Wednesday Open Thread
Sorry guys, the server was down! Well, Bush hosts pope for birthday party - so that's fun and exciting.
Also the moratorium on lethal injection death penalty is over as the Supreme Court rules that it is constitutional.
Have a great Wednesday!
Submitted by Ender on Wed, 2008-04-16 11:42
Tags:
Comments :
Official Village Voice Election-Season Guide to the Right-Wing
Blogosphere.
It's pretty funny really. Give it a go.
The legal standard for the death penalty
or for penal justice in general, is really strange when we think about it:
"cruel and unusual". The first half is what we usually debate : what constitutes "cruel"? Is one person's "cruel" another person's "comfy chair"? But it's the second half that's truly strange. When discussing whether a particular punishment is just, how does "unusual" really fit into any ethical standard? It's okay because people typically do it? It's not okay because people don't?
There's an implicit faith there that what people normally do is right, but that's a little fallacious.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
There's a good run-down of the SCOTUS decisions
over at dailykos
(by their resident lawyer, Adam B). Apparently the opinion was highly split, with nearly everyone approaching the issue from different angles. It's well-worth the read.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Before I read the rest
how did SCOTUS think its ok for mostly untrained people to do a complicated execution?
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
They claim that the petitioners
failed to prove this point in any substantial way:
It seems the issue is that everyone agreed that lethal injection is fundamentally humane, so the issue has to do with implementation. And since the difference in expectations with alternative implementations was either insignificant or contentious (I wasn't there for the arguments), the majority opinion was to default to the notion that the punishment itself is humane:
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
I'm not sure there is a "humane" way to kill someone.
The drug concoction may be good, but anyone who has ever seen anyone over-dose will know it isn't a terribly pretty nor humane way to go. It's pretty gross really.
Maybe the French were right. Maybe a sharp guillotine is a more humane method....if only there wasn't so much blood.
Well, personally I agree
that the death penalty ought to go the way of the dodo: there isn't a humane way to kill someone who doesn't want to be killed. SCOTUS decided that the constitution doesn't go that far, though, especially since the court has never ruled against it as a violation of the Eight Amendment in its entire history.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Adam B offers this
exchange
then question to him:
and his answer:
More at the top link.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Good exchange, thanks.
Having the actual texts in front of us clears up a lot of things.
How've you been, by the way? I've been really sporadic online lately, so I haven't crossed paths with you in a while.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
eh
not too bad. I've been busy with personal issues (not problems) and working on personal projects. Still am. Getting my life in order which of course seriously cut down on my participation here.
Once I am all done with that and get into the groove I'll be around more often.
What about you?
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Why? Wedding Bells and a house in the 'burbs on the way?
:)
hehe not yet
but that's one of the eventual goals :) Other things for now.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Similar,
I finish my degree in a couple weeks, so that'll give me some free time to work with. But I have a job waiting for me, so that might nullify all the free time by the end of summer. On the bright side, an actual income might turn me Republican...
nah!
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
great to hear it
Congratulations on the almost finished degree and on the job! I am sure you will be somewhat pissed at the tax level :)
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
He may be paying
more than his fair share already
. :-)
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
Heh, tell me about it.
Fortunately we'll be moving to a state with a bit more progressive tax policy, so we'll be able to file joint at least on that level. And don't even get me started about health insurance!
(Luckily we don't make enough money to matter much. The poverty of student life has its benefits!)
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Cruel and unusual.....
is certainly ambiguous. As such, it doesn't have much practical meaning. Consider this passage from What Would the Founders Do?
See Page 32....
....and capital punishment included all forms of execution that some of us abhor today.
Given that it doesn't seem that the Founders wanted to have much say in the matter of punishment, I'd more or less side with giving more latitude to the state's dicretion (within reason - torture is certainly going to pass for cruel, making them watch Pauly Shore movies would be both cruel and unusual, etc.)
Bush Concludes Global Warming Might Not Be Completely Fake
Today, dubya is going to give a speech about Global Warming. From the previews of the speech, it seems that he is going to come out and say that humans exacerbating global warming may have some basis in fact after all.
I have no doubt he'll promise to "study" the issue and act according to our best interests (which means he is gonna pass the whole thing off to whom ever gets elected as the next President). What brought me to this was this post over at FDL describing the heads exploding at various right wing sites over dubya's knife in the back to their cherished beliefs:
Michelle Malkin in a post titled "The enviro-nitwit-ization of the GOP is complete"
says "Unwilling to stand for scientific integrity, rational cost-benefit analyses, private property rights, and free market environmentalism in a hysterical effort to out-gore Al Gore: That’s your GOP."
National Review's The Corner saying
"We're hearing some very bad things about the President's likely unconditional surrender on global warming today. One senior source suggested that the last line of sound defense had been breached and that "It will be very bad."
Iain Murry also of The Corner
saying "I fear this is likely to be another Harriet Miers/immigration fiasco." and "And it's just crazy to propose something that will raise energy prices when we stand on the brink of a recession!...Moreover, increasing energy prices hurts red states more than blue states — a fine reward for those who voted for the president in the belief they would thereby avoid Al Gore's policies."
Yes, imagine that...putting the health of the planet above profits? And who cares if it hurts blue states, but allowing it to hurt red states?!? Why that is treason to our cause!!!!
