By
contributing to Online
Onslaught,
you'll help make sure we're around for years to come. Toss us as little as
a few bucks, or as much as your generosity allows. Thanks!
Posts 1265
Registered 6-27-2007 Location Where everyone is rich but me Member Is Offline
Mood: need coffee
posted on 5-19-2011 at 07:12 PM
quote:Originally posted by Biff_Manly
The right has nothing to run on.
They have no actual fiscal policy besides lower taxes on the rich and cut help for the poor. The won't dare touch Social Security.
No one will touch social security and it's the elephant in the room. Medicare is a close second and look what's happening when someone
dares try to change that:
quote:To begin, then: We�re broke! We can�t afford any more taxes! (Well, America�s 400 wealthiest taxpayers certainly can. In 1955, according to the
Campaign for America�s Future, the country�s 400 wealthiest taxpayers had an average income of $13.3 million (in 2008 dollars) and paid 51.2 percent
of that in federal income taxes. In 2008, according to IRS calculations, they had an average income of $270.5 million and paid 18 percent of that in
federal income taxes. And in 1955, by the way, we could afford to pave roads.)
So in constant 2008 dollars the richest 400 people paid over 7 times the amount of total dollars in 2008 than they did in 1955, even though rates are
lower. Is the goal to make the poor richer, or the rich poorer?
[Edited on 5-19-2011 by doctorb]
The "B" is for Bargain!
BBMN
HAVES A CROOKED DICK!! !
Posts 1370
Registered 6-27-2007 Location 1984 Member Is Offline
Mood: Prayer Fight
posted on 5-19-2011 at 07:16 PM
Obama said openly that he wanted to work hand in hand with the other side of the aisle when he was running. And now he's doing it (well at least
trying), and still maintaining good ratings among liberals and moderates.
I find it hilarious that he's so going against the grain and refusing to give polarized politics a chance. The only times you see him even talk
about the hard right opposition to him is when he has a, 'can we stop with this bullshit already' moment. And even then he's pretty
calm about it.
The guy entered the most politically hostile territory possibly ever, during a recession, and has done nothing except extend his hand to his enemy.
Fucking awesome.
atothej
Posts 2967
Registered 12-21-2002 Location Philly Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood.
posted on 5-19-2011 at 08:16 PM
quote:Originally posted by doctorb
So in constant 2008 dollars the richest 400 people paid over 7 times the amount of total dollars in 2008 than they did in 1955, even though rates are
lower. Is the goal to make the poor richer, or the rich poorer?
Using constant 2008 dollars is a dumb comparison because it ignores inflation and attendant income disparities between '55 and '08 (but,
of course, you knew that before you posted it). Even more interestingly, the inflation rate between 1955 and 2008 was 703.4%, or 7x.
Also, the 2008 rich make more than 20x the 1955 rich and only pay 7x the dollars because of the lower rate. In essence, they pay 7x the dollars
(equal to inflation) but they keep a much greater measure of their wealth than the 1955 group did.
chretienbabacool
The Great One
Posts 3279
Registered 3-5-2003 Location Columbia, MO Member Is Offline
Mood: Go Cubs!
posted on 5-19-2011 at 08:34 PM
In terms of Obama we seem to forget he was only a tiny bit left of Hillary Clinton voting wise and policy wise before becoming president so people who
are disappointed he's not more progressive I think have bought in to the right wing attacks claiming he's a socialist. He isn't and
never was more than a centrist.
In addition, he has or has tried to fulfill most of his campaign promises. However, the Democrats in Congress were the ones who were unable to carry
them out and part of that is their fault and part of is the fault of the base who failed to stand up supporting the policies. Things like closing
Gitmo were hammered constantly by Republicans and not nearly enough supported by Democrats and so Obama had to back off or risk getting smashed
support wise.
