Election 2010: Teabaggin' the Ds & Rs

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The party will play them like it plays pro-life loons. arseholes.

You mean by giving them all they want?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The moderate, secular Rs got their tax breaks and deregulation. What'd the pro-lifers get? What'd the Moral Majority get? The privilege of delivering for the moderate secular Rs. And lip service.

The only thing they really care about: supreme court seats.

Btw, based on her adds, Michele Bachman thinks the answer is lower taxes and less regulation.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

90% (very conservative estimate) of Americans don't get how you can have as big of majorities as the Dems do and be cowed by the Repubs.

Count me as one who doesn't get why the Dems don't make the R's actually filibuster something. Make those old men stand up there for hours and get good footage of them blocking, not legislation, but bringing legislation to a vote. Make them pass out and (hopefully) die.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

Count me as one who doesn't get why the Dems don't make the R's actually filibuster something. Make those old men stand up there for hours and get good footage of them blocking, not legislation, but bringing legislation to a vote. Make them pass out and (hopefully) die.

The rules are so screwed up that they make it harder on the party trying to end the filibuster than the party doing the obstruction.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by lessinsf

count me as one who doesn't get why the dems don't make the r's actually filibuster something. Make those old men stand up there for hours and get good footage of them blocking, not legislation, but bringing legislation to a vote. Make them pass out and (hopefully) die.

2

And if that DeMint scumbag wants to shut government down, I think we call him on the bluff - either he does it, or he caves, but screw the negotiating with terrorists

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

What is the ACLU's objection to patents on genetic mutations?

I didn't ask for a debate, I politely demurred support for the cause. The ACLU has defneded any number of genetic mutuations before - are they worried they won't get to play with them if someone else gets there first?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Indeed. OTOH, everything is hard in Washington, except cutting taxes for rich people.

Don't be so sore with the rich... Rich folks like you and me are about to get a nice tax increase from our municipalities if Meredith Whitney's right. (And she is.)

Shit rolls downhill. I buy her theory that states will choke off funding to muncipalities and they inturn will make up the shortfall on the back of homeowners. And the property owners bearing the brunt will of course be those who can afford the bigger homes and own commercial property.

I think the states will also raise taxes.

...And you know what all this means. Business owners in our strata will lay off workers.

It's amusing to watch Govt strangle itself to death. I always thought his theories were half-baked in regard to the interplay between tax revenues and increases in federal income tax, but taking all taxes as a whole, and their impact on growth, I think you'd have to be a fucking moron to disagree with Laffer. One could say that after govt has driven our economy to the edge of collapse in a couple years, he'll be getting the last laugh. (God, that's awful.)

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

2

And if that DeMint scumbag wants to shut government down, I think we call him on the bluff - either he does it, or he caves, but screw the negotiating with terrorists

not to recall history, but going on TV and telling people the Rs were simply trying to shut government down was how Clinton got his game back, the first time he died.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I didn't ask for a debate, I politely demurred support for the cause. The ACLU has defneded any number of genetic mutuations before - are they worried they won't get to play with them if someone else gets there first?

not even my area, but often there are issues about an individual who "created" the mutation losing ownership to the folks who discovered it, aren't there? maybe ACLU wants people to have their rights, if so it is in keeping with its basic script.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

not even my area, but often there are issues about an individual who "created" the mutation losing ownership to the folks who discovered it, aren't there? maybe ACLU wants people to have their rights, if so it is in keeping with its basic script.

Since there seems to be interest, this is their schtick: http://www.aclu.org/free-speech-wome...cancer-genes-0

Apparently granting patents stifles research. Maybe we should get rid of them altogether then.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Don't be so sore with the rich... Rich folks like you and me are about to get a nice tax increase from our municipalities if Meredith Whitney's right. (And she is.)

Shit rolls downhill. I buy her theory that states will choke off funding to muncipalities and they inturn will make up the shortfall on the back of homeowners. And the property owners bearing the brunt will of course be those who can afford the bigger homes and own commercial property.

I think the states will also raise taxes.

...And you know what all this means. Business owners in our strata will lay off workers.

It's amusing to watch Govt strangle itself to death. I always thought his theories were half-baked in regard to the interplay between tax revenues and increases in federal income tax, but taking all taxes as a whole, and their impact on growth, I think you'd have to be a fucking moron to disagree with Laffer. One could say that after govt has driven our economy to the edge of collapse in a couple years, he'll be getting the last laugh. (God, that's awful.)

Wow, brilliant call by Meredith, about 18 months after it was heavily discussed by people not in the CNBC speed dial.

Many states just need to terminate their pension plans for state employees to get most of the way back to okay. Haven't yet heard a Repub gov candidate suggest any such thing--here in Illinois, it's the same as the national Rs--tax cut + clearly insufficient cuts = "balanced budget", and the end of the discussion.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

Wow, brilliant call by Meredith, about 18 months after it was heavily discussed by people not in the CNBC speed dial.

Many states just need to terminate their pension plans for state employees to get most of the way back to okay. Haven't yet heard a Repub gov candidate suggest any such thing--here in Illinois, it's the same as the national Rs--tax cut + clearly insufficient cuts = "balanced budget", and the end of the discussion.

