Obama's first failed appointment
This is a complete mistake and I predict this will be a total failure.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/05/panetta.cia/?iref=hpmostpop
Panetta has a strong background in economics but little hands-on experience in intelligence. However, he is known as a strong manager with solid organizational skills.
This is great. His latest experience is that "he sat in on the daily intelligence briefing with the Clinton administration."
Panetta for CIA director? Is this some kind of joke? What's next? Dr. Phil for Secretary of Defense?
That would be my guess. Dr. Suess for Sec of Health and Human Services.
Do you think the head of the CIA should be a spy or ex-spy?
Someone that knows something about intelligence would be nice.
Panetta does not have the credentials for this job.
I assume you mean by intelligence, how it is gathered.
So they can judge the validity of the information passed up to them?
So they can tell the President what is, and is not, possible to obtain?
I don't know what the duties of this job really are, but it makes me wonder what experience they need. I'm sure the head of Verizon can't install a vios line in my house, but (hopefully) is adept at running a company.
Do you think the head of the CIA should be a spy or ex-spy?
Absolutely. Without a doubt. The system is to specialized. This is not a Fortune 500 company and it should not be run like one. Government is not business. We have been down that road before. I think Obama really screwed this up.
I think the rationale was that an outsider would be more likely to clean up the disgraced CIA. (failed intelligence leading to Iraq war, waterboarding, etc.) But I think it's just as likely that the career CIA folks will bristle under the scrutiny of an outsider and he will have a difficult time leading the agency.
I think that rationale was/is unfortunately flawed. I'd like to see some things changed, but I don't know if Panetta can do it. This is out of his area of expertise. Even some top D's question this pick.
I'd like to think that intelligent people have thatought this through before making the choice.
But, of course, the gut reaction is that... how can he change how things are done when the people under him are doing specialized things that he doesn't understand? I mean, they could tell him anything, couldn't they? How is he going to know the difference? And, if he makes decision based on having an incomplete knowledge of the system, and he has people under him disagreeing with him, does he trust their experience in the field, or does he ramrod a bone-headed management decision that isn't based in reality? I can't think of a good way this could turn out.
Of course, what do I know about it? All I did was listen to the same blurbs as all the other news consumers.
I know some intel folks and they are very protective of their little world. I think glatt hit it, with out their cooperation he may or may not get all the info he needs and they may just give him enough to fail.
I mean, these intelligence guys make a career out of being sneaky bastards, right? This Panetta must have a huge pair of balls, and an even bigger IQ, if he thinks he go in and change their internal world. The only way this makes sense is if he is some kind of Superman.
I assume you mean by intelligence, how it is gathered.
So they can judge the validity of the information passed up to them?
So they can tell the President what is, and is not, possible to obtain?
I mean how its gathered, and how to make decisions about what needs gathering and how to prioritize directives. How to allocate limited resources to a vast need. How to decide what directives should be carried out by humans and which should be left to technology. That was a huge problem in the CIA in years past - all the people got pulled out in favor of technological intel gathering and the quality of info dropped precipitously.
Not only so they can judge the validity of what they are handed but to know when info is being withheld - the "seeing what isn't there" instinct that only comes with experience. This is the spy business - much is withheld to suit underling agendas.
And yes, to advise the president. But how do you know how to advise the president when you don't know enough about what you are told by your reports to know if its bullshit or not?
Having an inexperienced person at the helm is going to result in the inmates running the asylum. And more different problems than what we've had from the current leadership which while experienced is also devious.
This isn't a partisan issue.
This Panetta must have a huge pair of balls, and an even bigger IQ, if he thinks he go in and change their internal world. The only way this makes sense is if he is some kind of Superman.
He isn't.
Either Obama has all of us outfoxed or he just screwed up badly.
Yeah, this one has me pretty confused too. And things were going so well.
What's that article writer know? He's just a former CIA field director. ;)
Obama knows what he's doing.
Interesting guy.
Robert BaerHere's one explanation.
I'm not sure I'd call that an explanation. The article starts by qualifying Panetta as a Washington insider saying that's just what the CIA needs.
The article finishes by saying that the agency is best served by distancing itself from Washington and excessive politics.
Furthermore...
Leading Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee Jay Rockefeller and Dianne Feinstein have already criticized the choice of Panetta, claiming the CIA needs to be led by an experienced intelligence professional.
I'm open to suggestion but I'm not getting much. The best answer I've heard yet is that "Obama knows what he is doing."
Besides, I never trust anybody who has a book to sell. Even if the author is a CIA field
officer.
I suspect that's the best answer me or anyone else is going to get - rationalizations notwithstanding.
Either Obama has all of us outfoxed or he just screwed up badly.
Like Pie, I'm confused on this one but I'm hoping there's a middle ground between your extremes. :confused:
All the Dems have done on this one is to give the Repubs a chance to totally tear the guy appart during the conformation hearings. I can imagine them sitting up there saying, "So Mr. Pannnetta, list your intelligence experience and acomplishments that you think make you qualified to be the head of one of the largest intelligence agencies in the world."
Joe Biden admitted that they should have consulted more members of Congress who were involved in Intell before they chose Pannetta. I could see if they chose him for overall intell director instead of head of CIA, but they didn't. Now they will have to put up with more problems on the inside and if he is not respected by the rank and file he is going to have huge problems.
I don't care whose side I'm on...that is a great political cartoon. :)
Now they will have to put up with more problems on the inside and if he is not respected by the rank and file he is going to have huge problems.
I think it's about time the "rank and file" stopped stroking their petty egos and started doing what's best for the country. Not only in the CIA, but most of the government agencies.
I think that's what I've been trying to say all along: quit bitching and moaning about someone peeing in your spot and get on with the business of getting on board to do what's best for this country.
This article lists four CIA directors appointed as "outsiders", two who were "unwelcome", and "two of the agency's most successful directors".
Given his background, Panetta is a somewhat unusual choice to lead the CIA, an agency that has been unwelcoming to previous directors perceived as outsiders, such as Stansfield M. Turner and John M. Deutch.
...
He said that given global environment, there are indeed good reasons for Obama to select a CIA veteran to lead the CIA. But he said that two of the agency’s most successful directors, John McCone and George H.W. Bush, had little or no intelligence intelligence experience when they took over at CIA.
I think this is an odd choice for the post, but I have a very, very strong preference for allowing the commander in chief to staff his branch how he sees fit.
I think the job of the congress it to ensure that there is no gross negligence or blatant corruption in the nomination process, not to vet candidates based on ideological concerns or who they think might be a better fit for the gig. If you're going to hold someone accountable for how a job is done (and we will hold Obama accountable), you have to let them pick their people.
I think it's about time the "rank and file" stopped stroking their petty egos and started doing what's best for the country. Not only in the CIA, but most of the government agencies.
I believe they have been doing that all along. You seem to think otherwise, but the rank and file of this country has been doing what is right for a long time. It is the people at the top who keep screwing it up. This appointment is just opening the chance for another of those screw ups to do it again.
Now they will have to put up with more problems on the inside and if he is not respected by the rank and file he is going to have huge problems.
I believe they have been doing that all along. You seem to think otherwise, but the rank and file of this country has been doing what is right for a long time. It is the people at the top who keep screwing it up. This appointment is just opening the chance for another of those screw ups to do it again.
Which is it? :eyebrow:
Which is it? :eyebrow:
Both. The rank and file are well-intended folk who will screw up if not managed by competent leadership. But, like any group, they will screw up in a different way if they feel their leader does not represent or understand them.
Not everyone who thinks Panetta was not the best choice is advancing a right-wing agenda but I can only speak for myself. I'll settle for anybody who can effectively use the resources of the agency to carry out the wishes of the President. And its not obvious to me how Panetta is the ideal candidate to answer that call of duty.
The fact that other people who were also not obvious choices did a good job as an argument in support of Panetta is utterly devoid of merit.
Oh yeah? Your face is utterly devoid of merit.
Oh yeah? Your face is utterly devoid of merit.
True. Fortunately, I have other redeeming features. ;)
Both. The rank and file are well-intended folk who will screw up if not managed by competent leadership. But, like any group, they will screw up in a different way if they feel their leader does not represent or understand them.
The premise of the first quote wasn't incompetence; it was a lack of respect for an outsider. If the rank and file let their resentment for an outsider cause "huge problems", then they are not "doing what is right". If he proves incompetent later, that's on him.
The fact that other people who were also not obvious choices did a good job as an argument in support of Panetta is utterly devoid of merit.
Correct. It is not an argument in support of Panetta. It is a counterexample to one of the arguments
against Panetta.
You know how in cartoons dude will get hit in the head with a frying pan, and his head is all flat, then he shakes his head and makes that "blblblblblblb" noise and his head pops back out? I need a smilie like that. ;)
Ok, I just reread the last few posts, slowly. I think I have it now.
Which is it? :eyebrow:
You are quite confused between people who do not want to do what is right by their boss and those who do the right thing everyday in their job. Fail.
pwned
You actually have to have a job of substance to understand, I can see why you don't.
You actually have to have a job of substance to understand, I can see why you don't.
Wtf?
Did you just tell Shawnee she didn't understand something because she has no job of substance? Whose measuring the substance of jobs now, and on what scale?
Did you just tell Shawnee she didn't understand something because she has no job of substance? Whose measuring the substance of jobs now, and on what scale?
WTF? No.
Oh. I misunderstood this:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary
You actually have to have a job of substance to understand, I can see why you don't.
You are quite confused between people who do not want to do what is right by their boss and those who do the right thing everyday in their job. Fail.
No I'm confused by you making contradictory statements to further your vendetta against all democrats, because they pushed you out of your cushy job in the military.
You actually have to have a job of substance to understand, I can see why you don't.
That will be quite enough of that. :eyebrow:
You should be ashamed.
And all this time I thought we were discussing the merits of an important political appointment.
I'll never learn.
Heh...I wonder what I should be doing that would make Merc think I was doing something of substance? He seems to like hookers, exotic dancers, and people who shoot things.
I really need to give back to society. I'm shamed, I am.
<mental image of Shawnee as a gun-toting exotic dancer...>
OH NO! That image even frightens me...shudder shudder. lol
Merc shows his true colors once again.
Nasty nasty man.
<mental image of Shawnee as a gun-toting exotic dancer...>
HmmmmTo be fair to Merc, when i queried him on it he said that wasn't what he'd meant. I'd be interested in knowing what he did mean.
You won't get a response. That's the usual MO (and I've said this elsewhere): THATs not what I meant...I didn't mean THAT, you don't get what I MEAN" but you will never hear a response when asking for clarification, because that clarification does not exist; that is what he meant.
So, whatever...fair shmare.
And Bruce...why you devil you. :blush:
It'll be interesting to see if an explanation is forthcoming, because it certainly looked like a mean-spirited put down to me.
Mean-spirited put downs are only okay when I post them!
I hope this doesn't destroy your image, Flint. But my impression is that you only play at being mean-spirited.
It's funny to me, and I understand that it might not always be funny to everyone reading it. So, in that way, there is a callous part of me that disregards the reader who doesn't understand what I'm doing. I'll even say, outright, that insomuch as you can't account for every person's tastes, my methodology is (largely) to simply act however I feel like acting, and to hell with the consequences. People, generally, put up with me.
omg, Flint has defined free will.
:notworthy
It's funny to me, and I understand that it might not always be funny to everyone reading it. So, in that way, there is a callous part of me that disregards the reader who doesn't understand what I'm doing. I'll even say, outright, that insomuch as you can't account for every person's tastes, my methodology is (largely) to simply act however I feel like acting, and to hell with the consequences. People, generally, put up with me.
Oh Flint, hey...this isn't about you.
Seriously...your sense of humor can be acidic, but you are not a mean person.
Don't ever tell me that something isn't about me.
Flint, it's not about you.
"BRUCE! Where's my BAN button?"
Forget it...just shoot me.
It's funny to me, and I understand that it might not always be funny to everyone reading it. So, in that way, there is a callous part of me that disregards the reader who doesn't understand what I'm doing. I'll even say, outright, that insomuch as you can't account for every person's tastes, my methodology is (largely) to simply act however I feel like acting, and to hell with the consequences. People, generally, put up with me.
No way! :lol2:
WTF? No.
If you would be so kind as to state what you did mean, then.
You can easily judge the character of others by how they treat those who can do nothing for them or to them.
-- Malcolm Forbes
Naw, not worth the time or effort.
PANETTA .. THE PERFECT APPOINTMENT
Neil weighs in. He has an interesting perspective on things.
By Neal Boortz @ January 7, 2009 9:01 AM
For Barack Obama, that is - but perhaps not necessarily for America.
I don't know many people who are thrilled with Obama's pick of Leon Panetta to head the CIA. The guy has less experience working in intelligence than our own Washington correspondent Jamie Dupree. Of course I strongly suspect that Dupree is actually working under cover as a journalist. You should see the armament he carries. Anyway ......
One of the first to really speak up was Dianne Feinstein. She got her feelings hurt that Obama didn't consult her before making the selection. Well, she's right. You do talk to the Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee about your pick to head the CIA .. but that was quickly corrected with some obsequious fawning by Obama and Biden.
Other thoughts on Panetta run the gamut. Dick Morris thinks he's being sent to Langley to effectively emasculate our premier spy agency. The destruction of the CIA began under Jimmy Carter. Will it become a fait accompli under Obama? There is much liberal angst over this phony torture controversy. Is Panetta the payoff to the left?
Others are saying that Panetta's experiences in the Congress and the Clinton White House qualify him for this position. After all, as the president's Chief of Staff he was a "consumer" of intelligence information. By that reasoning, since I bought a new GM vehicle a few weeks ago I'm now qualified to run GM. Than again, who isn't?
http://boortz.com/nealz_nuze/2009/01/panetta-the-perfect-appointmen.htmlAll I'll say it that there is a difference between reading a book and writing one.
Naw, not worth the time or effort.
There you go, then.
Naw, not worth the time or effort.
... because that was a major mental task for the wacko Merc. It takes some minimal education to post something useful you shitbag. Oh. Another word that makes the least educated among us feel at home - you George Jr lover because you are so dumb.
[QUOTE=tw;520934.....wacko....Merc......shitbag. ......George Jr ......[/QUOTE] :lol2:
After all, as the president's Chief of Staff he was a "consumer" of intelligence information.
Who knows better than the consumer what they need and in what format? Isn't that what the top people at the CIA do, glean the info the President needs from all the stuff being passed up the chain?
I just think if you are going to appoint a politico to a job, put him in the one that is most political, the over all director of national intel, not the head of the CIA. I think he had them switched, maybe it was a typo and he read them backwards.
Who knows better than the consumer what they need and in what format? Isn't that what the top people at the CIA do, glean the info the President needs from all the stuff being passed up the chain?
The consumer in this case is like the aftermarket. How is he qualified to determine what "info the President needs"? Hell he could be the best directer ever, but it just seems to make more sense to put a guy in here with some in the field experience. I know there were several others, including Bush Sr. who did well. I'm not gonna bury the guy yet. I guess all we can do is see what happens. He does have the political & boatloads of managerial experience - perhaps thats half the battle.
Who knows better than the consumer what they need and in what format? Isn't that what the top people at the CIA do, glean the info the President needs from all the stuff being passed up the chain?
Considering the large number of appointments praised from both 'sides of the aisle', it is rather silly to take cheap shots at one appointment. If the appointment does not work out, Obama is expected to fix it. Cheap shots are to criticize an appointment only because the president does not represent interests of wacko extremists.
There is much to question in the Obama administration. And virtually no facts to justify any criticisms. Panneta has a history of being a good administrator. He now has a new challenge and an assistant with much practical experience from that organization. Beyond that, the criticism is based only in recent Limbaugh commentaries..
If you would be so kind as to state what you did mean, then
Naw, not worth the time or effort.
Demonstrates the only justification for that Pannetta criticism.
How is he qualified to determine what "info the President needs"?
Others are saying that Panetta's experiences in the Congress and the Clinton White House qualify him for this position. After all, as the president's Chief of Staff he was a "consumer" of intelligence information.
That's what I was addressing.
This guy brings up some interesting questions. Not that it will make much of a difference, what's done is done. But someone needs to ask him during the confirmation hearings.
What Did Leon Panetta Know About Rendition And When Did He Know It?
Thus far, defenders of Director-designate of Central Intelligence Leon Panetta make the following points in defense of the proposition that he would make a good DCI:
In response to arguments that Panetta is not experienced, Panettaphiles tell us that because of his experience as a consumer of intelligence–both as a member of the Iraq Study Group and as Chief of Staff to Bill Clinton–Panetta actually has lots of intelligence experience and would, in fact, be super-awesome as DCI. In addition, as Chief of Staff, we are told that Panetta played a key role in shaping intelligence policies.
Panetta is against torture, rendition and other bad stuff.
Okay. But here’s the thing: If you believe Panettaphile Argument No. 1, then you really have to be concerned about the viability of Panettaphile Argument No. 2.
What do I mean? Well, in her book, The Dark Side, Jane Mayer pointed out that rendition policies began not during the Bush Administration, but rather, during the Clinton Administration. As Mayer writes, in 1995, the Clinton Administration proposed to the government of Hosni Mubarak that Egypt be a rendition destination, a proposal that the Egyptians accepted (pp. 112-113). Eventually, renditions became routine and a “Rendition Branch” was added to the CIA’s Counterterrorism Center and President Clinton signed a directive that authorized “Apprehension, Extradition, Rendition and Prosecution” of terrorist suspects in 1998 (p. 114). Other countries, in addition to Egypt, were used as rendition destinations but Egypt remained the most popular destination.
Leon Panetta was Chief of Staff from 1994-1997, according to Wikipedia.
As I see it, only one of three scenarios is possible:
Leon Panetta, as Chief of Staff, was involved in the decision to craft the rendition program, and the program was crafted with his approval.
Leon Panetta, as Chief of Staff, was involved in the decision to craft the rendition program, and the program was crafted over his objections. However, there is no evidence whatsoever that Panetta left the position of Chief of Staff in protest over the rendition policy (Wikipedia states that his resignation took effect on January 20, 1997, which is the date Bill Clinton was sworn in for his second term, likely demonstrating that Panetta just picked the beginning of the second term to leave and did not leave over any policy difference).
Leon Panetta, as Chief of Staff, was entirely out of the loop when it came to crafting the rendition program, thus opening the door to questions over whether Panetta was really as involved in intelligence matters as Panettaphiles claim that he was. I mean, if one is the Chief of Staff to the President and one does not take an active role in helping shape the policies by which terrorists like the ones in al Qaeda are captured and interrogated, one is pretty darned ineffective and not a major player, nyet?
So I ask: What did Leon Panetta know about rendition and when did he know it? Will he come forward and give answers to those questions? And hey, what about all of those pundits who claim that the incoming Administration will forswear torture and other cruel and inhuman interrogation activities. Are they the least bit concerned over whether the DCI-designate meets up to their purported standards? And will they to and write about their concerns in public?