Obama spent a lot of political capital with health care (and there again he tried to get something closer to universal health care and failed cause he
couldn't get the political cover from Congress and from supporters), with ending Don't Ask, Don't Tell, with moving on cracking down
on polluting companies and support for a global warming pact. But throughout it all supporters have been silent and the Tea Party is the one that
dominated airwaves and press time. I'd love Obama to do more and be more progressive but he never has been and he has tried to do a lot. In
the end though you can't vote someone in office and expect them to change things radically without giving him the political cover to do so. Yet
all I hear is gnashing of teeth from progressives on how he's a disappointing president. Frankly that disappoints me and shows why Democrats
constantly lose.
doctorb
Posts 1265
Registered 6-27-2007 Location Where everyone is rich but me Member Is Offline
Mood: need coffee
posted on 5-19-2011 at 09:10 PM
quote:Originally posted by atothej
Using constant 2008 dollars is a dumb comparison because it ignores inflation and attendant income disparities between '55 and '08 (but,
of course, you knew that before you posted it). Even more interestingly, the inflation rate between 1955 and 2008 was 703.4%, or 7x.
I thought using constant 2008 dollars took inflation out of it. Wouldn't "inflation adjusted" be the same thing? So they multiplied the real
1955 figures by 703% to get the numbers used in the example and then the 2008 figure was still 7 times that.
Am I wrong? I thought using exact 1955 dollars would be what ignores inflation.
quote:Also, the 2008 rich make more than 20x the 1955 rich and only pay 7x the dollars because of the lower rate. In essence, they pay 7x the
dollars (equal to inflation) but they keep a much greater measure of their wealth than the 1955 group did.
And this is the heart of it, then. Is higher income tax a way to equal income disparity, a way to punish the rich because they are rich, and a way to
get government dollars because the government will spend more fairly and wisely than the person who made it?
Or are higher taxes going to be a drain on the economy and ultimately make everyone poorer? The article tries to paint the picture that the rich can
afford more (and of course they can) but is it wise to make them pay more? Or will they use that to improve the economy
giving the poor a better opportunity to better their financial position?
The "B" is for Bargain!
denverpunk
Showstopper
Posts 968
Registered 6-27-2007 Location Mile-Hi Member Is Offline
Mood: Stoked
posted on 5-19-2011 at 09:27 PM
The rich HAVE to pay more. First, the obvious -- they make more, so they'll pay more using the same percentages. Second, when essential
services like infrastructure and public education are failing and need money, it's borderline immoral for the rich and profitable corporations
to constantly weasel their way out of paying taxes. If someone who made $20,000,000 last year had to pay 1955 taxes, they'd still walk with TEN
MILLION DOLLARS. The rich can't expect poorer people to feel their pain when poor people are having trouble paying their rent, while the rich
will be rich no matter what.
Call it income distribution if you want, but the middle class is rapidly shrinking. Without a strong middle class, the country becomes even more
controlled by the rich than it already is -- basically turning us into something like Mexico.
chretienbabacool
The Great One
Posts 3279
Registered 3-5-2003 Location Columbia, MO Member Is Offline
Mood: Go Cubs!
posted on 5-20-2011 at 03:57 AM
The reason trickle down economics doesn't work is because the rich don't spend their money like the middle class in the sectors that
actually create jobs. The rich spend much more of their money in very individualized sectors which tend to employ fewer people. An example being a
custom made automobile which is not made in a factory environment where many people are employed. Also the rich save their money far more than the
poor or middle class because they can or invest it again in areas far less likely top create jobs.
Jobs, sales tax and individual community economies are supported by the middle class and poor. When a middle class person travels to a mall, buys in
a Target, gets gas at the nearby station, grabs a burger, that is in the end what creates jobs and wealth for the greater # of people.
atothej
Posts 2967
Registered 12-21-2002 Location Philly Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood.
posted on 5-20-2011 at 01:02 PM
quote:Originally posted by doctorb
Or will they use that to improve the economy giving the poor a better opportunity to better
their financial position?
Ah, yes, the invisible hand, that'll solve it. Here's the operative fact (noted in part by CBBC): tax cuts for the rich act like
an invisible fist clenched
around a wad of dollars. The rich don't reinvest their tax savings in the economy, the poor, or job creation; instead, they just save the
additional money after a tax cut. I know it's hard to believe, but the real job creation and economy boosting tax policies are those that give
additional disposable income to who will spend the vast majority of it: the middle class and working poor. Those people then go spend their money on
various goods and services, creating jobs and income for others. Supply-side has never worked and will never work because producing more of something
will not give others the ability to buy it. Demand (represented in actually-spent disposable income) is what creates jobs, supply rises to meet
demand.