So you will forgive me if I just laugh at these nit wits. I tell ya, the Ferengi's on Deep Space Nine weren't as blind to their own demise as these folk are.
Arrest 'em both!
Michelle Malkin has a piece about Hillary possibly heading for trouble over the Elton John "donation"
, which would be illegal.
I think Hillary should be required to refund all the proceeds from her illegal campaign contribution scheme. :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Yea she should.
Just as soon a John McCain stops spendig another dime on his campaign until after the August GOP convention....just like the FEC rules HE WROTE say. (ie - he used his public financing for his campaign as collateral for a loan for his campaign, but now that he's won, he wants to opt out of the public campaign limits, even though by using it as collateral for the loan, he's already agreed to use the public financing rules!)
I'm sure you GR will be so upset that you will join us in voting for the only decent person running for President in the race, Barack Obama. How about if we just sign you up as a neighborhood campaign coordinator?
ps - you gotta have loved dubya's global warming speech, didn't you? Hey....he's proposed that we stop the growth in greenhouse gasses by 2025! Such decisiveness!
Fine with me.
McCain is not my candidate.
I can't vote for Obama because of his anti-gun positions, however.
So I either won't vote in the Presidential race at all, or more likely I will vote for a third party candidate. Who are the libertarians running this time around?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Undetermined as of now....
The leader in the clubhouse
is Bob Barr. 
He makes my nose twitch
He's got more social contradictions than Ron Paul....but I'd still prefer him to the main two.
Why the hell is it so hard to be on the "NO!!"-side of Big Nanny Government AND Big Military Adventurism??
Is that so demanding??
Damn..
I have to admit to having more repect for
Bob Barr now than I did when he was a Congresscritter. I guess when you aren't in "that" game, you can be more up front about matters of concience.
For those interested...
...in books about broad socio-economic ideas and philosophy, watch this link
.
Authors Tim Harford of The Logic of Life
and Dan Airley of Predictably Irrational 
face off in friendly comments about each others' books.
Dan Airley's post about The Logic of Life is actually up already
.
Hat tip to Tyler Cowen
.
Cato's Will Wilkinson has actually interviewed both on his "Free Will" segment on Blogging Heads
.
See Will and Dan
See Will and Tim
.
Is there any right-wing attack on Obama
that Hillary isn't going to drag out?
Unbelievable.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
And Obama passes up opportunity to trash Hillary
on Bosnia.
Of course, he is more able to afford to take the high road.
Nevertheless, the contrast is jarring.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Dear god, what idiotic questions
Flag pin now.
How do these people have jobs? What a joke.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Wow
George drags out Ayers.
Interjecting the question to cut off applause from the audience to Obama's previous response, of course.
This is f-cking sad.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
It's worse than sad......
It's like an inquisition.
Obama is handling it with poise.
It's streamed live on his website, with a little green bar for how undecideds and independents are reacting.
I'm only half stupid
Worst debate ever
Even most of the "policy" questions have been lame and seem crafted to create talking point B.S.
ABC, you suck.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Watching it sporadically,
but these questions are pretty bad so far. Do they get to discuss policy at any point?
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Gosh, why would voters care about policy?
Geesh, Clinton just can't lay off. She's going after Ayers.
Talk about kitchen sink.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
C'mon now.
The Ayers issue is something that people have talked about, including here, with some seriousness. It's hardly kitchen sink. But I think it's a no-win for Clinton to press the point (as Obama just showed by flipping it back on her).
But more to the point: this is "good television". Who cares about policy when you watch them snipe at each other?
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Don't agree
How is it a legitimate argument as to his ability to serve as President?
It's Kevin Bacon BS.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
And FWIW
the Bosnia question was crap too.
Totally irrelevant, already been discussed to death by both campaigns.
I felt bad for Hillary, she did the best she could but she really had nothing to say. But this is not a productive question for a debate.
Next up: Senator Clinton, why did you choose Crown Royal for your shot? Senator Obama, talk about your shot... in basketball.
Gawd.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Poll: Bullsh!t Is Most
Poll: Bullsh!t Is Most Important Issue For 2008 Voters
heh
You know, I'm more inclined to blame the media than the voters.
But maybe everyone is complicit.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
It offers direct insight into a few things:
(1) The culture which has shaped his internal opinions and therefore his own personal attitudes,
(2) The types of people he is likely to either owe political favors to and/or who he may consider for various appointments and the character of those people,
(3) It calls into question his personal judgment, IMHO, which has a direct effect on how he will handle the job.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Exactly. This debate is
Exactly. This debate is clearly the most ridiculous debate I've ever seen, due to the asinine focus of the moderators. Almost half way through, and zero questions on policy, all about garbage, the only relevance of which is electability, but really: Should half this debate be focused entirely on the question of who can best defend himself/herself against mud hurled at them during the general election? Because that -- at BEST -- is what all the questions so far relate to.
Just unbelievable. ABC News should be ashamed. I used to think Stepha-whatever was fairly good. Now I see him as a joke.
I have nothing really to add
I have nothing really to add to my comment above, but I'm just too pissed to stop venting. Why am I pissed, when I'm not going to vote for either of these two? Because I am sickened by the dumbing down of politics and elections. Not only is it disgusting from an intellectual standpoint, but it is awful for the nation. All this focus on garbage rather than policy. No wonder we are heading toward a fiscal disaster.
