The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux) [Archive] - Page 26

Alex

11-15-2010, 09:00 PM

And what percentage of all income do that top 1% represent? If they made 38% of the profit in the economy, then they should be paying 38% of the taxes (my guess is that, if you include ALL of their income, that they account for well over 38% of the total US income).

In 2008 the top 1% of income earners reported 20% of income and paid 38% of taxes. Top 5% reported 35% of income and paid 59% of income taxes.

Since much of the bottom 50% of income earners is mostly exempt from income taxes that makes sense it would be skewed that way.

Of course, this is just federal adjusted gross income (which does tend to skew things to the benefit of the wealthier since they have more ways to adjust their income downward).

But federal income tax is progressive, while sales taxes and payroll taxes tend to be regressive and the picture would change (though I don't know how much) if total tax burden were used.

Now the problem really is what constitutes "fair share." Personally, I don't care that I'm taxed at a higher rate than most people I know.

Ghoulish Delight

11-15-2010, 09:13 PM

Of course, this is just federal adjusted gross income (which does tend to skew things to the benefit of the wealthier since they have more ways to adjust their income downward). Which is what I was getting at with "ALL of their income." All of these numbers tend to obscure the fact that higher income earners have sources of incoming money that do not fall under "income" and can be sheltered from tax.

But federal income tax is progressive, while sales taxes and payroll taxes tend to be regressive and the picture would change (though I don't know how much) if total tax burden were used.Yep. Which is why single-line stats are a terrible way to look at things.

JWBear

11-15-2010, 11:04 PM

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

JWBear

11-17-2010, 01:51 PM

I heard an interesting idea today. For every American job their company ships (or has shipped) overseas, a CEO's tax rate goes up .01%. Watch how fast those jobs come flying back to America!

Kevy Baby

11-17-2010, 04:41 PM

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.""Facts to a Liberal are like Kryptonite to Superman."
- Larry Elder (no relation)

alphabassettgrrl

11-18-2010, 10:32 AM

I heard an interesting idea today. For every American job their company ships (or has shipped) overseas, a CEO's tax rate goes up .01%. Watch how fast those jobs come flying back to America!

I like it! :)

Alex

11-18-2010, 11:00 AM

JWBear's idea might feel good emotionally but it could never be implemented and if it did would, I expect, have the opposite impact desired (that is keeping jobs out of America and further pushing the companies themselves to relocate out of the United States)

Not to mention the definitional problem of precisely identifying what is a job that "moved" out of the country (I assume that this is what is meant by "overseas" and not that Mexico is ok). Some are obvious, but many are not.

If I fire 300 people in a U.S. call center and open an Indian one with 100 people, how many jobs moved? My friend recently moved permanently from Seattle to France while keeping the same job, did that move overseas? The CEO ultimately responsible for Budweiser is a Brazilian who lives in Belgium. How are we going to punish him when he moves a bottling plant from Arizona into Mexico since he likely doesn't pay U.S. income taxes? Etc.

JWBear

11-18-2010, 11:32 AM

Not to mention the definitional problem of precisely identifying what is a job that "moved" out of the country (I assume that this is what is meant by "overseas" and not that Mexico is ok). Some are obvious, but many are not.

Yes, out of the country. Mexico and Canada count.

If I fire 300 people in a U.S. call center and open an Indian one with 100 people, how many jobs moved?

100

My friend recently moved permanently from Seattle to France while keeping the same job, did that move overseas?

No. An American still holds the job.

The CEO ultimately responsible for Budweiser is a Brazilian who lives in Belgium. How are we going to punish him when he moves a bottling plant from Arizona into Mexico since he likely doesn't pay U.S. income taxes? Etc.

Foriegn owned companies should no longer be considered "American", and have heavy tarrifs imposed. If you want to operate a company in America, it needs to be owned and operated by Americans. A bit jingoistic, I know, but it's time we start thinking of your own people first.

Alex

11-18-2010, 11:57 AM

Ah, destroy the American economy outright. That'll work well in the long run.

Should Ford not be allowed (or strongly, strongly discouraged) to build and sell cars in India?

JWBear

11-24-2010, 04:58 PM

Justice Scalia says the 14th Amendment does not apply to homosexuals or women. (http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2010/11/antonin-scalia-14th-amendment-should.html)

Disgusting.

Ghoulish Delight

11-30-2010, 04:25 PM

:blush:

I saw a headline today referencing the "Slurpee Summit" and thought, "Fvck that's a horrible thing to call Obama's recent trip to India."

Betty

12-01-2010, 09:12 AM

Ghoulish Delight

12-02-2010, 02:03 PM

You know, if the Republican are right and the fate of job growth, and our entire economy, hinges on whether 2% of the population pays an extra $1500 or so in taxes next year or not, we're all fvcking doomed anyway as far as I'm concerned.

Moonliner

12-02-2010, 02:22 PM

Justice Scalia says the 14th Amendment does not apply to homosexuals or women. (http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2010/11/antonin-scalia-14th-amendment-should.html)

Disgusting.

Reading the article it sounds like he was just stating fact. The 14th Amendment was not written to apply to homosexuals or women (or blacks, or....)

Are you saying the 14th Amendment as written is disgusting or that Scalia is Disgusting for pointing it out?

JWBear

12-02-2010, 02:35 PM

Reading the article it sounds like he was just stating fact. The 14th Amendment was not written to apply to homosexuals or women (or blacks, or....)

Are you saying the 14th Amendment as written is disgusting or that Scalia is Disgusting for pointing it out?

Sorry, no. I'll quote directly from the article, "Scalia made similar comments in September when he told a San Francisco law school that the Constitution offers no protection whatsoever to homosexuals or females. (bolding mine)" This is what he believes, and I find that belief to be disgusting.

wendybeth

12-02-2010, 09:01 PM

So, since they finally got around to extending those protections (I choked a little as I typed that) to women, does that mean he is amenable to doing the same for homosexual persons as well?

Alex

12-02-2010, 09:48 PM

He's not necessarily opposed to them being protected, he just doesn't feel that the protections necessarily originate in the constitution.

Which is true for many rights and protections we have. Many things are allowed by the constitution that aren't required by the constitution.

While I don't particularly agree with his brand of originalism, I don't find it all that controversial either. But he has a point that the things we now claim are explicitly protected by sections of the constitution were illegal before, at, and after those parts of the constitution were created. I really don't see it being at all remarkable to say that the 14th Amendment was not added to the constitution with the intent that it protect homosexual marriage.

If the writers had known it would one day come to be viewed that way, they doubtless would have explicitly excluded it and it is only because our interpretation today is so far outside the realm of what was considered reasonable at the time that it wasn't.

Scalia is an originalist. So him saying that the 14th amendment doesn't mandate gay marriage, for example, is no surprise. But I'm guessing he has no judicial problem with such allowances being created legislatively and his argument that if we want something to be required by the constitution that wasn't originally there the correct thing to do is change the constitution not how we read it is hardly original or that far outside the mainstream.

I support gay marriage. I do think it is an issue of civil liberties. And if we can get it allowed through the back door that is a living constitution I can live with it. But I also don't pretend that we aren't completely reinterpeting the intent of the people who wrote it when we do so.

Strangler Lewis

12-03-2010, 07:03 AM

Unless something has changed since I went to law school, classifications based on gender receive only intermediate scrutiny whereas classifications based on race receive strict scrutiny.

Ghoulish Delight

12-03-2010, 07:48 AM

CoasterMatt

12-03-2010, 07:52 AM

What does the Constitution have to say about wielding torches and wooden rakes?

Alex

12-03-2010, 09:36 AM

In that case, if people want to have the right to bear arms other than muskets, flintlock pistols, and other revolutionary-era firearms, they should either change the constitution or pass local legislation, right?

First the caveat: I do not subscribe to Scalia's brand of constitutional originalism so I am not necessarily a great defender of it. My point was mostly that his brand of originalism isn't particularly outside the mainstream and that just because he doesn't feel the Constitution mandates various protections of women and minorities does not mean he necessarily feels those protections therefore aren't allowed via other channels or that they would be a bad idea.

However, an attempt to respond.

In you're example, there is the question of how to apply a constitutional principle to something that did not exist when the principle was created, that is they didn't address is specifically because it was impossible to do so. You could demand that there be a constitutional amendment in the face of every new technological advancement but that is a nonsensical result (in my opinion). So that leaves simply attempting to apply the princples to the new things which will be easy to do sometimes (such as does free speech apply to words written electronically as opposed to by hand or printed on paper) and very difficult other times (how does the ability to thermally monitor private residences without ever actually leaving public spaces interact with principles on unreasonable searches)? Eventually the world changes so much that a constitutional amendment to address it would be ideal but generally it is by such dribs and drabs it can't happen.

On the other hand there are the cases where the constitutional principle doesn't address something not because the issue didn't exist (such as women being able to vote or gays being able to marry) but because at the time they were so far outside the realm of discussion that it was viewed as obviously they weren't relevant to the principle. This leaves it open for later generations of legal minds to "discover" that the old principles actually did apply to those once outside the realm of consideration areas all along.

Originalists, in my reading, generally don't have a problem with the first example while having a big problem with the latter. Though there is always the fudge factor of deciding when a specific case bleeds from one to the other.

But just as with strong states rights, most of us tend to be originalists when it gets us what we want and living constitutionalists when that is what gets us what we want (for example, many people flip sides on the question when discussing Lawrence v. Texas as opposed to Citizens United). While I disagree with him on many things, Scalia is much more consistent than most in living with the results of his originalist philosophy (with some glaring exceptions).

Again, I don't agree with where Scalia's philosophy would ultimately lead if rigorously implemented. But I also don't think his view is particularly indefensible, nor does saying that the constitution does not mandate gay marriage mean that one is saying that gay marriage can not be allowed.

Ghoulish Delight

12-03-2010, 10:19 AM

Originalists, in my reading, generally don't have a problem with the first example while having a big problem with the latter. Though there is always the fudge factor of deciding when a specific case bleeds from one to the other.
That fudge factor usually being conveniently the exact flavor of fudge that leads you to justify whatever position you happen to hold.

If for one see very little difference between the first and latter examples. The widespread availability of cheap, accurate, and extremely lethal firearms was as beyond comprehension when the 2nd amendment was written as the idea that women deserved equal treatment under the law was when the 14th was written. So to claim that we have to interpret the 14th entirely within the context in which it was written, but to ignore that context elsewhere is a pretty far stretch imo.

But just as with strong states rights, most of us tend to be originalists when it gets us what we want and living constitutionalists when that is what gets us what we wantHmm, Does believing in a "living constitution" mean that, to be consistent, one must ALWAYS come down on the side that would mean a change in interpretation? That seems an odd thing to require.

Gn2Dlnd

12-03-2010, 10:34 AM

I'm not going to try to step up to the level of discourse here, so, let me just say that the use of the words "fudge" and "back door" have me giggling.

Alex

12-03-2010, 11:48 AM

I for one see very little difference between the first and latter examples.

And I see them as very fundamentally and importantly different. Yes, whether modern firearms has strayed so far from the conception of guns that existed in 1789 that if they'd know what was to come the writer's would have written it differently can be debated.

Whether the 14th Amendment would have been written the way it was if they knew it would one day be used to mandate gay marriage can not.

Hmm, Does believing in a "living constitution" mean that, to be consistent, one must ALWAYS come down on the side that would mean a change in interpretation? That seems an odd thing to require.