It would be dramatically hypocritical if they didn’t, wouldn’t it?
http://www.redstate.com/pejman_yousefzadeh/2009/01/10/what-did-leon-panetta-know-about-rendition-and-when-did-he-know-it/So this may be number two in his error list. The guy clearly did not pay taxes and was actually paid for and signed a statement to the effect that he knew money the government was giving him was to pay Social Security taxes, but yet he still did not pay it. No double standard here. This could clearly have been business as usual for people who worked for that orgainzation, as in everybody does it, which may be fine for the average cheat, but not everyone is being nominated by the President elect.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/01/14/america/transition.php
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123187503629378119.html
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/01/022552.phpNah, I think it is a great pick. Just switch the government with China and Social Security taxes with United States debt. Perfect choice.
If the parties were switched there would be an burning in the square and a meltdown on the internet.
That is why Obama is a genius. He knows Republicans are on a shorter leash than Democrats, hence why he picks Democratic cheats.
Double standard. Makes him look very bad.
It makes him look bad to people that already see the double standard, majority of them are not Obama supporters.
And that was a pretty small number of people who did not vote for him, right?
I think what bothered me more was that he didn't finally pay till Obama had spoken to him about his potential appointment. That was one report I heard. IIRC they laid out the timeframe pretty well. I dunno, CNN could have been biased on it, but they a re usually pretty good.
I think its great that Obama was so organized and made all the potentials fill out those questionnaires. This seems like an issue where the guy told Obama what the deal was and Obama made a decision to go forward anyway. I think it'll probably turn into a non issue just like the Clinton stuff. Perhaps its just the GOP flexing what little muscle they have left.
By JOHN D. MCKINNON and BOB DAVIS
Timothy Geithner, whose nomination as Treasury secretary has been delayed by his past failure to pay taxes, was repeatedly advised in writing by the International Monetary Fund that he would be responsible for any Social Security and Medicare taxes he owed on income he earned at the IMF between 2001 and 2004.
Current and former IMF officials said the fund provided numerous warnings to U.S. employees about payroll taxes. According to IMF documents released by the Senate Finance panel, Mr. Geithner regularly received information about his tax obligations.
Mr. Geithner didn't make any Social Security or Medicare tax payments on his income during the years he worked for the IMF, though he did pay income taxes. After the Internal Revenue Service audited him in 2006 and discovered the payroll-tax errors, Mr. Geithner corrected them for 2003 and 2004. Only after Mr. Obama picked him for Treasury secretary last fall did Mr. Geithner pay the Social Security and Medicare tax he owed for 2001 and 2002.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123194884833281695.html?mod=article-outset-box
Sounds like a person with questionable standards to me, esp if you are going to be in charge of guiding Treasury.
I understand that, Merc. Apparently there was confusion (can you believe that about our income tax structure) about those 4 years.
IIRC - When he was notified by the IRS he paid for 2003 & 2004. The issue was that there was a statute of limitations about the other two years and his lawyer was negotiating with the IRS about 2001 & 2002. When Obama started talking about the appointment - he paid up. AGAIN - IIRC.
And that was a pretty small number of people who did not vote for him, right?
The way I see it is that public opinion of Obama isn't going to change much until he does not live up to his expectations. Every president is going to surround themselves with questionable people and the only people that care are the people that already don't like him.
One of the biggest problems with the whole thing is that we, as average taxpayers, are rarely given that much leeway unless we hire a lawyer to interface between you and the IRS. I am pretty sure he will still be confirmed. It just taints his pick and will keep him under a microsope, something the Sec of Treas does not need in these troubled economic times.
...will keep him under a microsope, something the Sec of Treas does not need in these troubled economic times.
I think thats EXACTLY what is needed - especially now.
I think thats EXACTLY what is needed - especially now.
We need to put every politician under that microscope.
Yup - and hold them accountable - We really need to have some serious consequences. Too many times they get caught and then there is no punishment. The sentence needs to be quick and PAINFUL! A lot of examples need to be set and soon.
*rolls out guillotine and leaves it beside Senate entrance*
Yup - and hold them accountable - We really need to have some serious consequences. Too many times they get caught and then there is no punishment. The sentence needs to be quick and PAINFUL! A lot of examples need to be set and soon.
Yea, sort of like not skipping out on paying your taxes til Obama nominates you for a post that involves all of the countries money. :3eye:
After promising transparency and change. It sure seems like its the same ole same ole...
Tom Daschle, picked to spearhead U.S. health care reform,
failed to pay more than $128,000 in taxes.
Obama was facing a new political distraction -- the disclosure that Tom Daschle, picked to spearhead U.S. health care reform, failed to pay more than $128,000 in taxes.
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner's nomination was held up earlier by criticism over late payment of $34,000 in taxes.
The White House said Obama expected Daschle, a former Senate Democratic majority leader and one of his key early supporters, to be confirmed by the Senate as secretary of Health and Human Services.
"The president has confidence that Senator Daschle is the right person to lead the fight for health care reform," Obama's press secretary, Robert Gibbs, said when the news broke. The White House reiterated that position on Saturday.
Obama has made accountability a key thrust of his approach since his election on a platform vowing sweeping change in the way Washington operates.
Daschle recently filed amended tax returns to pay back taxes, interest and penalties involving unreported consulting income, charitable contributions and use of a car service provided by a prominent businessman and Democratic donor.
Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va., compared Daschle's issue with the tax problems that hindered the confirmation of Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and those of Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., who is embroiled in a controversy over payment of taxes on a beachfront villa in the Dominican Republic.
"A pattern is developing," Cantor said. "The pattern is solidified. ... It's easy for the other side to sit here and advocate higher taxes because -- you know what? -- they don't pay them." Link
Oh so after he gets the appointment and realizes that this is gonna blow up in his face, he decides to come clean. Better late than never? I don't think so. Seems as though these guys still think they are above the law. I dunno, maybe they are.
Well isn't that special.
"A pattern is developing," Cantor said. "The pattern is solidified. ... It's easy for the other side to sit here and advocate higher taxes because -- you know what? -- they don't pay them."
Change my ass. I've never seen more people turn a blind eye to the duplicity and double standards in the Demoncratic controlled Congress. And people bitched about the Republickins. Poppycock. Must be the blinding light from Obama's halo.
Well isn't that special.
"A pattern is developing," Cantor said. "The pattern is solidified. ... It's easy for the other side to sit here and advocate higher taxes because -- you know what? -- they don't pay them."
Change my ass. I've never seen more people turn a blind eye to the duplicity and double standards in the Demoncratic controlled Congress. And people bitched about the Republickins. Poppycock. Must be the blinding light from Obama's halo.
It certainly has some measure of familiarity with the Bush years.
But the Executive Orders issued to-date suggest change...perhaps not as much as some (like me) would like.
The restoration of the Freedom of Information Act and the Presidential Records Act that Bush gutted with EOs.
Far more ethics standards for senior political appointees during their time in office as well as during their return to the private sector.
Banning of torture.
One small step for more transparency and accountability.
Or maybe this is the wrong place to bring all this up. I'm a little rusty here.
I don't totally disagree. But the democrats are talking out of both sides of their mouth and this one and no one is calling them out on it.
What politician has ever not talked out of both sides of their mouths?
What politician has ever not talked out of both sides of their mouths?
"Change, yes we can!"
"Change, yes we can!"
I will settle for more transparency and accountability of the executive branch as a start.
That will be a "change" that most Americans wanted to see.
Not if they continue to do business as usual by allowing the double standards for standards of conduct among the appointees and those they present to Congress for approval in key leadership positons. There isnt a damm thing bipartisan about them, which actually I can live with, because they get all the responsiblity for it.
Appointments have never been bi-partisan.
Most presidents get the cabinet level appointments they want unless there are questions of serious impropriety or serous questions of qualifications. Personally, I think the tax issues are embarrassing but trivial
The most glaring rejection was of John Towers as Bush Sr. Defense secretary. His colleagues in the Senate knew he was a drunk and were not prepared to put the US armed forces under his control
And I have run up my post count enough for one setting....but its nice to be back and discuss the issues intelligently...or at least I hope that is the standard here!
Appointments have never been bi-partisan.
I don't disagree. That was not the point. "Change. Yes we can!" was about doing things differently. Rhetoric about corrupt politicans in the White House and Bush administration are being ignored when tax dodging cheats are nominated for posts in the Obama administration and suddenly pay back taxes they never intended to pay.
Sure..you can criticize this lack of change.
I would hope you can also acknowledge the change resulting from the first EOs that provide greater transparency and accountability.
Sure..you can criticize this lack of change.
I would hope you can also acknowledge the change resulting from the first EOs that provide greater transparency and accountability.
I will believe it when I see it. I will believe it when Reid and Pelosi stop constructing bills that spen 850 billion dollars of tax payer money behind closed doors and push them through the houses of Congress. I will believe it when they stop telling me that jobs are going to be created when they are doing nothing more than spending on social programs that don't create jobs but further the idea that government is there to foster dependency. Change my ass.
Nothing like writing a review of a movie or a play before the final act!
Nothing like writing a review of a movie or a play before the final act!
The first act has been written and performed.
Two weeks is the first act of a four year play?
Not in my theaters.
Two weeks is the first act of a four year play?
Not in my theaters.
No, the Demoncrats have controlled Congress for over 2 years. It has little to do with Obama at this point, other than his rubber stamp.
A 51-49 majority in the Senate for two years, with more minority (republican) filibusters than any time in history is not what I would describe as control.
Come on now, you know it is not about numerical majority. It is about control over all committes, over all bills that come to the floor for a vote, you seem like a much more intelligent guy than that. Don't blow smoke.
Committee control is absolutely a benefit...but the number and content of bills that make it to the floor for a vote really doesnt matter if the minority has the numbers and uses parliamentary procedures to block their passage.
The beauty of democracy I guess. It is a double edged sword.
The 111th Congress will be a far more objective measure to view the Democrats.
The House Dems are off to a shaky start (despite the lies or mischaracterization of Pelosi's new "rules")...the Senate Dems appear to be proceeding on the stimulus bill with a far more open mind and certainly not a rubber-stamp.
The 111th Congress will be a far more objective measure to view the Democrats.
The House Dems are off to a shaky start (despite the lies or mischaracterization of Pelosi's new "rules")...the Senate Dems appear to be proceeding on the stimulus bill with a far more open mind and certainly not a rubber-stamp.
Filled with pork and other bull shit social agendas, not economic stimulus and job creation and promised. There is no mischaracteriztion of what Pelosi and Reid have been doing for the last 2 years. They owned it before, they really own it now.
In fact, the Democrats. in one of their first acts under Reid and Pelosi, enacted the most comprehensive ethics and earmark reform in the last 20+ years.
It doesnt go far enough for me, but again, its a start and more than we saw from the Republicans.
In fact, the Democrats. in one of their first acts under Reid and Pelosi, enacted the most comprehensive ethics and earmark reform in the last 20+ years.
It doesnt go far enough for me, but again, its a start and more than we saw from the Republicans.
Really? Like this:
"The American people told us in the election that they expect us to work together for fiscal responsibility, with the highest ethical standards and civility.
"After years of historic deficits, this new Congress will commit itself to a higher standard: pay as you go, no new deficit spending. Our new America will provide unlimited opportunity for future generations, not burden them with mountains of debt.
Pelosi speech on 4 Jan 2007.
Really? Like this:
"The American people told us in the election that they expect us to work together for fiscal responsibility, with the highest ethical standards and civility.
"After years of historic deficits, this new Congress will commit itself to a higher standard: pay as you go, no new deficit spending. Our new America will provide unlimited opportunity for future generations, not burden them with mountains of debt.
Pelosi speech on 4 Jan 2007.
I would encourage you to read the
Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007.
As I said, its far from perfect and not nearly enough for me..but far more than any recent Republican Congress.
Thats a fact.
I would encourage you to read the Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007.
As I said, its not enough for me..but far more than any recent Republican Congress.
Thats a fact.
So where is the transparency in Pelosi's behind the door construct of the most recent economic social savior program. She failed that completely. She should be brought up on charges for failure to abide by the Act.
I believe Pelosi and the Republican majority leader negotiated how the bill would proceed in the House, including the consideration of a number of amendments (from among the more than 200 proposed) from both sides of the aisle.
And the Appropriations process was as open as ever....I guesss you missed it on cspan.
I agree some of the social programs and earmarks are questionable, but IMO, some should remain...extension of payments to states for unemployment benefits, medicaid, etc..to assist the thousands every week who are losing their jobs.
Guess you missed the headlines as well.
Pelosi Erases Gingrich's Long-Standing Fairness Rules
by Connie Hair
01/05/2009
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi plans to re-write House rules today to ensure that the Republican minority is unable to have any influence on legislation. Pelosi’s proposals are so draconian, and will so polarize the Capitol, that any thought President-elect Obama has of bipartisan cooperation will be rendered impossible before he even takes office.
Pelosi’s rule changes -- which may be voted on today -- will reverse the fairness rules that were written around Newt Gingrich’s “Contract with America.”
In reaction, the House Republican leadership is sending a letter today to Pelosi to object to changes to House Rules this week that would bar Republicans from offering alternative bills, amendments to Democrat bills or even the guarantee of open debate accessible by motions to recommit for any piece of legislation during the entire 111th Congress
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=30143&s=rcmc
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi implied that Republicans shouldn't expect to wield too much influence over the stimulus package. "Yes, we wrote the bill," she said. "Yes, we won the election." On This Week Pelosi told George Stephanopoulos that Republicans have had the opportunity to be included in crafting the stimulus bill. "Well, we will take some [of their ideas]," said Pelosi. "We will judge them by their ability to create jobs, to -- to help turn the economy around, to stabilize the economy, and to see how much they cost."
http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2009/01/25/john-mccain-calls-for-rewrite-of-economic-stimulus-bill/
No Earmarks?
U.S. News and World Report reports the stimulus package "has triggered a lobbying spree as potential recipients extol the advantages of specific projects, whether it be a new Tappan Zee Bridge in New York, a refurbished Interstate 70 to zip motorists across Missouri, or improved port and rail facilities in the San Francisco Bay area." One "key voice in what may wind up being a coast-to-coast rebuilding binge is Democratic Rep. James Oberstar of Minnesota, the chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee."
Meanwhile, The Hill reports Speaker Nancy Pelosi yesterday "vowed that there will be no earmarks in the upcoming economic stimulus bill that Congress and the incoming Obama administration are negotiating." On CNN's Late Edition, Pelosi said, "I can pledge to you that no earmark or any of that, any description you want to make of it will be in the bill that passes the House."
Roll Call reports, "They may not be called earmarks, but lawmakers are looking to write legislative formulas into the package to ensure that their districts share in the wealth and won't simply be at the mercy of Washington's bureaucracy or the nation's governors." House Majority Whip James Clyburn "is leading the effort, personally lobbying Obama, top Obama adviser David Axelrod and committee chairmen on the issue last week."
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_090112.htmgoogle the Hastert rule and then we can talk about fairness.
If Pelosi had kept the Haster rule in place, Bush would never have gotten Iraq war funding after 2007...since the bills that were deliberated and enacted never had a "majority of the majority" support.
I know a little bit about House rules and the way that the recent changes have been mischaracterized.
But i'm off to party now...be happy to discuss it later.
google the Hastert rule and then we can talk about fairness.
I know a little bit about House rules and the way that the recent changes have been mischaracterized.
But i'm off to party now...be happy to discuss it later.
No problem. I have enjoyed our respectful exchange. But remember, I am not defending what happened in the past, only what we have been promised in "Change, yes we can!" and the responsibility that Pelosi and Reid will have to accept for the last 2 years and the next 2 while they control congress. The thought that there is transpancy is false. The thought that there is a bipartisan approach is false. The thought that change has come to Washington is false. Peace.
No problem. I have enjoyed our respectful exchange. But remember, I am not defending what happened in the past, only what we have been promised in "Change, yes we can!" and the responsibility that Pelosi and Reid will have to accept for the last 2 years and the next 2 while they control congress. The thought that there is transpancy is false. The thought that there is a bipartisan approach is false. The thought that change has come to Washington is false. Peace.
I would expect those who did not vote for Obama (or the Democratic majority in Congress) to focus on the lack of change they have seen to-date.
I would rather focus on the change I have seen. Just one example of more transparency - Obama's EO that restores the intent of the Freedom of Information Act....giving us, the "people" greater access to government documents.
Change will be incremental and most Obama supporters dont expect miracles....just something better and more accountable than the last eight years.
I would expect those who did not vote for Obama (or the Democratic majority in Congress) to focus on the lack of change they have seen to-date.
I would rather focus on the change I have seen. Just one example of more transparency - Obama's EO that restores the intent of the Freedom of Information Act....giving us, the "people" greater access to government documents.
Change will be incremental and most Obama supporters dont expect miracles....just something better and more accountable than the last eight years.
I still suspect you are not going to get your hands on much more than you did in the past. The same people that redact the documents released to the public still work in the same offices. The people who get to say what is released to the public have not left because Bush left. I think that if you think you are going to have greater access to government documents, you are going to be sorely disappointed.
I would expect those who did not vote for Obama (or the Democratic majority in Congress) to focus on the lack of change they have seen to-date.
I would rather focus on the change I have seen. Just one example of more transparency - Obama's EO that restores the intent of the Freedom of Information Act....giving us, the "people" greater access to government documents.
Change will be incremental and most Obama supporters dont expect miracles....just something better and more accountable than the last eight years.
Good post. Yes, most of us are reasonable enough people to not expect anything to meet our needs within the first 2 weeks, after 8 years of spiralling downward...it's a long way to the surface.
I still suspect you are not going to get your hands on much more than you did in the past. The same people that redact the documents released to the public still work in the same offices. The people who get to say what is released to the public have not left because Bush left. I think that if you think you are going to have greater access to government documents, you are going to be sorely disappointed.
In fact, there will be different people responsible for FOIA requests.
Geneally, it will be the inspectors general of the department/agency and these will be Obama appointments.
FYI, Bush has the most "political" IGs in recent history, with the least autonomy, contrary to the stated role of IGs to be relatively independent to ensure greater accountability.
Who knows for certain if the new FOIA guidelines will provide greater transparency.
Time will tell. But why be disappoiinted before even giving the new administration a chance....seems very cynical to me.
Time will tell. But why be disappointed before even giving the new administration a chance....seems very cynical to me.
Excellent point - I'm trying to be, but..... thanks for the reminder.
In fact, there will be different people responsible for FOIA requests.
Cite.
Geneally, it will be the inspectors general of the department/agency and these will be Obama appointments.
Cite.
FYI, Bush has the most "political" IGs in recent history, with the least autonomy, contrary to the stated role of IGs to be relatively independent to ensure greater accountability.
Cite.
Who knows for certain if the new FOIA guidelines will provide greater transparency.
My point exactly. I am skeptical.
