigfuckers in Washington are part Beast and part Smiler.

[Fez]

No it isn't. It's not even the one used. Progressive taxation is used because the rich can afford to pay more. It's an argument based on the diminishing marginal utility of money.

When you say "it never would've flown" you are both wrong and not even making an ethical argument, only a political image one.

Well yeah, if it didn't raise more revenue, we wouldn't do it. But there are lots of way to raise revenue, we could loot neighboring countries to raise revenue if we wanted to build on the Roman model. But as a country founded on philosophical guidelines (mostly, but not entirely, rules utilitarianism) there still needs to be an ethical justification for why the action is occurring; in this case its their fair payment for taking greater advantage of societal benefits and/or covering the costs of their negative externalities.

And I"m saying it wouldn't have flown because there would've been no ethical justification.

[Jon Sprunk]

To my mind, the progressive tax system isn't justified by societal benefits (although some people seem to take comfort in that).

On the West Wing, one episode explained progressive taxation in a way that made it very clear. Imagine you are about to be born in America, but you have no idea what family you will be born into, no idea of your social status, no idea how smart or good-looking or talented you will be. Only that you will be born in this country. Now devise a tax system based on that idea.

Most people, understanding that starting point, will come to the conclusion that taxing a person making $19,000 per year at the same rate as a person making $19 million per year is absurd.

This is also illustrated in a wonderful parable in the bible. Jesus goes to a town and the people take up a collection, I think to give to the poor. An old woman gives a little bit, like 2 pieces of silver, and a rich man gives a bag of gold (forgive me if I'm shaky on the details. Catacism classes were a LONG time ago.) Anyway, the people ask Jesus who was the most blessed, and Jesus says the old woman. The rich man protests that he gave an entire bag of gold and she merely gave a couple pieces of silver. Jesus says, yes, but for the old woman, those pieces of silver were all that she had in the world, while the rich man could easily afford the gold and still remain wealthy.

That is the ethical justification of progressive taxation.

[TrackerNeil]

Crazy? No, I don't see any. This is well within the current standard operating procedure of the GOP.

Agreed. However, it's interesting that Romney had to roll over even on an issue as trivial as this. Grenell's attachment to the campaign was no statement on policy - Romney still opposes marriage equality and all that - but apparently his very presence was enough to set off the God Squad. (Even partisan hack Jennifer Rubin thought what happened was objectionable, although she naturally "balances" the slate with a phony a-pox-on-both-their-houses screed.)

More than anything else, this demonstrates just how sensitive Romney remains to the crazies, and just how much influence those crazies have over him.

[lokisnow]

Andrew Sullivan summed it up very succinctly:

And his reward for such loyalty, sincerity and pugnacity?

Vilification.

I mean: what do Republicans call a gay man with neoconservative passion, a committed relationship and personal courage?

A faggot.

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/05/the-lonely-plight-of-the-gay-republican.html

What do Republicans call an openly gay man who has worked ferociously for their party for two decades, who called non-Gingrichites "squishes", who was a spokesman for John Bolton, whose school was a Christian college in Missouri, whose parents were Christian missionaries, and is and was, by all accounts, a true believer in conservative principles (which, in a sane GOP, would include marriage rights for gays)?

A faggot.

http://andrewsulliva...e-believer.html

[DanteGabriel]

Now now, the Republicans who believe those things are surely just some bad apples that you can't judge the whole party by, since numerous Republican leaders have condemned homophobic...

Oh, wait.

[Brienne the Beauty]

With this reward for his honesty, no doubt ambitious young gay Republicans will be going to IKEA for a nice new Closet. Which should provide hilarity for the media in future when they inevitably get "outed."

[Shryke]

Agreed. However, it's interesting that Romney had to roll over even on an issue as trivial as this. Grenell's attachment to the campaign was no statement on policy - Romney still opposes marriage equality and all that - but apparently his very presence was enough to set off the God Squad. (Even partisan hack Jennifer Rubin thought what happened was objectionable, although she naturally "balances" the slate with a phony a-pox-on-both-their-houses screed.)

More than anything else, this demonstrates just how sensitive Romney remains to the crazies, and just how much influence those crazies have over him.

What's amazing is his very subtle but very effective slap to Romney on the way out. He basically brings up his sexual orientation being the issue without actually saying it.

[TrackerNeil]

With this reward for his honesty, no doubt ambitious young gay Republicans will be going to IKEA for a nice new Closet. Which should provide hilarity for the media in future when they inevitably get "outed."

Let me be clear, though; I don't have very much sympathy for Grenell, who is pretty much a water-carrier for a party hostile to gay rights. Any gay man who insists upon climbing into that shark-pool doesn't earn my sympathy when he gets bitten.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Romney, he liked gays until he didn't. Etch that sketch.

Is there any evidence that Romney asked him to resign versus the guy resigning of his own volition?

[Brienne the Beauty]

Is there any evidence that Romney asked him to resign versus the guy resigning of his own volition?

Yes, I'm dead sure he decided to resign at the pinnacle of his career just because. I doubt Romney asked him in so many words, but the party made its views clear.

[Guest Raidne]

What's amazing is his very subtle but very effective slap to Romney on the way out. He basically brings up his sexual orientation being the issue without actually saying it.

Yeah, it was a pretty transparently backhanded resignation letter in my book.

FLOW, if you want to read it differently, that's your business, but I'd read it over again.

Specifically, the Romney campaign stopped sending him out to talk to groups when they were worried about backlash and he effectively wasn't able to do his job. That's in the article I posted. So when he says "I want to thank Governor Romney for his belief in me and my abilities and his clear message to me that being openly gay was a non-issue for him and his team," he's talking about what he was promised when he joined the campaign in the first place. It's completely sarcastic.

From the Washington Post:

During the two weeks after Grenell’s hiring was announced the Romney campaign did not put Grenell out to comment on national security matters and did not use him on a press foreign policy conference call. Despite the controversy in new media and in conservative circles, there was no public statement of support for Grenell by the campaign and no supportive social conservatives were enlisted to calm the waters.

This is even though the Obama campaign has been calling out Romney over his statements about going after bin Laden given the instability of the situation in Paskistan - surely that is a situation Grenell was hired specifically to address, and Romney isn't doing a very good job on his own at the moment. He has a clear answer - in 2008, he thought a blanket announcement of an intention to invade Pakistan was immature and failed to respect the sensitivity of the political situation there, but under the circumstances Obama faced, he thinks even Jimmy Carter would have made the same call.

This of course isn't true, but he's not even making the case clearly. I can't imagine how frustrated Grenell was to not be allowed to do the job he was just hired to do because of his sexual orientation while his candidate fumbles an issue that should be a slam-dunk - even NPR seems to think Obama's statements are a bit crass and overly political.

[Shryke]

The latest installment in our ongoing series "Shep Smith is Awsome, why is he at Fox News again?":