Agreed, almost entirely
Except that I'd vote for either of them. :)
Everything else, I agree with 100%.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Seems like everyone,
Seems like everyone, regardless of political preferences, agrees that these moderators are outrageously sucky. I guess we should thank ABC News for uniting us all.
Amen
Big winner tonight: McCain =)
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
I must say, not having a serious horse in this race ...
makes watching the Democrats shooting themselves in the foot every day all that much more enjoyable. I am sensing that they may actually be on a direct course to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory come November. :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4We agree
This feels less like a debate than an inquisition. The constant are you patriotic enough question.
Love Obama's answer if he should disavow his association with Tom Coburn.
Shame Shame Shame on the moderators. It's all about gotcha!
I'm only half stupid
Woohoo, a real question
Sort of, anyway -- on Iran.
Similar answers, both seem reasonable to me.
Both a bit hawkish relative to the Dem base.
Economy coming next! Back on track?
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Boo, George wants a "read my lips"
pledge that Hillary won't raise taxes on anyone under $200K.
Hillary says she won't raise a single tax on "middle class" Americans (which apparently includes anyone under $200K/year -- who knew).
This sort of soak the rich rhetoric should play well with the liberals =)
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Oooh, Obama ups the ante
by promising a tax cut for the lower middle class.
Who can pander more?
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
They should just replace the
They should just replace the moderators with one of those fast-talkin' auctioneer guys!
haha
Can I get 10% rate for under $75K, 10%, thank you Senator Clinton I have 10%. Do I hear 5%, Senator Obama has 5%. Senator Clinton, can you go lower? Zero percent! Can't beat that... hold on, Senator Obama is signaling a negative tax rate for those making less than $75K/year. Going once... going twice.... thank you Senator Clinton, a "rebate" plan to give everyone making less than $75K a lump sum of $10K/year!
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
I'm actually glad that Gibson
is interrupting them with pointed questions. Do you ever watch press conferences and debates in Britain? They don't let their politicians sink into canned responses: they're more aggressive about asking (real) questions, refocusing the conversation, etc. The tax debate was a thousand times better than the "how do you respond to all these tabloid accusations" opening. Now, if we could get this kind of debating more frequently, I'd be a happier camper.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
The debates on the Commons floor in Britain
are fantastic.
Love the acerbic wit.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
If these moderators were
If these moderators were speaking during Prime Minister's Questions:
"I have been informed that my right honorable friend has an acquaintance who once said that the queen is less than stunningly attractive. How, then, can my right honorable friend possibly be qualified to be Prime Minister??!!"
"And I might add, that he was once heard to say that he didn't care for second servings of shepherd's pie! Is that not worthy of our deep concern??!!"
LOL, exactly! Well done sir.
LOL, exactly! Well done sir. And let me add "SOLD!" (down the river, that is)
How are you going to give a tax cut ...
to people who don't pay any significant taxes already?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Significant?
Just because the amount of taxes paid by the lower middle class is insignificant by your measure (which I assume you are basing on the percentage of total tax income), does not mean it is not significant to the people paying the tax. Even a couple of hundred bucks a year can be "significant" to those in the lower tax brackets. It's certainly a heck of a lot more significant than it would be to upper class taxpayers.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Cost Accounting
It depends on what the definition of "significant" is.
"Significant" portion of total taxes
or
"Significant" portion of individual percentage of gross income.
or
"Significant" portion of net income after the Cost of Living is factored in
The U.S. Income Tax Burden:
in 1999.
Data used from Tables
Share of Total Federal Taxes (in %)
Average Pre-Tax Family Income (in 1995 US Dollars)
---Before anyone gets up in arms over me not using the "Share of Individual Income Tax (in %)" Table, I wanted to show the Federal Tax Burden, The Federal Income tax is just one part of federal taxes
Poverty level is a little over $10k
Group A made $132,000 per person [top 20%] ---Pays 65% of Federal taxes
Group D made $21,200 per person [2nd lowest 20%, just below the lower middle class] -- pays 5% of Federal taxes
It cost, say $10,000, for Ramen noodles, clothing, shelter, transportation to work on average.
Group A had $122,000 in disposable income
Group D had $11,200 in disposable income
Group A had10.89 times the disposable income of Group D
Group A paid 13 times as much in federal taxes as Group D.
--- Now lets say it cost $15,000 for food, clothing, shelter...healthcare.
Group A had $117,000 in disposable income
Group D had $6,200 in...
Group A now had 18.87 times the disposable income as Group D
Group A still paid 13 times as much Federal Taxes as Group D
---Getting that top 1% in the mix, the one that makes 15% of the income and pays 21% of taxes.
Top 1% made $719,000
Group D made $21,200
With Poverty level at $10k
Top 1% has $709,000 in disposable income
Group D has $11,200 in disposable income
Top 1% had 63.3 times the disposable income as Group D
Top 1% paid 4.2 times more in Federal taxes
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Disposable Income = Icing on the cake.
A few points you left off in your analysis:
meaningless comparison since, again by definition, you are talking
about the icing on the cake.
So let us review (assuming that I accept the value of the comparison performed ... of which I am skeptical):
Does that pretty much sum up your point here?