Time will tell. But why be disappoiinted before even giving the new administration a chance....seems very cynical to me.[/QUOTE]
In response to your requests for cites:
Obama's Presidential Memorandum indicating a complete reversal of the Bush policy re: FOIA:
The Freedom of Information Act should be administered with a clear presumption: In the face of doubt, openness prevails. The Government should not keep information confidential merely because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure, because errors and failures might be revealed, or because of speculative or abstract fears. Nondisclosure should never be based on an effort to protect the personal interests of Government officials at the expense of those they are supposed to serve. In responding to requests under the FOIA, executive branch agencies (agencies) should act promptly and in a spirit of cooperation, recognizing that such agencies are servants of the public.
All agencies should adopt a presumption in favor of disclosure, in order to renew their commitment to the principles embodied in FOIA, and to usher in a new era of open Government. The presumption of disclosure should be applied to all decisions involving FOIA.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/FreedomofInformationAct/
FOIA requests are the responsibility of each deparment's inspector general, here are a few examples:
Department of Homeland Security
Department of Defense
I could link to every cabinet department but the above should make the point
Inspectors General are a presidential appointment and confrimed by the Senate. IGs in fact report to both the cabinet level secretary AND the relevant Congressional Committee chairs. The positions, unlike any other in an execuctive branch agency, are supposed to be autonomous.
The IGs for Cabinet-level departments and many of the largest federal agencies are appointed by the president and must be confirmed by the Senate. The law specifically requires that they be chosen:
without regard to political affiliation and solely on the basis of integrity and demonstrated ability in accounting, auditing, financial analysis, law, management analysis, public administration, or investigations.
http://www.pogo.org/pogo-files/reports/government-oversight/inspectors-general-many-lack-essential-tools-for-independence/go-ig-20080226.html#PresidentiallyAppointed_Inspectors_Gener
More of Bush's IGs were political than having legal or auditing experience....a reverse of the Clinton IGs
Over 60% of the IGs appointed by President Bush had prior political experience, such as service in a Republican White House or on a Republican congressional staff, while fewer than 20% had prior audit experience. In contrast, over 60% of the IGs appointed by President Clinton had prior audit experience, while fewer than 25% had prior political experience.
more details: http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=726
Nothing wrong with skpeticism unless it borders on a loss of objectivity.
Well done Redux, and thanks.
Thank you.
Now show me where Obama has replaced the IG's?
Thank you.
Now show me where Obama has replaced the IG's?
There are more than 7,000 positions that Obama has to fill. If you are really interested, they are listed in the
Plum Book
I dont think any president has filled all 7,000 within the first two weeks in office. I believe I said in one recent post that I dont expect Obama to work miracles.
But I suspect (with no inside knowledge) that the IGs will be among the first sub-cabinet level positions filled because of their importance to the integrity of the executive branch. I would suggest that March is a reasonable time frame considering that they are subject to Senate confirmation.
Thanks, you can't show me.
Thanks, you can't show me.
You're absolutely right.
And if you want to make the case that there is no change because Obama did not make 7,000+ appointments in two weeks, I wont argue with you.
You're absolutely right.
And if you want to make the case that there is no change because Obama did not make 7,000+ appointments in two weeks, I wont argue with you.
Ok, where are they and how do they differ from what any president did before him? Certainly you don't think that anyone other than his cronnies didn't do that work? Seriously now.
Ok, where are they and how do they differ from what any president did before him? Certainly you don't think that anyone other than his cronnies didn't do that work? Seriously now.
If this is the level of discussion I've come back too, I'll pass.
I think I laid out the facts (with citations) pretty well.
I would just urge you one more time to read the report on Bush's IGs (majpority political)vs Clinton's IGs (majority professionals with legal/audit/investigation experience) If I could find the data, I suspect Bush Sr and Reagan's, like most previous presidents looked much more like Clinton's than Bush's.
The reality my friend is that nothing has Changed.
The reality my friend is that nothing has Changed.
I suspect that will be the buzzword over the next four years for the 20-30% of the population who may now feel marginalized by Obama's election and are unwilling to even wait beyond two weeks before making such a sweeping declaration.
Hey, thats fine with me! :)
I'll be happy to continue to cite my posts for others, but dont expect it for responses such as your last few. It would be a waste of my time.
I think that it is way too early to determine anything conclusive about anything this administration is doing/has done. However, there have been some interesting developments so far.
The power struggle between the Pelosi/Reid congress & the Obama Administration.
The "stimulus bill" that may or may not really be all that stimulating.
The appointments with serious tax issues. Daschle was very demonstrative in helping get Obama elected. Obama owes him politically.
The transparency/change in the way this administration operates.
There are more, both good and ??? - lets see what happens.
I'll be happy to continue to cite my posts ~snip~
welcome back - good info - good debate.
Tom Daschle, slammed for not paying taxes, withdraws nomination
In a major blow to the Obama administration, former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle has withdrawn his nomination to be secretary of Health and Human Services. The president accepted his decision "with sadness and regret."
Daschle, who was under pressure from critics on Capitol Hill who assailed him for failing to pay $146,000 in back taxes for items including a limousine and driver, said that he did not want to be a distraction for President Obama.
But with South Carolina Republican Jim DeMint calling for him to withdraw, Daschle -- one of the president's earliest supporters -- told supporters he could felt the damage to his reputation would also hurt his influence in winning passage of major healthcare reform, a key Obama plank.
And it likely did not help his case that another Obama appointee, Nancy Killefer, withdrew her nomination today for a far smaller amount of nanny taxes, totaling less than $1,000.
Excellent. Too bad Geitner got though. I think he should do the right thing and step down also.
If this is a new way to run Washington, then let it be so.
Excellent.
If you like seeing the administration falter in its first days in office, I suppose you would think it's excellent.
I don't necessarily think that it's a sign the administration is faltering, myself. If scandals come out and there are consequences (nominees are quickly shown the door,) I see that as a positive thing.
In Tom Daschle's case, I think it was an honest mistake. Sarah Palin didn't claim her husband's or children's travel expenses on her taxes, and they are not supposed to be free. She still hasn't fixed that mistake. No one is reaming her for that. (I know, she isn't running for anything now. But some republicans want her to be the leader of the party, and she was running as VP of the United States. So how is it different?)
Tom Daschle came clean about it when he realized the mistake, and he paid more than he had to. He paid the interest. We are missing out on a someone who could really do a lot of good.
I don't know about Geitner. I missed what happened there.
If you like seeing the administration falter in its first days in office, I suppose you would think it's excellent.
It really is silly and irrelevant. Obama probably owes Daschle some political favors. If so, those debts have been paid.
Meanwhile, Daschle does not have a very good track record as a leader. These tax problems may have saved us from another political hack. Daschle did reconnaissance picture analysis in the Air Force. He was even one of the few given pictures of Saddam's WMDs. Those pictures showed nothing. Daschle should have known that. Instead, Daschle supported George Jr's lies about Saddam's WMDs.
A good leader should have some credibility and honesty. The former Senate Democratic leader even lied about Saddam's WMDs. His withdrawal from consideration is probably a good thing for America. It says little to nothing about Obama. A responsible Tom Daschle would have told the truth back then about George Jr. Daschle’s problems are of his own making. So he is now doing what Dan Quayle did. Yes, similar credibility.
If you like seeing the administration falter in its first days in office, I suppose you would think it's excellent.
Sorry I meant it was good that the people who were not paying their taxes or whatever were stepping aside. I think its the right thing and a stark change from the past.
Tom Daschle came clean about it when he realized the mistake, and he paid more than he had to. He paid the interest. We are missing out on a someone who could really do a lot of good.
I don't know about Geitner. I missed what happened there.
I think the timing of Daschle's "realization" was a lot circumspect. It seemed to happen in conjunction with an impending appointment.
He was forced to do the right thing in the end and thats the positive out of the situation. I (looks for lightning) agree with tw here - Daschle was not a good choice for the position. Not if Obama wants to change the "business as usual" mentality of this administration.
The Daschle withdrawal comes at the time of a related first signficant achievement by Obama and the Congressional Democrats.
Obama was planning to sign the SCHIP bill tomorrow; the bill that Congress enacted last week (and that Bush vetoed lat year) expanding the program to cover an additional 4+ million uninsured children. Daschle was supposed to be at his side and it was to be touted as the first step to providing quality, affordable health care to cover all children.
I guess we'll see if he postpones the bill signing to perhaps combine it with announcing a new nominee for HHS in which case, I think he will act quickly on a nominee.
Postpone it??? Why? Cuz a tax cheat got caught? Eff that. Forward my man! Obama is gettin shit done. keep it on a roll.
Hell the IRS should audit every congressman/woman and senator, then move right down the line through all the lobbyists and everyone else till all those involved with raising our taxes are damn sure paying theirs.
I'm curious to get Radar's take on this.
Postpone it??? Why? Cuz a tax cheat got caught? Eff that. Forward my man! Obama is gettin shit done. keep it on a roll.....
No postponement
At 4:30 p.m. in the East Room, he signs the State Children's Health Insurance Program legislation.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/02/04/potus_events_8.html?wprss=44
On the heals of Bush's veto of SCHIP last year, this marks one small step for change, one giant leap for children!
I like the $500,000 cap on executive compensation for companies receiving taxpayer bailouts that Obama will announce today as well.
More change!
SCHIP is a good thing. He should be applauded for that move.
Another Obama third-week success?
This time for the environment as well as the earliest heritage of the country by putting on hold a Bush "fire sale" of oil and gas exploration leases in the waning days of his administration.
In a clear signal that the Obama administration is shifting the government's approach to energy exploration on public lands, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar yesterday canceled oil and gas leases on 77 parcels of federal land after opponents said the drilling would blight Utah's scenic southeastern corner.
Salazar's decision -- which reverses the Bush administration's move to allow drilling on about 130,000 acres near pristine areas such as Nine Mile Canyon, Arches National Park and Dinosaur National Monument -- is one of a series of steps that the new administration and congressional Democrats are planning to reshape federal regulation of drilling, mining, lumbering and other resource-tapping activities, both on U.S. soil and offshore.
full article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/04/AR2009020401785_pf.html
To understand the potential impact of oil and gas exploration on Utah's Nine Mile Canyon, the home to one of the most important and extensive collections of native American rock art.
[INDENT]
[/INDENT]
Check out the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yveYWkpCnEw
(is there a way to embed youtube vids here or is that discouraged?)
In my opinion, these Bush last minute leases (issued with little or no opportunity for public comment or review) should be burned in a public display on the front lawn of the White House to send an even stronger message.
There are places to explore for new oil and gas resources
(if necessary - and I dont think it is, with millions of acres already under lease to oil companies) and other areas that should remain untouched.
In close proximity to national parks and sacred landmarks should remain untouched!
Yea, well you could support ways to get us off the oil and gas teet of other countries or you could look in our own back yard to find a way to say "screw you" to those countries that depend on our dependence.
Or we could do both - one short term and the other long term. Seems like the intelligent solution.
I think I understand the motivation of the act on 2 parts by Bush. On one hand he had to make it look like he was doing something desperate to move us towards energy independence after more than 6 years of pandering to the Oil/Gas companies and on the other hand he was throwing them a bone. Either way it could have been to our benefit. And to Obama's credit at least he sugar coated it by saying that it was only delayed for further environmental review. That approach prevents anyone from saying he is against energy independence, which I don't believe he is. I think it more about his staffers looking for various ways to stick a finger in the eye of Bush. Hey that sounds just like most people.
Yea, well you could support ways to get us off the oil and gas teet of other countries or you could look in our own back yard to find a way to say "screw you" to those countries that depend on our dependence.
Why do you think new oil and gas development leases, particularly around national parks, are necessary when nearly 70 million acres of federal land (on and off shore) have already been leased to oil companies and are open to drilling but sit idle?
Those 70 million acres already leased have the potential to produce millions barrels of oil and billions of cubic feet of natural gas per day. Wouldnt it make sense to explore those leases first?
I suspect the new leases were primarily to provide more tax write-offs for oil companies and oil investors.
The mantra of "drill baby drill" is not my idea of a sound or comprehensive energy policy. But hell, if you feel a need to drill, start with those 70 million acres already leased.
Why do you think new oil and gas development leases, particularly around national parks, are necessary when nearly 70 million acres of federal land (on and off shore) have already been leased to oil companies and are open to drilling but sit idle?
Cite.
Those 70 million acres already leased have the potential to produce millions barrels of oil and billions of cubic feet of natural gas per day. Wouldnt it make sense to explore those leases first?
I would agree, citation needed please.
I suspect the new leases were primarily to provide more tax write-offs for oil companies and oil investors.
I would tend to agree, but if you are going to accuse someone of wrong doing please provide evidence. Thanks.
The mantra of "drill baby drill" is not my idea of a sound or comprehensive energy policy. But hell, if you feel a need to drill, start with those 70 million acres already leased.
I personally have no problem with it if it gets us off the teet of any country outside our borders. If I had my way we all be going solar, wind, and water to solve our energy dependence.
Cite, cite, cite - the Merc Mantra!!!
Much if it can be explained in legislation the Democrats introduced last year to require existing leases to be explored or face losing them and/or before issuing new leases.
The current lease and potential production numbers are in there (68 million acres already leased and sitting idle.) I used ballpark figures.
Rahall to Big Oil: Use It or Lose It
[INDENT]In an effort to compel oil and gas companies to produce on the 68 million acres of federal lands, both onshore and offshore, that are leased but sitting idle, House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Nick J. Rahall (D-WV) today introduced legislation that gives Big Oil one option - either "use it or lose it."[/INDENT]
Damn right...Use it or Lose it! (and lose the tax writes offs that come just by holding those leases) and stay away from national parks while other options (existing leases) are available.
The Republicans in the House defeated the
Responsible Federal Oil and Gas Lease Act ...
[INDENT]To prohibit the Secretary of the Interior from issuing new Federal oil and gas leases to holders of existing leases who do not diligently develop the lands subject to such existing leases or relinquish such leases, and for other purposes.[/INDENT]
...last June, just in time to make "drill baby drill" a campaign slogan.
(BTW, the manner in which the Republicans, the minority party, defeated it, was because of Pelosi's loose House rules at the time....something her Republican predecessor would not have allowed with their old rules. She learned her lesson and the new rules this year, while much stricter, are still no where close to the restrictive Republican rules from 01-07.)
I expect the bill, or something like it, will be introduced again later this year as part of a broader Obama energy package that will include some drilling (on existing leases) and a much greater focus on both alternatives AND reducing demand (conserve, baby, conserve!)
Don't get all huffy. As I stated I would rather depend on us rather than "them" for energy resources. You make a number of claims. I just asked you to back them up.
No huff and puff here.
Your responses are already very predictable to me in a matter of two days. :)
I'll let you know when I get bored or huffy.
Ok. Go away when you are tired of defending the indefensable Demoncratic Congress. I will be here when you want to spar.
Respectfully, The Merc.
Yea, well you could support ways to get us off the oil and gas teet of other countries or you could look in our own back yard to find a way to say "screw you" to those countries that depend on our dependence.
So we should mine and drill near our public lands and parks? yea, cause what I really want to see when I go to the Grand Canyon is fucking oil wells. Don't be such a tool Merc.
So we should mine and drill near our public lands and parks? yea, cause what I really want to see when I go to the Grand Canyon is fucking oil wells. Don't be such a tool Merc.
It is not about being a tool, it is about energy independence from other countries.
It is not about being a tool, it is about energy independence from other countries.
Blarg. Drill & cap. Keep buying their shit. When they run out, uncap the wells, use the oil, and watch the Saudis try to eat sand.
If they're dumb enough to trade oil for fiat currency, screw 'em.
It is not about being a tool, it is about energy independence from other countries.
Then we should be developing alternatives, not doing the same old, same old. Besides ruining some of our most pristine/protected lands (that are for
everyone to enjoy btw), it literally takes YEARS to open new drill sites/wells. We wouldn't be seeing any of that oil anytime soon.
If we simply must continue to use a combustion engine (which I would much rather go to electric cars, or cars run on compressed air), we should develop biofuel made from algae. We could develop it a LOT faster, it doesn't require a whole lot of space to do it, it could provide virtually all of our energy needs, and all kinds of different fuels can be made from it. It's clean. Producing it doesn't create all the pollution that comes from drilling. etc. etc. etc.
Then we should be developing alternatives, not doing the same old, same old. Besides ruining some of our most pristine/protected lands (that are for everyone to enjoy btw), it literally takes YEARS to open new drill sites/wells. We wouldn't be seeing any of that oil anytime soon.
If we simply must continue to use a combustion engine (which I would much rather go to electric cars, or cars run on compressed air), we should develop biofuel made from algae. We could develop it a LOT faster, it doesn't require a whole lot of space to do it, it could provide virtually all of our energy needs, and all kinds of different fuels can be made from it. It's clean. Producing it doesn't create all the pollution that comes from drilling. etc. etc. etc.
We have no choice but to do both. This country will still take 25 - 50 years to get off the use of fosil fuels, even it wanted to make a concerted effort to do so.
We have no choice but to do both. This country will still take 25 - 50 years to get off the use of fosil fuels, even it wanted to make a concerted effort to do so.
Better start now.
Better start now.
Never said we shouldn't. But we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water either.
Never said we shouldn't. But we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water either.
I hate babies.
I hate babies.
They actually taste good with some Glory Zesty Flavored Hot Sauce.
They actually taste good with some Glory Zesty Flavored Hot Sauce.
Gives me reflux.
Gives me reflux.
Take an H2 blocker like Prilosec, works wonders. Helps get the boney parts down.
We have no choice but to do both. This country will still take 25 - 50 years to get off the use of fosil fuels, even it wanted to make a concerted effort to do so.
I don't buy it. If we really wanted to do it, we could accomplish it in a relatively short period of time. We just have to decide to really get behind it, and DO it.
Yeah, you people driving those 200,000,000 cars... turn 'em in to the government on Thursday. ;)
The vast majority of cars on the road will be "turned in" much sooner than 25-50 years, without any government intervention.
Not mine. That's why I bought the
Adobe.SNL Transcripts (Saturday Night Live);)
A department of Common Sense:
(listen if you can)
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=98467639&ft=1&f=2100359
I expect Dennis Kucinich will introduce his
bill for a Department of Peace and Nonviolence again this session.
Oh, and it will fail, as it should.
Oh, and it will fail, as it should.
On this we agree.
BTW, a Dept of Peace was first proposed right after WWW II by a senator, Jennings Randolph, for whom I worked in the 80s before he retired.
It failed then too, but his legislation did create the
US Institute of Peace
And every 18-21 yr old should thank the late Sen Randolph for the right to vote. He was the driving force behind the 26th amendment for 20 years until it was finally enacted in the early 70s.
What is wrong with wanting a dept. of peace and nonviolence? Don't we have too much violence and coercion in our society?
And I LIKE Dennis Kucinich.
yea! more layers of governmental stupid shit!
Just hire that guy thats doing nothing for $90,000 or whatever.
Not really a fail, but ...
Republican Gregg withdraws from commerce post consideration
"I realize that to withdraw at this point is really unfair in many ways," the three-term New Hampshire Republican said.