No, of course it doesn't. But it would be good if there was a philosophy behind it more rigorous than simply using whichever approach gets the result you already want. And regardless of how much I disagree with him, Scalia's dedication to originalism as he views it has been much more consistent than most originalists (and more than most living constitutionalists commitment to the idea that modern societal norms provide great leeway in re-interpreting established constitutional canon).

One question I would ask: Is the 19th Amendment superfluous? If it were removed would the Constitution still mandate allowing women to vote?

JWBear

12-03-2010, 02:37 PM

One question I would ask: Is the 19th Amendment superfluous? If it were removed would the Constitution still mandate allowing women to vote?

In my admittedly non-expert opinion, no. If I remember correctly, neither the original Constitution nor the Bill of Rights defines who can vote. The 15th Amendment forbade disenfranchisement on the basis of race, but not gender. Gender was specifically addressed in the 19th. Until then, nothing guaranteed universal suffrage.

The 14th Amendment, unlike the 15th and 19th, does not specify a particular group. It uses phrases such as “all persons”, “citizens, and “any person”. To deny that those phrases do not include gays and women is changing the definition of the words, not the meaning of the amendment.

Ghoulish Delight

12-03-2010, 02:48 PM

In my admittedly non-expert opinion, no. If I remember correctly, neither the original Constitution nor the Bill of Rights defines who can vote. The 15th Amendment forbade disenfranchisement on the basis of race, but not gender. Gender was specifically addressed in the 19th. Until then, nothing guaranteed universal suffrage.(following Alex's devil's advocate argument...) If nothing guaranteed universal suffrage until the 15th and 19th amendments, even in the presence of the 14th amendment, what gives the universal right to marriage?

Alex

12-03-2010, 03:36 PM

To deny that those phrases do not include gays and women is changing the definition of the words, not the meaning of the amendment.

I agree. But I also doubt that Scalia (or any other serious person) would claim gays are not included in those terms. What he contests is whether the other parts of the 14th Amendment preclude laws that differentiate gays from other people (or women from men).

For if the argument is that the federal or state governments can not pass any law that treats one group of people (based on any criteria for categorizing at all) differently from any group of people then we've never even come close to applying the constitution correctly on this issue.

And again, part of my larger point. To argue that the constitution does not mandate gay marriage is not to say that there should be no gay marriage. As an upstanding conservative Catholic I'm sure that Scalia is opposed to gay marriage. And I also am pretty sure he'd uphold any laws that the states or federal government may pass that allows for it.

Similarly, while I'm sure that he doesn't feel there is a constitutional requirement for it and he probably would not and did not support passage of the law), he is ok with the federal government making Title 9 compliance a condition for universities receiving federal funds.

Alex

12-03-2010, 03:46 PM

And following up on GDs devil's advocate follow up on me,

If not requiring the franchise for women was technically correct until the 19th Amendment (as well as not requiring the franchise for Chinese citizens until the 15th) does the absence of a specific amendment guaranteeing the right of gays to the franchise mean that it is technically acceptable for Utah to pass a law denying them that privilege?

There are only three parameters limiting how states can restrict the right to vote that are explicitly stated in the constitution:

1. Can't deny them the right just because they're a woman.
2. Can't deny them the right just because of their color or race.
3. Can't set an age limit older than 18.

So not allowing Methodists in Oregon to vote, or civil engineers in Minnesota, or gays in Alabama does not run afoul of those explicit restrictions.

Where does my right to vote come from? Do I have a "right" to vote, or merely a privilege that the state of California has not yet decided to take away?

This is a real world situation. Texas decided all on its lonesome that it could deprive certain classes of the mentally handicapped and former felons of the franchise. On what basis the is the "right" to vote less of a right than the "right" to marry?

innerSpaceman

12-07-2010, 10:28 PM

As usual, Keith says it (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_408ieYAy0) better than I ever could.

Obama = Giant Fail.

Who should be the Democrat nominee for president in 2012?

€uroMeinke

12-07-2010, 10:41 PM

As usual, Keith says it (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_408ieYAy0) better than I ever could.

Obama = Giant Fail.

Who should be the Democrat nominee for president in 2012?

Jerry Brown!

JWBear

12-07-2010, 11:10 PM

Alan Grayson!

Alex

12-08-2010, 09:01 AM

If you want the Democrat to win? Obama. Not that he's doing great, but at this stage I think another Democrat loses.

Though not completely, but to a large degree because if there is a true primary battle the new person and Obama will completely rip each other to shreds. If Obama survives but has trouble he will be seriously weakened. And the other person will have to go way left of Obama to pull it off and like it or not way left of Obama does not get a majority of votes in this country.

Sure, the same thing will be happening on the Republican side but if there's a primary challenge to Obama nobody will care.

innerSpaceman

12-08-2010, 04:57 PM

Bwahaha, 50 Reasons (http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/ei2ka/olbermann_still_has_it_calls_obama_sellout/c18aby5) Obama is a sellout.

sleepyjeff

12-13-2010, 12:40 PM

A federal judge declared a key provision of the Obama administration's health care law unconstitutional Monday, siding with Virginia's attorney general in a dispute that both sides agree will ultimately be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson is the first federal judge to strike down the law, which has been upheld by two other federal judges in Virginia and Michigan. Several other lawsuits have been dismissed and others are pending, including one filed by 20 other states in Florida.

Hudson rejected the government's argument that it has the power under the Constitution to require individuals to buy health insurance, a provision that was set to take effect in 2014.

"Of course, the same reasoning could apply to transportation, housing or nutritional decisions," Hudson wrote. "This broad definition of the economic activity subject to congressional regulation lacks logical limitation" and is unsupported by previous legal cases around the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

There was no immediate comment from the White House.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101213/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_overhaul_virginia

I got to wonder how Obamacare will work without this provision?

Ghoulish Delight

12-13-2010, 12:49 PM

As much as I'd like it to be otherwise, I tend to agree with the ruling, which is why I was never particularly in favor of the version of national health care that was passed. You're right sleepy, the math simply doesn't work out of not everyone is participating, but I do find it a stretch to justify forced participation, in the form of requiring a private purchase (as opposed to simply providing coverage to everyone in a truly socialized system), hard to justify under the constitution.

A lot of people point to auto insurance as an analog, however that fails as an analogy on a handful of points. Firstly is the fact that the auto insurance requirement is about protecting the interest of others', you are under no obligation to purchase insurance that covers yourself. Secondly, you are not required to purchase insurance unless you voluntarily choose to drive. And third, probably most importantly, that requirement is on the state level, not the federal level. Different rules apply.

So while, as an overall policy matter, I'd prefer to see national health care move forward, until I see a convincing constitutional argument for this form of it, I can't fault the court if it decides against it.

Ghoulish Delight

12-13-2010, 12:51 PM

Hmm, what about a slight change of tactic.

Instead of saying, "You must buy insurance or you have to pay a penalty," what about, "We are changing tax law so that everyone owes X amount more in taxes [where X=the amount of the penalty], but you receive a tax credit if you have purchased insurance." That seems more within the government's power, yes? Of course, even if it ends up being functionally identical, the odds of Congress passing something that includes the words "raise taxes" are nil, so I guess it's a moot point.

sleepyjeff

12-13-2010, 01:08 PM

Moonliner

12-13-2010, 01:58 PM

Hell I'd be happy if they would just open the process up so that I could buy insurance from anyone I want and not just vendors approved in my state.

Alex

12-13-2010, 02:08 PM

Without a mandate it doesn't work at all. Since if insurer's can't reject for prior conditions, and there are price controls, then the lack of a mandate means the smart thing to do is just wait until you get sick and then go buy insurance.

Personally, I'd say the best way to handle this constitutional issue (if it remains one, a district court judge isn't going to be the final say by a long shot and undoing this law could be difficult without the court undoing a lot of settled law around the commerce clause) is:

Option A
You make buying health insurance optional with all the existing provisions for subsidy and whatnot. And you say "and hospitals will no longer receive any federal reimbursement for care provided to uninsured individuals. It is legal to let these people die in your parking lot since they chose to not get insurance."

Option B
If it is indeed constitutional for states to have a mandate (and is there any challenge still standing to the constitutionality of Massachusetts mandate)? Then the federal government sets up the framework and runs it through states where getting any piece of the federal healthcare pie requires the state to have local mandates. Then all those government who insisted they didn't want federal money anyway can put their money where their mouths are.

Ghoulish Delight

12-20-2010, 05:56 PM

As detestable as I find the subject of Philip Ray Greaves' book, his arrest bothers me.

innerSpaceman

12-20-2010, 07:28 PM

I'm unclear on the details. What are the charges? I don't think there is a criminal statute for detestable subject matter. Perhaps the theory is that the book aids and abets pedophilia? It's a stretch.

Alex

12-20-2010, 07:45 PM

Obscenity

Ghoulish Delight

12-20-2010, 07:46 PM

It's a stretch. He lives in Colorado I believe. The AG of Florida (who's an anti child porn crusader) ordered a copy of the book, interpreted that as giving him jurisdiction to prosecute him under Florida's rather broad obscenity laws. It's questionable whether the extradition will go through.

Alex

12-20-2010, 08:58 PM

Eugene Volokh (a UCLA law professor who has written on the law around crime facilitating speech) posted on his blog about the case.

http://volokh.com/2010/12/20/pedophile-guide-author-arrested-on-obscenity-charge

BarTopDancer

12-22-2010, 12:35 PM

Awww. It looks like some members of the GoP (namely those who decided to not work over the holiday break) are upset about the work Congress has been doing this week during it's "lame duck" session.

Guess they should have gone to work! I wonder what their constituents think about that.

alphabassettgrrl

12-22-2010, 03:09 PM

Yeah. "We stopped any work getting done." "Oh, look, it's too late to do any work." "What? You're working? How awful." And now claiming that they don't have time to review the bills they're voting on.

Whatever. Maybe you shouldn't have stopped all the work when you had time to review things.

JWBear

01-20-2011, 07:55 PM

Another right-wing psychopath (http://thinkprogress.org/2011/01/20/libertarian-guns-boston/). Luckily, he was caught in time.

Alex

01-23-2011, 11:16 PM

I'll be on a boat and will resist any temptation to actually watch the State of the Union since it is even more irrelevant now than in most years.

But I just want to put it on record that when I'm elected president I'm going to go back to the pre-Wilson norm of delivering the state of the union in letter form.

And unlike Jimmy Carter, the last president to just send a letter, it isn't going to be some long thing. It will just say

Dear Congress:

Is good.

The President

And I will do it this way for no other reason than to watch the cable show pundits stroke out.

sleepyjeff

01-24-2011, 11:45 AM

^I love it!

Ghoulish Delight

01-24-2011, 11:46 AM

Anyone else have flashbacks to elementary school field trips watching congress pick their "across the aisle buddy" to sit next to?

Stupidest thing I've seen in a while.

JWBear

02-16-2011, 07:18 PM

Glenn Beck Conspiracy Generator (http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/bl-glenn-beck-conspiracy.htm)

(Are we sure these really are randomly generated and not a collection of actual quotes?)

alphabassettgrrl

02-17-2011, 06:59 PM

Glenn Beck Conspiracy Generator (http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/bl-glenn-beck-conspiracy.htm)

(Are we sure these really are randomly generated and not a collection of actual quotes?)

That's fantastic!

Morrigoon

02-18-2011, 07:28 PM

So what's the deal on the budget. It it as "slash-and-burn" as the biased sites are indicating?