UPDATE:
The underlined portion of this pretty much says everything that needs to be said in terms of fairness. This clearly demonstrates that the tax structure is ALREADY progressive and yet you don't seem to be satisfied.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Do you dislike Corporate Income Tax model too?
Is the corporate income tax based on meaningless comparisons?
Thanks for using a synonym, I wasn't trying to be tricky
Think of the:
Individual Income Before Tax Income = Gross Sales
poverty level = Cost of Goods Sold.
"icing on the cake" =Net Profit
Corporation Taxes are based off of the "icing on the cake" When the "icing on the cake" is zero, a company broke even and made no profit. Taxing corporations for Gross Sales makes no sense, I don't think taxing people for money earned to pay the cost of living makes any sense either
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Where did you get your stats on tax burden?
In 2005, according to the IRS, the top 1%-tile did indeed earn 15% of the overall income, but paid 39% and change in taxes overall.
They were from 1999, cited
They were from 1999, cited above:
That was my best google result
And the stats showed the "Total Federal Taxes" not the "Individual Income Tax" I cited that too.
I think its more accurate to the big picture to show the aggregate total Federal Tax burden than just show the Federal Income Tax. And I think its a fair argument to point out that a reasonable amount of income used to pay for the necessities of life shouldn't be treated the same as discretionary income, good thing GoRight didn't go after me for misremembering the first time I ducked sniper fire and temporally confused disposable and discretionary income.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
OT, regarding our conversation of a couple weeks ago ATQB,
...about domestic profits vs. rest of world profits of U.S. companies,which we had here--
It turns out that the Commerce Department does publish corrporate profits data which separates domestic profits and rest of world profits of U.S. companies (Three-quarters of the way down this page
). I haven't found a good historical table for this data, but I can probably dig through a couple of past reports if I can find them and come up with a guess as to the question of whether the domestic stock market would have outperformed the euro in 2003-2007 if the effects of profits from rest-of-world operations were excluded. The table I linked to gives data from 2005 to Q4 2007:
Table 12.--Corporate Profits by Industry: Level and Change From Preceding Period [Billions of dollars] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- . Level Change from preceding period . -------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------- year 2005 2006 2007 IV 06 I 07 II 07 III 07 IV 07 2006 2007 I 07 II 07 III 07 IV 07 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Corporate profits with inventory valuation and capital consumption adjustments............................. 1,372.8 1,553.7 1,595.2 1,531.2 1,547.7 1,642.4 1,621.9 1,569.0 180.9 41.5 16.5 94.7 -20.5 -52.9 Domestic industries.......................... 1,154.6 1,296.4 1,257.7 1,253.5 1,249.8 1,327.8 1,280.9 1,172.2 141.8 -38.7 -3.7 78.0 -46.9 -108.7 Rest of the world............................ 218.2 257.3 337.6 277.8 297.9 314.6 341.0 396.8 39.1 80.3 20.1 16.7 26.4 55.8 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Note.--Estimates in this table are based on the 1997 North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).skymutt: accept no substitutes!
mutt...
I applaud your tenacity. Good find there.
My intended reply
Is the corporate income tax based on meaningless comparisons?
Thanks for using a synonym, I wasn't trying to be tricky
Think of the:
Individual Income Before Tax Income = Gross Sales
poverty level = Cost of Goods Sold.
"icing on the cake" =Net Profit
Corporation Taxes are based off of the "icing on the cake" When the "icing on the cake" is zero, a company broke even and made no profit. Taxing corporations for Gross Sales makes no sense, I don't think taxing people for money earned to pay the cost of living makes any sense either
Taking the disposable income out
Top 1% made 33.4 times more. And paid 4.2 times more in federal taxes...
The poverty level is actually $10.2K for a 1 person household, I rounded down.
Poverty level for 2 person household $13.69k
Poverty level for 3 person household $17.71k
Yes it was to degree arbitrary, I could have used a 3 person household, instead of a 1 person household, to make the figures more precise. Which of course would have somehow made the reverse of #1 even more true.
The only arguments you have in the whole reply is that its equitable to tax the income used to pay for necessities of life at the same rate it is to tax money used to buy that third Lexus.
The other is that it wrong to tax people at a higher rate just because they have a greater ability to pay the taxes.
The latter argument may have legs to stand on if its qualified.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Says you ...
based on your standards. Right?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Bah.
Based on common frickin' sense, not on my standards.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Bah back.
Based on common frickin' sense as defined within the context of your standards. This amounts to the same thing.
Within the context of someone else's standards this may not make any sense at all. :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Bah squared.
I suppose there might be some lunatics out in the world who don't think that $200 is, in general, more significant to a person with less money than it is to a person with more money. But since "common sense" doesn't normally take into account the standards of lunatics, I stand by my original statement whole-heartedly. :P
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
If we look at where Federal taxes come from
The Top 1% pay relatively the most in Income tax, but they're not responsible for the most relative money paid in Federal taxes. I'm sure if the latter was the other way around, it would be beat to death too.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Whats your meaning of "is"
What do you mean by "significant"
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Raise capital gains tax?
This is a reasonable question. Obama says he would "consider" it -- sees it as an issue of fairness.
Frames it in terms of avoiding increasing the deficits, pay-go.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Charles Gibson is WRONG on
Charles Gibson is WRONG on net revenue-impact of capital gains tax changes!!! Oh my f-cking God, this pisses me off !