"But to go forward and take this position and then find myself sitting there and not being able to do the job the way it should be done on behalf of the president, 100 percent, that would have been an even bigger mistake."
Gregg said Obama had been "incredibly gracious" during the process, and that it was "my mistake, obviously, to say yes." He added that he would "probably not" seek re-election in 2010.
Gregg would have been the third Republican to join the Democratic administration.
"Mr. Gregg approached us with interest and seemed enthusiastic," he told State Journal-Register in Springfield, Illinois. "But ultimately, I think, we're going to just keep on making efforts to build the kind of bipartisan consensus around important issues that I think the American people are looking for."
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs issued a statement late Thursday afternoon saying "we regret that he has had a change of heart."
"Once it became clear after his nomination that Sen. Gregg was not going to be supporting some of President Obama's key economic priorities, it became necessary for Sen. Gregg and the Obama administration to part ways."
yea, after he apparently put his name out there for the job. whatever. Obama is making a serious effort at bipartisanship, and republicans keep slapping him in the face. I believe he will keep trying though. Hopefully at some point he will get some reciprocation.
republicans keep slapping him in the face.
That kind of melodramatic characterization doesn't really support the whole "bipartisan" effort, you know? It must be a little awkward to discover you're part of the problem...
oooh, daaaaaayuuuuuumm.;)
That kind of melodramatic characterization doesn't really support the whole "bipartisan" effort, you know? It must be a little awkward to discover you're part of the problem...
Oh? Isn't it funny how some of those republicans who didn't vote for the bill are now taking credit for a lot of the stuff IN the bill? How can they possibly whine about it being bad and then take credit for it at the same time?
And some of the governors who were against it sure aren't turning the money down. IF they think the bill is bad, and wrong, isn't it hypocritical to take the money?
Face it, they are trying to regain power because they lost their collective asses in the past two elections. John McCain has been going on TV proselytizing about how to fix the economy, when he didn't even know the economy was failing back in September, right before the complete collapse of the economy. yea, we should listen to THAT guy. :rolleyes:
Oh? Isn't it funny how some of those republicans who didn't vote for the bill are now taking credit for a lot of the stuff IN the bill? How can they possibly whine about it being bad and then take credit for it at the same time?
They forced some things into the bill not a lot (you are exaggerating A LOT) and for those they can take credit. That's about it. The D's could have taken every thing out - everything and probably still bought the three votes the got. None of them, not one congressman or senator, read the whole damn thing anyway. The D's voted on party lines just like the R's. See it for what it is.
And some of the governors who were against it sure aren't turning the money down. If they think the bill is bad, and wrong, isn't it hypocritical to take the money?
Nope - they gotta take what they can get when they can get it. There are a lot of people depending upon them.
Nope - they gotta take what they can get when they can get it. There are a lot of people depending upon them.
That's a little hypocritical.
Oh? Isn't it funny how some of those republicans who didn't vote for the bill are now taking credit for a lot of the stuff IN the bill?
Sure. Some Democrats are douchebags too. Just be aware that you're as bad as Merc when it comes to sweeping generalizations along party lines.
Sure. Some Democrats are douchebags too. Just be aware that you're as bad as Merc when it comes to sweeping generalizations along party lines.
Oh, yea, we're twins separated at birth.:rolleyes:
Sure. Some Democrats are douchebags too. Just be aware that you're as bad as Merc when it comes to sweeping generalizations along party lines.
Okay, I'm a bit lefty, and even I know this crop of congressional dems are both insane and ignorant, far beyond even the hubris and jabbering stupidity of the congressional dems in the late 80s. That's not bashing on a party, it's just stating a fact.
The issue I have a problem with is that, and this is not clear, the bill may have put into place items into the states budgets that will force not only current spending from the stimulus bill, but also future spending as well. There was a lot of discussion about it again this morning on tv. I'm not sure how this is possible, but I didn't like what I was "half hearing" as I got ready for work. Anyone else heard or have any info on this?
The issue I have a problem with is that, and this is not clear, the bill may have put into place items into the states budgets that will force not only current spending from the stimulus bill, but also future spending as well. There was a lot of discussion about it again this morning on tv. I'm not sure how this is possible, but I didn't like what I was "half hearing" as I got ready for work. Anyone else heard or have any info on this?
Im not sure what this means, but it sounds like one of those talking points.
The "state stabilization funds" component of the bill are to supplement the growing need for funding for programs administered by the states - $$$ for unemployment insurance or food stamps as a result of 3 million people loosng their jobs in the last 18 months. Or $$$ in education or public safety funds so states/cities/counties dont have to lay-off teachers or cops.
Many of the infrastructure and jobs projects, would seem to support, at least to some degree, the Reagan concept of "new federalism".....send the money to states, with few strings attached beyond broad program objectives, and let the states determine the best means of allocating those funds.
There are programs in the bill that would likely require long term funding in order to meet long term objectives. The intent of the stimulus bill has the duel purpose of creating jobs and providing "start up" for these longer term objectives - funding the development of "green" programs is an example.
But there is nothing to suggest that funding for those programs wont go through the normal appropriations process in the future, when the situation is less of an "emergency" to prevent the economy from continuing to decline.
But there is nothing to suggest that funding for those programs wont go through the normal appropriations process in the future, when the situation is less of an "emergency" to prevent the economy from continuing to decline.
There is definately nothing to say that the funds will go through such a process.
The issue I have a problem with is that, and this is not clear, the bill may have put into place items into the states budgets that will force not only current spending from the stimulus bill, but also future spending as well. There was a lot of discussion about it again this morning on tv. I'm not sure how this is possible, but I didn't like what I was "half hearing" as I got ready for work. Anyone else heard or have any info on this?
Poking around a bit on the issue of "putting items into state budgets that will force not only current spending..but also future spending.."
It looks to me like a few Republican governors with presidential ambitions - Palin, Pawlenty, Jindal - suggesting the bill contains unfunded state mandates...but offer no specificity on such mandates.
Maybe an unspecified staffer in an unspecified agency told them that if they got the money they might use it to create an unfunded state mandate.
Sure. Some Democrats are douchebags too. Just be aware that you're as bad as Merc when it comes to sweeping generalizations along party lines.
Oh believe me, I can't stand most politicians. I just think republicans are worse.
Oh believe me, I can't stand most politicians. I just think republicans are worse.
yea but are you as bad as me. :lol2:
Oh believe me, I can't stand most politicians. I just think republicans are worse.
Naw. They're just stupid in a (very) slightly different way.
Redux - I'm not sure of the "talking points. It was not politicians on the interview. They were talking about it and I asked for that reason. IF - If the administration is going to force the states into doing that, then that is wrong - if not then they are.
Redux - I'm not sure of the "talking points. It was not politicians on the interview. They were talking about it and I asked for that reason. IF - If the administration is going to force the states into doing that, then that is wrong - if not then they are.
I'll give you an example of those "talking points" about forcing states to do something.
The stimulus bill includes $$$ to increase the amount and length of time a person can collect unemployment insurance, in light of the fact that there are more people losing their jobs every day (500,000+ in January alone, over 2 million in the last year) and experiencing unemployment for long periods of time.
The limits on the amount of unemployment insurance and the length of time a person can collect are established by state law, not federal. In order for these federal funds to reach those in need, a state may have to change its law.
The administration is not forcing the state to change its law. But as a practical matter, a state may need legislative action to comply with its own law.
Redux - I'm not sure of the "talking points. It was not politicians on the interview. They were talking about it and I asked for that reason. IF - If the administration is going to force the states into doing that, then that is wrong - if not then they are.
Legally, the federal "government" may hand out mandates to the states, provided those mandates come already funded.
The limits on the amount of unemployment insurance and the length of time a person can collect are established by state law, not federal. In order for these federal funds to reach those in need, a state may have to change its law.
PA has the length of benefits limit set by state law. Numerous times, when unemployment reached a set threshold, weeks were added as a "Federal Extension of benefits", I presume with Federal money. When the rate falls below the threshold the extra weeks stop, I don't think any changes of the law or action by the state legislature is needed.
Legally, the federal "government" may hand out mandates to the states, provided those mandates come already funded.
This was the crux of the discussion. IIRC, It was initially funded by the stimulus package , but it wasn't clear who was funding what in the future.
PA has the length of benefits limit set by state law. Numerous times, when unemployment reached a set threshold, weeks were added as a "Federal Extension of benefits", I presume with Federal money. When the rate falls below the threshold the extra weeks stop, I don't think any changes of the law or action by the state legislature is needed.
You're right and I think that is at the heart of the "talking points"
Sarah Palin:
Host Greta Van Susteren asked Palin if she thought that Obama should veto it, “I would call for a veto, absolutely, and let’s do this right, understanding that there is going to be some kind of stimulus package. There is going to be some kind of attempts for economic recovery. I say construction projects that put people to work, that fits the bill, but these big huge expanded social programs where we are adding people to the rolls, and then the economic stimulus package dollars from the feds are going to dry up at some point. States then are going to be beholden to these programs. We will have to pay for them. That’s not right, that’s not fair. We just want to make sure that whatever is it is that is passed makes sense for the states, for the residents of our individual states.”
http://politicususa.com/en/Palin-Stimulus-Bill
Ignorance or intentional misinformation?
WIth most governors, I would write it off as simply a political response that plays loosely with the facts.
With Palin, it might be ignorance.
It sounds like she is opposed to a temporary expansion of unemployment benefits to residents of Alaska who may have reached the limit by making a case that she would be "stuck with paying for them" in the future.
But she'll take the money for Alaska in the bill.
yea but are you as bad as me. :lol2:
I don't think so Merc. I admit when dems are corrupt and stupid and wrong. You rarely criticize republicans.
You're right and I think that is at the heart of the "talking points"
Sarah Palin:
Ignorance or intentional misinformation?
WIth most governors, I would write it off as simply a political response that plays loosely with the facts.
With Palin, it might be ignorance.
It sounds like she is opposed to a temporary expansion of unemployment benefits to residents of Alaska who may have reached the limit by making a case that she would be "stuck with paying for them" in the future.
But she'll take the money for Alaska in the bill.
pffft. Sarah Palin. Have you heard she owes a whole bunch of back taxes? :lol2:
pffft. Sarah Palin. Have you heard she owes a whole bunch of back taxes? :lol2:
Yea, that is the rumor, however there is no rumor to the fact that a number of Obama appointees and choices for high level cabinet positions owe. :D
PA has the length of benefits limit set by state law. Numerous times, when unemployment reached a set threshold, weeks were added as a "Federal Extension of benefits", I presume with Federal money. When the rate falls below the threshold the extra weeks stop, I don't think any changes of the law or action by the state legislature is needed.
And yet several Republican governors are still putting out talking points misrepresenting the expansion of unemployment insurance in the stimulus bills.
Mississippi Republican Governor Haley Barbour may follow suit in rejecting part of President Obama's economic stimulus package that would expand unemployment insurance. In a recent interview with Fox News, Barbour said that he does not agree with changing state rules to allow people that are able to work full time, the opportunity to receive unemployment compensation if they choose not to.
http://www.fox40now.com/news/local/40030927.html
Yea, and then a black Demoncratic Congressman stated on national news that it was a decision driven by racism.
Yea, and then a black Demoncratic Congressman stated on national news that it was a decision driven by racism.
Clyburn's comments were ignorant and counter-productive.
But the fact remains that citizens in some states who are facing economic hardship may not be assisted through the stimulus bill as a result of political misrepresentations of the bill by several Republican governors rather than anything factual.
Clyburn's comments were ignorant and counter-productive.
No doubt. But he made them and his comments reflect the attitude of many, that he is a victim and victimhood is good, because it makes excuses for so many failings.
But the fact remains that citizens in some states who are facing economic hardship may not be assisted through the stimulus bill as a result of political misrepresentations of the bill by several Republican governors rather than anything factual.
Actually those misrepresentations have been made by the Demoncrats. Pelosi and Reid have making promises they cannot keep and know will provide less than what everyone who said this was the answer to our nations ills then they can deliver. It is water under the bridge at this point. Now it is time to see if they can deliver. The people are watching. It will be a death knell IMHO if they screw it up.
Demoncratic
You really aren't thinking that adds to your credibility, are you?
It's the joke that's still just as funny as it was on day one!
It's the joke that's still just as funny as it was on day one!
:lol:
Yeah, it's right up there with "Lieberals", "Clintoon", "Shrub", and "Obamanation".
Plays on words (from either "side") are friggin' TIRED the moment they are thought of. By the time they're actually POSTED, they're insufferably boring.
However, the type of person who uses them usually does so out of an OCD-esque NEED to, as if God might punish them if they forget to hate the target of their screeds in even so small a fashion.
Actually those misrepresentations have been made by the Demoncrats...
Nope...in fact, the misrepresentations are made by a few Republican governors.
Bobby Jindal (a Repub candidate for pres in 2010?) is the latest.....turning down more than $90 million in federal unemployment insurance benefits for residents of Louisiana with the false claim that it would result in a tax increase for state businesses.
Makes Jindal sound like a partisan "demon" to me.
Yea, that is the rumor, however there is no rumor to the fact that a number of Obama appointees and choices for high level cabinet positions owe. :D
No rumor at all. Fact:
http://www.examiner.com/x-2968-Alaska-Gubernatorial-Examiner~y2009m2d21-Sarah-Palin-must-pay-taxes-on-per-diem-rules-StateEh, so be it, but I do not believe that Obama has nominated her for any job that delt with our taxes. Now who might have that job? Hmmmmmmmmm....
Come clean Merc. You called for the ouster of every D that Obama appointed who failed to pay their taxes, why not her?
Merc just likes to bash democrats. Like republicans are somehow better. NOT.
Merc just likes to bash democrats. Like republicans are somehow better. NOT.
I don't like Republickins much either. I don't like any of them. I do enjoy watching the Dems fall apart as they try to cover the double standards they have bitch at the Repubs for so many years. I am going to make sure no one gets a pass in the next 4 years. ;)
I don't like Republickins much either.
Extremists don't learn reasons why. Extremists wait to be told how to think by extremist propagandists (Limbaugh, Hannity, etc) Then speil that out as if knowledge.
Fundamental to being a centrist is a need to first learn facts. This gives extremists an advantage. To maintain their loyal cadre of extremist followers, Limbaugh, et al must tell extremists quickly and first how to think.
It is what my father did. Propaganda. If they are told how to think first, then they will only believe that; aggressively deny any later realized and accurate fact – ie Saddam’s WMDs. They are extremists who cannot bother to first learn facts.
Extremists Republicans being different from patriotic Republicans. A patriot will periodically dispute the (Zieg Heil) party line - to work for America rather than for the wacko extremist party leaders.
How to discover some latest political agenda from an extremist right wing? See UG’s posts.
Merc, I have known you for years. I adore you to pieces, but you really do have a double standard when judging democrats against republicans. If you like republicans better, just be honest. Don't claim you judge them equally, because you don't.
Nope, just turning things around and calling the Demoncrats on the same things I have been hearing for the last 8 years.
Nope, just turning things around and calling the Demoncrats on the same things I have been hearing for the last 8 years.
The fact that you use words like "demonrats" just proves my point.
The fact that you use words like "demonrats" just proves my point.
I also use Repbulickins, so what is your point? I am an equal opportunity offender. :D
I certainly haven't noticed it. If you do, then I apologize. Wanna come over and I'll make it up to ya?
Come clean Merc. You called for the ouster of every D that Obama appointed who failed to pay their taxes, why not her?
Well, that's
different. Somehow.
Another tainted member of the Obama team rises to the surface.
Buildings sprang up as donations rained down on Bronx Borough President Adolfo Carrion
The man who is President Obama's newly minted urban czar pocketed thousands of dollars in campaign cash from city developers whose projects he approved or funded with taxpayers' money, a Daily News probe found.
Bronx Borough President Adolfo Carrion often received contributions just before or after he sponsored money for projects or approved important zoning changes, records show.
http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/bronx/2009/02/28/2009-02-28_buildings_sprang_up_as_donations_rained_.htmlAnd another
tainted member as well as a tax dodger from the Obama team. Where the heck is finding all these tax cheats?
Trade nominee Ron Kirk agrees to pay back taxes
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Senate Finance Committee says President Barack Obama's nominee for trade representative owes roughly $10,000 in back federal taxes and has agreed to pay them. The report said Ron Kirk will file amended returns covering the years 2005, 2006 and 2007.
Kirk becomes the latest nominee of the Obama administration with tax problems, although this one doesn't appear severe enough to jeopardize his confirmation as U.S. Trade Representative. Committee chairman Sen. Max Baucus of Montana calls the former Dallas mayor the right man for the job, adding he will try to move the nomination quickly.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D96M4GH00&show_article=1And tainted member as well as a tax dodger from the Obama team. Where the heck is finding all these tax cheats?
Trade nominee Ron Kirk agrees to pay back taxes
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D96M4GH00&show_article=1
Too late! NEXT! I'm fuckin sick to death of all the politicians who don't pay their taxes, yet expect us to do so. Fuck that.
Well, that's different. Somehow.
Too late! NEXT! I'm fuckin sick to death of all the politicians who don't pay their taxes, yet expect us to do so. Fuck that.
Me too. I think, though (and this is not an excuse, it's an observation), that in the climate we've had for the past 8 years (more than 8 actually), with all the corruption everywhere, it would be more surprising to me to find anyone in politics who HADN'T cheated on their taxes (or who doesn't owe money).
And just because you have back taxes doesn't necessarily mean you cheated. It just means you didn't pay them. Is that wrong? YES, especially when you work in politics. I'm sick to death of all the greed and corruption in our society. But owing back taxes, there could be a reasonable explanation for that.
I'm just saying...I'm not interested in excuses anymore - These people need to be held to a HIGHER standard than the rest of us.
The IRS should investigate every single one of them. Starting at the top and going through the Senate and then the House, until every elected official has been done. Then they can work on the lobbyists and so on. The IRS needn't bother with the average American. I'm certain they will have more than enough to keep them busy with these guys till the next crop comes in in 2010 and 2012.
I think they should start with the lobbyists, and then go through the government.
How many of them are there? nah - Lets get the ones up for reelection first - start with them.
We will never change the balance of power until we introduce a viable third party that can gain seats from the majority party and take away their overall majority in both houses.
2 of the 3 will go in cahoots and there will be no equality.
Yes but that would force compromise agreements to be formed among uncommon thinkers. That might be refreshing.
How many of them are there? nah - Lets get the ones up for reelection first - start with them.
There are probably hundreds of them for each person in Congress. Let's start with them. hell, just do them at the same time.
We will never change the balance of power until we introduce a viable third party that can gain seats from the majority party and take away their overall majority in both houses.
HEAR, HEAR!
We will never change the balance of power until we introduce a viable third party that can gain seats from the majority party and take away their overall majority in both houses.
Not gonna happen, for a variety of reasons, the first of which is the fact that the people that fund the two major parties will crush a third party like a bug.
Why pay for three, when you only have to pay for two?
