“I have a question that doesnt seem to have been addressed yet, even by the most leftist pundits and bloggers: How is it that Obama is using the expiration of the payroll tax cut as a bargaining chip to convince republicans to go along with higher taxes on the rich? All anyone wants to talk about is the social security cuts, but not being discussed is this tax increase that disproportionately would hurt lower and middle income earners. So I am curious who decided this was a good bargain? Which side argued that that should get stuck in there? Was the President giving in on that and if so why is this the only kind of tax hike Republicans are for? Is the President asking for that, and if so why? Anyone have any answers?”
CandyRaptor on Dec 18, 2012 at 22:47:26
“Even if that happened, tax cuts for the middle class and poor would likely be put in place and made retroactive to 1-1.”
ScreenName05 on Dec 18, 2012 at 22:39:44
“The payroll tax cut, was never an actual tax cut, it was always going to have to expire - it simply is too big a risk to the long term solvency of SS. And in reality it should have never been put in place to begin with. SS is a subscriber benefit system, and this tax holiday was a gimmick that has very bad long term effects. ”
CAdawn on Dec 18, 2012 at 22:38:10
“The payroll tax cut was meant to be temporary. This tax money helps fund Social Security. We can't keep the cut forever.”
“So lets get this straight: If the president is respectful to foreign dignitaries he is a traitor, but how dare he ever disagree with the prime minister of isreal on anything? Yep, checks out, thats some perfectly sound republican logic right there. Simply brilliant”
“Obviously, but he also says it would be jumping too far to say that hold your ground laws are bad because he is against the extreme ends of both sides of this discussion. He says hes against the extreme retreat laws in one's own home. But he also said he is in favor of stand your ground laws, which therefore must not be considered extreme to him. I am just wondering what law Newt considers on the extreme end of shooting people too much if the stand your ground law hasnt already reached it.”
“Doesn't he say that the laws taken to the extreme are wrong? I agree with that, but then he only applies it halfway. The retreat within your own home law is one extreme, and the stand your ground anywhere is the other. He takes issue with the first but not the latter. I guess he thinks its possible to have a law more extreme on the topic of self defense than the stand your ground law. What would a more extreme law than that look like? The "shoot everyone you dont know law"?”
MCouture on Mar 23, 2012 at 14:52:02
“He is saying that the "hold your ground" law DOESN'T apply in this case.”
Mar 21, 2012 at 11:19:06
“According to Foxnews' own report on how awesome guns are, crime in this country has never been lower. So what you're saying is both false and delusional. Probably the exact kind of things that a guy like Zimmerman would say to himself every night before searching the neighborhood for someone to kill. Side note: people like you are possibly a greater danger to society than bad parents; i draw that broad conclusion based on the willfully ignorant and dangerous statements you just made and I think if I lived in your neighborhood it would be VERY helpful to know this.”
“"Entry to the top 1 percent now comes with $347,421, which I’d simply call comfortably off."
Doesnt that sum up the problem right there? You have to be in the top 1% of income earners in the country to be comfortably off. I dont believe that used to be true, and it cannot be good for the long term stability of any society. No matter what your ideology, shouldn't the goal of a society be to make as great a percentage of the population as possible "comfortably off"? It does not seem to be, and the focus all on the individuals pushes us in the opposite direction.”
ema123 on Feb 3, 2012 at 15:04:03
“Worse to think 347,421 is only what you need to qualify, make the rest of the 99% quite poor making a lot less, it seems you needed a few millions to qualify and there were a lot more in the 150,000-300,000 range. Tv distorts reality. it gives the impression there are far more in that 350,000 range than there really is.”
Fremon on Feb 3, 2012 at 13:24:03
“In my day one of the goals of life was to aspire to a good middle class life with a home, money in the bank, a pension, and enough to send their children to college and hope they would do better than their parents. Along came Reagan who said that aspiration would be to become a millionaire and when they got their the tax cuts he would bring about would be their for them to have more money. The MBA students and others believed him and voted him into office because they would all be in the millionaire class. Well how many made it? some did I presume but far more did not. He left a national debt that was more than all the previous president's combined and we are still paying for it along with the debt of the other GOP presidents. They left Clinton and Obama to deal with the problem they created.”
