Re: Fine, you guys win
 

No one tell PLF.

Re: Fine, you guys win
 

It's OK, he won't be in here for a while. He's busy having a "hipness" vs. "authenticity" crisis over on the FB, and it appears to somehow involve Throbbing Gristle, so it may take him a while to work out his issues.

Re: Fine, you guys win
 

still, sometimes i think the way he actively dismisses me is better than those of you who passively dismiss me:confused::(

There; happy?
 

That's the most idiotic thing you've posted on this board today.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

This.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

You're suggesting that we take advice on domestic policy from foreigners? Why do you hate America?

Detroit to Dems in Congress: thanks for a pointless bailout
 

http://www.stltoday.com/business/loc...a263e7abf.html

so the unions didn't have to make the needed concessions to get the companies the bailout, because of Pelosi and Reid, now they are actually looking for more? The Big 3 will be maybe 1 company left in 10 years.

Re: Detroit to Dems in Congress: thanks for a pointless bailout
 

Huh? How is the statement, "if we trade wages for profit sharing, then we are going to want more of the profits than we got before the making that trade" at all controversial? And how is getting more of the profits somehow a threat to the companies?

Probably, although more likely because of foreign competition than because of the UAW.

Re: Detroit to Dems in Congress: thanks for a pointless bailout
 

at the time of the bailouts everyone, everyone, agreed the uaw needed to give concessions. they were going to be coming, the R's said it must be part of the bailout. The D's said "trust us."

Now the d's are saying "trust us" on debt.

Re: Detroit to Dems in Congress: thanks for a pointless bailout
 

Love the header. I'm sure most of Detroit thinks the bailout was a mistake.

Re: Detroit to Dems in Congress: thanks for a pointless bailout
 

You don't see trading wages for profit sharing as a concession? Why not?

I don't think I've heard anyone say that.

Re: Detroit to Dems in Congress: thanks for a pointless bailout
 

I didn't read the article. Is the UAW agreeing to pay cuts to get profit sharing, or "agreeing" to mor seek raises if it gets profit sharing. Cuz right now seeking a raise is futile. That is not a concession. In 2008 the UAW burdern was too high. Agreing not to add to the burden is hardly the "concession" needed. We need cuts in wages and benefits.

Hold the line "rally"
 

Seems worthy of a caption context:
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6006/...568b5c0f70.jpg

Weigel

Re: Detroit to Dems in Congress: thanks for a pointless bailout
 

If only you were management at the big three. Or maybe you could like call them or something?

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

John Kerry is a good judge of character.

More on Europe
 

Yglesias on growth in WE vs. growth here includes this:
http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/...ichamerica.png

I don't have any idea what the units on the Y-axis are, but assuming that they are valid, I had no idea the main period of faster growth in the past 140 years in the U.S. was 1870-1950. Although I guess when you think about it, Europe was rather busy warring with itself during that period.

Also interesting is that since then the U.S. has been growing slightly more quickly (i.e. slightly steeper slope), but not all that much.

Re: More on Europe
 

goes to show what a decade of zero growth will do.

Re: More on Europe
 

It's hard to believe that growth in Europe was not negative in the 1935-1945 period.

Though, since it's per capital GDP, and they eliminated a lot of capitas in that period, that could explain it.

Re: More on Europe
 

That's a good point. I thought the fact that the graph is perfectly flat for that period and for the late teens might suggest a lack of data for the war periods.

But Yglesias actually linked to the source data, which show declines in both total and per capita GPD at the end of each of those periods. Perhaps the time scale is just too large here to make those changes visible.

Re: More on Europe
 

The post-Lochner, pre-Carolene Products, era.

Re: More on Europe
 

I guess, although if you meant to imply that this era of greater economic freedom was a boon to economic growth, I think that's a little hard to square with the dramatically faster growth that followed that period.

Or perhaps you meant that we were more unlike Europe during that period, thanks to greater economic freedom, and therefore had greater potential to grow faster.

Maybe, but I still gotta go with the constant massive wars on European soil, which in addition to dragging them down probably gave us some opportunities.

Re: We're always in the 1970s.
 

More from Kevin Drum on who pays no federal income tax:
More detail, which I did not read, from the Tax Policy Center (pdf).

Re: We're always in the 1970s.
 

And, while bitching about how many people pay no income tax, the Congressional Rs are vehemently opposed to raising their taxes. I'm glad they're so strong for the EITC.

Re: We're always in the 1970s.
 

I think some of them are for a flat tax or other system that would significantly shift the tax burden to those with lower incomes from those with higher incomes. I guess as long as the expected revenue, that would be okay with Grover Norquist.

Re: We're always in the 1970s.
 

Man, those fuckers making $19k are really getting a great deal.