Also, any 3rd party that actually gained any power would be corrupted instantly, because the problem isn't with the parties, it's with the people.
It's with the way elections are run. I said this somewhere else, but we really to change that. No more lobbying, no more donations. Elections should be paid for from a public fund. They should last only about 4 months, so politicians actaully WORK instead of campaigning for the next election the moment they're in office. TV networks should give equal access to all politicians (commerical time), because the airwaves are owned by the people and should be for the benefit OF the people. No more smear commercials paid for by third parties or PACs. There should be weekly debates between ALL candidates for the 4 months prior to the election.
It's ridiculous how much campaigns cost nowadays, and it's ridiculous how campaigns and elections seem to be ongoing now. For crying out loud, they are already talking about (and asking people) who will be the next presidential nominations. Are you kidding me? We JUST had an election. The next one is almost 4 years away. WTF!?
It's with the way elections are run. I said this somewhere else, but we really to change that. No more lobbying, no more donations. Elections should be paid for from a public fund. They should last only about 4 months, so politicians actaully WORK instead of campaigning for the next election the moment they're in office. TV networks should give equal access to all politicians (commerical time), because the airwaves are owned by the people and should be for the benefit OF the people. No more smear commercials paid for by third parties or PACs. There should be weekly debates between ALL candidates for the 4 months prior to the election.
It's ridiculous how much campaigns cost nowadays, and it's ridiculous how campaigns and elections seem to be ongoing now. For crying out loud, they are already talking about (and asking people) who will be the next presidential nominations. Are you kidding me? We JUST had an election. The next one is almost 4 years away. WTF!?
Don't ask me, I'm just a troll, right?
Don't ask me, I'm just a troll, right?
Well, sometimes you do engage in troll-like behavior. Do you not know that?
The IRS should investigate every single one of them. Starting at the top and going through the Senate and then the House, until every elected official has been done.
But Senators and Congreemen don't do their own taxes. Another perk. The government does their taxes for them. Tax laws are too complex for Senators and Congressmen to comprehend. Irony and reality.
Not gonna happen, for a variety of reasons, the first of which is the fact that the people that fund the two major parties will crush a third party like a bug.
Why pay for three, when you only have to pay for two?
Also, any 3rd party that actually gained any power would be corrupted instantly, because the problem isn't with the parties, it's with the people.
Pure speculation on your part. You have little to back that up. It can be done if the people will it.
Pure speculation on your part.
Possibly. I am a very avid student of monkey-ass pack behavior, though.
Also, history is on my side:
Duverger's law — After Maurice Duverger. Winner-take-all (or first-past-the-post) electoral systems tend to create a 2 party system, while proportional representation tends to create a multiple party system.
You have little to back that up. It can be done if the people will it.
Okay. So will it.
See what I mean?
Well, sometimes you do engage in troll-like behavior. Do you not know that?
I blame society.
And the drugs.
I blame first Bush. Beause everybody blames him for everything.
Second Al Gore. If he never would have invented the internet or global warming we would never have gotten into this mess.
I blame you. yes, you. It's all your fucking fault.
I thought it was Obamas fault?
I blame you. yes, you. It's all your fucking fault.
Ok. But it's not. It is the fault of Bush.
Oh, and Al.
And the Illuminati. Serious.
I think the little green men did it.
Or was it the mice?
and the boogie?
ALWAYS!
\
I blame first Bush. Beause everybody blames him for everything.
Cute, it fits you.
I have to have that done once in a while. It clears my sinuses.
That would clear my adnenoids!
That would clear my adnenoids!
Them too. It's very theraputic.
I'm told it also adjusts your chakras, whatever the hell they are.
Them too. It's very theraputic.
I'm told it also adjusts your chakras, whatever the hell they are.
Energy centers in the body.
Got some drugs?
Energy centers in the body.
Got some drugs?
Them I got. Sleepers, wakers, the whole 9 yards. Like Elvis. But if I have to die on the crapper, please God let it happen while I'm "upper decking" the local American Legion post's bathroom. Amen.
Gupta Withdraws
Dr. Sanjay Gupta has withdrawn his name from consideration to become surgeon general, the White House confirmed to CBS News today.
Gupta, a neurosurgeon, pulled out from consideration "in order to continue devoting time to his medical career and of course his work at CNN,” according to CNN U.S. President Jon Klein.
Jerry Farrell, head of the Commissioned Officers Association, which represents the group overseen by the surgeon general, told Fox News that possible candidates have been calling his office to express their interest in the job now that Gupta has withdrawn and “the bidding process [is] open again."
News broke in early January that Gupta had sat down with President Obama and had been offered the position. It looked likely at the time he would take the job.
"He has asked for a few days to figure out the financial and logistical details of moving his family from Atlanta to Washington but is expected to accept the offer,” the Washington Post reported at the time.
Since then, however, there has been little discussion of Gupta taking up the offer. Had he done so, the CBS News and CNN contributor, who had been a White House fellow, would likely have become the highest-profile surgeon general in U.S. history.
Gupta did not attend today’s health care summit at the White House.
Not because of taxes, but an apparently good candidate chose not to serve.
Hmmm...wonder if it was a money issue. He's probably making some nice cheddar on TV...he wouldn't make shit in politics (relatively speaking).
Jesus. Obama's the only person in America hiring, and nobody wants anything to do with it.
:lol:
Depends on what I have to do...I just had to fill out a 20-page application for a fucking civilian job with the St. Louis County Police Department. Can a government job be much worse, especially given the track record of the people that work in it?
Depends on what I have to do...I just had to fill out a 20-page application for a fucking civilian job with the St. Louis County Police Department. Can a government job be much worse, especially given the track record of the people that work in it?
Wait. What? You want to be a COP in ST LOUIS?
No, no job can be much worse.
Civilian job...and it's St. Louis County, which is separate from St. Louis City. Not that I have any problems with the City, since I live in it.
Civilian job...and it's St. Louis County, which is separate from St. Louis City. Not that I have any problems with the City, since I live in it.
Mark your highway exits, please. :mad2:
Huh? Which highway were you on here that didn't have markers? Shit, we're not California (though I hear they're working on things out there). ;)
Huh? Which highway were you on here that didn't have markers? Shit, we're not California (though I hear they're working on things out there). ;)
55W --> 44W, middle of the night, during construction (this was about 4 years ago). No detour signs. No alternate route. Nada.
they must have known it was tigger
Especially since 55 West doesn't even exist. ;)
Huh? Which highway were you on here that didn't have markers? Shit, we're not California (though I hear they're working on things out there). ;)
ummm, California has very well marked roads. I lived there for ten years, and have travelled across country 4 times, and from Miami to Toronto. California has the best marked freeways I have ever seen.
Especially since 55 West doesn't even exist. ;)
55 whichever, out of Chicago. Fer Chrissakes.
ummm, California has very well marked roads. I lived there for ten years, and have travelled across country 4 times, and from Miami to Toronto. California has the best marked freeways I have ever seen.
I was referring to the lack of exit numbers, which road geeks used to bemoan on Usenet all the time. Threw me off too when I was out there a few years ago. Last I heard, CalTrans is now working on that.
55 whichever, out of Chicago. Fer Chrissakes.
I knew what you meant...I was fucking with you. :)
Take it to the travel channel
I was referring to the lack of exit numbers, which road geeks used to bemoan on Usenet all the time. Threw me off too when I was out there a few years ago. Last I heard, CalTrans is now working on that.
ahhh, ok. Well, they mark roads 3-4 exits in advance, so you have plenty of time to get over. Most freeways don't do that, and I think it's dangerous not to, especially for freeways in/near big cities that have a lot of lanes.
Take it to the travel channel
topic nazi. :p
Another one rides the bus...
Freeman Withdraws as Top Intelligence Analyst
Charles Freeman, the veteran diplomat slated to become the top U.S. intelligence analyst, withdrew under intense pressure from a largely Republican group of lawmakers.
The lawmakers had criticized Freeman’s statements on China, Israel, and the 9/11 attacks, and they had raised concerns about his business ties in the Middle East and China. Dennis Blair, director of national intelligence, said today that he accepted “with regret” Freeman’s decision to give up the post of National Intelligence Council chairman.
Just hours earlier, Blair defended his longtime colleague under sharp questioning at a Senate hearing, calling Freeman, a former ambassador to Saudi Arabia, “a person of strong views,” and adding that Freeman wouldn’t serve “precooked pabulum” to policy makers. He also said Freeman’s provocative comments were taken out of context.
Critics focused on Freeman’s comment that the Chinese government acted too slowly to crack down on protesters in Tiananmen Square in 1989.
Charles Freeman, the veteran diplomat slated to become the top U.S. intelligence analyst, withdrew under intense pressure from a largely Republican group of lawmakers.
These dems...no balls AT ALL these days. :lol:
Obama's pick for EPA No. 2 withdraws
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's pick for the No. 2 post at the Environmental Protection Agency abruptly removed himself from consideration Wednesday, saying the controversy surrounding a foundation he once belonged to would distract from the agency's work.
Jon Cannon, a professor of environmental law at the University of Virginia and the former top EPA lawyer, said he was withdrawing as the nominee for deputy EPA administrator because the nonprofit America's Clean Water Foundation had become the subject of scrutiny. Cannon once served on the now-defunct organization's board of directors.
The EPA's inspector general concluded in 2007 that the foundation mismanaged $25 million in EPA grants that it had received to help identify environmental risks on farms and to assist states and tribes in complying with water pollution laws. The report found that the foundation could not properly account for the money it had been granted.
What the heck is going on? I don't remember this many appointees resigning or being refused in, well forever.
Obama's pick for EPA No. 2 withdraws
What the heck is going on? I don't remember this many appointees resigning or being refused in, well forever.
This is what happens when you actually apply standards in Washington. Obama has managed to fill about 43 out of 350 or so positions.
On the other hand, his pics haven't been exactly stellar. I mean,
TOM DASCHLE? Fer Chrissakes.
Obama's pick for EPA No. 2 withdraws
What the heck is going on? I don't remember this many appointees resigning or being refused in, well forever.
Yep...its been sloppier than recent administrations..but not so much out of the norm.
Just off the top of my head...
I recall Bush first treasury secretary having tax issues, his first Labor secretary withdrawing because of an illegal immigrant issue, his first homeland security secretary withdrawing because of an illegal immigrant issue and alleged mob ties.
And Bush sub-cabinet nominees withdrawing their names...the top EPA enforcement official because of ties to industries to be enforced, the top mining official at the Dept of Interior for numerous mining violations by his company, top officials at HUD, Energy and Agriculture with questionable past practices in their former industry lives.....
No one wants the job anymore, what with the public scrutiny. Of course, we can hope this brings us more people who DON'T have anything to hide, but these transgressions are nothing new. These issues have always existed: previous administrations were just better at keeping them hidden.
It's getting easier to mine information about people's lives.
And also, I don't think they used to really go after people for each and every detail. Politics is now teams of lawyers, teams of investigators, and teams of digicam shooters waiting for a candidate's macaca moment. It's fucked up.
I think this is the first time nominees have gotten full IRS audits.
Wow, all good points. Is it actually achieving the desired result or is it just eliminating more candidates. I would love to get rid of about 80% of the current members in the house and senate too. Wonder if there is some way.... hmmm
Wow, all good points. Is it actually achieving the desired result or is it just eliminating more candidates.
It achieves results. I think it is a good thing for government officials to be up to date on their taxes, and it is a good thing for people who hope to eventually get those positions to have extra incentives to be squeaky clean. Those are good results in themselves.
From a strictly utilitarian standpoint, however, it probably does some harm. Someone can be extremely effective in a position, even if their past isn't pristine - sometimes in politics they can be more effective (not necessarily in tax issues, but in general). "Do as I say and not as I do" isn't an admirable position, but it's the rare parent who never has to take it.
I agree with your reference to parenting. Thats been a difficult one for me on several occasions (ok, more). I still think we need to hold our representatives to a higher standard though. Especially those doing the legislating. I'm still having issues with business or industries "donating" money to certain representatives, especially the representatives who are supposed to be overseeing those same businesses. It makes no logical sense.
Not a failed appointment ... yet. But certainly a rather interesting one in light of all the outrage.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- One of the people named this week to President Obama's new Task Force on Tax Reform is a member of the AIG board of directors.
Martin Feldstein, a professor of economics at Harvard University, has been on the board of American International Group since 1988. He also was a prominent economic adviser to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.
Asked about the AIG connection - the White House declined to comment on the story.
...and it is a good thing for people who hope to eventually get those positions to have extra incentives to be squeaky clean.
From a strictly utilitarian standpoint, however, it probably does some harm.
I have to agree on both counts. The whole process of election/selection for public service has gotten intense. I mean we're told if the candidate/nominee forgot to feed their goldfish on a Thursday 30 years ago.
The problem is we might end up candidates/nominees that have been raised in a bubble, never made a mistake. How in hell can we relate to that kind of person? More importantly, how can they relate to us? How can they connect with the people they have to direct, motivate, or persuade, when the have no mutual life experiences?
That's a good point Bruce, but the tax issue is just ridiculous. It seems like almost everyone cheats on their taxes. And it's more infuriating when it's someone who has money and can afford to pay them.
How do you think they got so rich? :haha:
I doubt if any of these people "do" their own taxes. As Lookout well knows, the people that handle that stuff can stick it right up your kazoo.
I have to agree on both counts. The whole process of election/selection for public service has gotten intense. I mean we're told if the candidate/nominee forgot to feed their goldfish on a Thursday 30 years ago.
The problem is we might end up candidates/nominees that have been raised in a bubble, never made a mistake. How in hell can we relate to that kind of person? More importantly, how can they relate to us? How can they connect with the people they have to direct, motivate, or persuade, when the have no mutual life experiences?
I doubt we will have such a canidate. We will never be able to relate to them and for the fast majority we can't relate to them now. They have very few mutual life experience now so how is it different? The choosen ones are selected by other people to represent us, we get to choose from their limited choice. Hence we have consecutive election cycles where we are not choosing the best person just the best of the two or three very bad choices.
The problem is we might end up candidates/nominees that have been raised in a bubble.
... no mutual life experiences?
To some extent, thats what we have now - isn't it?
No, no, no. Obama is one of us. He organized communities. and smoked rock. and had to get normal loan approval for an appropriately priced house... just like all of us.
No, no, no. Obama is one of us. He organized communities. and smoked rock. and had to get normal loan approval for an appropriately priced house... just like all of us.
Smoked rock? Really?
You won't have any trouble posting a link to a credible source concerning the president smoking crack, I assume.
Obama wrote about it
in his own memoirs, genius.
I guess that depends on what level of credibility you believe Obama to have, I suppose.
Obama wrote about it in his own memoirs, genius.
Your link says nothing of the kind.
Obama admits to having smoked the reefer back in his youth in his book. In fact, he admits to a little cocaine. Please point out where he talks about smoking crack, which is another order of magnitude as far as drugs go.
Please try to be a little more honest about this sort of thing.
TGRR,
Genius or something.
I guess that depends on what level of credibility you believe Obama to have, I suppose.
Naw. I think it has more to do with your credibility.
Originally Posted by lookout123
I guess that depends on what level of credibility you believe Obama to have, I suppose.
Naw. I think it has more to do with your credibility.
Why would you question Lookout's credibility? :neutral::headshake
good come back.
I'm sorry you're a liar.
Why would you question Lookout's credibility? :neutral::headshake
Because I caught him in a lie.
Why else? (I mean, other than his rabid partisanship.)
Why else? (I mean, other than his rabid partisanship.)
would you point to some examples of my partisanship? no? ok, maybe just one example then? I'll wait.
maybe some examples of my lies then?
In fact, he admits to a little cocaine. Please point out where he talks about smoking crack, which is another order of magnitude as far as drugs go.
You got me. As far as I was concerned, cocaine and crack were in the same category. Obviously you stratify your street drugs more than I do.
You got me. As far as I was concerned, cocaine and crack were in the same category. Obviously you stratify your street drugs more than I do.
Obviously. That's like saying "beer" vs "151 Rum".
How the hell do you survive to adulthood without having at least some knowledge of drugs (if not - preferably not - 1st hand experience)?
would you point to some examples of my partisanship? no? ok, maybe just one example then? I'll wait.
Oh, I'd say your slobbering insistence that the poor little rich boys get their "retention payments". Har har! Partisan "pre-rich", anyway.
maybe some examples of my lies then?
Okay. Obama smoking crack.
Wow. That was easy.
Partisan "pre-rich", anyway.
Define please. I don't see any numbers attached to that.
Define please. I don't see any numbers attached to that.
Pre-rich: The attitude that, one day, you will be rich (by some mysterious means), so you don't want to fuck it up for when you join the club.
See also: Extreme self-delusion, delusions of grandeur, blatant Libertarian fantasizing.
I want to make sure I understand what you're saying. In America it is delusional to believe that one might achieve a measure of wealth by working hard/smart, making good decisions, and trying to achieve financial independence? Do you really believe that?
FTR, I'm definitely not a big L libertarian but I do believe the government should have as little to do with my everyday life as possible. I do believe I should be able to keep the fruits of my labor. I do believe in personal responsibility. I hardly think those things make me delusional.
I want to make sure I understand what you're saying. In America it is delusional to believe that one might achieve a measure of wealth by working hard/smart, making good decisions, and trying to achieve financial independence? Do you really believe that?
FTR, I'm definitely not a big L libertarian but I do believe the government should have as little to do with my everyday life as possible. I do believe I should be able to keep the fruits of my labor. I do believe in personal responsibility. I hardly think those things make me delusional.
You seem to think you're going to be rich one day.
You won't.
Also, "personal responsibility" as enshrined by "getting bonuses for failing".
You got me. As far as I was concerned, cocaine and crack were in the same category. Obviously you stratify your street drugs more than I do.
Crack is much more addictive than powder cocaine. It is supposed to be more pure, almost completely pure, because the impurities are cooked out, but I think it has other impurities cut into it before it's cooked that make it a lot more toxic. After all, dealers want to make as much money as possible. This is one reason why I think drugs should be legalized and controlled, so people actually know what they're getting.
Crack is much more addictive than powder cocaine. It is supposed to be more pure, almost completely pure, because the impurities are cooked out, but I think it has other impurities cut into it before it's cooked that make it a lot more toxic. After all, dealers want to make as much money as possible. This is one reason why I think drugs should be legalized and controlled, so people actually know what they're getting.
True. The days of the independent drug dealer you knew by name are long gone, now. Now it's more like going to WalMart. You think you're getting quality stuff, but it's all full of lead and melamine.
You seem to think you're going to be rich one day.
My net worth has never really been a source of concern for me. I've been extremely poor and I've been affluent enough to travel the world as I wished. Money comes and goes. I truly don't know if I'll ever be
rich as I define
rich, but then again I don't really care. I know beyond a shadow of a doubt I have the ability to become obscenely wealthy. I own my company in an industry where 7-8 figure incomes are not impossible and solid 6 figures are the norm. I choose to work less than many of my peers because my priorities are different. Because of this they make more money than I do, but that is because of
my choice noone else's.