“Win-win is also NOT the argument republicans are making. I believe win-win economics can exist and should be a reality, but since the past 30+ years of economic policy has changed the reality, Republicans have changed their argument. Capitalism is not supposed to be win-win anymore, its supposed to be winners rising to the top as proof of their inherent superiority, losers fall as proof of their inherent inferiority. That is the rallying cry of today's conservatives and it directly contradicts what you posted above as the supposed reason that republican ideology should so obviously be preferred by everyone. Why cant we all see it? right?”
Barbarian At The Gate on Jan 10, 2012 at 16:55:44
“Republicans use the concept of Social Darwinism to justify survival of the fittest in the business environment. There are evil people who have used Social Darwinism to justify other concepts such as eugenics.”
“Wait, Republicans want EVERYONE to make money? But I thought capitalism is all about winners and losers, how can everyone make money? Hmmm...I think this is where that pretty little picture breaks down and we get another example of the hypocrisy Jon Stewart was talking about.”
nabsentia23 on Jan 10, 2012 at 12:52:14
“Well, gungho capitalists usually use the term "win-win" to say that all actors in a market can get a favorable outcome. However, we all know that's not always the case.”
“I think you're dead on. Same thing for OWS. More than 2/3's of the country agree with the basic unfairness message, but it drives them nuts that the people they see on tv are all hippies. Theres an ongoing phenomenon in this country where people cannot look past their preconceived notion of what a person looks like or claims to be and be able to listen to what that person is actually saying.
I think a large portion of Americans say to themselves, "these people are right, but I could never agree to be one of those types, it goes against every way ive ever identified myself." Its unfortunate, and it causes millions to argue adamantly against their own economic interests.”
“"Tax increases aren't the answer. Spending cuts are"
Based on what economic theory or real life example? Unlike you, I live above ground and may not be privy to the economic theory of the underworld. I apologize before hand if my question shows what an ignorant surface dweller I am.”
cellardweller on Nov 18, 2011 at 18:02:11
The "economic theory" is the theory that every family in the world has to live by or go under.”
“It is a fair enough argument to put forward that your economic interests would be served if government waste was reduced, and that "starving the beast" so to speak is your preferred way to do that. If that is your end game then I grant you that that is a rational line of thinking. However, when you take into account who benefits most directly from this theory and how it has actually gone in practice over the past 30 years, I am highly skeptical that any starving of the beast would ever occur. The same people who claim that is their end game start the wars in Iraq, balloon entitlement spending with medicaid part d, and invent an endless list of tax deductions that amount to corporate welfare spending. Its just not realistic to expect that to change all of a sudden with more of the same. And I am not suggesting that the Democrats new tax plan is going to solve much, but when given the two choices I am hard pressed to understand why you would still vote against the choice that more directly benefits you in favor of one that has demonstrably hurt you with none of the promised benefits to show for it. Thats my opinion, and I thank you for at least introducing logic into yours although I happen to find it less persuasive based on recent history.”
seanwol on Aug 1, 2012 at 17:11:14
“You are right, the reduction in spending never takes place. If we increase taxes, it won't go towards deficit reduction, it never has. It will just continue to feed the spending.
More spending doesn't benefit me in the long term. Again, I understand that you believe that these people are voting against their interests, but they don't see it that way. Neither do I. We feel you are voting against your own interests. What benefits everyone is to get our spending under control and entitlements. Pretty soon our entitlement spending will take up the majority of our budget. Then draconian cuts will be necessary.
I could very easily make the argument that voting for tax increases without large spending cuts and entitlement reform is voting against everyone's interest. Why would you vote for some ridiculous Buffet rule that will raise $20b a year, when our deficit in over a trillion? Not reforming entitlements, means they are less likely they will be there in the future. Isn't that in everyone's interest? I'm voting for the choice that most benefits me and everyone else. I don't believe raising taxes to solve 1% of our problem solves anything. We could tax 50% of what the top 10% earn and it wouldn't make a dent in any our problems.
I would rather have a reduction in my entitlements, than none at all..............
This is voting that benefits not only me, but everyone.”