[Edited on 5-20-2011 by atothej]
Your momma's so fat, Dave Meltzer gave her struggling to put her jeans on in the morning five stars. -- FF, destroying Jeb, his momma, and
Meltzer in one fell swoop.
drmuerto
Man of a Thousand Holds
Posts 1243
Registered 11-17-2005 Location Charlotte, NC Member Is Offline
Mood: PhDeceased
posted on 5-21-2011 at 02:25 PM
C.MontgomeryPunk
Man of a Thousand Holds
Posts 1698
Registered 1-6-2010 Member Is Offline
Mood: ButtViper-y
posted on 5-21-2011 at 10:59 PM
Bush CBO Mitch Daniels built in the Bush Tax Cuts to sunset after ten years because there was a HUGE debt explosion that would happen that they needed
to hide to even get past the GOP congress. Of course they knew the plan was to then to get them extended permanently on the next President by crying
that they were "raising your taxes". If it was passed to sunset - then it's not raising your taxes by letting it sunset like it was passed
to do.
I remember Eddie Guerrero.
doctorb
Posts 1265
Registered 6-27-2007 Location Where everyone is rich but me Member Is Offline
Mood: need coffee
posted on 6-2-2011 at 02:34 PM
A lot of laws are passed to sunset for the same reason. Either they're a dumb idea and the politicians know the law needs to go away as soon
after they take credit for helping someone as possible or they purposely want to make the charge that the next guy "doesn't care about you the
way I do".
Anyway, Daniels is out. I'm kind of bummed. I don't know a whole lot about him, but the little I've looked at so far made me think
he was the guy.
Huckabee and Romney were the closest last time around which should make them the top this time around, but Huck is out and Romney is still on the
sidelines.
I wish Fred Thompson were 15 years younger and/or actually wanted the job.
The "B" is for Bargain!
williamssl
Steers and Queers
Posts 4317
Registered 1-11-2004 Location Hippieville Member Is Offline
Mood: Fuck USC
posted on 6-6-2011 at 04:51 PM
Another board favorite has thrown his name into the hat....
Seriously Santorum...why do you bother?
Don't Mess With Texas
BBMN
HAVES A CROOKED DICK!! !
Posts 1370
Registered 6-27-2007 Location 1984 Member Is Offline
Mood: Prayer Fight
posted on 6-6-2011 at 05:32 PM
Holy fuck, that photo never gets less weird.
williamssl
Steers and Queers
Posts 4317
Registered 1-11-2004 Location Hippieville Member Is Offline
quote:The class of 2016 is impressive, but no one has a better shot [in 2012] than, say, Pawlenty of defeating Obama next November: some are too
green to contend against a sitting president; others are too moderate for today�s GOP base. By running now, they would risk revealing their
inexperience or tying themselves in too many Tea Party knots for future audiences.
But 2016 is a better bet. By running a solid, staid T. Paw type against 2012�s formidable incumbent, Republicans are keeping their most explosive
powder dry for the more winnable battle ahead. In 2016 Democrats won�t have Obama at the top of the ticket�or even his vice president, Joe Biden.
Instead, they�ll have someone who�s subsisted on rare slivers of spotlight to shine through the president�s vast shadow
quote:President Barack Obama is likely to be defeated in 2012. The reason is that he faces four serious threats. The economy is very weak and
unlikely to experience a robust recovery by Election Day. Key voter groups have soured on him. He's defending unpopular policies. And he's
made bad strategic decisions.
Let's start with the economy. Unemployment is at 9.1%, with almost 14 million Americans out of work. Nearly half the jobless have been without
work for more than six months. Mr. Obama promised much better, declaring that his February 2009 stimulus would cause unemployment to peak at 8% by the
end of summer 2009 and drop to roughly 6.8% today.
After boasting in June 2010 that "Our economy . . . is now growing at a good clip," he laughingly admitted last week, "Shovel-ready was not as
shovel-ready as we expected." The humor will be lost on most.
No doubt Rove is smart guy and a political genius, but I think he's wrong. Newsweek is a bankrupt rag that no one but me reads and I only read
it because it comes free and I can get through the whole thing in one shit, but I'm giving them the edge here. I think Obama wins against anyone
in the field right now and I don't think anyone not yet in can generate a big enough buzz to contend.
Except Fred. He can drink some sort of anti-aging energy drink and come out swinging, right? Or is he dead already. It's hard to tell with
him.