Ghoulish Delight

03-02-2011, 09:41 PM

I had a bout of temporary insanity today and read comments on an article about birther idiocy. One of the comments was either the most brilliant piece of satire I've ever read or....just tragically and infuriatingly ignorant. I honestly can't tell which.

"I don’t believe Obama should be entitled to a double standard. Average working Americans (Democrat and Republican) have to show their birth certificates to work every day. What makes Obama any didferent? Nothing."

I mean, that HAS to be a joke, right? A parody? Someone can't be that stupid. Can they?

Sigh, yeah. They can.

BarTopDancer

03-02-2011, 11:36 PM

You mean you don't have to show your birth certificate every time you go in and out of your office? Hummm...

Alex

03-03-2011, 05:46 AM

I'm pretty sure that the comment meant that every day average working Americans have to show their birth certificate to prove their eligible tow work in this country not that every worker has to show it every day.

Which is true. Of course, they can also, instead of a birth certificate show a passport or social security card which Obama has regardless of whether he's faking his place of birth.

Though now I'm wondering if the president's first day in the White House is spend doing all the first-day paperwork a new job usually entails.

Ghoulish Delight

03-03-2011, 07:42 AM

Which is true. Of course, they can also, instead of a birth certificate show a passport or social security card which Obama has regardless of whether he's faking his place of birth.

Yes, I read it the same way. But, with 19 other forms of identification accepted as identification for work, it's still a patently stupid statement (without even broaching the subject that Obama has produced the legal equivalent of his birth certificate).

Alex

03-03-2011, 10:40 AM

Oh, definitely very stupid (and I say that with the shame that my mom posted her most recent birther links on Facebook just yesterday).

If only the whole birther movement would somehow inspire constitutional amendment to get rid of all of the office qualification requirements listed therein then something reasonable could come out of it.

Kevy Baby

03-03-2011, 02:17 PM

If only the whole birther movement would somehow inspire constitutional amendment to get rid of all of the office qualification requirements listed therein then something reasonable could come out of it.Arnold could become president!

But then if you follow the details of the movie (Demolition Man), a whole bunch of amendments need to to be passed because it is the 61st Amendment that repealed the need to be a US Citizen to be President.

Also, they had him as President in the year 2032, which would make him 85 years old.

But I digress...

Alex

03-03-2011, 02:23 PM

My view is that if we as a country decide we'd like an 8-year-old Communist born and living in the Ukraine to be president and that person actually wins an election then I'm ok with that.

I wouldn't vote for him but if that's what the country collectively wants badly enough to overcome our inherent xenophobia then we should get it.

Strangler Lewis

03-07-2011, 08:02 AM

Lamas and buddhas and state, oh my. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110307/wl_nm/us_china_npc_tibet)

You couldn't write this sh*t.

BarTopDancer

03-07-2011, 01:13 PM

Wasn't there a movement started by Republicans a few years back to change the citizenship requirements so Ah-nold could run for President?

Alex

03-07-2011, 02:12 PM

Not a significant one, at least not specifically for Schwarzenegger.

George Will has advocated such a change, but he's done that for decades.

3894

03-12-2011, 07:55 AM

My kids on their way to the Madison, WI protests

http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e192/Helen_3894/Blog479.jpg

innerSpaceman

03-12-2011, 11:34 AM

"Like"

Alex

03-12-2011, 11:35 AM

Out of curiosity is that an intentional 9/11 reference?

3894

03-12-2011, 01:55 PM

Out of curiosity is that an intentional 9/11 reference?

Yes. Gov. Walker has taken over the plane and is steering off the advertised route. It's time to take back control and take down his political career. Let's roll.

Ghoulish Delight

03-18-2011, 12:18 PM

Since, by his own habit and due to the vagueries of transliteration, the spelling of Gaddafi's name in the "Roman" alphabet is a crapshoot, I propose all media start spelling it Dickbag.

Strangler Lewis

03-18-2011, 02:59 PM

Since, by his own habit and due to the vagueries of transliteration, the spelling of Gaddafi's name in the "Roman" alphabet is a crapshoot, I propose all media start spelling it Dickbag.

Done. From now on, it's Diqqbhag.

Betty

03-18-2011, 03:19 PM

Done. From now on, it's Diqqbhag.

Everyone knows it's spelled Diquebbogq (the second q is silent)

3894

04-04-2011, 12:29 PM

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-5G4UccG-nfA/TZf8fCs44GI/AAAAAAAAC0Y/YLdGQsaA9wM/s320/wisconsin-koch-industries.jpg

innerSpaceman

04-18-2011, 05:25 PM

Not only does the Democrat Governor of Montana have the cajones to stand up to his Republican legislature in a very conservative state, he does it with the style, wit, and public-opinion-swaying moxie that other Dems might well take a lesson from.

He went out and had three actual cattle brands manufactured, with the brand "VETO," in calf-size, yearling-size and full critter size - and then went and had a full-on Branding Party (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQNtyW15tI8&feature=player_embedded#at=488) to publicly veto 17 frivolous, unconstitutional or just plain bad bills that came to his desk for signature.

If only a tenth of the Democrats in Congress, not to mention our stalwart president, had half the nerve or style of this Western Governor. Sheesh.

alphabassettgrrl

04-18-2011, 06:36 PM

Betty

04-19-2011, 07:09 AM

He makes me want to move to Montana actually. I hear they have a big sky.

Alex

04-19-2011, 09:46 AM

And when Republican governors go out and shoot up a bill they don't like to appeal to their base it is crass showmanship.

alphabassettgrrl

04-19-2011, 10:03 AM

Well, yes, it is crazy drama, I agree.

Maybe it's from a viewpoint I agree with. Maybe it's because it kind of fits the Montana mindset. I don't know.

Ghoulish Delight

04-27-2011, 08:11 AM

Sigh. Did we really need Trump thinking his idiocy was legitimate?

JWBear

04-27-2011, 08:58 AM

The birthers are already claiming that it's a forgery.

mousepod

04-27-2011, 09:44 AM

The birthers are already claiming that it's a forgery.

From The Onion in 2009: Afterbirthers Demand To See Obama's Placenta (http://www.theonion.com/articles/afterbirthers-demand-to-see-obamas-placenta,6866/)

And on a more "serious" note... apparently Trump is taking credit for the release this morning. And sadly, he's partly correct.

Ghoulish Delight

04-27-2011, 10:26 AM

And on a more "serious" note... apparently Trump is taking credit for the release this morning. And sadly, he's partly correct.
Like Boing Boing said, don't feed the trolls.

wendybeth

04-27-2011, 10:40 AM

I read this and literally laughed out loud: (from CNN)

In a statement after Obama spoke, Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus called the issue a distraction — and yet blamed Obama for playing campaign politics by addressing it.

(http://msnbc.newsvine.com/_news/2011/04/27/6543187-now-that-youve-seen-obamas-long-form-birth-certificate-are-you-convinced-hes-us-a-citizen) "The president ought to spend his time getting serious about repairing our economy," Priebus said. "Unfortunately his campaign politics and talk about birth certificates is distracting him from our number one priority — our economy."

Seriously?

JWBear

04-27-2011, 11:24 AM

Are you sure you weren't reading The Onion, Wendy?

scaeagles

04-27-2011, 01:32 PM

I'm acrtually surprised he released it....I'd have kept it an issue as long as possible if I were him.

Ghoulish Delight

04-27-2011, 03:39 PM

I'm acrtually surprised he released it....I'd have kept it an issue as long as possible if I were him.
Agreed. He was in no way obligated to do it, he'd already provided more proof than any other president in the history of this nation of his birth. Letting the idiots scream was doing an excellent job of identifying the idiots for who they are. Now he's just given them all the smug satisfaction that they forced his hand. Yuck.

This editorial (http://www.thegrio.com/politics/why-obama-shouldnt-have-had-to-show-his-papers.php) is interesting. I agree with everything on the first page. He loses me a bit with "Those who question the location of Barack Obama's birth are the very same people who would pack up and move out of the neighborhood if someone like me moved in next door." I do not believe that everyone who jumped on the birther bandwagon is a racist, closet racist, subconscious racist. I DO believe that racism was a leading factor in the why it gained such traction, but that's not the same as saying that to be a birther is to be a racist (even though the two things share the common thread of ignorance).

Alex

04-27-2011, 03:46 PM

Personally, on that one i don't think it had so much to do with race as with religion. I think it gained traction because of the people who already believed him to be lying about being a Christian which already requires rejecting what is known about his upbringing.

Anyway, I think the reason they released was not because it will put the issue to bed. It won't. The quality of a proper conspiracy theory is that it can't be rebutted as any contrary evidence is not contrary evidence but rather simply further evidence of a conspiracy to hide the truth.

However, the story was starting to get a lot of talk in the more mainstream press and I would guess they're trying to put it back in the margins by getting two days of coverage on the release and then hopefully the mainstream news directors saying "ok, that's done now."

I don't think it will work even at that, but I doubt it was done to quell the issue among those who believe it.

innerSpaceman

04-27-2011, 05:01 PM

I concur. I don't think the birthers were the target audience for this at all.

flippyshark

04-27-2011, 05:09 PM

Hey, where ya been, scaeagles?

When I first saw the headline this morning, I had to ask myself if it was April 1st, (or if I had logged on to The Onion), so sure was I that BO wasn't going to dignify the issue with any further attention.

Alex

04-27-2011, 05:41 PM

Though, thinking about it on the ride home, it occurs to me that unless America proves even stupider than I fear, it really doesn't hurt Obama in the long run to have Trump sucking oxygen out of the Republican campaign machinery. And giving Trump a "legitimacy" boost like this without really hurting himself or doing anything overtly political prolongs that.

Morrigoon

04-27-2011, 06:10 PM

Based on the way he framed his speech, I think he did it in order to try to get a message across to people about what's really important right now, rather than what the media is focusing on. Of course, how much of that speech will get play on the evening news is anyone's guess. But I think he was trying to use the attention that the birth certificate gets, to get a chance to speak about the other stuff. He made a few remarks that support that, such as news stations not "breaking in" for other stories, and then his going on to talk about those other things anyway.

Ghoulish Delight

04-27-2011, 08:29 PM

I think he could (and should) have given that speech without releasing the document.

BarTopDancer

04-27-2011, 08:59 PM

I'm just glad the Daily Show and Colbert Report are not on vacation this week.

I don't think releasing it will shut the stupid up, it will just make them look even more absurd. How they don't realize that Hilary or McCain would have "gotten to the bottom of this" before the election is beyond my comprehension. And wasn't McCain's eligibility in question because he wasn't born on US soil?

I also think that if his name was Michael Weston or some other American sounding name this would have never been an issue.

Alex

04-27-2011, 09:04 PM

Well, if it were Michael Weston he'd have to explain a hole lot of explosions in Miami; and a penchant for unattractively thin women.

BarTopDancer

04-27-2011, 09:09 PM

with a disappearing Irish accent.

I probably should have said Michel Smith or something else "American" sounding.

alphabassettgrrl

04-28-2011, 09:36 AM

One of the commentators on the radio show I listened to yesterday thought that Obama released the long-form certificate in order to undermine the birthers. They also noted the danged-if-you-do-danged-if-you-don't status of his papers. They blame him for not releasing the long form (which Hawai'i could well have refused to give him), and they blame him for releasing it.

My coworker found something last night that now the birthers want Hawai'i to prove it's a state. I'm alternately amused and seriously annoyed.

We also discussed what's next, and we think Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers will resurface. I hope we're wrong but they need something to complain about.

JWBear

04-28-2011, 09:51 AM

They want Hawaii to prove it's a state?! Seriously?! WTF?!