The interesting point she made in the report was one previously overlooked in the stories about state budget problems - that it would choke off funds to municipalities. Run the scenario from there:

1. Municipalities raise taxes along with states;
2. This causes more foreclosures;
3. And further job loss in the small business sector;
4. Which causes more foreclosures among mid-to-lower middle class people;
5. Which leads to municipalities and states making up the shortfall by raising taxes on more affluent property owners and businesses who no longer have the level of income they did before becuase most of their consumers are broke, in no small part due to job losses and foreclosures caused in part by local tax increases;
6. Which in turn decreases consumption by the last consumer left in the local economy.

The cycle's something out of an absurdist comedy. And yet, what do we hear from the Ds at the fed/state/muni level? "We have to raise taxes!" That's neat. Problem is, There Are No Taxes Left To Raise.

You're a like a broken fucking clock with that same repetitive comment: "All the Rs stand for is, 'lower taxes + ???? = balanced budget.'" No fucking shit. Everyone stipulates the Rs don't have a clue. But once we've admitted that, we look to the other side's plan, and that amounts to:

"Tax everyone more at all levels, thus destroying any hope of revenue growth from which new tax revenues will be realized = Balanced Budget!"

If the best the Ds can offer in response to the Rs lack of a plan is their own lack of a plan, they'd do well to shut up about the issue.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The interesting point she made in the report was one previously overlooked in the stories about state budget problems - that it would choke off funds to municipalities. Run the scenario from there:

1. Municipalities raise taxes along with states;
2. This causes more foreclosures;
3. And further job loss in the small business sector;
4. Which causes more foreclosures among mid-to-lower middle class people;
5. Which leads to municipalities and states making up the shortfall by raising taxes on more affluent property owners and businesses who no longer have the level of income they did before becuase most of their consumers are broke, in no small part due to job losses and foreclosures caused in part by local tax increases;
6. Which in turn decreases consumption by the last consumer left in the local economy.

The cycle's something out of an absurdist comedy. And yet, what do we hear from the Ds at the fed/state/muni level? "We have to raise taxes!" That's neat. Problem is, There Are No Taxes Left To Raise.

You're a like a broken fucking clock with that same repetitive comment: "All the Rs stand for is, 'lower taxes + ???? = balanced budget.'" No fucking shit. Everyone stipulates the Rs don't have a clue. But once we've admitted that, we look to the other side's plan, and that amounts to:

"Tax everyone more at all levels, thus destroying any hope of revenue growth from which new tax revenues will be realized = Balanced Budget!"

If the best the Ds can offer in response to the Rs lack of a plan is their own lack of a plan, they'd do well to shut up about the issue.

You're not actually reading what I type if you think I'm backing the D's (certainly among those I can vote for). Chickenshit fecklessness doesn't engender any loyalty from me, and the Illinois state D's are making the Congressional D's look like lions. But I can't support someone who's *actively* lying about the centerpiece of their campaign message either, which roles in most of the Rs and their spouting off about balancing budgets w/o anything resembling a plan.

And, if you think Meredith made a new point with the "chok[ing] off funds to municipalities", you aren't reading as much about the governmental budget crisis as you imply. Hell, Atticus has mentioned it at least in passing.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The cycle's something out of an absurdist comedy. And yet, what do we hear from the Ds at the fed/state/muni level? "We have to raise taxes!" That's neat. Problem is, There Are No Taxes Left To Raise.

You're a like a broken fucking clock with that same repetitive comment: "All the Rs stand for is, 'lower taxes + ???? = balanced budget.'" No fucking shit. Everyone stipulates the Rs don't have a clue. But once we've admitted that, we look to the other side's plan, and that amounts to:

"Tax everyone more at all levels, thus destroying any hope of revenue growth from which new tax revenues will be realized = Balanced Budget!"

If the best the Ds can offer in response to the Rs lack of a plan is their own lack of a plan, they'd do well to shut up about the issue.

This is all very good, except of course that on the Federal level the Dems* are actually promoting a plan whereby everyone outside of the top earning 3% of taxpayers keeps their unfunded Bush tax-cuts, but maybe you missed that or you're talking about something else. And I don't know what local officials in Pennsylvania are saying, but "tax everyone more at all levels" is not the Dems' plan, even allowing you your customary and generous considerable straw man license (the PB, like the Senate, has its own genteel privileges).

As for Laffer being right, I must have missed the part of American history where our entire economy ground to a halt in the late 40s and 50s, when tax rates were at a level that would necessitate the invention of new words by Fox News commentators, because "socialist," "communist," and "stalinist" really wouldn't be enough. Things were different then, you say, and you're right -- the government was pumping a shitload of money into the economy, something that is now both out of fashion and not really feasible in light of the middle eastern wormholes down which the Republicans (and their spineless Dem accomplices) poured the public fisc the last time they were in charge. But Laffer can suck it as far as I'm concerned.

Why do I still have the feeling that, despite your attempts at the ol' "plague on both your houses" thing, you'll be pulling your lever for a Republican when the time comes? Don't you think they'll just make things decidedly worse, or do you want things to get worse because of your pro-apocalyptic stance?

*spineless, useless Dems.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by ironweed

And I don't know what local officials in Pennsylvania are saying, but "tax everyone more at all levels" is not the Dems' plan, even allowing you your customary and generous considerable straw man license (the PB, like the Senate, has its own genteel privileges).

It's pretty much the Dem plan in Illinois. Tax everyone more so that the patronage armies can retain their above-private-market salaries, benefits and pensions.

Oh, and our feckless D governor said: "I do believe that there are special places on earth that should have a zone of solemnity around them. I would strongly urge those who are thinking of putting a mosque within that zone to rethink their petition." So he's pretty much Sebby's Scarecrow, and he's far from the worst D elected official in the state.