[Edited on 6-23-2011 by doctorb]
The "B" is for Bargain!
TommyD420
Man of a Thousand Holds
Posts 1655
Registered 12-30-2005 Location Worcester, MA Member Is Offline
Mood: Smurfy
posted on 6-23-2011 at 04:35 PM
quote:Originally posted by doctorb
Except Fred. He can drink some sort of anti-aging energy drink and come out swinging, right? Or is he dead already. It's hard to tell with
him.
Oh, so you must be the guy that donated to his 2008 Presidential Campaign.
I've heard rumors that such a person existed, but I never believed them until now.
doctorb
Posts 1265
Registered 6-27-2007 Location Where everyone is rich but me Member Is Offline
Mood: need coffee
posted on 6-24-2011 at 04:21 PM
I gave him a few bucks in exchange for a "Fred 08" window sticker. Then he dropped out before my state even voted. I honestly do not remember who I
voted for in the primary. Was there a black guy not named Keyes? It might have been him.
Oh well, I heard Bachmann on the radio this morning saying Obama will be a one term president and all I could think was, certainly won't be any
thanks to you.
The "B" is for Bargain!
BBMN
HAVES A CROOKED DICK!! !
Posts 1370
Registered 6-27-2007 Location 1984 Member Is Offline
Mood: Prayer Fight
posted on 8-2-2011 at 03:05 AM
Epic Face Time: Creepy Bachmann Fans - Watch more Funny Videos
Stone Cold Steve Autism
I did eat all the macaroni. I don't know how he knows.
Posts 2269
Registered 4-29-2008 Member Is Offline
Mood: Sparklee
posted on 8-2-2011 at 11:22 AM
someone bumped this thread
ima bump this truth
credit drmuerto:
Realistically speaking, there is no way for you to prove that I am not Batman.
doctorb
Posts 1265
Registered 6-27-2007 Location Where everyone is rich but me Member Is Offline
"According to GOP sources, the decision to cede the 2012 election to Obama came after rank-and-file Republicans agreed that grinding the president
down to nothing and pushing him to the brink of insanity was far more in line with the Republican Party's core principles than actually
controlling the White House, making laws, or governing the country."
The "B" is for Bargain!
drmuerto
Man of a Thousand Holds
Posts 1243
Registered 11-17-2005 Location Charlotte, NC Member Is Offline
Mood: PhDeceased
posted on 8-12-2011 at 03:17 AM
Santorum To Give Out Free Jelly At Ames
LOLz!
Paddlefoot
Posts 1976
Registered 1-19-2008 Location Circus Of Gay Member Is Offline
Mood: F'd N Da A
posted on 8-12-2011 at 03:37 AM
Re: tonight's debate on (ugh) FOX:
While I'm certain that he's probably a psychotic, especially on any economic issue, hearing Ron Paul say something along the lines of
"get us out of these two goddamn wars" was good. And it got even better when what sounded like the majority of an audience of die-hard conservatives
erupted in cheers right after he said it. It's probably way to premature to say it out loud, because that neo-conservative bullshit really has a
surprisingly long shelf-life as far as reckless and lethal philosophies go, but if conservatism convincingly turns against foreign interventionism and
adventurism it can only be seen as a good thing.
GW Bush read Camus because "everyone has to read a book written by a killer whale" - General JC Christian
I downloaded the soundtrack to "Song of the South," and it's 45 minutes of whipcracks, women pleading "please, no," and people screaming.
- the esteemed Dr. Mobute
When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir? - John Maynard Keynes
chretienbabacool
The Great One
Posts 3279
Registered 3-5-2003 Location Columbia, MO Member Is Offline
Mood: Go Cubs!
posted on 8-12-2011 at 05:55 AM
The problem is that for conservatives it's either military intervention or isolationism and nothing in between. Ron Paul and his loonie
libertarians are perfectly happy to see the rest of the world starve and kill itself as long as the government doesn't get involved.
[Edited on 8-12-2011 by chretienbabacool]
doctorb
Posts 1265
Registered 6-27-2007 Location Where everyone is rich but me Member Is Offline
Mood: need coffee
posted on 8-12-2011 at 02:09 PM
I'm not sure what in between actually works, though.
Sanctions don't. Trade embargoes don't. UN resolutions don't. Weapons and monetary aid always have a way of biting us in the ass a
decade later.