Yes, there is a TEMPORARY net positive impact on revenues after a capital gains tax cut because of the unlocking effect (people selling assets that have appreciated and realizing the gains), but over time a cut in the cap gains tax rate (from anywhere near the range of recent history) is a net LOSER of revenues. Sh*t, is it too much to ask that a moderator check with a frickin economist or two before asking -- indeed PERSISTING like some kind of authority -- on a "fact" that is actually a MYTH!
Greg Mankiw, conservative economist, former Chairman of W Bush's Council of Economic Advisors, advisor to the Romney campaign, said:
"In a paper on dynamic scoring, written while I was working at the White House, Matthew Weinzierl and I estimated that a broad-based income tax cut (applying to both capital and labor income) would recoup only about a quarter of the lost revenue through supply-side growth effects. For a cut in capital income taxes, the feedback is larger--about 50 percent--but still well under 100 percent. A chapter on dynamic scoring in the 2004 Economic Report of the President says about the the same thing." http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2007/07/on-charlatons-and-cranks.html
A revenue-feedback of only 50%, "well under 100 percent", does not equal increased revenues, Charlie Jackass Gibson! Do your f-cking homework! As some experts on the subject before you state with certainty something that is a myth and force candidates to respond to it. Jackass. Did I mention he's a jackass? He's a jackass.
How do you really feel?
I sense you're holding back too much. Don't be shy! :)
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
grumble. jackass charlie
grumble. jackass charlie gibson. grrrr...grrr
ok, I'm calming down now, just a bit. But don't get me started again. lousy stupid charlie gibson...
Thanks, good post =) -nt-
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
thanks. It was either that
thanks. It was either that or kick my cat. And he's already near death after the beating he took after each asinine question during the first half of the debate.
Perhaps it is Mankiw that is wrong here ...
the actual results always seem to speak for themselves:
Inconvenient Tax Truths Charlie Rangel and other liberal leaders want to raise tax rates even if it means lower tax revenues.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Thoughtful article
Not.
First paragraph summary: I am a partisan.
Second paragraph summary: When x happens after y, we can conclude that y causes x... always.
3rd: Hey, that's actually decent news, assuming the numbers aren't fudged in some way, like not including the costs of the Iraq War or something.
4th: The very rich are improving their income at an insanely faster rate than the rest of the country. (And this is apparently a good thing?)
5th. The consistent job growth of the past few years is a direct result of Bush's tax cuts - let's ignore that we've had consistent job growth since the early 90's at least, whether taxes have gone up or down.
Next section: Oh noes! Liberulz wants to takes all your munny!
Final section: Republicans want to give you a choice. You can use the current tax system, under which the rich get richer (see paragraph 4), or their new improved system, which is even better for the rich.
Color me unimpressed.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
3rd: Hey, that's actually
Not to mention not including the 200 billion or so borrowed that year from the Social Security trust fund that wasn't counted :-( And if these Bush deficits were so small, how come our national debt doubled under Bush?
And actually, the 50 or so consecutive months of job growth is just a bit of statistical trivia, considering that the anemic job creation barely moved the needle on the unemployment rate-- we started from a peak of just over 6 percent, and today we are a bit over 5 percent. In several of those 50 consecutive months of job growth, the number of new jobs was not sufficient to keep up with growth in the size of the work force.
Yep. Never mind that Rangel's plan is a change in the tax mix, a balance of tax cuts and tax increases-- they'll just call it a tax increase, totally ignoring the tax cuts.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Nicely done sir.
Keep up the good work. :)
It's NOT trickle down economics, it's trickle up, or as the rich get richer, grab your wallet, and your piggy bank. They want your pennies too.
I'm only half stupid
Thanks for inadvertently
Thanks for inadvertently making my point.
Mankiw is a highly credentialed (conservative) economist. He is a Harvard professor of economics and was Chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisors. He authored a respected and widely used economics textbook many years ago. And he has one of those thingies called a Ph.D. in economics, as well as having obviously published and taught economics and served as a practitioner at the highest level of government.
Pete DuPont -- who wrote that column -- is a blowhard with no economics degree at all, and who has a political agenda.
Whose analysis and conclusion do you trust and of whose are you very skeptical? Well, apparently you trust the utterly unqualified one with an agenda over the extremely qualified with little to no motive to reach the conclusion he reached (in fact, as a conservative economist, I'm sure he would love to have reached the conclusion that cap gains tax cuts had a net positive impact on revenues). Hmm, would your inclination to give greater credibility to unqualified guy with the agenda have anything to do with the fact that the he's the one telling you something that supports what you want to believe??
You're illustrating what this book is about http://www.amazon.com/True-Enough-Learning-Post-Fact-Society/dp/0470050101
. It just came out last month. I suggest you read it. It's all about how and why people seeking and interpreting information in the biased way you just demonstrated.
As a side note, here's
As a side note, here's something interesting from DuPont's column. And by "interesting", I mean comically stupid and self-contradictory.
First he writes:
"Tax rate reductions increase tax revenues. This truth has been proved at both state and federal levels, including by President Bush's 2003 tax cuts on income, capital gains and dividends."
ok, so, leaving aside his obvious, Bush League (pardon the pun) misconception that correlation equals causation (and a cherry-picked, anecdotal observation at that), what he's saying here is that there is an inverse relationship between tax rates and tax revenues in general, including in the case of the Bush tax cuts. Almost all well-credentialed economists across the political spectrum disagree with that assertion*, but that's what this non-economist, DuPont, is saying.