BarTopDancer

04-28-2011, 10:59 AM

They already get his panties in a twist that he goes home on vacation to HI all the time.

There's a great clip floating around (from the Daily Show) of Bill O'Riley trying to end the fringe lunacy. It's amusing.

JWBear

04-28-2011, 11:30 AM

innerSpaceman

04-28-2011, 12:38 PM

A piece I read this morning hit the nail on the head, imo. It's a brilliant piece of Obama strategy. Further marginalizes the GOP by having such idiots continue to bray about this. His remarks were right on the money. Americans don't give a flying fvck about this issue, but want the government to do something about, oh, how about JOBS!?

Most of the country is already PISSED at the Republicans for advancing their absurd social agenda while doing nothing to create jobs, and for trying to solve the deficit problem on the backs of people dependent on Medicare while giving tax breaks to the ultra-rich. The mood in this country has swung very anti-GOP, and this birther issue is now all theirs to deal with, and Obama has washed his hands of it.

Most in the GOP know this full well. Boener and several other Congresspersons issued statements yesterday that they are satisfied with the president's citizenship credentials. They are not stupid, and would like this issue to go away.

But it won't. Something like 45% of Republicans believed the president is not an American. Don't know how many of those small and ignorant minds were changed yesterday, but that's the constituency they're stuck with. And they're stuck with the likes of the Donald as the front runner because you have to be a whack-job these days to win a Republican primary. Problem is, whack-jobs can't win general elections.

So the Pres was happy to hand off this problem to them, while chiding them in public for doing ZIP about issues Americans actually care about.

Obama is sometimes a brilliant politician. I wish he were a better president -- but he's better than most of them have been in my 50 years. Yesterday was a good day for him. Smart man.

flippyshark

04-28-2011, 02:41 PM

My coworker found something last night that now the birthers want Hawai'i to prove it's a state. I'm alternately amused and seriously annoyed.

We also discussed what's next, and we think Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers will resurface. I hope we're wrong but they need something to complain about.

The "prove Hawai'i was a state" meme seems to be a joke generated by the left, as far as I can tell.

On the other hand, expect to hear more about Bill Ayers. There is a notion going around (courtesy of World Net Daily) that Ayers was the actual author of Obama's autobiography. This idea is gaining some traction, with recent public statements about it from Trump and Palin, if I recall correctly. Get ready to roll your eyes some more.

innerSpaceman

04-28-2011, 02:43 PM

I mine roll anymore, I'll be able to see out of the back of my head - just like mothers everywhere!

Do the rightwing nutjobs know they're promoting gender reassignment??

Alex

04-28-2011, 03:11 PM

My coworker found something last night that now the birthers want Hawai'i to prove it's a state. I'm alternately amused and seriously annoyed.

The "prove Hawai'i was a state" meme seems to be a joke generated by the left, as far as I can tell.

It may be a joke at, but that is actually an interesting angle of attack. Though the people of Hawai'i tend towards the liberal end of the spectrum, the question of the legitimacy of Hawaii's statehood is frequently brought up in secessionist circles, and at least a decade ago that was still a reasonably active movement.

So if the birthers do want to transfer to that issue, they'll find a extensive field of writing on the issue with some prominent "authentic actual Hawaiians" on record.

Kevy Baby

04-28-2011, 04:32 PM

I was reading the comments (yeah... I know...) on a story about the long form release. One of the "birthers" wrote:
If you are proficient with computers, pull up the birth certificate in Adobe and look at all the altercations. :rolleyes:Adobe Flash? Premiere? InDesign?

The program is called Acrobat (or Acrobat Reader if you just have the free one) people and it is put out by a company named Adobe.

(Sorry; pet peeve)

Ghoulish Delight

04-28-2011, 04:42 PM

Actually they were probably "thinking" photoshop

Alex

04-28-2011, 05:14 PM

The claim is that it was edited in Illustrator and if you open the source PDF from the White House with Illustrator you can back out the edits.

flippyshark

04-28-2011, 05:26 PM

The claim is that it was edited in Illustrator and if you open the source PDF from the White House with Illustrator you can back out the edits.

And here is a plausible non-crazy explanation (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/265767/pdf-layers-obamas-birth-certificate-nathan-goulding), from the conservative National Review yet.

Kevy Baby

04-28-2011, 05:55 PM

This is the stupidest "issue" I have seen come forth in some time.

JWBear

04-28-2011, 06:19 PM

I was more amuse by the concept of the BC having "altercations".

BarTopDancer

04-28-2011, 06:27 PM

I'm waiting for Trump Palin 2012!

Not Afraid

04-28-2011, 08:49 PM

This is the stupidest "issue" I have seen come forth in some time.

And yet, there are several pages of discussion here. I'm changing the name of the thread to the WTF2 Thread. :D

alphabassettgrrl

04-29-2011, 09:16 AM

The "prove Hawai'i was a state" meme seems to be a joke generated by the left, as far as I can tell.

On the other hand, expect to hear more about Bill Ayers. There is a notion going around (courtesy of World Net Daily) that Ayers was the actual author of Obama's autobiography. This idea is gaining some traction, with recent public statements about it from Trump and Palin, if I recall correctly. Get ready to roll your eyes some more.

A joke from the left, ok, that I can handle.

Yeah, I'm afraid Ayers is going to resurface. Wish they would just deal with the present instead of the past.

I'm waiting for Trump Palin 2012!

Hahahha!!! Circus time! Could be fun! Except that some people would actually vote for them .... I think the safest course of action would be for the nutjobs to get a lot of attention during the primary, so we can laugh at them, and then lose. If people are going to vote conservative, please let the candidate be viable and not crazy. I can understand a difference of opinion, but please don't let us get stuck with a crazy person.

Ghoulish Delight

05-04-2011, 01:50 PM

Let me get this straight, Sarah Palin. The $4 billion dollars in subsidies to the oil companies is too small of a percentage of the federal budget to worry our pretty little heads about, but the $50 million that NPR receives is bringing us to our fiscal knees? Riiiiiiiight.

alphabassettgrrl

05-04-2011, 02:13 PM

Yeah, to oil companies that are making obscene profits. They don't exactly need the subsidies.

Strangler Lewis

05-04-2011, 02:19 PM

First he killed pirates. Then he killed terrorists.

And now . . .

Barack Obama: wolfkiller (http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/apnewsbreak_gray_wolves_in_n_rockies_to_come_off_e ndangered_list_great_lakes_wolves_next/2011/05/04/AF7m7cnF_story.html?wprss=rss_national)

I don't have a thought on it one way or the other. The idea just struck me as funny.

Betty

05-05-2011, 07:33 AM

What's with the news and their total lack of accurate reporting. First on obl and just this morning, I've heard them contradict themselves about a plane that hasn't been flown in 6 years, or is it 10 years. This on the same news station on the same morning. (local vs national though).

I really don't think I can trust the news to get anything specifically correct... more like - here's some vague idea of something that happened and their opnion injected into it.

JWBear

05-05-2011, 08:32 AM

I really don't think I can trust the news to get anything specifically correct... more like - here's some vague idea of something that happened and their opnion injected into it.

Welcome to 21st century corporate infotainment journalism!

cirquelover

05-05-2011, 11:15 AM

I'd prefer to have real journalism back. I'm tired of infotainment, although I do like that word! " Just give me the facts Ma'am"

alphabassettgrrl

05-06-2011, 09:08 AM

I'm tired of infotainment, too. Facts, please.

Real reporting is expensive, and they claim people don't want it anyway, that they get more calls requesting coverage of the meaningless stuff. I don't know that I believe that. I think it's more the expense, and potential for embarrassing their parent corporations.

It's easier to just get your headlines from AP and report on Lindsay Lohan's recent escapades.

Ghoulish Delight

05-18-2011, 09:46 PM

Ben Stein is a piece of sh*t.

scaeagles

05-22-2011, 10:49 AM

I like Herman Cain. Of those that have announced their candidacy, he is my favorite by far. Don't like any of the others, really. Only other one that might take over for Cain would be Rick Perry should he get in.

Romney - eh. Gingrich? Blech. Ron Paul? The man is insane. Palin? Nope. Pawlenty - don't know much about. Bachmann? Santorum?

Nah - Cain. I like Cain.

JWBear

05-22-2011, 11:18 AM

Cain is just another teabagger who wants to give everything to the rich and the corporations at the expense of the vast majority of Americans. He would be a disaster for this country.

scaeagles

05-22-2011, 06:54 PM

Not surprisingly, your opinion of him makes me like him even more.

Ghoulish Delight

05-22-2011, 07:08 PM

From Wikipedia:

In an interview with Christianity Today, Cain declared he would not consider appointing an individual of Muslim faith to a presidential cabinet or to a federal court. "No, I will not," he said. "And here’s why. There is this creeping attempt, there is this attempt to gradually ease Sharia law and the Muslim faith into our government. It does not belong in our government. This is what happened in Europe. And little by little, to try and be politically correct, they made this little change, they made this little change. And now they’ve got a social problem that they don’t know what to do with hardly."

Full interview as publisehd on Christianity Today (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/marchweb-only/qahermancain.html?start=1). More gems of ridiculous bullsh*t regrading Islam in America in there.

Not Afraid

05-22-2011, 09:27 PM

And now they’ve got a social problem that they don’t know what to do with hardly.

Does this strike anyone else as a completely awkward sentence?

3894

05-23-2011, 05:27 AM

A 6 billion dollar deficit, jobs in short supply, and a budget stalemate with the Democratic governor and what does Minnesota choose to focus on?

Gay marriage.

scaeagles

05-23-2011, 06:14 AM

Ghoulish Delight

05-23-2011, 06:32 AM

As a slight correction to what GD posted (certainly not disputing what was said), the quote in question came following a speech at the Conservative Principles Conference, not from the Christianity Today interview.

While I do agree he is taking it way too far, I would be curious as to if he would comment on someone of the Islamic Faith such as Monsoor Ijaz, an outspoken critic of Islamic fundamentalism and terrorist actions, who I thik would be an excellent addition to any cabinet of group of advisors.Ooops, took wiki's word on the citation, should have read more carfeully.

And considering that in the interview I linked to, he made no apologies for the fact that he was uncomfortable with one of the surgeons that was going to treat him during a battle with cancer because his name was "Abdallah", until he found out that, thank god, the guy was actually a Christian, I'm going to go ahead and presume that no he would not consider Mr. Ijaz.

Q: When speaking about your battle with cancer at the Milner church, at one point, you indicate that you were a little uncomfortable when you found out that your surgeon's name was Abdallah, until you found out he was a Lebanese Christian. So what's your perspective on the role of Muslims in American society?

A: The role of Muslims in American society is for them to be allowed to practice their religion freely, which is part of our First Amendment. The role of Muslims in America is not to convert the rest of us to the Muslim religion. That I resent. Because we are a Judeo-Christian nation, from the fact that 85 percent of us are self-described Christians, or evangelicals, or practicing the Jewish faith. Eighty-five percent. One percent of the practicing religious believers in this country are Muslim.
And so I push back and reject them trying to convert the rest of us. And based upon the little knowledge that I have of the Muslim religion, you know, they have an objective to convert all infidels or kill them. Now, I know that there are some peaceful Muslims who don't go around preaching or practicing that. Well, unfortunately, we can't sit back and tolerate the radical ones simply because we know that there are some of them who don't believe in that aspect of the Muslim religion. So their role is to be allowed to practice their religion freely, just like we should be allowed to practice our religion freely, and not try to convert the rest of us.

scaeagles

05-23-2011, 06:47 AM

Betty

05-23-2011, 07:46 AM

From Wikipedia:

Full interview as publisehd on Christianity Today (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/marchweb-only/qahermancain.html?start=1). More gems of ridiculous bullsh*t regrading Islam in America in there.