“I agree that the president and Democrats are not framing the issue correctly, although I very much doubt that if they did ask more nicely that top income earners who spend so much of their money avoiding paying taxes and lobbying for more preferential treatment would stop doing so. However the real question is why do people who are not part of the top 1% or even top 20% so frequently vote for policies intended to benefit very few at a detriment to themselves? I can understand that you dont think its fair, but thats an emotional feeling, not an objective fact. The objective fact to the situation is that the rich have never been richer, their taxes have never been lower, and their control over politics has never seemed more dominant. They use huge advantages to fight for what they want. Why would you vote against benefits to yourself bc you feel like these people's feelings are hurt? Trust me, they dont care that my feelings are hurt that because of them, issues with a supermajority of public support wont even be heard in the congress they have purchased and fixed to their liking.”
seanwol on Aug 1, 2012 at 15:26:52
“i agree, but why should they? If you gave $100 to your friend because he was in need and while he was leaving your house he dropped $50 down the sewer. What would your reaction be? You want to help him out, but if he is that careless with your money, why should you give it to him? That is how many people view the government. The government recently lost $6 billion in Iraq. Not spent poorly, LOST! They only recently overpaid $6 billion in social security benefits. Raising taxes on the rich doesn't solve any of our problems, (education, debt, government spending).
If the Buffet rule is enforced, it will raise an additional $20 Billion a year. That is around 1% of the budget deficit. Wow, only 99% to go. The amount that taxes will raise doesn't even cover what the government loses in the couch cushions each year. 4th grade math tells me that I'm voting in my best interest when I look to reduce government waste.
i don't agree with you that people who want spending to be cut before taxes are raised are "voting against our interests". Reducing our spending to make our programs more secure is everyone's interest.
Raising taxes on the top 20% doesn't solve any our our problems.
It is like giving 10 people who are in the middle of the desert and dying of thirst a dixie cup of water. Great! That will solve all of our problems for two minutes.........................Now what?”
1. Rich politicians on both sides are beholden only to the rich individuals who pay for them to keep their jobs and thus do whatever those rich individuals tell them to. If anyone is using a class warfare angle in the advertisement they pay for with "investors" money, it is not to hand anything out to anyone but those "investors"
2. Unless you make more than 200,000 dollars you are adamantly arguing against your self-interest, which i guess you must find so fun that you gain more utility from it than you would the economic benefits you would receive in lower taxes.
3. Even if you do make more than 200,000 dollars and this proposal would benefit you, how is it an envious avoidance of ones personal responsibility to be pissed about getting screwed and fight against it? All those successful individuals sure as hell are fighting for their interests, but its only class warfare if the middle class does it? I cant take that thought seriously.
IMHO either you are confused, or your post is disingenuous and intended to confuse others. Neither is a good situation, but if its the second you unfortunately symbolize the same problem of deception your post claims to be against.”
“That makes absolutely no sense and avoids the actual issue. Worst of all, you knew that when you wrote this post, but did it anyway.In what way do you think that completely irrational thought adds anything to this discussion? How are you contributing in any positive way?”
“if you are honestly suggesting in a cost benefit analysis it is better to prevent 20 million legal voters from voting than allow one or 50 or 1000 fraudulent votes you are out of your mind. more likely you are just being dishonest, or have absolutely no understanding of how statistics work. I cannot believe how misguided your thought process is with that first statement. you should be ashamed of yourself and learn to think for yourself.”
The Vulture on Jul 31, 2012 at 21:13:10
“Forgive me, I didnt realize how important voter fraud was to you. I'm sure shoplifting is a favorite pasttime.”
“Certainly. Everyday more people are shot with guns than the total number of cases of voting fraud that have taken place in the past 3 or 4 elections combined. In other words there is a problem in this country involving guns, there is no problem with voter fraud. Thats the difference. And I really doubt that you can honestly disagree with that as a serious difference.
Also no one wants to limit guns for the purpose of depriving others of their rights, they want to do it to limit preventable violence. I dont think you can say the same for the republicans depriving an infinitely more important right.”
“Will you kindly post a link to something explaining the theory of labor as capital and its impact on taxation as you see it. I have tried to search on my own and can only find the theory referenced, not explained. It seems to me that the increased productivity of labor but decreased wages earned during a time of falling tax rates of the past 30 years would be evidence to dispute your claims. However I would like to learn more so if you have any links please list. Thank you”
bigtimechillerm on Jul 27, 2012 at 22:29:24
“Here is a paper on John Locke's labor theory of value: http://mises.org/journals/jls/2_4/2_4_3.pdf
Of course two people spending an equal amount of effort and time will not produce a product or service of equal value, because of a lot of other variables, the greatest of which is demand.