I feel sympathy for people who don't believe they have the ability to do anything they want in life. I am living proof that you can. The only thing in life that I know I can't achieve is a successful political career, but again that is because of some choices I have made. ;)
Rich is a state of mind. When you are there you will know it.
Some very rich people I know have little money.
You got me. As far as I was concerned, cocaine and crack were in the same category. Obviously you stratify your street drugs more than I do.
Really?
They seem like totally different categories to me. For a start I've happily indulged in the one but wouldn't touch the other with a ten foot barge pole.
I have to say as well, TGRR, much as I disagree with LO on pretty much everything regarding money, for a finance guy he isn't grabby. I've never got the impression he's on a mad crusade for riches, in any way whatsoever. He does his job and (from what I can gather) does it very well, ethically, and to the advantage of his customers.
They seem like totally different categories to me.
I was not aware that the actual penalties were any different for crack versus powder.
Is that the case?
Out of curiosity from those in the know... whats the difference between freebasing and crack?
The penalties are very different. You can make a strong case that it is racial discrimination in action, if you're the type of person who's looking for a racist behind every woodpile. Of course, an equally strong case can be made that while crack is a derivative of cocaine it is apparently far more addictive, hooks you more quickly and deeply, has insanely wide variations in chemistry, and is more often associated with crimes of theft and assault than ordinary cocaine. I have a little personal experience with the subject. For the record I know more middle class white people who've been addicted to crack than have been addicted to cocaine.
I was not aware that the actual penalties were any different for crack versus powder.
Is that the case?
Out of curiosity from those in the know... whats the difference between freebasing and crack?
Yea there has been a long hue and cry about the issue in the penalty phase of the court system. Poor black dude in the inner city gets long penalties while the rich white guy with a private lawyer gets 18months. There has been a lot of race baiting over the issue.
There have already been changes in sentencing differences and early releases as a result.
LinkThere has already been changes in sentencing differences and early releases as a result.
Link
I think it was a long overdue change that was needed.
For the record I know more middle class white people who've been addicted to crack than have been addicted to cocaine.
More whites use crack then blacks but a higher percentage of blacks use crack than whites. Whites dominate in cocaine use.
http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/Nhsda/2k3tabs/Sect1peTabs1to66.htm#tab1.38bMore whites use crack then blacks but a higher percentage of blacks use crack than whites. Whites dominate in cocaine use.
http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/Nhsda/2k3tabs/Sect1peTabs1to66.htm#tab1.38b
In 2002 and 2003 based on their statistics.
They sound pretty legit.
They seem like totally different categories to me. For a start I've happily indulged in the one but wouldn't touch the other with a ten foot barge pole.
Well, that's just it--I wouldn't touch either of them with a ten foot barge pole. :)
More whites use crack then blacks but a higher percentage of blacks use crack than whites. Whites dominate in cocaine use.
huh? How can more whites use crack, but a higher % of blacks use it? That doesn't make sense to me. Are you just saying that as a whole, the black population uses it more? How can more whites use it than blacks then? I'm confused. (this kind of math was always hard for me)
Never used crack, never wanted to. Did use cocaine quite a bit. That's the reason I got sober back in 1989. I was on my way to an early destruction.
huh? How can more whites use crack, but a higher % of blacks use it? That doesn't make sense to me. Are you just saying that as a whole, the black population uses it more? How can more whites use it than blacks then? I'm confused. (this kind of math was always hard for me)
There are more white people then black people.
Lets say we have 100 white people and 10 black people.
If 20 white people use crack and 5 black people use crack, we can say that more white people use crack then black people.
But, we can also so that the percentage of blacks using crack (50%) is higher then the percentage of whites using crack (20%).
ah, I thought it was something like that.
Cheese Itz - Do any of these people actually pay their taxes?
Sebelius admits errors, pays $7,000 in back taxes
Sebelius said she filed the amended returns as soon as the errors were discovered by an accountant she hired to scrub her taxes in preparation for her confirmation hearings. She and her husband, Gary, a federal magistrate judge in Kansas, paid a total of $7,040 in back taxes and $878 in interest to amend returns from 2005-2007.
Was she gonna hire someone if she didn't get appointed?
Charitable contributions over $250 are supposed to include an acknowledgment letter from the charity in order for a deduction to be taken. Out of 49 charitable contributions made, three letters couldn't be found.
Sebelius and her husband took deductions for mortgage interest that they weren't entitled to. The couple sold their home in 2006 for less than what they owed on the mortgage. They continued to make payments on the mortgage, including interest. But since they no longer owned the home they weren't entitled to take deductions for the interest. The same thing happened with a home improvement loan. Sebelius said they "mistakenly believed" the payments were still deductible.
_Insufficient documentation was found for some business expense deductions.
No big deal, but still - shes a Governor and he is a Judge. WTF?
Cheese Itz - Do any of these people actually pay their taxes?
...
Was she gonna hire someone if she didn't get appointed?
Dude. You don't feel even the least bit hypocritical? You directly suggested to me that I fudge my taxes to save money. And yet here you are not only upset (again) that a politician did the same thing, but implying that she should have been honest even if she
weren't getting appointed, thus bypassing any "politicians should know they're held to a higher standard" argument.
I don't understand why they wouldn't have been able to take deductions on their taxes since they sold the house for less than what it was worth. That is a loss. Aren't you supposed to be able to claim losses on your taxes? And the charitable contributions, they have to have a letter? I thought a receipt would do.
The friggin' tax laws are so complicated in this country, it doesn't surprise me at all that so many people are having trouble with that part of the confirmations.
The friggin' tax laws are so complicated in this country, it doesn't surprise me at all that so many people are having trouble with that part of the confirmations.
And yet you're all convinced an easy to understand flat tax would hurt the poor and working classes.
It would, because it favors the wealthier classes.
Bullshit. You can't rest your flag on the idea that the current system favors the wealthy because of all the deductions and tax shelters which help them to pay a lower than expected tax rate AND say that a zero deduction flat tax also favors them.
Gosh guys, isn't there a solution in between?
Now you're just being ridiculous Bruce :P
You directly suggested to me that I fudge my taxes to save money.
When did I do that?
It was
here. I kind of called you on it at the time too (post 1393,) because that was when the news stories about nominees owing back taxes were in full swing, and you had expressed frustration over it several times.
And yet you're all convinced an easy to understand flat tax would hurt the poor and working classes.
An "easy to understand" flat tax is absolutely regressive...hurting the poor and working class far more than higher income groups with far greater disposal income.
And the more "complicated" you make it to counteract that inherent unfairness, the higher the tax rate will need to be just to generate enough revenue to pay for basic national needs.
SO, the current tax system is unfair because it is progressive and the rich pay a greater share of their income.
A flat tax is unfair because it is regressive and the poor and working class pay a greater share of their income.
Which group should pay that greater share of their income.....the group that relies on a large portion of its income to meet basic needs and perhaps a few luxuries or the group with much greater disposable income?
The answer is easy to me.
And yet you're all convinced an easy to understand flat tax would hurt the poor and working classes.
Of course it would.
Ah, but you forget the basic notion (almost considered a given with most flat-tax proponents) that there could be a floor underneath which there would be no tax. Say, the first $25,000.
Ah, but you forget the basic notion (almost considered a given with most flat-tax proponents) that there could be a floor underneath which there would be no tax. Say, the first $25,000.
Okay, then to gain sufficient revenue, you'd have to have your tax rate so high that you'd clobber the middle class.
Which is, of course, the whole point. The funniest thing is that the rich have sold this to the middle class (or at least their kids away at college).
An "easy to understand" flat tax is absolutely regressive...hurting the poor and working class far more than higher income groups with far greater disposal income.
And the more "complicated" you make it to counteract that inherent unfairness, the higher the tax rate will need to be just to generate enough revenue to pay for basic national needs.
SO, the current tax system is unfair because it is progressive and the rich pay a greater share of their income.
A flat tax is unfair because it is regressive and the poor and working class pay a greater share of their income.
great. show us the numbers from an un-biased source.
Bullshit. You can't rest your flag on the idea that the current system favors the wealthy because of all the deductions and tax shelters which help them to pay a lower than expected tax rate AND say that a zero deduction flat tax also favors them.
The current tax system is unfair because rich people get away with paying less than they should, through deductions and shelters, etc..
The flat tax would be unfair because the middle class would be paying
more than they are now, and rich people would be paying less (in some cases).
The only fair system is a graduated system, where taxes increase as income increases. As you earn more, you can afford to pay more. What's not to understand about that? Seems simple enough to me. They just need to get rid of all the ways rich people get out of paying.
The only fair system is where everyone pays the same and additionally there should be a tax on all purchases.
The current tax system is unfair because rich people get away with paying less than they should,
How much 'should' they pay, and why?
Someone please define "Rich People". Thank you.
great. show us the numbers from an un-biased source.
Consider the source to be the Univeristy of Common Sense.
There are two general approaches to the flat tax - tax on sales or tax on wages.
A flat sales tax of approx. 25% would have a more adverse impact on the dispoasl income of a person of $30,000 income as opposed to $3 million income - common sense.
A flat tax on wages generally excludes non wage income (capital gains) and would have a more adverse impact on the disposal income of a person making $30,000 (with nearly all of it from wages) as opposed to a person making $ 3million (with a large portion excluided from the tax as non-wage ,capital gains) - common sense
I share the opinoin of that capitalist that the free market guys always love to point to when it comes to deregulation, but not taxes - Adam Smith:
[INDENT]The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable.
It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion....[/INDENT]
But I accept that "fairness" is in the eye of the beholder and we willl never agree on this one.
That, is not, an unbiased source. That is opinion.
I've said it before but I'll say it again... cuz I can. My personal idea for flat tax really isn't flat but much flatter.
Every single dollar of income (earned and unearned) up to and including $50,000 is taxed at 1%. I believe everyone should know they are paying something even if it is a seemingly insignificant amount.
Every single dollar earned and unearned over$50,001 is taxed at 20%. NO deductions, no loopholes, no limits.
Personal tax returns will consist of a one page, easy to understand form.
INCOME:
INCOME IN EXCESS OF $50,000:
The guy making $30K will have paid $300 which is more than he's paying now, but he is now paying like everyone else.
The guy making $50K will be paying $500 which is less than some people say they are paying now.
The guy making $90K will be paying $8,499.80 which is 9% of total pay.
The guy making $900K will be paying $170,499 which is 19% of total pay.
The guy making $9,000,000 will pay $1,790,499.80 which is 20%. While that may seem like they are getting a bargain it is a hell of a lot more than they are paying now.
And added up, we would have much more in income collected. Flaten the tax, everyone pays, close the loopholes.
And added up, we would have much more in income collected..
Got a cite for that...or is it just fuzzy math?
I have not seen any reliable source that would suggest a flat tax at a 20% rate of wages (with or w/o non-wage income like capital gains) would come close to covering even the basic current costs of defense, payment on debt and entitlements (combined nearly $2 trillion/year)...and that excludes any discreationary spending on domestic programs.
Do you believe the "rich" are paying more significantly more than that, on average?
Are there any real statistics or is this really just a argument in futility?
We're talking about the government. Only arguments of futility are possible.
It does go back to my thread asking the purpose of taxes though. If we don't know the total number of dollars the government needs to do its business and we aren't trying to match those numbers with an appropriate income level, then all the tax rates are just arbitrary numbers established for psychological reasons.
not psychological at all. - They are then numbers based upon what they WANT to spend not what they need. Thats what it all comes down to in my opinion. The debate between the definition of needs versus wants.
I would describe it more as a philosophical difference than an argument of futility.
I side with every president (of either party) and every Congress since the 1920s when the income tax was initiated that believed (or at least accepted) that a progressive income tax system is the "fairest of them all."
But I am a Washington insider.
I would describe it more as a philosophical difference than an argument of futility.
Doesn't one necessitate the other? :eyebrow:
The only fair system is a graduated system, where taxes increase as income increases.
The only fair system is where everyone pays the same and additionally there should be a tax on all purchases.
There is no such thing as a "fair" system because of how subjective fair is.
Maybe the government should just play the father figure by taking everyone's money away then yell "Happy now, now its fair". It worked for North Korea...you don't hear any of them complaining about the tax setup.
Maybe the government should just play the father figure by taking everyone's money away then yell "Happy now, now its fair".
Some think thats where we are headed anyway :tinfoil
There is no such thing as a "fair" system because of how subjective fair is.
True.
But the reality is there has never been much support for a flat tax.
Kemp made it a core component of his campaign when he ran for Pres in '88; as did Forbes in '00 and Huckabee last year....with little success.
Any Congressional proposal for a flat tax over the last 20+ years has died in committee, regardless of the party in power.
A poll ( :eek: ) I saw this morning:
Almost three-quarters of Americans think it is a good idea to raise taxes on people making more than $250,000 per year, according to the latest CBS News/New York Times poll.
In fact, two-thirds of Americans think the tax code should be changed so that middle-class Americans pay less than they do now, while "upper income" people pay more.
Poll: 74 Percent Support Higher Taxes On The Rich
Whether a flat tax is "fair" or not or has merits or not, the political reality is that while most Americans would like to see tax simplification, what a flat tax doesnt have is very much public support.
Could that be because of all the bullshit about damaging the middle class that is thrown upon it? I remember when I worked in the UAW plant the "information pieces" that were distributed to let all the employees know how horrible some proposals were so it was a good thing a specific political party existed to take care of people "like us".
Could that be because of all the bullshit about damaging the middle class that is thrown upon it? I remember when I worked in the UAW plant the "information pieces" that were distributed to let all the employees know how horrible some proposals were so it was a good thing a specific political party existed to take care of people "like us".
Sure, it could be.
Or it could be that many don't buy into the fuzzy math.
In any case, I dont think the "bullshit" claim would explain the lack of support for a flat tax over the last 80+ years.
In the end, it could be that many believe that as one's income increases, one should contribute a greater proportion of that income to the public expense.
Almost three-quarters of Americans think it is a good idea to raise taxes on OTHER people. Two-thirds of Americans think that they should pay less than they do now, while "SOMEONE ELSE" pays more.
I reworded that poll for ya. Perhaps thats clearer. That might be the reason - just saying.
I reworded that poll for ya. Perhaps thats clearer. That might be the reason - just saying.
Nah...I think its much more conspiratorial.....dead capitalists and communists and dead Republican presidents channeling their thoughts during the polling.
Perhaps Adam Smith channelling from Wealth of Nations -
It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion
Or Karl Marx from Das Kapital
Or Teddy Roosevelt from a speech on New Nationalism - that there was a
"general right of the community to regulate" the earning of income and use of private property "to whatever degree the public welfare may require it."
Or Ronald Reagan when he signed his major tax reform legislation, including the redistribution of wealth through the expansion of the earned income tax credit.
And they said you didn't have a sense of humor. bwahahahaha
pointing out that a bunch of politicians didn't have a problem with wealth redistribution isn't a great argument. politicians of all persuasions have the retention of power as their primary goal and selling animosity towards the other guy always plays in Peoria.
pointing out that a bunch of politicians didn't have a problem with wealth redistribution isn't a great argument. politicians of all persuasions have the retention of power as their primary goal and selling animosity towards the other guy always plays in Peoria.
And yet the flat tax has never played well in Peoria either as far as I know...or Crappo, MD or Boring, OR or Normal, IL or even Santa Claus, IN.
The support for a flat tax is and has always been flat, never reaching the level of widespread support anywhere....no other way to put it.
Perhaps that will change now with the new celebrity spokesman.........Joe the Plumber!
[INDENT][youtube]byu8CSCCuv4[/youtube]
http://irsvote.com/
[/INDENT]
Now there is a credible person who I want speaking for me!
You must
pay $.99 to express your support for his fair tax.....LOL....that seems fair!
Eh, maybe he's looking for a job as a lobbiest.
Will he lobby for whichever side texts him the most money?
Joe the who? Oh, yeah...the loser that stuck his nose in to politics and then cried when he got burned.
If ya can't handle the heat, stay the fuck out of the kitchen.
Eh, maybe he's looking for a job as a lobbiest.
:lol2:
In the end, it could be that many believe that as one's income increases, one should contribute a greater proportion of that income to the public expense.
Yea, if I didn't do shit for a living I would think the same thing.
Eh, maybe he's looking for a job as a lobbiest.
If Joe is the best person the anti-tax movement can come up with as a pitchman to sell the flat tax..I don't expect anyone will benefit other than perhaps Joe.
He could do very well for himself with this initiative....better than his sagging book deal and country singing career.
Consider how that
$.99 per voter is spent:
[INDENT]50% Fees taken by Telecoms providers such as MCI, Verizon, AT&T, Sprint etc.
20% Advertising and Public relations*.
10% Payment collection
7% Production costs and salaries for team
5% Platform costs to service providers
8% Leftover after other costs[/INDENT]
Does that "leftover" = Joe's pocket?
Here is what I would do if I were Joe....start by posting the website on all the "We Love Sarah" blogs and boards and let it roll from there. Those enthusiastic activists wont bitch about $.99 and will certainly share it with fellow believers.
If he gets 1 million Palinistas to vote for a buck each.....that 8% leftover is $80,000 for Joe.
Nice scam!
I would describe it more as a philosophical difference than an argument of futility.
I side with every president (of either party) and every Congress since the 1920s when the income tax was initiated that believed (or at least accepted) that a progressive income tax system is the "fairest of them all."
But I am a Washington insider.
Agreed. Again...
The only fair system is a graduated system, where taxes increase as income increases. As you earn more, you can afford to pay more... They just need to get rid of all the ways rich people get out of paying....In the end, it could be that many believe that as one's income increases, one should contribute a greater proportion of that income to the public expense.
YES! THAT! ^^^
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.
[COLOR="White"]The phrase summarizes the principles that, under a communist system, every person should contribute to society to the best of his ability and consume from society in proportion to his needs, regardless of how much he has contributed.[/COLOR]
Communism, if it could be done correctly, would not be such a bad system. Unfortunately, every communist nation has also been a dictatorship. It has never been done correctly according to the definition. Just like socialism.
You can't have it "be done correctly." Communism is a system for angels, not for men.
Probably because men have free will and angels do not. Or so it's said.
Communism never allowed for the fact that "even under the most rigidly controlled conditions of temperature and pressure, the organism will do as it damn pleases." Organisms actively seek their own advantage, one expression of which at least among the hominids is the profit motive.
As for Socialism/Communism-lite, the libertarians would say it founders on the fact that there is really no such thing as "the collective." There is only, we say, the ability of many individuals to act in unison towards a goal -- we can march in close formation. This kind of unanimity is always temporary, and we say that's how it should be. We also note that it is seldom absolute -- and that too would be temporary. We are not the Borg.
Where the actual fairness is in soaking the rich continues to escape me.
I think it escapes most really thoughtful people.
They just need to get rid of all the ways rich people get out of paying.
Once again I'd like you to define
rich for me.
Communism, if it could be done correctly, would not be such a bad system. Just like socialism.