Sort of like Christian politicians inserting thier relgious into our government? I guess he doesn't want the competition.

Ghoulish Delight

05-23-2011, 08:12 AM

That is certianly unfortunate. I read the interview and did find parts of it disturbing.

I think it is the right of anyone practicing any religion to attempt to convert anyone they wish. Unless, of course, it involves killing those who won't.
That's far from the most disturbing part. The most disturbing part is that he is equating a Muslim practicing medicine as a licensed surgeon with attempts to convert and murderous extremism.

scaeagles

05-23-2011, 08:53 AM

alphabassettgrrl

05-23-2011, 09:48 AM

Sort of like Christian politicians inserting thier relgious into our government? I guess he doesn't want the competition.

That's exactly what I was thinking! :)

Ghoulish Delight

05-23-2011, 09:53 AM

On re-read I see how you could view it that way, but his answer seems to ignore the "so". I see a disconnect in his answer from relating it to the preface of the question (involving his surgeon) and going straight to how he views Islam in American society in general.Except his answer perfectly explains his reason for being uneasy about a surgeon with a Muslim-sounding name. He thinks they are all out to either convert or murder him, and therefore should be avoided, pushed back against, and rejected. I see no disconnect between his answer and why he would have had a problem with a surgeon named Abdallah.

scaeagles

05-27-2011, 07:32 AM

So how ya'll feeling about the reauthorization of the Patriot Act for 4 more years?

Moonliner

05-27-2011, 07:40 AM

So how ya'll feeling about the reauthorization of the Patriot Act for 4 more years?

Betrayed.

Ghoulish Delight

05-27-2011, 08:15 AM

This may or may not be the most disturbing part:

With Obama in France, the White House said the president used an autopen machine that holds a pen and signs his actual signature. It is only used with proper authorization of the president.

What? Seriously?

Alex

05-27-2011, 10:00 AM

While I have significant issues with the Patriot Act as a whole, the whole was not at issue here.

So of the things extended:

- Roving wire taps. While I recognize the gray areas, ultimately I come down on the side of supporting them. Again, I see the potential dangers of it, but at the moment I am ok with it proceeding.
- The business records section. I have issues with the existence of the FISA court but its existence is not at issue here. My main beef with this part of the Patriot Act is the gag rule it places on the people served with an information request. As long as that is in there I oppose any extension or expansion.
- The lone wolf stuff, if I understand it correctly (and I'm not sure I do) doesn't establish the surveillance abilities it just extends the duration that can be authorized by the FISA court. If my understanding is correct then that seems a wash to me in the "we've establish what you are, we're just haggling over price" vein.

So, as a president presented with having to take all three or getting none, I'm not sure where I would fall. Especially since it isn't like he was presented with time to veto and have Congress come back with something better before "none at all" was forced on him.

As for whether this is a betrayal. He voted for extend the last time it was up. And I don't think he has ever spoken against these provisions (though he has spoken out against the Patriot Act as a whole, but again that wasn't what he's signing), so I'm not sure why it would be a surprise.

Alex

05-27-2011, 10:04 AM

As for the autopen thing, I'm not bothered by it absent any indication that the president did not authorize its use. But it may be of interest (but probably not, though 12 pages in I'm finding it surprisingly so) that the White House Office of Legal Counsel issued a report on the issue in 2005, finding that it does meet constitutional requirements for the president to authorize a subordinate to affix his signature, not to delegate the decision).

http://www.justice.gov/olc/2005/opinion_07072005.pdf

Oh, and to answer the original question on how I feel. I feel like the president may have made a deicision with which I disagree. I also feel that presidents do that all the time and so long as I don't feel the president is acting in bad faith, I don't hold it against him. I felt the same when the Patriot Act was first passed. I disagreed with it then, but I didn't think it evil. Some of the ways it was used later, however, changed that.

alphabassettgrrl

05-27-2011, 07:41 PM

I have some issues with the Patriot act, but I'm glad it has an expiration date that it has to be renewed. I think most laws should have expiration dates.

Alex

05-27-2011, 09:16 PM

Most of the Patriot Act does not have an expiration date, just a few parts. That is what was extended.

JWBear

06-09-2011, 08:56 AM

I just read this online:

GOP Congress's Pledge Of Allegiance

I pledge allegiance to the rich,
to Multinational Corporations of America,
and to the monies for which I receive,
one nation under GOP, completely corruptible,
with all power and money just for me.

It would be funny if it weren't so true.

Kevy Baby

06-09-2011, 09:26 AM

I just read this online:

I pledge allegiance
To the President
Of The Global State Of America
And to The Commune
For which he stands
One World Nation
Without God
With Tyranny
And Welfare
For all!

It would be funny if it weren't so true.

Kevy Baby

06-09-2011, 09:27 AM

I just read this online:

I pledge allegiance to the Left and all who hate America, and not to all the Republicans for which I can't stand, one nation without God, divisible, with liberty and justice for terrorists

It would be funny if it weren't so true.

innerSpaceman

06-09-2011, 11:45 AM

Kevy, what are you taking?

JWBear

06-09-2011, 11:46 AM

Seriously!

Alex

06-09-2011, 11:51 AM

It would be funny if it weren't so true.

Out of curiosity, if it weren't "so true" (I'll offer no judgment on that) why would it be funny?

JWBear

06-09-2011, 12:21 PM

It's just an expression, and is not meant to be taken literally. It's something we Humans do sometimes. I'm sorry if that confuses you.

Alex

06-09-2011, 12:41 PM

Oh, I'm sure you couldn't confuse me. I know it is just an expression, it just sparked curiosity into the moment as to why we waste time saying things that don't actually have any value. In saying what you said you meant to suggest "this is true." But you cloak it in some "it's a joke" phrasing as if that means people under the umbrella you were speaking about should then no longer care about the "this is true" half of the statement.

So really, I wasn't so much confused as pointing out that you really shouldn't feel safe to crawl back into your standard defense of "it was just a joke when I said mean things about people who have affiliations you just happen to have, how can you be upset?"

BarTopDancer

06-09-2011, 01:31 PM

I miss the days when the pledge was:

I pledge allegiance to the flag
of the United States of America
and to the republic for which he stands
one nation, under God, invisible and with liberty and juice for all.

JWBear

06-09-2011, 01:43 PM

Brendan

06-09-2011, 03:34 PM

I miss the days when the pledge was:

The original was "I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all," written by a Socialist, and used in a magazine to sell flags to schools on Columbus day. Mad Men 1892, baby. Yesterday's marketing is today's dogma. Other successful vintage ad campaigns include the diamonds as the only true symbol of love and the inextricable link between freedom and automobile ownership.

Kevy Baby

06-09-2011, 06:29 PM

Kevy, what are you taking?

Seriously!Just conducting an experiment.

scaeagles

06-10-2011, 06:24 AM

And an excellent experiment indeed.

BarTopDancer

06-10-2011, 07:57 AM

The original was...

I know what the original pledge was. Did you see all my incorrect words?

Brendan

06-10-2011, 11:18 AM

I know what the original pledge was. Did you see all my incorrect words?

Oh, sure, you can miss any of the versions you like. I just want to point out that it's little more than a marketing slogan from 120 years ago.

sleepyjeff

06-10-2011, 12:49 PM

The original was "I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all," written by a Socialist, and used in a magazine to sell flags to schools on Columbus day. Mad Men 1892, baby. Yesterday's marketing is today's dogma.

I didn't know Socialists were capable of "marketing".

Learn something new everyday I guess:)

flippyshark

06-10-2011, 10:07 PM

Wow, sometimes a news story is so tiresome it makes me want to leave the planet. Sarah Palin's old emails is just such a story. I don't care. The very notion of hearing about it makes me despair. My gut feeling is that they will reveal nothing interesting at all, but we will be "treated" to constant updates just the same. Even if they turn up something juicy, I don't care, and I don't want it to be the subject of water cooler talk. But it will be. Thanks for letting me shudder publicly at the prospect. This is all I will have to say on the matter.

Cynthia

06-11-2011, 08:29 PM

Somehow in the last 20 years what used to appear in the brazen pages of the "Weekly World News" became what is shown in place of news. Thank goodness for Aljazeera and BBC World News.

Morrigoon

06-11-2011, 11:41 PM

BarTopDancer

06-13-2011, 04:06 PM

All the Anthony Wiener headlines will never not be funny. Cause I'm 12.

alphabassettgrrl

06-13-2011, 06:27 PM

Yep. Wienergate=always funny.

Sad, because I always liked him, but yeah, it was a moronic thing to do. But I still laugh at the headlines. Maybe he will stay in office. The voters can decide next election whether they care enough to replace him.

Stan4dSteph

06-14-2011, 01:39 PM

FYI, his name is spelled Weiner.

Moonliner

06-16-2011, 11:19 AM

Looks like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad want's be the first Iranian in space (http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/iran-plans-to-send-monkey-into-space/story-e6frfku0-1226076634618).

At least that's the way I read it.

BarTopDancer

06-16-2011, 04:52 PM

FYI, his name is spelled Weiner.

Eh, wiener, weiner, still funny.

Looks like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad want's be the first Iranian in space (http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/iran-plans-to-send-monkey-into-space/story-e6frfku0-1226076634618).

At least that's the way I read it.

Can we leave him there? Without a space suit?

Kevy Baby

06-16-2011, 05:39 PM

Without a space suit?No; IN a space suit. It would prolong the experience.

Not Afraid

06-16-2011, 06:18 PM

FYI, his name is spelled Weiner.

And should be pronounced like "whiner", which can lead the jokes in a whole different direction.

BarTopDancer

06-16-2011, 07:05 PM

All I have running through my head now is a FG conversation between Brian and Stewie. WHiner. No, Whiner. Yes, WHiner. No, Whiner.

Ghoulish Delight

06-21-2011, 09:03 AM

I've only just read a handful of articles about Huntsman, but what I've read I've liked.

Which means he's got a negative chance of winning the primary.

scaeagles

06-21-2011, 10:42 AM

He's very, very centrist and reminescent of McCain. Which gives him no chance.

Ghoulish Delight

06-21-2011, 10:46 AM

I don't find him anything like McCain, from what I've read. McCain is "centrist" in a "I'll say anything to please whomever I'm talking to and change in the breeze" kinda way. Huntsman seems to be centrist in a "I believe what I believe and don't give a rat's ass which party's platform that belief might fall under" kinda way.

scaeagles

06-21-2011, 11:08 AM

I agree that character wise they are quite different, but it is very early. In the same way that McCain turned right to get the base, Huntsman will have to do the same thing. i just don't see the right falling for it again like they did with McCain.

And my brief fascination with Herman Caen is over. Don't think he's the guy. Right now I'm hoping Rick Perry gets in.

flippyshark

06-21-2011, 11:36 AM

Right now I'm hoping Rick Perry gets in.

Boy, that'd liven things up around this thread!

Mind you, Perry's already been linked to John Hagee, and that did McCain a bit of hurt last time around.

Alex

06-21-2011, 12:05 PM

If I thought such a thing had a chance in hell of passing his support for a Right to Life constitutional amendment making abortion illegal would be a deal breaker. But if elected president I do think he'd likely continue (or do nothing to get int he way of others) the chipping away at abortion access.