I don't agree with everything at mises.org, but most articles are helpful. But really from practical experience as a business owner: I hire people, compensate them based on the demand price they are willing to work for. They produce a product which I sell. Every penny I pay in taxes comes from those willing to exchange the fruit of their labor for my product or service. If my tax burden is increased, my prices will increase to at least the point governed by demand. Anyone buying my goods or services will have to spend more of the fruit of their labor to do so. So my tax burden becomes theirs. Crony government picking winners and losers through taxation is another subject but is also relevant. ”
“Even if it was an accident, Zimmerman should still be in jail for manslaughter, so not quite sure what Hannity's point is. Luckily, anyone who can read knows Zimmerman himself ADMITS it was no accident since the minute he said he shot in self-defense.”
“Hilarious! Basically these guys are playing a pointless game of whats the worst thing you can call the other guy without crossing the line into what the base might actually be offended by. Santorum just played the trump card in this game: "You're worse than Obama" Gasp! goes the collective crowd! Too funny. So sad and so pointless and a terrible reflection of where this "debate" has taken us, but still so funny.”
Mar 22, 2012 at 09:24:03
“Shameful and disgusting. Every race of every community has "thugs." You are using 1950's rational to justify the killing of an innocent child. Then you say its his fault for being black, and no one should speak up for him until all crime in the black community is eradicated. Then as the cherry on top the part of this story that has you angry is the idea that this guy might not get a fair trial. Im speechless...and you are a backwards thinking racist. You probably call yourself a Christian too. Im not saying Im better than you, Im just saying I thought this country was better than this...”
“You completely undermine the point of your first paragraph by writing your second paragraph. If the nation is being misled, then how can everyone know what they are getting themselves into.
Oh wait, i got it. Its because its misleading if its coming from Obama, but completely fair and clear if it comes in the form of a 100 page loan application. Sorry, thats my fault. Thank you for solving the education systems problems with two brilliant solutions: Everyone be inherently smart enough to know how to make the exact correct life decisions at age 18, and Obama stop trying to talk or be president. Boom, problems solved! Glad we got that out of the way, i was starting to think our political process might have to do stuff to fix this giant mess its made.”
karlbmiles on Feb 3, 2012 at 11:55:09
“I don't think 18-year-olds are making the decisions. It's their parents who "forgot" to save for Johnnie's education.
We fix the education problem, and the housing problem, and the union pension problem, by doing the same thing. Stop the government from spending our money to buy votes. If a kid has to work through college, or a family must rent while they save to buy a house, or the unions have to retire 66 instead of at 50 or 55, that's OK by me. Because I did all those responsible things and I'm better for it.”
“The point is you arent really getting anything done if you speak in abstracts and false premises. Like above you state the US was much more prosperous when we had fewer regulations. Which regulations of what market? What would be the desired outcome of the changes to these regulations and why would these changes produce that outcome?
Asking these questions and finding the answers is capitalism and politics colliding. Its how public policy decisions should be made and discussed. Thats the point of the article, which i believe you may have let pass by when you decided this was an attack on the free market before you finished reading.
And yes, this was definitely written by an academic and hard to get through, but its hard to argue against his point that these things should be discussed. The answer should never be just a hard-lined stance that "free-markets are the answer" end of discussion. Its really a great point.”
“And so when 51% of the country who depend on this help or will not be able to get by suddenly no longer have that help, this will save the system from crashing? I believe you have missed the point of this article. We need solutions beyond rhetoric. While it sounds like a great talking point, what you just espoused would completely devastate our society and is not a specific solution to any specific problem.”
Dec 1, 2011 at 17:23:13
“I think this is a great example of how the messengers of the occupy movement have been confused with the message. Carolla may be right about his description of some protesters who are uninterested in working hard. But from my perspective, whether or not that's true is irrelevant. The fact is that the middle class is systematically disappearing, not because people are all whiners but because the socioeconomic reality is causing it to happen. There rules made in our country are designed to benefit the wealthiest because they are literally made by the wealthiest.
And to Carolla's point, hard work is never a bad thing, but I think everyone should agree that working harder for less (30 years of growth in productivity and stagnant or falling income) is as bad a system of incentives as knowing you will get by even if you dont work hard (welfare state). These are the problems the occupy movement is supposed to address, and they are real problems no matter how lazy and entitled some people may be.”
Bruce A Savini on Dec 1, 2011 at 18:11:58
“It's disappearing because everyone who gets out of college thinks they should automatically be given an executive position, everyone one wants everything handed to them with no effort on their part these days. It is called self entitlement syndrome, most people under the age of 40 have it.”