Later, he says, referring to Rangell's proposed tax increases:
"Federal tax revenues have been rising between 6.7% and 14.5% in each of the past three years, but the proposed tax increases, by slowing rather than stimulating the economy, would ensure that these percentages decline."
That's probably true, although he should stating this as a "ceteris paribus" point (I guess that since he's not an economist, that didn't occur to him). But here's what's interesting. He says only that the rate of INCREASE in revenues would decline in response to such tax rate increases. If he believe in the inverse relationship between tax rates and revenues that he asserted earlier, why didn't he say that revenues would DECLINE in response to the tax rate increases. Hmmm. Having trouble getting your own bullsh*t straight, Pierre?
* http://swordscrossed.org/node/1671
Certainly
Morally speaking, capital gains should be taxed higher than any labor. This is especially true of short-term capital gains, which ought to be called "gambling" or "speculation" if you prefer a less loaded term.
I'd be happy with short-term capital gains at somewhere near 50% across the board. In addition, a sales tax on stock purchases (something like 1/2% of the purchase prices) would also be in order.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Re: "Morally speaking,
Re: "Morally speaking, capital gains should be taxed higher than any labor"
Morally speaking, you can't make such a statement without considering CONSEQUENCES. If, arguendo, setting capital gains tax rates LOWER than labor income tax rates results in everyone being better off than if it were higher, would you say it would be more "moral" to set it higher, just to prevent some people from benefiting even more than others?
Consequences smonsequences, so long as I'm rich
Of course you can. Consequences have very little to do with what is morally right or wrong, unless the consequences are extreme.
Yes, it'd be the morally right thing to do, but it wouldn't be the policy I'd advocate.
Morality is a good aim for when optimal policy is unclear or unknown. When facts show that a certain policy is not optimal, then it must be changed regardless.
A bonus point to anyone who can place the reference in the subject.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Daffy Duck. Now send my
Daffy Duck. Now send my bonus point. Oh, and I think after he said it a genie zapped him. And I think the result was that he shrunk down to a tiny version of himself.
Re: " Consequences have very little to do with what is morally right or wrong, unless the consequences are extreme."
That view of morality makes no sense to me. Perhaps you can explain. I mean, if I swing my fist in the air when no on is around vs. swinging my fist and deliberately hitting someone in the arm (and I'm swinging hard enough to hurt the person), and I have no justification for doing so (let's say, I'm just doing it for my own amusement), is it not immoral simply because I didn't punch the person in the nose, or simply because I didn't take a baseball bat to his head? Sure, there are matters of degree, but why would consequences "have little to do with what is morally right or wrong" exept at the extreme?
Re: "Yes, it'd be the morally right thing to do, but it wouldn't be the policy I'd advocate. Morality is a good aim for when optimal policy is unclear or unknown. When facts show that a certain policy is not optimal, then it must be changed regardless."
??? It would be the morally right thing to do, but you wouldn't advocate it? Why not? I don't get it. And are you really saying you'd prefer a policy under which EVERYONE is worse off, and that such a policy would be more moral??
Well done, sir
I think you're a sir.
I can't elucidate my philosophy so well just yet. I'm not really a follower of Kant, per se, but I tend to disagree that utilitarianism is a just philosophy. You can easily bend it to your own whims. An ethical code must put constraints on us that we don't like.
Government policy need not be moral, but optimal and efficient. If you could convince me that everyone is better off without any taxation whatsoever, I'd be for that. I don't think that is a moral position, but I'm not about to pretend that the government is a source of moral authority or should use morality instead of dispassionate facts to make policy.
And I'm saying quite the opposite. I'm saying I'd prefer a policy where everyone is better off, even if that policy is immoral.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Re: "I'm saying I'd prefer a
Re: "I'm saying I'd prefer a policy where everyone is better off, even if that policy is immoral."
I'm getting the feeling we're speaking different languages. By definition something cannot be immoral if everyone is better off (and by "everyone" I'd include animals). Something can only be immoral if someone is harmed by it. Only consequentialism makes any sense if morality is to have any sensible meaning. A deontological view of morality (that some acts are inherently moral or inherently immoral, regardless of circumstances and anticipated consequences) is not legitimate. It may provide useful rules of thumb, but it's not ultimately a legitimate approach to assessing the morality of a given act.
Most likely
We've had this debate before and not to be overly blunt, I don't think it's going to go anywhere. You remind me of my gen ed philosophy instructor, Dr. Scott Wilson
. He is a utilitarian, and we had a good few back and forths. Usually we came to the same conclusion on most moral issues, but got there in completely different manners.
I'll leave you with a sort of argument from analogy.
Let's say that I think abortion is morally wrong. Let's also say that I know a particular fetus/unborn child/whatever will grow up to be a Hitler/Stalinesque figure. If I have the opportunity to abort this amalgamation of cells, I'd be doing something morally wrong, but we'd all be better off because of my action.
As odd as it may sound, sometimes it is "good" to do something that is "wrong". That's the "utilitarian override" I spoke of earlier.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
First, I should point out
First, I should point out that I don't usually speak in such a definitive and dismissive tone as I do on this topic, referring to the deontological view of morality as illegitimate and asserting that consequentialism is the only legitimate moral perspective. But I do make an exception in this case.