Though his self reversal on the individual mandate does suggest that he has the same chance as McCain: conform to the talking points and move on.

But he is certainly more palatable to me so far than the other major Republican candidate at the moment. But it will be interesting to see how his positions withstand the need to go much further right to get anywhere.

Ghoulish Delight

06-21-2011, 02:24 PM

Alex, do you mean Huntsman or Perry?

Ghoulish Delight

06-21-2011, 02:27 PM

Right now, the primary thing that has me liking Huntsman is this.

Of course we’ll have our disagreements. That’s what campaigns are all about. But I want you to know that I respect my fellow Republican candidates. And I respect the President of the United States. He and I have a difference of opinion on how to help a country we both love. But the question each of us wants the voters to answer is who will be the better President, not who’s the better American.

DreadPirateRoberts

06-21-2011, 02:35 PM

When I hear Huntsman, I always think of this:

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQwykcn5P5aZOEwfBqqwbRTp-HL3uHvyI0U-UNmSsnOp9f3DeHFZA

Strangler Lewis

06-21-2011, 04:23 PM

I think Huckabee played good cop for a while, too.

If Huntsman gets the nomination, how soon before Obama is referred to as President Footman?

Ghoulish Delight

06-21-2011, 04:36 PM

The difference being that Huntsman has a record of actually acting in accordance with that statement, not just paying it lip service.

Not that the extreme and unique pressures on a Presidential candidate can't change that. And really, he's never going to win the nomination by saying 'I respect Obama', so I'm sure if he does become the nominee he'll have spent all that good will by the time it gets to that point. But, individual issues aside, if he doesn't sell out on the principles he's made it this far with, I'd be happy to see him run. Might even throw an open primary vote his way.

Alex

06-21-2011, 04:47 PM

I was talking about Huntsman. I've not yet seen much good to say about Perry (but admittedly I haven't looked at him particularly closely).

Ghoulish Delight

06-23-2011, 07:07 AM

Hey, did anyone else forget that Sarah Palin's stupid bus tour was still happening? Because I did. Which is probably why she gave up on it (http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/06/22/palin_quits), no one gave a sh*t.

There's hope for this country yet.

3894

06-23-2011, 07:08 AM

alphabassettgrrl

06-23-2011, 10:35 AM

cirquelover

06-24-2011, 02:27 PM

I'm not surprised really. She seems to quit everything, even being Governor!

Ghoulish Delight

06-27-2011, 11:23 AM

The jury in Blagojevich's retrial has come to a verdict on most of the counts, after the previous jury deadlocked.

I read this bit in an msnbc report:

When jurors do deadlock, it is often at trials where the charges are complex and where the evidence appears ambiguous, a 2002 federally funded study by The National Center for State Courts found.

Umm, it took a study to figure that out? When jury's can't agree, it's because the case is complex and ambiguous. Published in the pages of Duh Magazine no doubt.
(I'm sure the study said a lot more than that, I was just amuse at how stupidly trivial that summary sounds).

Alex

06-27-2011, 11:58 AM

I was curious so found this report (http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/199372.pdf) giving more detail about the study. Has some interesting stuff.

"Complexity" isn't necessarily a "well, duh?" answer. Other things that came immediately to mind as possibly producing more hung juries were:

1. Number of charges. IF the indictment has 43 charges to consider, even if each is straightforward, do juries just kind of give up.
2. Duration of trial (the report I see does mention that and found that juries did not necessarily view long trials as more complex).
3. Power relationship of the parties (a friend was on a jury that hung after mroe than a year of trial and deliberations because one juror essentially said "I can't find a cop guilty.")
4. Perception of competence of the lawyers/judges.
5. Issues likely to produce nullification attempts by at least one juror ("I know technically he's guilty, but I don't like the law")
6. Social dynamics among jurors in deliberations. Interestingly (to me it seems counterintuitive) juries that hang take their first vote earlier in deliberations than juries that don't hang.

Ghoulish Delight

06-27-2011, 01:03 PM

"Complexity" isn't necessarily a "well, duh?" answer. Other things that came immediately to mind as possibly producing more hung juries were:
Oh, I know. Like I said, I'm sure the study went far more in depth about what defines complexity and all that. But on the surface, when boiled down to that summary, it's pretty silly-looking. "Really? So straightforward cases with clear, unambiguous evidence are less likely to result in hung jurries? No shi*t?"

Ghoulish Delight

07-01-2011, 08:42 PM

I have no issue with Bachmann's husband receiving Medicaid funds while wanting to end medicaid. I don't consider it any more hypocritical than me cashing the Bush-era tax rebate check while opposing the decision to issue those checks. One can argue that the overall effects of an existing program are detrimental while legally taking advantage of that law without being a hypocrite, in my opinion. Perhaps if Bachmann has been vilifying those who do accept help (rather than vilifying the system itself), then there's some hypocrisy. I haven't looked very closely at what she's said about such programs, so I don't know.

But here's what I have a bigger issue with (assuming this is accurate - I just tried to verify it...but Minnesota's state website is shutdown. grrr)

This apparently is in the contract for the grant:

"XXIII.3 “GRANTEE agrees that no religious based counseling shall take place under the auspices of this grant.”

Front page of the Bachmann and Associates clinic website:

"Bachmann & Associates believes in providing all clients with quality Christian counseling in a sensitive, loving environment, and in treating all clients with the utmost professionalism, dignity, and care."

Ummmmmm

Ghoulish Delight

07-21-2011, 09:09 AM

Wow, gotta love the balls on the editors of the Times UK.

On a day when their front page top story headline is "The Curse of the Celebrity Interview", they have the chutzpah to run this editorial cartoon

http://www.boingboing.net/images/politicalcartoon.jpeg

Cajones, they haz them.

innerSpaceman

07-21-2011, 10:29 AM

Wow, yeah.

Speaking of wow, no discussion here of the Debt Ceiling debates? Hmmm.

Ghoulish Delight

07-21-2011, 10:50 AM

What's to discuss? After all the bullsh!t talking, they're going to pass a plan that raises the ceiling, prevents us from defaulting, and leaves everything else pretty much at status quo. Then they'll spend the next 16 months until the election bullsh!tting about how much morally superior their position on the whole matter was.

Wash, rinse, repeat.

innerSpaceman

07-21-2011, 02:08 PM

Really? Status quo? So no substantial changes to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security?

Kevy Baby

07-21-2011, 06:05 PM

Speaking of wow, no discussion here of the Debt Ceiling debates? Hmmm.On Fox 11 News (LA Local) last night, while they were discussing the story, the tag line graphic read "Debt Deiling..."

I was amused. But not amused enough to capture it.

sleepyjeff

07-25-2011, 11:28 AM

Americathon

I first saw this movie way back in 1979...... rewatched it again last night and was astounded at some of the social and political "predictions" for the future:

1) That everyone would wear Nike clothing (the movie was made long before Nike became a household name)

2) That the Soviet Union would fall and China would turn to Capitalism.

3) That Vietnam would turn into a Vacation hot-spot.

4) That a M. Jackson would be The singing sensation.

5) That the US would be bankrupt(400 Billion dollars) and would need to pay off the debt to ward off foreclosure. That the Presidents wild schemes to raise money would drive his Treasury Secretary to quit.

6) That The United States of America has 57 states (I am not kidding, in one segment they go "live" to our 57th State, jolly ol England)

Now there were a couple of big "predictions" that they did get wrong.

1) That everyone used bicycles for transportation and lived in their cars (no more oil)....

2) That the Arabs and Jews joined together to create a new empire called The United Hebrab Republic.

Great movie if anyone cares to watch a comedy spoof about telethons.

Stars John Ritter as the President and Harvey Korman as the Telethon host. Features a boxing match in which a very young Jay Leno(aka "Poopy-butt") takes on his mommy, a stunt scene in which Meatloaf takes on a Car(the last working car), Zane Buzby as Moulin Jackson, puke rock singer, and Fred Willard as the bad guy who forces America to watch 25 ventriloquist acts a day, for 30 days

Also look for Cybill Shepard, Howard Hesseman, Tommy Lasorda, Elvis Costello, and Nancy Morgan.

Oh, and Richard Schaal, as the loveable Jerry...........his performance alone makes the movie worth a gander.

Narrated by the late, great George Carlin.

Alex

07-25-2011, 11:34 AM

I'm curious how #6 isn't in the wrong category.

Alex

07-25-2011, 11:36 AM

Oh, never mind. The Obama thing.

Ghoulish Delight

07-25-2011, 04:33 PM

I've said it before and I'll say it again, Fvck You Glenn Beck (http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/07/beck-youth-camp-attacked-in-norway-like-the-hitler-youth/)

...and there was a shooting a political camp, which sounds a little like the Hitler Youth or you know whatever. Who does a camp for kids that’s all about politics? Disturbing.Yeah. Who would do such a thing (http://www.meetup.com/tampa912/events/22130491/), Glenn? Disturbing indeed.

Meanwhile, that had me looking up info about the camp itself. I found this bullet point on their info page a heartbreaking footnote, a reminder of how this was just a camp full of innocent kids trying to make their country better by meeting like minded people.

If something happens
Norwegian People Aid will be present at the camp at all times. They can help if someone breaks an arm, gets a blister or something else.

yeah. Something else. :(

wendybeth

07-26-2011, 10:00 AM

I saw that, and thought the same thing, GD. Beck himself belongs to a religion that very strongly endorses right wing ideology and at a very young age. If he's going to use Hitler Youth comparisons, I would suggest he get his history straight. The Hitler Youth were indoctrinated into the fascist ideology. There are/were plenty of left wing oriented organizations (The USSR's Young Pioneers, etc) that he could have chosen from, but he went right for the most infamous example. None of them are appropriate in this situation, but then Beck has never been a terribly appropriate person.

Ghoulish Delight

07-26-2011, 10:22 AM

wow, and I missed this gem:

"I warned that this what was coming in Europe ... Last fall I said Europe is going to go into financial trouble and it's also going to go into problems with radical Islam."What? WHAT?! WHAT?!?! Can there really be people so fvcking brain dead as to actually take his dumbfvckery seriously? This guy blowing a building up and massacring children is radical Islam's fault?

you're a piece of sh!t, Glenn Beck.

BarTopDancer

07-26-2011, 11:31 AM

Beck himself belongs to a religion that very strongly endorses right wing ideology and at a very young age.

The terrorist who did this belongs to the same religion and ideology as Beck.

He is a Christian, [blond-haired blue-eyed] right-wing anti-Muslim extremist.

JWBear

07-26-2011, 12:39 PM

Haven't you all heard? All Christians are peaceful, loving people who would never hurt a fly; and all Muslims are violent bloodthirsty animals that want to destroy the west. I heard it on Fox News, so it must be true. Breivik must be a secret Muslim.

scaeagles

07-26-2011, 06:57 PM

Well, I will not say that i have read his manifesto. However, I have read this commentary on his manifesto, which contained this -

In Breivik's 1,500 page "manifesto," it is clear that he hates Islam and wants Europe to rediscover its Christian culture. Breivik likes violent video games. His favorite TV show is Dexter, a series that glorifies a serial killer. One also finds in his ramblings that he is a follower of Charles Darwin, seldom if ever prays, says it is possible to be a "Christian atheist," and adds, "I'm not going to pretend I'm a very religious person."

So I would suppose he is a very misguided man who doesn't understand Christianity, just like Muslim terrorists don't understand Islam. The major difference is that I haven't heard any prominent Christian leader praising him, while Middle Eastern Imams often praise Islamic terrorist actions.

