Election 2010: Teabaggin' the Ds & Rs

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I am not one of those people who says "All blogs are full of shit, Ty." Just most. I think a number are useful for all kinds of interesting takes and information (and even a shit one says something interesting every now and again).

Bond Girl's is not. She attacks Whitney on peripheral issues and suggests she knows Whitney's analysis inside out. That would mean she's digested a 600 page report in 24 hours. It reads a like an essay exam written by a kid who didn't bother to finish the material being tested, but still managed to cobble together recollections of bits and pieces of it to suggest he did the work and garner the Gentleman's C.

And trust me, that is a skill with which few have more familiarity than me. I know it when I see it.

I need one of those non-full-of-shit blogs to explain to me what is new or interesting or correct about Whitney's scoop, since I'm not getting it.

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by ironweed

There is actually a uniform act on this
http://www.complianceforbankers.com/...upa95_2006.pdf

See section 2. Travelers' checks are subject to a 15 year period in every state (or they were).

Many states have not adopted the uniform act.

[taxwonk]

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?

You have a financial interest. I may have a potentially more personal interest. I mistakenly assumed your assertion of an economic interest for an incentive to know more detail.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

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.

Thank you. That was most hepful.

[Penske 2.0]

The must-pass spending bill pending in the Senate includes a little-noticed provision that would pay the family of the late Sen. Robert C. Byrd for the salary he would have commanded in the next fiscal year.

Change I could believe in would be changing the policy behind this waste of my tax dollars on a burning in hell klansman. If the government can afford this, it can afford to let me keep my tax cut.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

You have a financial interest. I may have a potentially more personal interest. I mistakenly assumed your assertion of an economic interest for an incentive to know more detail.

I am interested in the topic. I am less interested in what the ACLU has to say on the topic.

I generally think our system of generating and protecting new technologies does one hell of a job. I am made nervous when those who don't work with that system every day start wanting to change it, whether it's religious nuts wanting to ban stem cell research or the ACLU applying it's own litmous tests. That's not to say its perfect and should never change, but I don't want ideologues screwing around with it.

I haven't yet read the case involved, and suspect Hank would have more to say on a technical level than I, but have set it aside to read.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

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.)

One could say that. One would have to be a drooling moron to Dobson, but one could.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

Thank you. That was most hepful.

for an organization dedicated to free speech they make reading their cases pretty hard---

i would expect the patents ultimately are upheld on con grounds (there may be other reasons they're invalid- still trying to find the NY decision-)

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

One could say that. One would have to be a drooling moron to Dobson, but one could.

Finite pie. Govt takes larger and larger share. Private sector gets less, and the more it shrinks, the faster it shrinks. Guess what happens to tax revenue?

I understand Laffer's simplicity offends your pseudo-intellectual view on this issue, but sometimes, It is... Just That Simple.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I need one of those non-full-of-shit blogs to explain to me what is new or interesting or correct about Whitney's scoop, since I'm not getting it.

That wasn't the issue. Cletus makes a good point in calling Whitney's analysis old news. To many, it probably is.

The point of my last post was different. You cited Bond Girl's analysis of Whitney's report. I said "Bond Girl's critique is hot air."

Whitney's report might be dated stuff. But it is thoughtful and thorough. Bond Girl's critique is not. It's someone talking out of compulsion to disagree with a more credible analyst, and dressing up peripheral, irrelevant criticisms to look like she's found the Achilles Heel in a report reaching conclusions everyone agrees are correct (Hence, the response to Whitney's report here: "No shit, Meredith. You're stating the obvious.")

Simply, Bond Girl sucks, and you'd do well not to cite her.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

for an organization dedicated to free speech they make reading their cases pretty hard---

i would expect the patents ultimately are upheld on con grounds (there may be other reasons they're invalid- still trying to find the NY decision-)

It took me a bit to find it since they link to every PR piece they've ever written, but it is on their site right "Here." 152 pages.

Looks like they dismissed the constitutional claims the ACLU is all excited about and decided it on statutory grounds.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Finite pie. Govt takes larger and larger share. Private sector gets less, and the more it shrinks, the faster it shrinks. Guess what happens to tax revenue?

I understand Laffer's simplicity offends your pseudo-intellectual view on this issue, but sometimes, It is... Just That Simple.

