Election 2010: Teabaggin' the Ds & Rs

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

So which Republican Congressman gets to read the Sixteenth Amendment, and do they immediately get a primary challenger for 2012?

No, that's the guy who reads the 14th Amendment. ; )

S_A_M

[LessinSF]

Twenty years later, we are getting closer - http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...4/08-56415.pdf - only Scalia and Alito remain.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

time's up. I'm counting this one-

589-18

Sorry, what was the dispute? That this joint is equivalent to DU? I don't think anyone on the "left" here admits to having ever visited. How would "we" have a view to dispute you?

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

the wife and I are considering spending a month in SF later this year but now I"m worried. Is your behavior considered "normal" for there?

You should go to Yosemite. 'Weed and I will meet you there.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

IIRC, Rachel Maddow was another Atticus love-interest, in a fist-of-God sort of way. His fetish for chicks with short bubble-cuts is a little disturbing.

You do not RC. It's my wife who has Maddow on her laminated list. I find her unsexy and a little smug, though smart as all hell.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

You do not RC. It's my wife who has Maddow on her laminated list. I find her unsexy and a little smug, though smart as all hell.

Interesting how perception varies. I find her quite charming and gifted with a lawyer's intellect (she peripherally issue spot and cross-exam fairly well). But that's about where it ends. Save a decent dry wit, her powers of creativity appear to be lacking.

I think she's probably funnier IRL than on air. In interviews she throws off much better comedic quips than she does behind the mic. If I had to guess, she's held back on air because her handlers think:

1. A significant part of her audience is dour liberals who want her to treat stories with a mix of deadly seriousness and reverence;
2. Olbermann would blow a gasket if she further outshined/outcharmed him; and,
3. To the bring-your-own-burlap-food-sack-to-Whole-Foods crowd, her brand is "intellectual," and being too much of a comedian might tarnish that.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

Sorry, what was the dispute? That this joint is equivalent to DU? I don't think anyone on the "left" here admits to having ever visited. How would "we" have a view to dispute you?

Oh, God... There's definitely an echo effect here. Give me a break. Where I disagree with Hank is in the equivalence of the substance to that offered on DU. That's simply untrue. DU is a cesspool of idiots. The viewpoints offered here, even some of mine, are of a quality miles above that stuff... the two aren't even worthy of comparison.

And the echos here are not that pronounced. Of course most lawyers will tend to support Democratic political positions. But I don't see mere reflexive following. Most of the time, I see people offering different bases for supporting the same policy.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

To the bring-your-own-burlap-food-sack-to-Whole-Foods crowd

Fuck off. The sacks are made from recycled plastic bottles.


(although I never watch Maddow)

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Oh, God... There's definitely an echo effect here. Give me a break. Where I disagree with Hank is in the equivalence of the substance to that offered on DU.

Again, I have no break to give. I have no idea whether this place resembles DU. I've never been.

But I don't see mere reflexive following. Most of the time, I see people offering different bases for supporting the same policy.

2

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

time's up. I'm counting this one-

589-18

Are you really that daft? Or did you just not read very carefully?

(Hint: My question to Sebby -- "Do you try to engage them on something intellectual, or just throw out Tea Party talking points and pretend that it's an honest question that you weren't capable of googling yourself?" -- wasn't really a question to Sebby.)

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

You are missing the point completely. Reagan and Reaganites argued that he cut taxes for everyone (a paraphrase, but that's the gist). The reality is that Reagan cut income taxes, while raising payroll taxes. Unlike income taxes, payroll taxes are not progressive; in fact, they are regressive because of the cap on the amount subject to the tax.

Reagan and the Reaganites justified this by arguing that the payroll tax wasn't a "real" tax because it went into SS and Medicare, and people paying it would get it back. (Echoes of this argument are heard today, when people claim that x%% of Americans pay no taxes at all. It's bullshit.)

But, in reality, those payroll taxes went to cover the spending increases and income tax decreases that Reagan put into place.

In other woreds, it wasn't just that the stated deficit ballooned. Another, and possibly greater, problem was the "off-budget" deficit that came from "borrowing" -- really, stealing -- money from SS that came in as a result of the increased payroll taxes.

The distinction between payroll SS taxes and income tax is not so easily brushed away. The people on whom that was raised do, in fact, receive that money back. The income tax you and I pay "goes to money heaven."

Yes, the payroll tax increases did eventually go to spending. However, technically (and yes, I appreciate your wincing at the arguable weakness of this point), the money is owed to the SS fund.

My criticism, however, remains. If Reagan hadn't borrowed or "stolen" that money through the payroll tax hike, where would it have come from? Do you suggest he'd have been able to fund that spending by keeping income taxes where they were? And recall, he entered office during a terrible recession. Even Obama agrees that retaining low taxes in a recession is a prudent move to avoid killing a recovery.*

If your criticism is that he should have cut back on govt spending, I'd say we're in agreement. Most economists, however, would disagree with us. Chiefly, Krugman.

*The present debate on the issue is on where to draw the line, not the effectiveness of the policy generally.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Are you really that daft? Or did you just not read very carefully?

(Hint: My question to Sebby -- "Do you try to engage them on something intellectual, or just throw out Tea Party talking points and pretend that it's an honest question that you weren't capable of googling yourself?" -- wasn't really a question to Sebby.)

In the pantheon of original whiffs, my earnest response to that ranks as one of the most embarrassing. Delete that reply, Ty? You owe me one for something, no?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The distinction between payroll SS taxes and income tax is not so easily brushed away. The people on whom that was raised do, in fact, receive that money back. The income tax you and I pay "goes to money heaven."

Yes, the payroll tax increases did eventually go to spending. However, technically (and yes, I appreciate your wincing at the arguable weakness of this point), the money is owed to the SS fund.

That was the justification. But reality is rearing it's ugly head. The SS Trust Fund will not be repaid; the money that people paid through payroll tax went to federal spending and will never come back. It was income taxes by a different name and calculation method.

My criticism, however, remains. If Reagan hadn't borrowed or "stolen" that money through the payroll tax hike, where would it have come from? Do you suggest he'd have been able to fund that spending by keeping income taxes where they were? And recall, he entered office during a terrible recession. Even Obama agrees that retaining low taxes in a recession is a prudent move to avoid killing a recovery.*

If your criticism is that he should have cut back on govt spending, I'd say we're in agreement. Most economists, however, would disagree with us. Chiefly, Krugman.

*The present debate on the issue is on where to draw the line, not the effectiveness of the policy generally.[/QUOTE]

My criticism is much broader: I don't like the GOP fiscal-bullshit line. "Reagan cut taxes for everyone" is one example, and the Reagan ethos of reducing taxes while increasing spending -- maintaining ridiculous deficits even while the economy is expanding as it did in the late 80s -- got us where we are today.

And yes, I recognize, as Club pointed out, that Obama's deficits are higher than ever. But I think you agree that a massive cut in federal spending or massive tax increase in 2009 would have been disastrous. I have no fundamental problem with deficit spending in a recession, but that's the only time the fed government should be running big deficits.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

In the pantheon of original whiffs, my earnest response to that ranks as one of the most embarrassing. Delete that reply, Ty? You owe me one for something, no?

I admit, I was a little surprised. You are rarely so earnest -- I attributed it to post-NYE detox.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

In the pantheon of original whiffs, my earnest response to that ranks as one of the most embarrassing. Delete that reply, Ty? You owe me one for something, no?

put him on ignore and you can't whiff.