Election 2010: Teabaggin' the Ds & Rs

[Penske 2.0]

Originally Posted by Adder

How do you feel about a tax rate cut that's been around for like 7-8 years that should never, in any objective sense, been passed in the first place because we couldn't possibly afford it and it obviously blew the shit out of the federal budget but for the pretense that it would expire this year?

Also, if you are only going to make 64 cents on the next dollar you earn (instead of 67 cents) how fast will you book a trip to Cabo instead of working an extra minute?

I booked Cabo for April today. No lie. Next question.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

How do you feel about a tax rate cut that's been around for like 7-8 years that should never, in any objective sense, been passed in the first place because we couldn't possibly afford it and it obviously blew the shit out of the federal budget but for the pretense that it would expire this year?

Also, if you are only going to make 64 cents on the next dollar you earn (instead of 67 cents) how fast will you book a trip to Cabo instead of working an extra minute?

the problem 2001-2009 was that clinton had kept the budget down by completely ignoring terrorism. Bush had to increase a bit to catch up, but Obama doesn't have that burden. We'll be fine.

the crazy thing is you guys don't even realize that "agreement" is what you've been crying for. now you mock it. compromise won't be the Dem initial proposal. dimwit.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Friends don't let friends vote Republican:

After making the budget deficit not just a campaign issue but the campaign issue of 2010, one of the very first legislative things the Republicans in Congress will do after the election is agree to a tax cut and extension of unemployment benefits (and god knows what else) that will...wait for it...increase the deficit. The two-year increase in the deficit because of the deal will be greater than the stimulus bill the GOP railed against during the election. This is either one of the most exquisite ironies or extraordinary hypocrisies in the history of American politics. It ranks right up there with Lyndon Johnson campaigning against Barry Goldwater in 1964 by criticizing his plan to increase military activities in Vietnam and then, after the election, having the Pentagon do many of the things he had criticized Goldwater for suggesting.

Stan Collender

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally Posted by Adder

Really? You are probably right, but thinking "here, have a nice 5000 lbs bomb that we dropped from 10,000 feet" is a strange way to conceive of foreign aid.

Well, that helps SOME furriners.

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally Posted by Adder

That's probably right, but fits with what I would predict for the general pattern: people in general have no clue what is going on.

Liberal elitist.

S_A_M

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Secret_Agent_Man

Liberal elitist.

S_A_M

Apparently Oprah asked Jonathan Franzen whether he is a liberal elitist, and he said, no, he is a Midwestern egalitarian. Kinda proving the point.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

I may be misremembering something, but I believe that this year SS is paying out slightly more $$ than are generated by SS payroll taxes. And a cut of 2% will ensure that SS taxes are not paying for all SS benefits paid in 2011.

Shit. You're right, I'd forgotten we crossed the Rubicon this year.

ps: Without a significant restructuring of SS (radical or otherwise), it's a near certainty that Treasury and SS will work out a deal where the "trust fund" bonds don't get repaid in full. Book it.

I agree that is likely -- but I don't understand your premise. That "deal" will in and of itself require a significant restructuring of SS, because not repaying the bonds in full means the benefits will be radically reduced. I suppose what you mean is that, unless we deal with the problem now, it's going to be dealt with a lot more drastically later.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

the problem 2001-2009 was that clinton had kept the budget down by completely ignoring terrorism. Bush had to increase a bit to catch up, but Obama doesn't have that burden. We'll be fine.

the crazy thing is you guys don't even realize that "agreement" is what you've been crying for. now you mock it. compromise won't be the Dem initial proposal. dimwit.

Ah, thank god -- Hank is back to posting about stuff he doesn't understand, so we don't have to read his bible stories.

"Us guys" were -- or, at least, I was -- hoping for a compromise that would move towards the center, not one that moves towards both fringes. Such as, let W's tax cuts expire towards the upper income brackets, and don't extend unemployment benefits or extend them but pay for it out of unused stimulus funds. Instead, we got the worst of both worlds -- driven by the desire to tax like libertarians but spend like socialists.

This is the W legacy. (The man who thought fighting terrorism was so important that, well, future generations should pay for it.)

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Shit. You're right, I'd forgotten we crossed the Rubicon this year.




I agree that is likely -- but I don't understand your premise. That "deal" will in and of itself require a significant restructuring of SS, because not repaying the bonds in full means the benefits will be radically reduced. I suppose what you mean is that, unless we deal with the problem now, it's going to be dealt with a lot more drastically later.

I'm going to confess the deal has me flumoxed. I don't like the impact on the deficit. I didn't like it when Bush and Hastert got them through, and time does not improve them.

On the other hand, I've never liked the social security tax, which I think of as greatly anti-competitive in foreign trade. Most countries don't fund their social security taxes as a business/employment tax. It's a regressive tax as well, though that can be justified based on the cap on benefits. I was suprised that Obama shares my dislike for it - I'd never picked that up before, and think this could be a good thing.

But, it will also further increase the deficit and further impair social security's viability.

I really just see two solutions to this (1) we figure out how to gut the military or (2) we sell Alaska to the Chinese to pay down the debt.

In the meantime, I'd like to join the Hank/Clubby chorus in bemoaning the fact that you guys never criticize Obama. I read through the last few pages, and just can't believe all the apologia and toadying. Sheesh.

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

On the other hand, I've never liked the social security tax, which I think of as greatly anti-competitive in foreign trade. Most countries don't fund their social security taxes as a business/employment tax. It's a regressive tax as well, though that can be justified based on the cap on benefits. I was suprised that Obama shares my dislike for it - I'd never picked that up before, and think this could be a good thing.

Finally! A tax you don't like . . .

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

Finally! A tax you don't like . . .

They are the price one pays for civilization...

I do realize most of the Rs are anti-civilization, and that's where the tough sell comes in.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

They are the price one pays for civilization...

I do realize most of the Rs are anti-civilization, and that's where the tough sell comes in.

Do we know whether Jesus paid any taxes (or, in other words, paging Atticus)?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Adder

Do we know whether Jesus paid any taxes (or, in other words, paging Atticus)?

Softball alert!

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

I agree that is likely -- but I don't understand your premise. That "deal" will in and of itself require a significant restructuring of SS, because not repaying the bonds in full means the benefits will be radically reduced. I suppose what you mean is that, unless we deal with the problem now, it's going to be dealt with a lot more drastically later.

Yes. I borrowed your Bass-o-Matic without asking. Sorry.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by Adder

Do we know whether Jesus paid any taxes (or, in other words, paging Atticus)?

Are you suggesting Jesus wasn't a 501(c)(3)?