Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
Veezy said:
Just ignore him. He is missing quite a few screws.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2011: Of Weiners, Boehners, Santorum, and Teabags
- Thread starter PantherLotus
- Start date
- Status
Just ignore him. He is missing quite a few screws.
Ain't that some shit? The party that basically goes on an anti-tax increase CRUSADE year after year go back on their word, starting by increasing a payroll tax that only affects those making up to ~$106,000 a year. For real? All this talk about how you want to defend Americans from paying a cent more in taxes and this is what you do?Plinko said:
This really does all but confirm that they don't give a flying fuck about the lower or middle classes; they are expecting them to pick up the increase while the wealthiest Americans continue to get a free ride for having bloated salaries and excessive tax breaks to begin with.
I really hope the electorate is paying attention to this... but the sad part is a great deal of lower/middle class Americans will somehow buy into the fact that this is necessary despite the fact that conservatives have been causing them more harm than good over the past 10+ years. Well, to be blunt, kicking them while they're down.
Bulbo Urethral Baggins
Banned
What are you talking about? A payroll tax affects every worker. The tax is only on the first $106,000.Diablos said:
And I'm not sure that even the Dems support Obama on keeping these tax cuts. Do they?
Bulbo Urethral Baggins said:
What the hell are you talking about? The article we are discussing is talking about how the republicans will likely support a payroll tax INCREASE. Obama, rightly, is not in favor of that because it disproportionately hurts the lower and middle class
Bulbo Urethral Baggins
Banned
It was a temporary decrease. Are Dems on board with keeping this decrease? Anyone know? I know the CBO doesn't agree that this is a good course of action.Gonaria said:
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
So basically you want only rich people, or high earnings to be taxed? Why not tax everyone?
PhoenixDark
Banned
Bulbo Urethral Baggins said:
At the time many liberals were upset about its effect on social security. Maybe the script has changed now. Personally I'm fine with it expiring. I'd rather see the SS cap removed entirely, which would pretty much fix social security.
AlteredBeast said:
I think most people here would be ok with raising the payroll tax if it was accompanied by also increasing tax rates on top earners and closing corporate tax loopholes.
Everyone is just pointing out the ridiculous hypocrisy of the Republican party, who was willing to destroy the world economy in the debt ceiling crisis to avoid raising taxes on millionaires/billionaires, while a few weeks later demanding we increase a very regressive tax that affects poor and middle class families much more than any wealthy American.
AlteredBeast said:
Yea, I only want to tax rich people...
Everyone is already taxed, and I have no problem going back to the Clinton era tax structure. What I do have a problem with is taxes that disproportionately hurt the middle class and tax decreases that disproportionately help the rich. The middle and lower class drive our economy. Ensuring that they have enough disposable income helps everyone and lets our economy grow. There is nothing fair about flat or capped tax rates and it is also just economically stupid
Everyone is taxed.AlteredBeast said:
The question, if you accept that we need to increase revenue, is who are we going to increase the taxation on.
Personally, I think we should mostly target rich people, for two main reasons -
- Morally - rich people can afford this more than poor people, we'll be inflicting less physical harm on them by increasing their taxation.
- Practically - because of the decreasing marginal utility of money.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
Bulbo Urethral Baggins said:
:|
You seriously want to bring the CBO into this?
[Nintex] said:
What?!? They all should already have one pair? Or are all them too lazy and spending our hard earned money buying booze with their welfare checks and foodstamps?? And if they don't have pants the local police needs to imprison them for indecency! I can't have my kids go around seeing the pant-less poor!!
If I saw one of them people without pants on my property or on my street I'd shoot them on the spot.
Why isn't the government doing anything. execute those perverts!
Just like the Bush tax cuts.Bulbo Urethral Baggins said:
I think most Dems are on board with it. I agree it's not good policy and would rather see about a hajillion other things done first, but in their absence it's (just) better than nothing. And better than nothing is grounds enough for the GOP to oppose it.