So what would be one's incentive to produce "to your abilities" if only to be compensated "to your needs"?
Who defines needs? who defines abilities?
So putting that in real terms: I only need $60K/year to live my life. I have the ability to earn considerably more than that. If I don't need it and I don't get to keep it and I'm willing to trust the government to provide for me in the future why exactly should I work harder to earn more?
This needs and abilities sounds like a pretty sweet deal really. When I hit the number I need, I'll just check out and go home.
So what would be one's incentive to produce "to your abilities" if only to be compensated "to your needs"?
Who defines needs? who defines abilities?
I have never said I thought all people should have the same thing or the same amount of wealth. I DO think all people who work hard should be compensated well enough to live comfortably and have a life. Not everyone wants massive amounts of wealth. A lot of people just want a good life, and they are willing to work hard for it. They are content with being the middle class. But when the wealthiest are taking more and more of the pie, and squeezing out the middle class so they can no longer afford to live, there is a real serious problem.
Once again I'd like you to define rich for me.
I have defined "rich" numerous times. I am talking about people who earn about 5-10 million+ a year or more.
Sugar, you avoided the questions. You said that communism, true communism was a good idea. If that is still your belief, then explain who Who defines needs? who defines abilities?
Why do you also continue to focus on the top minuscule percentage. What about the other end of the spectrum? The bottom who make absolutely no contribution, have no ability to make any and can only take from those who are productive?
OK, so do you think Obama is out of line calling for tax increases for non-rich people then?
OK, so do you think Obama is out of line calling for tax increases for non-rich people then?
Where'd he do that?
Yea, if I didn't do shit for a living I would think the same thing.
So in your opinion, the Roman patricians during the classic republican age did nothing for a living?
Sugarpop has finally tagged rich as a label to identify those earning between $5-10MM/year. Obama wants tax increases for those earning $250K+. That would seem to indicate he wants to increase taxes for those that Sugarpop does not feel are rich. Just curious how she feels about that.
Sugarpop has finally tagged rich as a label to identify those earning between $5-10MM/year. Obama wants tax increases for those earning $250K+. That would seem to indicate he wants to increase taxes for those that Sugarpop does not feel are rich. Just curious how she feels about that.
Wow.
I'd say you're rich if your annual wage would buy a decent 4 bedroom house in the area you live in.
So in Tucson, you're rich if you make $175,000/yr. In New York, you're rich if you make $1,100,000, etc.
I'd say the average would be about $200,000.
Sounds like another way of saying, "you're rich if you have more than me".
Sounds like another way of saying, "you're rich if you have more than me".
Sounds like Lookout is back in "pointless asshole" mode, because he has nothing other than useless ad hominem attacks.
As usual.
Please step aside, Lookout, I'd prefer to speak to serious posters. Thanks.
Sugar, you avoided the questions. You said that communism, true communism was a good idea. If that is still your belief, then explain who Who defines needs? who defines abilities?
Why do you also continue to focus on the top minuscule percentage. What about the other end of the spectrum? The bottom who make absolutely no contribution, have no ability to make any and can only take from those who are productive?
I don't believe the bottom make no contribution and I do not believe they are not productive. I believe most people WANT to contribute, but they also want to be paid fairly and treated with respect. I don't believe CEOs make more contributions to society or are more important than teachers, or scientists, or cops, or soldiers, or artists. I do not believe bankers and executives do either. In fact, I would argue that many of those jobs are MORE important. I do not believe the executive class deserves to be paid SO MUCH MORE than everyone else. Why should they? What possible reason could you give that a CEO or an executive should make 400-500 X more than the average worker?
Having said that, I also realize that everyone is not capable of being a doctor or a lawyer or even a *cough*CEO*cough*, but from the same perspective, not everyone is cut out to be a teacher or a soldier or a janitor. So why should one have so much more value planced on them than the others? I'll tell you, without those janitors, we would be in a world of shit, literally. Soldiers and cops put their lives on the line every day. Isn't that more important, the possibilty of dying while doing your job, than being a banker? Teachers are molding our future generations. Isn't that
at least as important as running a company? If we didn't have anyone to build the bridges and buildings or to make the cars or to do the plumbing, we wouldn't have any buildings or bridges or cars or plumbing. Maybe if we looked at ALL JOBS as having inherent value, we wouldn't place so much emphasis on some being so much more important than others.
Here's the thing, have you ever read any Aldous Huxley? I think he made a lot of really great points in his book Island. On the island, everyone shared in the responsibilties. Even the doctors had to sometimes go out and dig the earth to plant, or do some other, what we would call menial, job. That kept everything more in perspective, for everyone. We could learn something from that.
OK, so do you think Obama is out of line calling for tax increases for non-rich people then?
No. And he is not raising taxes, he is letting the Bush tax cuts expire to where they were before Bush was in office. You act like he is going to make people pay 50% or something. He isn't. It is only a 3% increase on the money made OVER $250,000/year.
ftr, I think the taxes should increase even more on people making over a million a year, and even more again on people making 5 million/year, and more again on people making 10 million/year.
Sounds like another way of saying, "you're rich if you have more than me".
Yeah, I think I'd be rich if I had more than you. :haha:
Sugarpop has finally tagged rich as a label to identify those earning between $5-10MM/year. Obama wants tax increases for those earning $250K+. That would seem to indicate he wants to increase taxes for those that Sugarpop does not feel are rich. Just curious how she feels about that.
You misinterpret what I am saying. I am defining this based on your question, which is based on my posts when
I talk about rich people. When
I talk about rich people, the people at the top, I am talking about people who earn 5 million
+ a year. That has nothing to do with what Obama is doing.
But to be clear, making $250,000/year is definitely rich. At least it would be to me, especially where I live. To a New Yorker, not so much. I would say it is upper middle class for sure. Again though, he is not RAISING taxes, he is letting them expire to where they were before Bush was in office when he wrote the tax cuts to favor the wealthier classes among us.
And, it is on the money that is made
above and beyond $250,000. So no, I don't have a problem with that.
I DO think all people who work hard should be compensated well enough to live comfortably and have a life.
But the bar of "comfortably" keeps getting raised. 60 years ago, it was generally a given that your family had one car, and would manage to save up enough to buy their first three-bedroom house by the time the kids were 7-10 years old. That was middle-class; that was "comfortable." Now most people would call that poor, to only be able to afford one car.
The perception of need vs want keeps moving.
The perception of need vs want keeps moving.
Yeah, CEOs, for example, WANT 480 times what the floor employees get.
It turns out, though, that in all cases, this is a self-correcting problem, from the jackass making $60K/year that just HAS to have a $400K house and a Hummer, to the silly bastards at Morgan Stanley that insist they need two more corporate jets and a terminal building with a rooftop garden.
I don't believe the bottom make no contribution and I do not believe they are not productive.
There are infinitely more on the bottom end than the top. It isn't even close. There are many who feel entitled to live off the Gov't as well. welfare has become a way NOT to work and to just keep on receiving while giving ZERO.
All this is well and good, but means nothing as you again haven't answered the questions? Lemme try again.
Who defines needs? who defines abilities?
There are infinitely more on the bottom end than the top. It isn't even close. There are many who feel entitled to live off the Gov't as well. welfare has become a way NOT to work and to just keep on receiving while giving ZERO.
[COLOR="DarkOrchid"]NO SHIT it isn't even close. THAT alone should tell you there is something seriously wrong. And that gap keeps getting wider every year.
There is no welfare anymore. Clinton abolished welfare. You can get free or reduced housing, if you qualify, and food stamps, if you qualify, and if you are on disability, you can get a small amount of money to live, and medicaid. If you have kids, you can get more.
I'm not saying some people don't abuse the system, because they do, but I believe it is a much smaller number than people think, and compared to corporate welfare, it is drop in the bucket. IF one is capable of working, they should work, but in the case of being disabled, that depends on jobs being available that will work with a person's limitations. There aren't always jobs available for people who want to work but have limitations due to a disability. In addition, since most of those people are low skilled or uneducated, the jobs available to them pay minimum wage. If you have a kid and all you can make is minimum wage, and you have to pay a babysitter, that takes away all your hard earned money. Who can blame someone in that position for not working? IF lower end jobs paid a living wage, we wouldn't have that problem. In addition, IF we had a real living wage, we wouldn't need so many of those services, except in certain cases of disabilities. Do you really think people want to be poor, and live like that? Because I don't.[/COLOR]
All this is well and good, but means nothing as you again haven't answered the questions? Lemme try again.
Who defines needs? who defines abilities?
I don't know who defines them, but as it is now, the people defining them need to be fired, because our system, it ain't working for the vast majority of people out there. Any system that is designed to only work for the few at the top, that system is seriously flawed and needs to be changed.
Nice rant, but you have taken what I wrote completely wrong. Your negative opinion and obvious contempt for those more successful than you is blatantly apparent. ok. You seem to be very sweet and want to care for the world - got that. IMO, your solution seems to escape the boundaries of reality.
IF lower end jobs paid a living wage, we wouldn't have that problem.
They do. They pay a living wage not a living plus want-to-have items. Cell phones, tv's, ipods, dinners out are not must haves they are luxuries. It sucks if you want them and can't have them but that is life, deal with it. minimum wage will get you a crap apartment and food and not much more, but it
is a living wage.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA
You think people at the bottom are paid a living wage? What are you smoking, because I want some.
What you are talking about is slave wages.
Nice rant, but you have taken what I wrote completely wrong. Your negative opinion and obvious contempt for those more successful than you is blatantly apparent. ok. You seem to be very sweet and want to care for the world - got that. IMO, your solution seems to escape the boundaries of reality.
I don't have contempt for people who make more than me or even for people who make tons of money, if they make it fairly and not on the backs of others by abusing the system. I have contempt for greedy people, and for the system. There is a difference.
You have obviously smoked plenty.
A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. :D
I was sober since 1989 up until a few years ago. I quit smoking weed long before that, like back in 1980 or something. I kind of quit being sober back around 1999 when I did some mushrooms. Now I drink a few beers or a glass or two of wine occasionally, but I rarely drink enough to get high, and by rarely, I might have gotten high from alcohol 2 or 3 times in the past 5 years, since I've been drinking again. It takes me about an hour to drink a beer, so it's kind of hard to get high like that, ya know? I have taken a toke off a joint a couple of times just to see what it would be like now, but I really can't stand the high. Mushrooms now, that is another story. But I've only done them twice since 1989, once when I broke my sobriety and once a couple of years ago. I would definitely do them again too, under the right circumstances and with the right person. I don't really think of mushrooms in the same category though. I don't really think I was breaking my sobriety by doing them. The other stuff, yea.
Hey sugar, I just found these mushrooms in my freezer and... :D
Really? I'll be right over... *swoosh*
minimum wage will get you a crap apartment and food and not much more, but it is a living wage.
40 hours (if you're lucky) @ $6.55 an hour = $262... maybe $170 take home.
That's why so many minimum wage earners are homeless. You can't get any kind of roof around these parts for that money, unless you can find a timeshare on a phone booth.
You're saying a minimum wage earner pays out roughly 45% in taxes? I find that a bit hard to believe.
anyway, $170 take home x 2 = $340 x4 weeks = $1,360. That'll get you a crap apartment and food. of course at that level the food stamps probably help a little too. It sucks no doubt about it, but it is a living wage.
What you are talking about is slave wages.
Not at all. Those would be slave wages if that is what they earned with no possibility for improvement. Last I checked anyone who isn't happy with their current situation is free to change it.
bwahahahahahahahahaaa. You are funny lookout.
Why? Is my math wrong? Or is it simply you don't believe people have the freedom and ability to change the situations they find themselves in?
What I believe is that the people at the top are making it increasingly more difficult for the middle class and the people on the lower end of the spectrum to change their circumstances.
And being able to afford a crap apartment and food only is NOT a LIVING WAGE. There is more to life than just eating and having a really crappy place to live. And ftr, in Savannah, it's extremely difficult to find an apartment for less than $800 a month. Add to that utilities, and that isn't near enough to survive.
Fair enough. I guess they'll have to get a second job. I know that is what I had to do when my income didn't cover my needs.
A living wage is just that - a living wage. anything beyond that must qualify as a want. Admittedly i like my wants but that is why i busted my ass moving from opportunity to opportunity until I reached the spot I'm in. I own my own semi-profitable company now and guess what? I still explore options as they come up and would make yet another move if I thought it would provide me with more of what I want. That is freedom. NO one is a slave to their employer in this country. They may be a slave to their own fear of breaking out and trying for more, but they are not a slave to their employer.
You're saying a minimum wage earner pays out roughly 45% in taxes? I find that a bit hard to believe.
No, 35%. Working people lose about a third of their check. Been a while has it?
anyway, $170 take home x 2 = $340 x4 weeks = $1,360. That'll get you a crap apartment and food. of course at that level the food stamps probably help a little too. It sucks no doubt about it, but it is a living wage.
Times 2? No no no, times one, $680
if you can get 40 hrs every week. But maybe you can grow some veggies seeing how you're living in the park.
oops... 35%. me not goodly with numbers. ;) Believe it or not bruce I'm still a working people. So is my wife. So are my parents. Come to think of it, just about every damn person I know is a working person. Because I own my company I get the distinct pleasure of paying an additional 7.5% tax on my earnings before my normal taxes are even calculated.
x2 was referring to the spouse. If there is no spouse then this person should be looking for a roommate. and if they can't get 40 hours at that job they need to look for another job. and if minimum wage doesn't provide what they want (and it doesn't) they should be looking for ways to get a job that pays more. education, hard work, and desire are powerful when combined.
Spouse? Working spouse? That's a neat trick, two full time jobs when you're living in the park. :haha:
Yes education and good clothes do wonders, but both are pretty tough on $170 a week, in addition to living the good life.
$7.15 is the min in PA FWIW - as you were. You can survive, but no one is paying that little anyway - least around these parts.
Bruce, if there is a spouse, they should also be working to pay for the apartment. If there isn't a spouse then a roommate still cuts rent in half. I am not saying these are desirable living conditions, only that they are livable. The reality is minimum wage sucks. It is supposed to be the very basement of what can be paid and logically it is crappy. The truth is that nobody is a slave to that job though. You can sit there and think it is easy to say because I'm not there, but that is the point - I've been there and I'm not anymore. I struggled my way up the chain and I know for a fact anyone can do it.
I get tired of hearing about people being trapped. It is bullshit. People are only trapped by their own decisions. It may be extremely difficult, but it is 100% possible to work your way up the economic ladder. You don't need college degrees and tailored suits to get a job paying more than minimum. You need to have the desire to do whatever it takes, even if it is a job you well and truly hate, to move up. That is it.
I get tired of hearing about people being trapped. It is bullshit. People are only trapped by their own decisions. It may be extremely difficult, but it is 100% possible to work your way up the economic ladder. You don't need college degrees and tailored suits to get a job paying more than minimum. You need to have the desire to do whatever it takes, even if it is a job you well and truly hate, to move up. That is it.
:devil:
An education will help significantly in that endeavor. It really comes down to personal decisions people make and how much of a sacrifice they are willing to make to get out of where they are and into something better. It takes a lot of work.
A college education certainly does make it easier. The great thing is that anyone who wants it bad enough can get a degree too. BUT if they don't want to get a degree they certainly are not limited to janitorial jobs for life.
Yessir. My mom worked three jobs while taking classes to put herself through nursing school in her early 20's. Didn't own her first car till she was 24; 1978. Failed a chemistry class, sucked it up and retook the course the next semester seeking any available tutoring, even hounding the professor after class to make sure she knew her stuff right this time. She's told me and my brother more than once about the days when all she could afford was a pack of hotdogs for lunch, had to skip breakfast couldn't afford it. I admire my parents for their willingness and determination to not let their circumstances get the best of them.
A person may not be able to choose what situation he finds himself in, but can always choose how he will respond to that situation. Read a great book this semester called "Man's Search for Meaning" by Viktor Frankl in which he details his life surviving concentration camps for 3 years. Best passage out of the whole book: "We who lived in concentration camps can remember the men who walked through the huts comforting others, giving away their last piece of bread. They may have been few in number, but they offer sufficient proof that everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms—to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one's own way."
I currently work between four and five jobs to get my family ahead.
Bruce, if there is a spouse, they should also be working to pay for the apartment. If there isn't a spouse then a roommate still cuts rent in half. I am not saying these are desirable living conditions, only that they are livable. The reality is minimum wage sucks. It is supposed to be the very basement of what can be paid and logically it is crappy. The truth is that nobody is a slave to that job though. You can sit there and think it is easy to say because I'm not there, but that is the point - I've been there and I'm not anymore. I struggled my way up the chain and I know for a fact anyone can do it.
I get tired of hearing about people being trapped. It is bullshit. People are only trapped by their own decisions. It may be extremely difficult, but it is 100% possible to work your way up the economic ladder. You don't need college degrees and tailored suits to get a job paying more than minimum. You need to have the desire to do whatever it takes, even if it is a job you well and truly hate, to move up. That is it.
Affording the
bare necessities is NOT a living wage. That is a slave wage.
Affording the bare necessities is NOT a living wage. That is a slave wage.
Only if you are obsessed over the difference between what you have and what other more successful hard working people have. Dig deeper. Life is not a free ride. Buy a helmet.
Bullshit. You act like I think people flipping burgers should make what doctors make. I don't. You keep thinking my arguments are about me not having billions of dollars. It's not. You know me. You know money isn't that important to me. The world is, however, and the people at the very top are robbing everyone else, and that includes you. I don't know why you want to keep it that way.
No, I am just saying if you are not happy with your station in life dig deeper and figure out a way out of your personal hell. But it is not my problem and I should not have to pay for your exodus.
Affording the bare necessities is NOT a living wage. That is a slave wage.
repeating it without adding anything to it doesn't make it more true.
Affording the bare necessities IS exactly what a living wage is.
Living wage is a term used to describe the minimum hourly wage necessary for a person to achieve some specific standard of living. This standard generally means that a person working forty hours a week should be able to afford a specified quality or quantity of housing, food, utilities, transport, health care, and recreation.
Critics argue that basic economic theory suggests a mandated minimum price for labor, a "living wage," is harmful to low-wage workers and increases unemployment. Artificially fixing a price for labor above the market price causes a decrease in the overall demand for labor, leading to increased unemployment and a deadweight loss. Workers who lose their jobs would not receive the living wage. Furthermore, such wage increases can cause inflation, increasing the cost of living and decreasing the relative buying power of the living wage, which leaves the minimum wage earner no better off.
Care to find the "Living wage" in your area?
Link
For example, Elverson PA - Annual Before Tax Income $20,009
Affording the bare necessities IS exactly what a living wage is.
Care to find the "Living wage" in your area? Link
For example, Elverson PA - Annual Before Tax Income $20,009
That chart is ridiculous. $237 for a month of food, for one adult? That is really laughable, unless you eat at mcDonalds every day. And that will make you sick. And $93 for medical for one adult? What planet are they living on? bah.
