Election 2010: Teabaggin' the Ds & Rs

The FT on the new contract with america or whatever they're calling it now:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3070a20a-c...44feab49a.html

In numerical terms, the $320bn the party has specified in spending cuts over the next decade is dwarfed by the $4,000bn in tax cuts that it promises – all on top of the current double digit budget deficit.

If implemented, the pledge would bring about a crisis in US sovereign creditworthiness. In the name of the founding fathers it would jeopardise the dollar. Which leads us to one of two conclusions. Either the Republican Party believes what it is saying, in which case it has no further useful intellectual contribution to make. Or else it thinks the US electorate is intellectually challenged and will mistake this fantasy for a plan.

I think we all know which one it is . . . but what excuse do people have for voting republican if they're not mouth-breathing idiots?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

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.

it looks like it's under 35 USC 101 (I'll burger to assign adder to read this all once they get me my breakfast and papers) which means it's been found "not patentable subject matter," which is what aclu was gunning for.

of course, a NY district ct judge opining on the permissible extent of patentable subject matter is about as a relevant as a Cali District Ct judge opining on a gay marriage ban-

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by ironweed

The FT on the new contract with america or whatever they're calling it now:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3070a20a-c...44feab49a.html



I think we all know which one it is . . . but what excuse do people have for voting republican if they're not mouth-breathing idiots?

if some mouth breathing idiots start voting r, doesn't that mean the number of people that vote for one candidate but actually meant to vote for another might balance out next time?


p.s. as to insipid claims go read the lies Ty told you about the HC costs that you all bought into.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

it looks like it's under 35 USC 101 (I'll burger to assign adder to read this all once they get me my breakfast and papers) which means it's been found "not patentable subject matter," which is what aclu was gunning for.

of course, a NY district ct judge opining on the permissible extent of patentable subject matter is about as a relevant as a Cali District Ct judge opining on a gay marriage ban-

Yes, and apparently these were almost out of patent and among the early patents granted, so some of what is covered is vastly better understood today than back then. But apparently the ACLU has a long hit list of companies to sue and a broader strategy to follow. Does it surprise you they'd pick an obscure district court in a major media market for the first case?

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Finite pie.
...
Laffer's simplicity

You can't discuss Laffer and a finite pie at the same time. The entirety of Laffer's argument is based on the premise that the size of the pie is a moving target, affected substantially (perhaps even primarily) by the tax rate and changes therein.

Laffer's theory rests on AGI rising more than 1% for each 1% cut in the tax rate, and falling more than 1% for each 1% increase. That sounds nothing like a finite pie.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Yes, and apparently these were almost out of patent and among the early patents granted, so some of what is covered is vastly better understood today than back then. But apparently the ACLU has a long hit list of companies to sue and a broader strategy to follow. Does it surprise you they'd pick an obscure district court in a major media market for the first case?

oh, yeah, you have to start with a Judge somewhere- I just meant the Federal Circuit and perhaps the Supreme Court (which has taken a real "interest" in these policy cases lately) will decide-

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

You can't discuss Laffer and a finite pie at the same time. The entirety of Laffer's argument is based on the premise that the size of the pie is a moving target, affected substantially (perhaps even primarily) by the tax rate and changes therein.

Laffer's theory rests on AGI rising more than 1% for each 1% cut in the tax rate, and falling more than 1% for each 1% increase. That sounds nothing like a finite pie.

Sure I can. The "finite pie" is a ceiling. I didn't say it couldn't shrink, in which case we'd see the mirror of what you describe.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

You can't discuss Laffer and a finite pie at the same time. The entirety of Laffer's argument is based on the premise that the size of the pie is a moving target, affected substantially (perhaps even primarily) by the tax rate and changes therein.

Laffer's theory rests on AGI rising more than 1% for each 1% cut in the tax rate, and falling more than 1% for each 1% increase. That sounds nothing like a finite pie.

I think Para 1 premise is more broadly agreed than just Laffer. It's para 2 that has not been borne out in practice at current tax rate levels.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

it looks like it's under 35 USC 101 (I'll burger to assign adder to read this all once they get me my breakfast and papers) which means it's been found "not patentable subject matter," which is what aclu was gunning for.

Is such a determination case by case regarding the particular subject matter and the patent claim? Or is it a ruling that genes are inherently not patentable, like business methods.

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

You can't discuss Laffer and a finite pie at the same time. The entirety of Laffer's argument is based on the premise that the size of the pie is a moving target, affected substantially (perhaps even primarily) by the tax rate and changes therein.

Laffer's theory rests on AGI rising more than 1% for each 1% cut in the tax rate, and falling more than 1% for each 1% increase. That sounds nothing like a finite pie.

Don't try to muddy Sebby's waters with your psuedo-intellectual claptrap. Laffer's theory is that taxes are bad, and all you ivory tower types just can't handle the truth.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

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.

You could have made this a Twitter post without losing any content.

[sgtclub]

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.

Is this true, given the various tax increases under ObamaCare?

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

Or is it a ruling that genes are inherently not patentable, like business methods.

Careful Burger, you have slid down that slippery slope into error.

S_A_M

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by ironweed

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

I'm not sure actually. When I stated that 15 years is long, I meant it was long for most types of assets, I can't recall whether most states treat travelers checks differently than most other categories of property.

I really can't believe I know this stuff, but for some strange reason, the issue has come up for me several times in my career, so I guess that makes me an expert.

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by ironweed

The FT on the new contract with america or whatever they're calling it now:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3070a20a-c...44feab49a.html



I think we all know which one it is . . . but what excuse do people have for voting republican if they're not mouth-breathing idiots?

I found the new contract with America very disappointing. It's filled with generic concepts and platitudes. Anyone that thinks the GOP is committed to meaningful change is kidding themselves. It's a real shame, because I think the timing was right for something like this.