I don't think that anyone disagrees that, all thing equal, on the margin higher taxes are deflationary. But you have to consider what they will pay for, so all things aren't equal. The question is magnitude (and whether in an environement of depressed demand you would be better off with a bunch of out of work government workers).

By two thought on your latest theory:

1. For almost everyone, federal taxes make up the bulk of their tax burden, and for most those are staying the same or going down (through targettedmtax cuts). So you are at most talking about "big" increases in a small portion of someone's tax bill and (apparently) assigning it a big effect on growth.

2. This choice - between further gutting demand and raising state and local taxes - is exactly why the dems included aid to state and local government inter stimulus, while Rs have been largely opposed to using the federal gov't's borrowing power to avoid these tax increases.



cuts). So at most you are talking about "big" increases in a small portion of you tax bill

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Finite pie. Govt takes larger and larger share. Private sector gets less, and the more it shrinks, the faster it shrinks. Guess what happens to tax revenue?

I understand Laffer's simplicity offends your pseudo-intellectual view on this issue, but sometimes, It is... Just That Simple.

I don't think that anyone disagrees that, all thing equal, on the margin higher taxes are deflationary. But you have to consider what they will pay for, so all things aren't equal. The question is magnitude (and whether in an environement of depressed demand you would be better off with a bunch of out of work government workers).

But two thought on your latest theory:

1. For almost everyone, federal taxes make up the bulk of their tax burden, and for most those are staying the same or going down (through targettedmtax cuts). So you are at most talking about "big" increases in a small portion of someone's tax bill and (apparently) assigning it a big effect on growth.

2. This choice - between further gutting demand and raising state and local taxes - is exactly why the dems included aid to state and local government inter stimulus, while Rs have been largely opposed to using the federal gov't's borrowing power to avoid these tax increases.



cuts). So at most you are talking about "big" increases in a small portion of you tax bill

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

I don't think that anyone disagrees that, all thing equal, on the margin higher taxes are deflationary. But you have to consider what they will pay for, so all things aren't equal. The question is magnitude (and whether in an environement of depressed demand you would be better off with a bunch of out of work government workers).

By two thought on your latest theory:

1. For almost everyone, federal taxes make up the bulk of their tax burden, and for most those are staying the same or going down (through targettedmtax cuts). So you are at most talking about "big" increases in a small portion of someone's tax bill and (apparently) assigning it a big effect on growth.

2. This choice - between further gutting demand and raising state and local taxes - is exactly why the dems included aid to state and local government inter stimulus, while Rs have been largely opposed to using the federal gov't's borrowing power to avoid these tax increases.



cuts). So at most you are talking about "big" increases in a small portion of you tax bill

Are we better off trading govt workers for private sector workers? I think we all agree the answer there is yes. One is a cost. The other grows the economy (and you get 1.5 - 2 private sector workers for the cost of one govt worker). The question is, If we let govt workers go, would the decrease in spending there flood into creation of private sector jobs? I'm unsure of that, and see your criticism about making such a bet. But I'd nevertheless make the bet, for reasons explained in the last paragraph of this post.

That big increase in municipal and state taxes may seem insignificant to you and me. But I assure you, there are tons of lower middle class people going into Sheriff's sale of their homes right now over tax bills of $3-4k. I'm not shitting you. I used to collect taxes for a county in PA and still have online access to the tax rolls. There's a whole underclass of people who really live their lives to the penny. If the state jacks their taxes 1%, and the municipality and schools take them up another 5%, these people are fucked. And the more we hurt them to pay for the benefits and outrageous salaries of the average govt worker, the more we push ourselves toward a day of reckoning where those govt workers have to be laid off en masse, rather than slowly, methodically downsized in a process that avoids creating acute economic damage.

On your last point, the GOP, I think, is looking a couple steps ahead. Unless we get a transformative technology, we're looking at a decade plus of stagnancy. Giving the states stimulus to pay for a govt they can't afford for a couple more years allows them to put off until tomorrow a debate we needed to have years ago - "What do we want? A bigger private sector, or a bigger govt?" We can't have both in a long term economic environment teetering between anemic and negative growth.

Originally Posted by sgtclub

Many states have not adopted the uniform act.

Ah. Is it less than 15 years for Travelers' Checks in any state? Genuinely curious.