Second, I'm saying that only CONSEQUENTIALISM makes sense as a moral perspective, not utilitarianism. I am contrasting consequentialism with a deontological view, which holds that some acts are INHERENTLY moral or immoral, regardless of consequences, which to me runs contrary to the very meaning of morality. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism
As for our disagreement and your analogy, we may simply have a semantical difference here, although I'm not sure.
If you are limited to a dichotomous choice between (1) killing a fetus or (2) not killing the fetus with the guaranteed consequence that 20 million innocent people will be killed, I assume you would see the former as the "right" thing to do, based on weighing the consequences of your choice one way or the other. If #1 is the right thing to do based on those anticipated consequences, then BY DEFINITION it is the MORAL thing to do. That is the very essense of morality. To say that #1 is the right thing to do even though it would be "morally wrong" is self-contradictory. If you don't think it's self-contradictory, then what do you think morality IS ? It makes no sense to say any particular act is inherently immoral regardless of anticipated consequences. Again, for that to make any sense, what would morality BE ?
Just a bit of
Just a bit of elaboration:
The concept of morality is all about right and wrong -- the right thing to do and the wrong thing to do. And that distinction must be based on weighing the anticipated harm that an act will cause vs. the anticipated benefit that it will cause.
The deontological concept of morality, that particular acts are inherently moral or immoral regardless of anticipated consequences, is nonsensical, unless "morality" is defined in such a way as to mean something entirely different from any meaninful concept of morality that I can see.
If morality is not based on the consideration of harms and benefits that will be caused by some act (or choice between/among alternative acts), then what IS morality?
Final thoughts
I chose my words very carefully to avoid using "right". It is good to abort the fetus in my example, but not right. What is good is not always right.
It's a nuanced answer, but then just about everything in philosophy is so nuanced.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
I don't think nuance is the
I don't think nuance is the not the problem here. I think we just need to talk straight. As I said, to me morality is all about the right thing to do vs. the wrong thing to do, and the distinction is based on consideration and weighing of how the act in question is expected to harm people (and animals) and/or benefit people (and animals). You say it is "good" to do X but it is not the "right" thing to do. That doesn't sound like nuance to me; more like Orwellian double-talk.
Do you agree that the concept of morality is about making distinctions between what is the right thing to do vs. the wrong thing to do?
If not, then what is morality?
If yes, then do you agree that that "right" vs. "wrong" thing to do must be determined based on the harm and/or benefit that the act is expected to cause?
If not, then what else could it be based on?
An excellent thread
This is an excellent exchange and would make a great diary topic ;-) Not just because you both are explaining your positions in chunks that most of us can understand, but also because both sides of the aisle have this "thing" about morality and using it to justify their actions.
For example, from the Left: "It's a citizen's moral obligation to support his government, so higher taxes on the better off are good"
From the Right: "It's immoral to take away the fruits of a man's labor, so taxation is bad"
And both sides also love to throw around the H word.
To this, um, somewhat amoral individual (by which I mean I use my personal internal compass, not some external guide, etc.) the issues of morality and hypocrisy in government decision making are a bit specious (and sometimes very comical) but generally always obstructive. YMMV, of course.
But, like any other infrequently examined internal bias, it might be interesting to explore the different perspectives on morality.
Disagree with your example (point of order)
STRONGLY disagree with this as a From the Left example. Saying that it is a citizen's moral obligation to support his fellow citizen (i.e. a country is a team and you sometimes have to take one for the team) would be a more reasonable wording IMO.
The conflation of government and country is an issue on the Right. i.e, 'Criticizing the government while at (never-ending) war means you hate your country' is a right wing meme.
Seconded
I'm only half stupid
Works for me ;-)
My point was the moralistic nature underlying the position, not the specific example. Consider my wording changed ;-)
Spot on
I would like to see a tax that decreases the speculative nature of Wall Street.
How aggravating is it that we are asked to pay such high prices for things like gas or wheat, when those prices are set by speculators in the futures markets on Wall Street.
I am feeling just extra-ordinarily pissed, at my hard earned dollars shrinking value. You could even say I am bitter.
I'm only half stupid
I don't understand the connection
between tax ratios and morals here. Some people make a living via speculation, and while I don't like it, I don't see how it's a moral issue per se. Why not just tax based on income, regardless of where it comes from? In real terms a poor speculator is no worse off than an equally poor factory worker; a rich speculator is no better off than an equally rich doctor.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
No connection between tax ratios and morals...
God disagrees on that point, more or less.
Most "poor" don't have stocks. The "rich man" usually does.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
You are mistaken, sir
Don't you mean some guy who wrote a particular part of an over 2000 year old book disagrees on that point?
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
No moral favoratism
just neutrality.
All income should be taxed the same....no favors, no indulging, no laws that deem one form better than another.
It's less messy that way.
Income is Income and should be seen that way in the eyes of the law.
Taking the concept of Corporate Income tax to...
the applying it to taxes based on the aggregate total Federal taxes derived by taxing individual's income/employment.
ie having a Individual Income Tax based on how much someone makes with relation to how much taxes they produce for the government.