I am sickened that even if he is found guilty of every charger the max he can serve in Norway is 21 years. I think that he'll be 55 or something when he gets out (assuming time served while on trial is part of the 21 years).

Ghoulish Delight

07-26-2011, 07:06 PM

There are exceptions to the 21 year max.

katiesue

07-26-2011, 09:35 PM

My understanding was it was 21 years but they can still keep you after that if they feel you are still a threat.

Ghoulish Delight

07-27-2011, 08:05 PM

I can't say I'm entirely enamored with Obama's performance over the last 2+ years, but damnit I am happy to live in a world where someone can get Rick Rolled by the official White House twitter feed.

Betty

07-29-2011, 06:44 AM

My in laws are getting more and more outspoken politically on facebook. They are extremely anti-Obama frequently referring to him in terms of POS Obama and similar.

I can't block them entirely because the family does a lot of communication through facebook. (The health of my husband's grandma, for example, is updated this way.)

I admit, I've posted political items before and have debated with them various issues. It's gotten old though because I seem to be the only one in the discussion with my viewpoint and end up feeling a bit ganged up on - not necessarily by family but by their facebook friends. You know how people can be online. ;)

No point. Just complaining.

scaeagles

07-29-2011, 09:20 AM

I seem to be the only one in the discussion with my viewpoint and end up feeling a bit ganged up on.

Welcome to my world on the LoT. :)

Gn2Dlnd

07-29-2011, 09:33 AM

My in laws are getting more and more outspoken politically on facebook. They are extremely anti-Obama frequently referring to him in terms of POS Obama and similar.

Have I mentioned why I'm not on Facebook?

BarTopDancer

07-29-2011, 11:00 AM

So Leo can befriend Betty's in-laws and update her on her husband's grandmothers status.

Betty

07-29-2011, 03:20 PM

So Leo can befriend Betty's in-laws and update her on her husband's grandmothers status.

That's a great solution!

scaeagles

08-02-2011, 10:19 AM

A serious question. What does "Pay their fair share" mean? As I listen to the President say it for the Nth time, I wonder, and I'm not just speaking rhetorically. I really want to know what it means. I did a quicksearch and found this -

Table 1. Summary of Federal Individual Income Tax Data, 2008(Updated October 2010)

Group's Share of Income Taxes
Top 1% 38.02%
Top 5% 58.72%
Top 10% 69.94%

Source: Internal Revenue Service
Should the top 1% be required to pay more than 38% of all fed income taxes? Should the top 5% have to pay more than 59% of all fed income taxes?

The chart (I didn't include it) also shows that in 2008 the bottom 50% paid 2.7% of all federal income taxes.

That data makes it seem to me that thew ealthy already are paying their fair share.

So what is "their fair share"?

Ghoulish Delight

08-02-2011, 10:42 AM

Source: Internal Revenue Service
Should the top 1% be required to pay more than 38% of all fed income taxes? Should the top 5% have to pay more than 59% of all fed income taxes?
Is the top 1% earning more than 38% of the country's income? I don't have time to find a complete answer for that, but here's (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/business/29tax.html) a partial answer.

While total reported income in the United States increased almost 9 percent in 2005, the most recent year for which such data is available, average incomes for those in the bottom 90 percent dipped slightly compared with the year before, dropping $172, or 0.6 percent.

The gains went largely to the top 1 percent, whose incomes rose to an average of more than $1.1 million each, an increase of more than $139,000, or about 14 percent.

The new data also shows that the top 300,000 Americans collectively enjoyed almost as much income as the bottom 150 million Americans. Per person, the top group received 440 times as much as te average person in the bottom half earned, nearly doubling the gap from 1980.In my opinion, yes. If that top 1% is earning waaaaaay more than the bottom 99%, then yes, they should be paying waaaaay more in taxes.

scaeagles

08-02-2011, 11:00 AM

Well, obviously they are. The top 1% paying 38% of the income tax bill is paying way more. What would make it "their fair share"?

If the bottom 50% is paying only 2.7%, obviously they can't pay any less (well they could I suppose). Would transferring that 2.7% to the top 10% of income earners make it fair?

Ghoulish Delight

08-02-2011, 11:22 AM

Well, obviously they are. The top 1% paying 38% of the income tax bill is paying way more. What would make it "their fair share"? Again, if they're earning more than 38% of the income, then yes, they should account for more than 38% of income tax.

Let's make it simple.

Let's assume a country with a population of 10 people whose income breaks down to:

1. $1,000,000
2. $200,000
3. $50,000
4-10. $10,000 each

Then person #1 is making about 75% of the county's income, and should account for 75% of the country's taxes. And those bottom 6 people should account for only about 3% of the taxes.

That's obviously an extreme example, and I doubt it's quite at the 75% level. But 38%? 40%? 50%? Yeah, I have no trouble believing that 50% or more of the United States income is earned in a year by the top 1% of earners.

Ghoulish Delight

08-02-2011, 11:35 AM

Yeah, I have no trouble believing that 50% or more of the United States income is earned in a year by the top 1% of earners.
Especially when you consider that that top 1% has infinite ways to generate wealth that is not considered "income" and is protected from taxation.

Alex

08-02-2011, 12:27 PM

Deja vu (http://www.loungeoftomorrow.com/LoT/showpost.php?p=337234&postcount=6252).

"Fair" means different things to different people. But the idea that income tax is progressive is hardly a recent development and was baked into the income tax from the very beginning.

Odds are I pay more in taxes than most people here (first because I earn a lot more and second because I don't care enough to try to avoid it).

I'm ok with paying a fair amount more (not just total but percentage wise). If one thinks the government has any responsibility to provide social safety nets it is pretty much ridiculous to expect all parties to fund that program identically. I think the national park system is a valuable government service that would not be replicated in the private marketplace and if that means progressive taxes to get, I'm ok with that.

But the very question of "fair" is meaningless. Let's say we all paid 18% of our income in taxes. Why is that fair? I'll be paying five times more than my sister. Would I be ok with it if AMC charged me 5 times more for the same service simply because I make more?

JWBear

08-02-2011, 02:17 PM

And the amount of taxes taken in by the government as a percentage of the GDP is the lowest it has been in 50 years - mostly due to the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.

The top 1% also pay far less of a percentage of their income (when you count all forms of income) in taxes than the rest of us.

So yes, they need to start paying their fair share.

I also think that calling the ending tax breaks for private planes and other corporate welfare "tax increases" is patently absurd.

scaeagles

08-02-2011, 02:59 PM

If they ended to mortgage interest tax deduction, which is simply a tax break, I would certainly consider that a tax increase.

innerSpaceman

08-02-2011, 04:19 PM

Why? Because you're used to it? If it's a deduction, then eliminating it is not an increase. In the same way that taking a retail item off the sale price is not a price hike. Sheesh.

By the way, Medicare is only 40 years old. So I'm also not quite going along with claims that the program is an inviolate American right. But I'm not happy it's going to be privatized and gutted. Private health insurance companies spend, on average, 31% of their money on non-health-related things. Medicare spends 3%.*

* this efficiency does not extend to the recently-enacted Medicare Part D, which is not administered by the government, but by private, for-profit agencies. Remind me again why a single-payer, Medicare For All system was ruled out as the solution to skyrocketing health care costs.

JWBear

08-02-2011, 04:31 PM

* this efficiency does not extend to the recently-enacted Medicare Part D, which is not administered by the government, but by private, for-profit agencies. Remind me again why a single-payer, Medicare For All system was ruled out as the solution to skyrocketing health care costs.

Because the insurance industry can't make obscene profits from denying treatment to sick people under a government run single-payer system. Duh!

Ghoulish Delight

08-02-2011, 04:37 PM

Why? Because you're used to it? If it's a deduction, then eliminating it is not an increase. In the same way that taking a retail item off the sale price is not a price hike. Sheesh.
Eh, I agree with scaeagles on this one. Sure, semantically, you're correct. But practically, the effect is identical.

It's like the gas stations that are currently getting away with skirting the "you're not allowed to charge a service fee to people paying with credit card" law by giving a "cash discount." I call total b.s. on that. The end result is identical, just because you call title it the inverse doesn't change the economic nature of what you're doing. In short, yes, because we're used to receiving the deductions, ending those deductions is functionally equivalent to raising taxes. The end result=pay more taxes.

I just happen to not be against raising taxes.

innerSpaceman

08-02-2011, 05:11 PM

I'm sorry you see it that way, GD. So many tax incentives, subsidies and deductions were granted to temporarily promote certain behaviors. But when the need for such promotion was gone, people raised holy hell about the subsidies and deductions EVER being rescinded. That's not the way it's supposed to work.

Mortgage interest deduction was supposed to promote home ownership. If that's no longer a government goal, it's not an increase in taxes if the deduction is discontinued - although of course, one's overall tax bill may (or may not) go up following that event.

Yes, I understand the human perspective of a deduction or subsidy one thought of as permanent because it's been around for a long, long time. But how is it not a tax raise if private jet purchase deductions are discontinued, and IS a tax raise if mortgage interest deductions are discontinued?

Ghoulish Delight

08-02-2011, 06:19 PM

I'm sorry you see it that way, GD.Don't need your pitty about it, thanks

But how is it not a tax raise if private jet purchase deductions are discontinued, and IS a tax raise if mortgage interest deductions are discontinued?
I don't recall every saying such a thing. I consider those both equivalent to tax increases.

innerSpaceman

08-02-2011, 06:34 PM

Yeah, I see that now, in re-reading some posts. Sorry, got confused. And I suppose a tax deduction that's been around for - well, what time period would make it qualify for seeming permanence, such that its elimination could reasonably be deemed a tax increase and not merely the removal of a temporary deduction?

I suppose "reasonable" is like the definition of "fair" though. ;)

BarTopDancer

08-02-2011, 06:57 PM

I think mortgage tax deductions are BS because I'm never going to be able to buy a home and I get jack**** for being a renter. Oh wait, some years I get a measly $30 renters credit. Yay me.

innerSpaceman

08-02-2011, 08:03 PM

The mortgage interest deduction is perfect for my point. Now that spreading the population out to the suburbs has proven to be bad for energy consumption, there's a growing trend toward more urbanization - and it might be considered a legitimate government interest to promote fleeing the suburbs, just as the mortgage deduction favored fleeing the cities. So because times and circumstances change, taxes cannot?

I understand the complaints of those whom the change doesn't favor, but I t think that's besides the point of behavioral tax policy.

Alex

08-02-2011, 09:09 PM

An entitlement can never be eliminated, quickly becoming entrenched by its special interest.

A tax break can never be eliminated, quickly becoming entrenched by its special interest.

This is the ying and the yang of providing opposite sides something to bitch about without having to be so creative as to actually come up with two different things.

Ghoulish Delight

08-03-2011, 06:43 AM

So because times and circumstances change, taxes cannot?
Again, I don't think anyone here is saying that ending these credits is vorboten on the surface, just that it's dishonest to argue that doing so is somehow substantively different than raising taxes just to make yourself feel more justified in calling for it. You are asking for a change in law that results in people paying more taxes. Whether you call it "ending a tax break" or "raising taxes" is entirely irrelevant.

innerSpaceman

08-03-2011, 07:48 AM

Yeah, I'm with you on that. But I think something has to be around for a while to cause its elimination to be a defacto tax raise. The mortgage interest deduction qualifies.

But the payroll tax holiday that is likely to expire in December and has been around for only a year - will that be a tax raise? Personally, I don't think so - even though the effect is my taxes are "higher" than they were for a year.