No, I am just saying if you are not happy with your station in life dig deeper and figure out a way out of your personal hell. But it is not my problem and I should not have to pay for your exodus.
It isn't MY station in life I am unhappy with. It is the state of the world.
That chart is ridiculous. $237 for a month of food, for one adult? That is really laughable, unless you eat at mcDonalds every day. And that will make you sick. And $93 for medical for one adult? What planet are they living on? bah.
There are areas where it is even less than that. Several had it <$20,000
I know, I know. The truth is very difficult to deal with when it doesn't fit your preconceived notions or desires.
That is NOT a living wage. I don't understand why some of you don't get that.
lol. That is what a living wage is - by definition. I don't understand why you don't get that.
That is NOT a living wage. I don't understand why some of you don't get that you must change your definitions to fit my desires.
Fixed that for you.
lol. That is what a living wage is - by definition. I don't understand why you don't get that.
Living Wage /'liv-eng · wâj/
An above market wage mandate set at upwards of $15 an hour. Traditional living wages apply only to government employees or employees of companies that contract with governments. Recently, efforts have been made to expand the reach of these ordinances to all local businesses.
http://www.epionline.org/lw_glossary_list.cfm?gid=1
http://www.epionline.org/index_lw.cfmThats the living wage for a Gov't employee. Then again at the rate we are going we'll all be Gov't employees soon enough.
That is the definition of the living wage as defined by the people who are trying to get it changed for everyone else.
That is the definition of the living wage as defined by the people who are trying to control everyone else.
:)
Whatever. You've made it pretty clear you have no sympathy for those at the bottom of the rung or even the middle class, who are struggling under the burden of greed by the uber wealthy elite in this country. Many of them work their collective asses off, some more than one job, and they deserve to paid well enough to live a life for their efforts. But all you classists think only people who put on a tie and work as executives or doctors or something are deserving enough to be paid well enough to afford having a life.
You have no fucking idea who you are talking to. You don't know me. You don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about. I don't put on a tie. I wear jeans to work. I worked 3 frigging jobs simultaneously AND put myself through college in my 30's to better myself and provide for my family. Fuck you very much. I got MAYBE 4-5 hours of sleep for months on end to get my degrees. I worked, and still work my ass off to raise my kids. I am NOT rich, by any stretch. I am now flat ass broke after paying my taxes.
I sacrifice what I want and do what I NEED to for those I love.
Who the fuck are you to call me a classist? I busted my ass to get what I have, yet you sit there telling me I should give it away? No one gave me anything. I fucking earned every fuckin thing I have and I deserve it, and more as do my kids.
If you want something in life you gotta EARN it. It cannot be given to you. That fuckin asinine attitude DOES NOT WORK! Empowerment is the way, NOT entitlement.
Don't listen to him sugarpop, he's a closet Rockefeller with a trust fund.
Merc works lots of jobs, but none of them are full time and all pay tons of money for surfing the Cellar.
Lookout reaps piles of cash hanging out with hookers.
:lol2:
OK, I'm kidding... all three are successful because they've worked hard, made sacrifices and made smart decisions.
I can see the problems with raising the minimum wage too high, in that it will force employers to not give some people a chance to learn or prove themselves. It would just eliminate some entry levels jobs or force employers to hire illegals under the table.
I feel sorry for the kid that's made a couple of bad choices in his/her teens and is stuck with a family that will repeat the cycle for lack of a roll model. Especially when the economy is down
But all that said, you can't convince me that minimum wage is a living wage. At most, I'll admit it's a surviving wage. :haha:
You have no fucking idea who you are talking to. You don't know me. You don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about. I don't put on a tie. I wear jeans to work. I worked 3 frigging jobs simultaneously AND put myself through college in my 30's to better myself and provide for my family. Fuck you very much. I got MAYBE 4-5 hours of sleep for months on end to get my degrees. I worked, and still work my ass off to raise my kids. I am NOT rich, by any stretch. I am now flat ass broke after paying my taxes.
I sacrifice what I want and do what I NEED to for those I love.
Who the fuck are you to call me a classist? I busted my ass to get what I have, yet you sit there telling me I should give it away? No one gave me anything. I fucking earned every fuckin thing I have and I deserve it, and more as do my kids.
If you want something in life you gotta EARN it. It cannot be given to you. That fuckin asinine attitude DOES NOT WORK! Empowerment is the way, NOT entitlement.
kudos to you. I applaud your hard work. Really. And Merc's. Merc knows I'm serious because we are friends. Anyone, though, who continues to make excuses for the uber rich, and why they shouldn't pay more taxes, or why they deserve to be paid 500x the average worker, is a classist in my eyes. I didn't mean to offend you personally though. I don't believe ANYONE deserves that much more money, especially when some of those very people are the same people who brought the world economy to a screeching halt, and others have run their companies into the ground.
CBO has interesting data on the growing income gap in a report this month.
Some figures from one chart on the
average after tax income over the last 25+ years (
pdf)
[INDENT]the lowest fifth increased from $14,900 to $16,500 from 1979 to 1986 - 11% increase
the second fifth increased from $30,100 to 35,400 from '79 to '86 - 18% increase
the top fifth increased from $98,900 to $184,400 from '79 to '86 - 87% increase
the top 1% increased from $337,100 to $1,200,300 - 256% increase[/INDENT]
Pretty much explains why I support a progressive income tax....and I still aspire to the top tier...even if it means paying a higher percentage marginal tax rate. (not that I expect to make that top 1%)
More:
http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/taxdistribution.cfmCBO has interesting data on the growing income gap in a report this month.
Some figures from one chart on the average after tax income over the last 25+ years (pdf)
[INDENT]the lowest fifth increased from $14,900 to $16,500 from 1979 to 1986 - 11% increase
the second fifth increased from $30,100 to 35,400 from '79 to '86 - 18% increase
the top fifth increased from $98,900 to $184,400 from '79 to '86 - 87% increase
the top 1% increased from $337,100 to $1,200,300 - 256% increase[/INDENT]
Pretty much explains why I support a progressive income tax....and I still aspire to the top tier...even if it means paying a higher percentage marginal tax rate. (not that I expect to make that top 1%)
More: http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/taxdistribution.cfm
From your chart:
Comprehensive household income equals pretax cash income plus income from other sources. Pretax cash income is the sum of
wages, salaries, self-employment income, rents, taxable and nontaxable interest, dividends, realized capital gains, cash transfer
payments, and retirement benefits plus taxes paid by businesses (corporate income taxes and the employer's share of Social
Security, Medicare, and federal unemployment insurance payroll taxes) and employee contributions to 401(k) retirement plans. Other
sources of income include all in-kind benefits (Medicare, Medicaid, employer-paid health insurance premiums, food stamps, school
lunches and breakfasts, housing assistance, and energy assistance).
That is a lot of different souces of "income" which most people would not include as income. So it sort of scews the results as being less than accurate IMHO.
Feds consider it income, and since the stat is a percentage increase as long as it's comparing the same income ingredients, it doesn't matter what you call it.
From your chart:
That is a lot of different souces of "income" which most people would not include as income. So it sort of scews the results as being less than accurate IMHO.
Yes, well, the rich would love it if their capital gains did not count as
income, even though it most definitely is. I would prefer it if capital gains were taxed
more and actual work-related income was taxed
much less.
Yes, well, the rich would love it if their capital gains did not count as income, even though it most definitely is. I would prefer it if capital gains were taxed more and actual work-related income was taxed much less.
I would agree that capital gains are income.
kudos to you. I applaud your hard work. Really. (but you're still a classist.)
Well thanks. for that non-whatever it was.
Pretty much explains why I support a progressive income tax....and I still aspire to the top tier...even if it means paying a higher percentage marginal tax rate. (not that I expect to make that top 1%)
Eh, the more I think about it the more I agree with Lookout's tax idea. I would change it to a small progressive tax then flat rate but the main point is to have a large sales tax. I don't know if he went into this, but I would make the sales tax "progressive" as well. Low sales tax for necessities (food, clothing, etc), higher for entertainment, and extremely high for luxury items.
Anyone, though, who continues to make excuses for the uber rich, and why they shouldn't pay more taxes, or why they deserve to be paid 500x the average worker, is a classist in my eyes.
Somewhere in our bickering I have expressed myself poorly if you think I am making excuses for anyone or believe someone
deserves to earn a bajizillion dollars. My main point is that you spend all your energy on the rich and why they don't deserve what they have. I don't really care what they have and I'm not a big fan of the idea of
deserving anything anyway. Lots of people deserve to be covered in rainbows and puppy dog kisses but are struck down by cancer. Others only deserve to cry in pain as their colon cancer and flesh eating bacteria race to see which will kill them but they get a bunch of money and a gold watch. That's life and it is what it is.
My problem with your approach is you spend so much time blaming the evil rich guy that you seem to lose sight of what is really hurting the poor. It isn't just a lack of dollars that hurts them. Instead of focusing on taking money from one to give to another, focus on helping those without to get for themselves. You know that whole "give a man a fish and feed him for a day" thing? I'm a big believer in that.
I probably sound narcissistic because I keep bringing up my own life, but that is the only real experience I have lived for myself so I know it to be true. I'm a fairly intelligent guy, but far from the smartest you'll meet. I grew up in a lower income factory family and now I'm middle class white collar. No one gave me anything to lift me from one category to the next and nothing about my character changed by getting a few more dollars. I saw my dad bust his ass for the ever shrinking carrot of a pension. While I respect the way my dad did it I also knew that life was not a viable option for my generation. I decided I needed a college education so I went into the military to pay for it. When I got out I worked multiple jobs and took out loans to finish school. After school I moved from career to career in my quest to gain experience and earn more money. In all honesty I enjoyed none of my jobs but they were necessary to move in the direction I wanted to go. Now I own my company in a fairly profitable industry. I happen to be very good at what I do so I'm well compensated but the truth is I don't actually enjoy what I'm doing now either. I would much rather be a school teacher and soccer coach BUT I had to weigh the options and I decided earning more money in a career I tolerate is more beneficial to my family than earning a teacher's wage in a career I'd love. It is a decision to sacrifice something in exchange for something I value - a life of comfort for my family.
That is what it all comes to for me - decisions and sacrifice. A couple of guys I went to school with I am just in awe of. One of them is a nationally recognized leader in a field he created and is a regular guest to the white house and featured in magazines. He chose to sacrifice a high income to follow a cause he believes in. It just so happens he became quite well known for doing that.
There are other guys I went to school with who are strangely in dead end jobs hovering along the edges of the lower end of working class bitching because they can't catch a break. The most talented guy I know makes $9 an hour and is angry at the world but refuses to accept responsibility for the life he lives. He has been offered jobs as a chef at high end restaurants. He has been asked to join a well known rock band when they needed a bassist but he declined. He had the opportunity to purchase a profitable business with no money out of pocket but said no. He refuses to live anywhere other than where he currently lives even though it is a dying area with no prospect for recovery. He chooses to stay and earn $9 an hour rather than sacrifice his desired location. In my mind he has exactly ZERO right to bitch about being broke. It is his choice.
While that is an extreme example it is the same for nearly everyone. The guy working as the night stocker at a grocery store is not a slave to the store, he has the ability to gain education and experiences and move up into different careers, but he has to decide that is what he wants to do. He has to have a goal. He won't go straight from stocker to CEO but there are no impossible to overcome roadblocks between those two jobs.
Eh, the more I think about it the more I agree with Lookout's tax idea. I would change it to a small progressive tax then flat rate but the main point is to have a large sales tax. I don't know if he went into this, but I would make the sales tax "progressive" as well. Low sales tax for necessities (food, clothing, etc), higher for entertainment, and extremely high for luxury items.
I have said that wouldn't be a bad idea. The problem with the way it has been presented, is it would hit the lower income and middle class too much, and it would be much better for wealthier people. It will never ahppen though, because the people at the top would never stand for a high luxury tax on their playthings.
Honestly, I don't see what is so bad about a progressive income tax, without all the loopholes.
Honestly, I don't see what is so bad about a progressive income tax, without all the loopholes.
because the people who make it don't want to give it to people who don't.
lookout, thank you for explaing your position better to me. I respect what you've done with your life, and you know, after you have all the money you need you could still teach.
I agree and understand that people make choices. The problem I have is that, as the gap grows and grows, and the people at the top make more and more, it leaves less for the average worker, and it makes it a lot more difficult for people who might want to achieve a comfortable living in the middle class but aren't really interested in working all the time and sacrificing other aspects of their life. It used to be a great life, being middle class. You didn't have to slave away for 80 hours a week and sacrifice having a family or a life. (yes, I know you can have a family and still work 80 hours a week, but what kind of family life is that?) You could work a normal 40 hours a week, have plenty of time to spend with your family (or doing other things if you didn't want a family), you could afford really good health care, afford to put some money away in a savings account, and it was available to both blue collar and white collar workers. That has slowly disappeared, and it makes me sad and it pisses me off, the way workers are treated.
because the people who make it don't want to give it to people who don't.
I havent seen any data anywhere to support that.
By that I mean, the top taxpayers saying they pay too much.
The people making that claim are not the rich in many (most?) cases, but persons who are ideologically opposed to a progressive tax.
I havent seen any data anywhere to support that.
By that I mean, the top taxpayers saying they pay too much.
The people making that claim are not the rich in many (most?) cases, but persons who are ideologically opposed to a progressive tax.
We are having a circular discussion here, again.
Why would you need to have some data saying such a thing by top taxpayers? Such a person would most likely not say such a thing. Well maybe Donald Trump. The problem is that "rich" still has not been defined. And the proposals to raise taxes on the "rich" is not a tax on the "rich" at all but a tax on upper income earners. And it is among those upper income earners that pay the majority of all federal and state income tax among earners. And that is completely an unfair tax. I am not going to change your mind and you have been utterly unable to change mine as your facts are no less biased than mine.
Uh oh....time for a poll!
[INDENT]
http://www.gallup.com/poll/117472/Say-Low-Income-Americans-Paying-Fair-Share-Taxes.aspx[/INDENT]
Only 19% of persons making over $75,000 say that "upper income people" pay too much.
Uh oh....time for a poll!
Polls are worthless statistical data points. Another circular discussion which you cannot support to be false.
More than $75000 must be your "rich"
Polls are worthless statistical data points. Another circular discussion which you cannot support to be false.
People can take it for whatever they want. Its not for me or you to decide.
People can take it for whatever they want. Its not for me or you to decide.
True dat. But I will continue to point out the over all statistical weakness of a poll.
The general public needs to understand the serious weakness of public opinion research in the U.S. Most public opinion polls (including ours) have to call and speak with about 4 people before one person agrees to participate in any survey. Since there is no way of knowing if the refusers have different or the same views as the accepters, there is no valid way to report that a poll really reflects the public viewpoint on anything. When polls report a margin of error (usually 3-5%, though our small sample size generated a statistic of 6-8%) they are, to put it gently, fibbing. What they should be saying is "if the people refusing to be polled were to have similar views to those polled, then the results reflect those of the general population with a margin of error of 3-5%". However, because the answer to the "if" is usually unknown, the actual potential error margin, in simple questioning, both in corporate media polls and in ours, is unknown but definitely larger than reported.
``Polls prove that people are stupid,'' said Hal Becker, who headed the Connecticut-based Futures Group, an outfit which specialized in sophisticated polling of the U.S. and other national populations.
``If you want an American to believe something, then all you have to do is get a poll taken that says it is so (and believe me, that is an easy thing to do, if you know how), and then get it publicized. You can tell somebody the Moon is made of green cheese--if the poll numbers say it is so, then the jerk reading them or watching them on the boob tube will believe it. Guaranteed.''
http://american_almanac.tripod.com/polls.htmThats cool..but I (and many professionals in a variety of fields) will still look at polls as one tool among many for a snapshot of public opinion ...and understand the limitations.
And you still cant point to any data that top taxpayers are bitching they pay too much.
The bitching is ideological....not income based.
But you still cant point to any data that top taxpayers are bitching they pay too much.
The bitching is ideological....not income based.
Funny, because all we hear from those that pay little or no income tax is that the top earners earn to much and they want some of it. You can look around this forum and see data that supports that. They want it through the redistribution of those collected taxes as greater government spending for programs that support the no earners-payers.
While many studies answer the ques*tion of who pays taxes in America, the question of who gets the most government spending is often overlooked. Just as some Americans bear a larger portion of the nation's tax burden than others, some Americans also receive a larger share of the nation's government spending.
This report summarizes the key findings of a comprehensive 2007 Tax Foundation study of federal, state and local taxes and government spending. The results show that when we consider the distribution of government spending as well as taxes, it provides a dramatically altered view of how U.S. fiscal policy affects Americans at different income levels than is apparent from the distribution of tax burdens alone.
Overall, we find that America's lowest-earning one-fifth of households received roughly $8.21 in government spending for each dollar of taxes paid in 2004. Households with middle-incomes received $1.30 per tax dollar, and America's highest-earning households received $0.41. Government spending targeted at the lowest-earning 60 percent of U.S. households is larger than what they paid in federal, state and local taxes. In 2004, between $1.03 trillion and $1.53 trillion was redistributed downward from the two highest income quintiles to the three lowest income quintiles through government taxes and spending policy.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr151.pdfThats cool..but I (and many professionals in a variety of fields) will still look at polls as one tool among many for a snapshot of public opinion ...and understand the limitations.
And most professionals who deal with statistical models on a regular basis, every day and in practice, agree that polls are really quite worthless.
Funny, because all we hear from those that pay little or no income tax is that the top earners earn to much and they want some of it. You can look around this forum and see data that supports that.
I make a very comfortable living and I dont think I pay too much and would have no complaints about paying more as my income rises.
Ideological.
BTW, many would consider the Tax Foundation to be ideological as well.
My complaint is with the complexity of the current tax code.
Again..there is no data that I have seen anywhere that top taxpayers believe in overwhelming numbers that they pay too much in taxes.
Maybe you should do a poll?
Funny, because all we hear from those that pay little or no income tax is that the top earners earn to much and they want some of it. You can look around this forum and see data that supports that. They want it through the redistribution of those collected taxes as greater government spending for programs that support the no earners-payers.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr151.pdf
My heart is pumping purple piss for them. No, really.
It's funny, because I hear wealthier people say all the time in interviews that they should be paying more.
It's funny, because I hear wealthier people say all the time in interviews that they should be paying more.
Wealthier than whom?
Uber 0.1% of the population wealthy or the people in the middle, say 100k - 350k? Because I doubt you will ever hear the later group state that.
Actors, people in entertainment, journalists, Warren Buffet, people like that.
How much does an "actor" make? So you lump "Actors, people in entertainment, journalists" and Warren Buffet in the same group. I don't follow.
Some actors and people in entertainment make boatloads of money, others just make a living.
I'm not claiming that they make nearly as much as Warren Buffet, but they do make a lot, much more than average, and many of them have said they think they should pay more taxes. YOU challenged what I said. I was just giving examples of people I have heard say that. Warran Buffet just happens to be one of them.