Can you say "Earmark"
 

So, Boehner is pulling Rs off the floor one by one now and meeting with them privately to twist arms for his vote.

How much Pork do you think he's committed to in the process, and what will that do to the debt? I'll bet we pay quite a hefty premium for vote 217. And I'll bet the Pork will live on long after the bill is dead (and it should die some time this evening).

Re: Can you say "Earmark"
 

He can't be committing to pork. All the Rs are opposed to sociofascist big government deficit spending.

Re: Can you say "Earmark"
 

Indeed. That's why they do so much of it.

Who knows, maybe he's not committing to Pork. Maybe he's just going to agree to include a provision with a national defense of marriage act or something requiring people to consult with a minister before entering a planned parenthood office. Things like that, that are proper uses of federal authority.

Re: We're always in the 1970s.
 

I think the point was made with regard to some comparison to % taxes in some foreign countries that those countries have a much smaller percentage of people paying $0. so that comparing was silly.

plus, once the abortion that is HCR kicks in the % will go up near the other countries- remember those countries already pay for their HC in the form of taxes.

Re: We're always in the 1970s.
 

As I recall, the origins of the discussion were your response to Larry Summers pointing out that federal taxes are a post-war low, in which you asked what percentage of people back then didn't pay any taxes.

Which led to the standard discussion of the fact that everyone pays taxes, just not everyone pays income taxes.

I have no idea what % of people in other countries pay $0. My understanding is that much of the European tax structure takes the form of VAT, so probably close to everyone pays some, just as everyone here pays sales tax and everyone who works pays payroll taxes.

But if you mean to argue that our taxes as a percentage of GDP are lower than Europe because we have proportionately fewer people paying taxes, I think that's just wrong. My understanding is that we have much lower rates.

Re: We're always in the 1970s.
 

I don't know if anyone made the first point at all. Cite?

Beyond that, in some foreign countries they rely on VAT, rather than income tax, so poor people are paying some tax whenever they buy (non-exempt) stuff. Just like they do here.

As for HCR, I plead ignorance. How much are people making under $19k going to pay under that?

Re: We're always in the 1970s.
 

man, Ty was saying we aren't taxed much because our % of tax is lower than it might be in Europe. But their HC is included in the tax, and ours isn't yet, but it will be (unless my prayers get answered) soon. The only point of mentioned the 19K is to say since the % of people who are poor in Europe is so much lower than here, they have a higher percentage of people paying taxes. I'm not going to explain this to you again.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

How is this smart in the middle of a housing crisis?

Re: We're always in the 1970s.
 

I'm sorry, I still plead ignorance. How much are people making under 19k going to pay under HCR? Seriously, if you are so certain about this, just tell me what the number is. I'd like to know.

Re: We're always in the 1970s.
 

none. zero.

but the total percentage of GNP or whatever Ty's charge was that goes into tax will spike up when HCR goes into effect.

now listen-- but the 19K people won't pay a dime- the only reaosn anyone mentioned them is to say perhaps our nat'l % of tax is lower that Europe is because of % of people payoing nothing is higher.

Re: We're always in the 1970s.
 

This was nonsensical, so I'm probably whiffing, but you never know with Hank.

Speaking of explaining it again, you are still wrong. Total tax receipts, including state and federal and fees and concessions ans stuff, are a much smaller percentage of GDP in this country than the rest of the developed world.

I'm not sure why you want to pray for that, given that the government is the lowest cost and among the highest quality provider in this country.

Also, as an employer, I'm not sure why you wouldn't prefer the government to provide for insurance for your employees rather than bearing all that cost for your business alone.

Wah? Where are you getting that? I don't know, but I do not think that's right.

Again, I don't know that this is true, but regardless, just about everyone in this country pays taxes (payroll tax, sales tax, taxes on alcohol, cigarettes and gas, etc).

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

Yeah. On the one hand, it's pretty bad housing policy. On the other hand, it's gonna be BAD for housing prices, which is BAD for the economy.

Seems like something that should be fixed when we're on better footing.

Re: We're always in the 1970s.
 

Adder cannot read. Q.E.D.

Re: We're always in the 1970s.
 

Actually, you said:
And 19k only came up when I posted today about why people don't pay federal income tax.

I don't know why you think we know anything about the percentage of people who pay taxes (or do you mean income taxes) in Europe, or the percentage of people in Europe who make less than $19K. I've seen nothing on either question and have no idea.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

Why would you take that one off the table? It's a huge boondoggle, and bringing down housing costs would help a lot of areas with their competitiveness. Housing prices are one of the biggest barriers to recruiting new talent in Boston.

And you don't have to eliminate it, just cap it at, say, mortgages of $200,000, or perhaps the median mortgage for any given state.

I don't know why you're so fond of subsidizing the real estate industry.