"CBO assumed, as do most economists
, that employers' shares of payroll taxes fall on employees and therefore that the amount of those taxes should be included in employees' income and the taxes counted as part of employees' tax burden. Corporate income taxes were assumed to be borne by owners of capital. CBO allocated corporate tax liabilities to households in proportion to their income from interest, dividends, rents, and capital gains."
Taking that concept and using Corporate tax based on Gross Sales - Cost of Goods Sold - [other stuff] = net profit and only taxing net profit. Apply that concept to income up to the poverty level is the same as Cost of Goods sold and you find that
a federal income tax that would appear to be less of a "legal plunder" than many think it is. And inversely the current tax burden shows that the current tax system is more than fair to the Top 1%.
Even taking the "poverty level" part out: [using 1999 figures]
The Top 1% made 33.2 times that of the second lowest quintile, but only paid 4.2 times as much of the tax burden.
What about treating tax revenue from a single source the same? The current system seems to favor those that pay relatively little of the federal tax burden.
So should the Federal Individual Income Tax be changed to tax the Top 1% even more to offset the difference they are actually generating in tax revenue compared to their lower earning counterparts?
And mistakes in fact or judgment, please point out so that I don't make them again.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
let me rephrase:
investment income and labor income are both income and should be taxed the same.
I don't necessarily disagree
Investment income I'd think is synonymous with long-term capital gains and/or stock dividends.
I don't have much of a problem with taxing these at the same rate as labor.
And for the record, the corporate income tax should be repealed. Corporations aren't people and therefore shouldn't be paying taxes. Lets get around to overturning Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad ASAP.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Good point....
corporate taxes simply show up in costs to others and lower wages.
In one pocket and out the other....
It helps nobody.
"It helps nobody." Not so fast my friend.
Corporate Income Taxes discourages reinvestment, unless certain credits are written into the tax code. Thats one bad thing about the Corp. Income tax
Doing away with the tax Corp. Income tax cod would eliminate countless jobs of accountants and lawyers.
Would people be willing to face the ire of an endless mob of unemployed accountants?
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Its still slightly off from what you are talking about.
But should payroll taxes be traced back to the worker the taxes came from just to show how much certain people are bearing the federal tax burden?
If the payroll taxes weren't around someone else would be receiving that money.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Umm, point of order?
If Hillary is attacking Obama this makes the attack right wing how?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Social security
Obama would consider raising payroll tax.
I think this is a bad idea in that it recasts social security as welfare, but on the other hand I think it's good in that it at least proposes a concrete option to increase revenue. As Obama notes the likely alternative is to decrease payouts.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Good -- Obama recognizes individual RKBA
but says it can still be regulated.
This is almost certainly going to be consistent with SCOTUS and is absolutely in line with mainstream opinion.
Edit: background here
.
Clinton asked if she supports DC ban, says she wants to give local communities tools to do what they want.
Nice joke about "fourth branch" Cheney.
Why are they asking the candidates to judge the case before SCOTUS? Odd way to approach the question.
Hmm, they both sort of danced around the licensing issue.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Her answer on the DC ban
hedged to the point of absurdity. She's not sure if a "total ban, with no exceptions whatsoever" might interfere with the second amendment? I know she's not angling for the SCOTUS, but geez.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
I suppose if you buy into the
2nd = right for *militia* members to keep/bear arms, then a total ban could be constitutional if there was no militia. Or something.
I certainly agree that it's a stretch.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Well, by definition
a total ban would exclude militias, too!
Although apparently the defense tried to argue that DC isn't covered by the second amendment, since it isn't a state
.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Oh, hadn't seen that
Gotta give them points for creativity there.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
I believe in RKBG -- the
I believe in RKBG -- the Right to Keep and Bear Grudges.
Sorry, needed a little silly levity. Still pissed about jackass charlie gibson. jackass.
Sorry, Obama is sounding too squirrelly for me anymore.
Be basically hangs around with the likes of Ayers and Wright but says that he doesn't agree with what they say. That sounds a lot like saying one thing and doing another, so why should RKBA be any different to him?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4"The crowd is turning on me."
And well they should.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
I missed that? Did one of
I missed that? Did one of the moderators say that? I hope so, if it happened after yet another asinine question. Please tell me that's what happened.
You would have loved it
Your buddy Gibson said it, not long after a particularly assinine "analysis" by some other joker, after the debate ended. They cut to commercial right after!
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
oh, I can't wait to view the
oh, I can't wait to view the tape on C-span. Can you tell me roughly at what point that occurred?
oh, now I see. It was after
oh, now I see. It was after the end of the debate.
Very end
He came back from commercial, said like two things, and then said we'll go to commercial then come back to say goodnight, and the crowd was like wtf you just did a commercial.
Kind of funny.
But he went to commercial anyway. That'll show 'em!
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
well, the typical dog food
well, the typical dog food commercial contains about as much substance on our national policy matters as did the questions those jokers asked tonight. So does the...er...end product of dog food.
By the way, Eugene Robinson
By the way, Eugene Robinson on MSNBC just offered a good descriptor for the first half of the debate, calling it "tabloid" in nature.
Now I know why I never
watch THAT news channel.
Charlie Assinine and Stephenrumpulous.
I am considering throwing my TV out the window.
Who won tonight? McCain.
I'm only half stupid
BR, just saw your email...
sorry for the delay. check your inbox. :)