Alex, Entitlements are just that. Social Security is an entitlement because I'm just going to be getting back (essentially) what I paid into the system. I'm entitled to that money. I paid into the system specifically to get that back later. Same with Medicare.

Tax deductions are not the same. No one is "entitled" to tax deductions. Well, corporations are, of course, but I hope you get my point.

Alex

08-03-2011, 07:58 AM

I'm not saying tax breaks are the same thing as entitlements. I am saying that they become entrenched in the same way (and for the same reasons) as entitlements. As a generalization the right resists creation of new entitlements because they know once it is in place it will be very difficult to remove (though for certain types of entitlement programs the opposition/support switches parties) and the left resists new tax breaks and loopholes because they know that once they are in place they will be very difficult to remove (though for certain types of tax breaks eh opposition/support switches parties).

(Though your definition of an entitlement is somewhat off since it has nothing to do with whether you self fund your return on the program. An entitlement is something you are statutorily required to receive simply by meeting qualifications. Food stamps are an entitlement program. VA benefits are an entitlement program. a lot of crop subsidies are entitlement programs, none of those are programs that the recipients are entitled to because of the money they first put into the program.)

Ghoulish Delight

08-03-2011, 08:25 AM

But the payroll tax holiday that is likely to expire in December and has been around for only a year - will that be a tax raise? Personally, I don't think so - even though the effect is my taxes are "higher" than they were for a year.Still semantics, but if there's a built in expiration date and it's a matter of renewing it or not, then no, I would not necessarily label it a tax raise. But that has more to do, for me, with the existence of a pre-defined expiration rather than duration. I suppose I'd agree that if a tax break with no expiration date was enacted, and then repealed 6 months later I might not consider that a tax raise. But I don't really think that happens.

Regardless, whether it's an end of a break, or a raise of taxes should not be a deciding factor. Whether it's the reasonable course of action should. (I know, I'm not holding my breath)

innerSpaceman

08-03-2011, 09:47 AM

I guess my big objection is that most people never want temporary tax breaks to end, and they make such a stink about it (farm subsidies come most to mind) that they never end, despite the intent when enacted that they be able to end someday.

Civilian citizens don't have that kind of absurd clout, so I expect the home mortgage interest deduction to come to an end pretty soon. But breaks for farmers and corporations that were never designed to be permanent will be permanent despite obsolescence because the parties affected have too much influence in government. Yes, TOO MUCH, imo.

innerSpaceman

08-03-2011, 09:49 AM

Though your definition of an entitlement is somewhat off since it has nothing to do with whether you self fund your return on the program. An entitlement is something you are statutorily required to receive simply by meeting qualifications.
Yes, we are using different definitions. I'm using English, you're using governmental jargon. Sorry for any confusion.

Alex

08-03-2011, 10:01 AM

Your made up definition for what government programs are entitlements would exclude food stamps (as well as most other actual entitlement programs). It is fine if you don't want to call that an entitlement program, but it does render your contribution to a discussion of what should be done with entitlement programs somewhat useless.

Strangler Lewis

08-03-2011, 10:59 AM

I would assume that our country's banks have an interest in the maintenance of the home mortgage interest deduction since if it were eliminated, housing values would plummet, more people would walk away and fewer people would buy houses.

Were I Supreme manager of our country's economy, I would give everyone a house so that people's homes were not their principal investment and more money could be spent on Fiddle Faddle, I-Pad2s, text messaging plans and the like, thus boosting our nation's real economy.

Alex

08-03-2011, 12:19 PM

Apologies for the post above. While I don't think it is a distinction without meaning it isn't one deserving of that tone or response. Apparently I was touchy this morning.

scaeagles

08-04-2011, 06:26 AM

I would agree with GD on the included expiration date in the original passage as a deciding factor. In AZ we passed a temporary 2% tax on food which is to last for three years. The expiration is built into the law. When it expires, I will not consider it a tax reduction.

Without a specific expiration date, there is no such thing as temporary taxes or tax breaks.

I would regard an elimination of the mortgage interest deduction changing the rules midgame. Unlike ISM, I do not think it will ever end. The back lobby (as previously mentioned by Strangler) and real estate lobby and a whole bunch of other lobbies would make it very difficult to do so. The only fair way to do it would be to grandfather those who purchased with the understanding that they can have that deduction, however I know that won't fly.

Alex

08-04-2011, 06:53 AM

Do you disagree with the general Republican/Tea Party claim that allowing the 2001 tax cuts to expire would be a tax increase?

JWBear

08-04-2011, 08:04 AM

No, it would be an increase... And a much needed one, at that.

scaeagles

08-04-2011, 10:04 AM

Hmmm....tricky question, Alex.

I suppose it would be a tax increase because the actual tax rates would go up, and while I oppose it, I wouldn't suggest that it is the fault of anyone except the House and Senate from when it passed and also Bush for signing it.

Such is compromise, i suppose. I don't think they should have been temporary with an expiration, but that was the only way to get it passed.

So tax increase yes. Hanging that tax increase politically on the current congress or President, no. That of course changes if the House and Senate vote to continue them and the Predient vetoes.

Not a great answer, I admit. But the best I got.

innerSpaceman

08-04-2011, 11:13 AM

Ghoulish Delight

08-04-2011, 01:10 PM

Ok, I'm confused. The tax decrease had an expiration date. One which Congress decided to change, but it still had an expiration date when it was passed. Are you now saying, scaeagles, that it's an exception to your 3-posts-earlier statement that an expiration date included with the initial tax change was the deciding factor for you?

Huh?

I know this wasn't addressed to me, but obviously Leo and I are arguing similar things (hell, frozen)

...if there's a built in expiration date and it's a matter of renewing it or not, then no, I would not necessarily label it a tax raise. Sweet, left myself an out!

This one's borderline for me and does get into the area where duration and expectation of permanence (or structural permanence, in the case where letting them expire is politically undoable and thus any expiration date's approach is purely perfunctory, waiting for the inevitable extension) begin to matter. Since we're talking semantics and splitting of verbal hairs, there's bound to be some gray hairs.

Really, the only way it even matters whether it's called a "tax increase" or not is in the fantasy world the Republicans like to try to create where "tax increase" is automatically a bad thing. So I couldn't really care less whether it's technically a tax increase or not.

scaeagles

08-05-2011, 05:37 AM

Ok, I'm confused. The tax decrease had an expiration date. One which Congress decided to change, but it still had an expiration date when it was passed. Are you now saying, scaeagles, that it's an exception to your 3-posts-earlier statement that an expiration date included with the initial tax change was the deciding factor for you?

Huh?

I think it is a semantic issue.

The only reason I would regard it as a tax increase is because it is an actual increase in the tax rate. In my attempt to answer what Alex asked, I tried to explain that while yes, it is a tax increase, I wouldn't regard it the same as a new tax. It would, and does, have a different....feel?...to it because it is the elimination of a temporary reduction. I can't blame the existing congress or Obama should it expire - I can only blame those that originally passed and signed it to be temporary.

It is completely different than , say, creating a VAT or increasing the gas tax or raising rates beyond what they were in 2001.

Hope that clears up my reasoning a bit.

CoasterMatt

08-07-2011, 11:20 AM

So if jobs create revenue (about 8% payroll tax per dollar paid), would that explain why there's no REAL jobs debate going on? Pledge to NO tax increases, right?

scaeagles

08-07-2011, 03:46 PM

IK'm not really sure what you are getting at Matt, but the jobs issue is not really that complex, if you ask me.

Regulation of business has been increasing almost exponentially. This article (http://www.heritage.org/research/testimony/2011/02/regulatory-impediments-to-job-creation) has numbers on the new regulations being put onto businesses. A couple snippets -

Last year, however, the number and cost of new regulations imposed by federal agencies reached unprecedented levels. Based upon reports from the Government Accountability Office, in fiscal year 2010 alone some 43 major new rules increasing regulatory burdens were issued by federal agencies.

Overall, the latest Unified Agenda released by OMB shows that regulatory agencies have 183 more regulations in the pipeline now than they did last year, 40 of which are “economically significant”—an increase of 20 percent.

This runs directly into the second point, which is that businesses are hoarding cash and not investing or expanding their buisiness because of fear of more costly regulation.

I know there will be those on here who think I am against all regulation. This is not what I'm saying. I am saying that regulation is increasing at alarming rates, and this scares businesses. Is it the only issue? Certainly not. But it s a huge one.

innerSpaceman

08-08-2011, 09:53 AM

Fear of costly regulation? You can say that with a straight face? You say fear of regulation is causing people to not hire other people without regurgitation?

How about because companies figured out how to make the same amount of profit with less employees?

How about because nearly every company operating in the U.S. that doesn't absolutely need employees to be in the U.S. (and even some that do) can now hire people outside the U.S. at a fraction of the expense?

How about because in a vicious cycle where no one has a job, there's no customers or consumer economy to support businesses who might hire new workers?

How about because whereas once "job creators" like Ford figured out his workers should be able to purchase their company's own products if that company were going to sell enough product, today's corporate overlords feel a U.S. consumer economy is unnecessary to their profitability?

Oh yeah, fear of cumbersome regulation. That's way up there on the reason there's no jobs. :rolleyes:

scaeagles

08-08-2011, 10:17 AM

Uh, yeah. I can say it with a straight face.

Why else is cash on hand for corporations at such a record level? Why are they not reinvesting in their business to make more money?

From the International Business Times -
According to the Federal Reserve, U.S. corporations held a record $1.93 trillion in cash on their balance sheets in 2010. But they are not investing to expand their companies, grow the real economy or create good middle-class jobs, the report says.

I think Steve Wynn might know a thing or two about business.....from a recent rant of his -

And I'm saying it bluntly, that this administration is the greatest wet blanket to business, and progress and job creation in my lifetime. And I can prove it and I could spend the next 3 hours giving you examples of all of us in this market place that are frightened to death about all the new regulations, our healthcare costs escalate, regulations coming from left and right. A President that seems, that keeps using that word redistribution. Well, my customers and the companies that provide the vitality for the hospitality and restaurant industry, in the United States of America, they are frightened of this administration.And it makes you slow down and not invest your money. Everybody complains about how much money is on the side in America.

Straight face? Certainly. I am amazed that you can dismiss it with one.

Strangler Lewis

08-08-2011, 10:34 AM

Yes, before Obama, Americans would hit on a 16. Now, not so much.

Right or wrong, I think it's funny to see Steve Wynn quoted as an icon of financial stewardship.

Alex

08-08-2011, 10:59 AM

I'm amazed that anybody would ascribe so complex a thing as the national increase in corporate cash holding to one single dominating factor.

Other important factors: deleveraging to reduce short-term paper costs, poor economic conditions for repatriating cash in foreign markets, and simple uncertainty about the long term future for improving consumer demand all play huge factors. While fear of uncertain new regulation has impacts, that would perhaps explain why they are slow to hire, but not so much why they are leaving the money in cash.

Frankly, when someone who knows better reduces a complex situation to a simple one, I assume it is a negotiating maneuver. Blame all the bad stuff on over-regulation to get your way, then next year blame all the same bad stuff on whatever the next thing you want to change is.

(Not to mention that the increase in cash holdings by U.S. corporations has been a multi-decadal trend that has only seen an increase in recent years not a fundamental change. How scared were the companies by Reagan that they started doing this in the '80s (http://www.cob.ohio-state.edu/fin/faculty/stulz/publishedpapers/jofi_1492.pdf).)