RustyNails
Member
Can someone answer this?RustyNails said:
speculawyer
Member
That is his point. It affects workers. It doesn't affect wealthy who generally make all their money with capital gains. And it doesn't affect wealthy workers (doctors, lawyers, etc.) much at all because it only affects the first $106K. Everything after that is not touched.Bulbo Urethral Baggins said:
It is amazingly cynical move to nail the poor & working class while not affecting the upper class at all or much.
And sadly, it is too complicated for most people to realize it. Even you couldn't figure it out.
All that said . . . it does need to go up . . . but the taxes on the wealthy ALSO need to go up.
speculawyer
Member
[Nintex] said:
That whole argument is stupid . . . yes, our country is awash in cheap consumer items. Clothing, small appliances, TVs, microwaves, DVD players, MP3 players . . . all that stuff is dirt cheap. Often free or nearly free since you can get hand-me downs, things left on street corners, Goodwill, garage sales, etc.
So what? Man can't live on Chinese DVD players alone. What is killing the poor is the cost of rent (Rent is too damn high!), healthcare (have none), gasoline, and to a lesser extent food.
Edit: BTW, don't feed the trolldude.
Jaladinozozo
Banned
I thought this was interesting, Obama fact sheet to date since taking office.
http://stpeteforpeace.org/obama.html
http://stpeteforpeace.org/obama.html
The Chosen One
Member
re: Palin
Palin is definitely running. But she's lazy and wants to do the least amount of work as possible. Also she has no intentions of winning the nomination but she doesn't want to be humiliated either. I'm guessing her ideal result would be to pull off a '08 Huckabee. Win one or two early states, and then hang on long enough to win a few more states with large evangelical bases. This would keep her politically viable enough to where she could still go back and make good money off her celebrity for another 4-8 years.
So I think she's trying to enter the race at the last possible moment. Avoid any unnecessary or potentially embarrassing debate and straw poll performances. There are no more straw polls between now and the first Republican primary so she's successfully dodged all of those. There are still quite a few debates ahead but the field has already gotten smaller.
But I don't think the Palin camp was really expecting for Bachmann to enter. Not only did Bachmann enter the race, but she's proven to be somewhat viable among the far right. The absence of Palin probably helped prompt Rick Perry to jump in the race.
As I mentioned before, Palin doesn't actually need to win the Republican nomination to accomplish her goal. But she does need to win the Tea Party "nomination" to stay viable long-term. This way too even if Mittens or Huntsmen win the nomination, they would have to kiss Sarah's ring to get Tea Party support and she could quietly proclaim herself the de-facto leader of the movement. This of course would mean more $$$$.
Palin is definitely running. But she's lazy and wants to do the least amount of work as possible. Also she has no intentions of winning the nomination but she doesn't want to be humiliated either. I'm guessing her ideal result would be to pull off a '08 Huckabee. Win one or two early states, and then hang on long enough to win a few more states with large evangelical bases. This would keep her politically viable enough to where she could still go back and make good money off her celebrity for another 4-8 years.
So I think she's trying to enter the race at the last possible moment. Avoid any unnecessary or potentially embarrassing debate and straw poll performances. There are no more straw polls between now and the first Republican primary so she's successfully dodged all of those. There are still quite a few debates ahead but the field has already gotten smaller.
But I don't think the Palin camp was really expecting for Bachmann to enter. Not only did Bachmann enter the race, but she's proven to be somewhat viable among the far right. The absence of Palin probably helped prompt Rick Perry to jump in the race.
As I mentioned before, Palin doesn't actually need to win the Republican nomination to accomplish her goal. But she does need to win the Tea Party "nomination" to stay viable long-term. This way too even if Mittens or Huntsmen win the nomination, they would have to kiss Sarah's ring to get Tea Party support and she could quietly proclaim herself the de-facto leader of the movement. This of course would mean more $$$$.
Jaladinozozo
Banned
besada said:
that i had no idea about 90% of this stuff and assumed obama was nothing like the bush administration
Jaladinozozo
Banned
besada said:
i did a lot right until the obama election, then i got tired of following it, was busy finishing my senior year in college, and haven't really paid attention again until the last few months.
Jaladinozozo said:I thought this was interesting, Obama fact sheet to date since taking office.
http://stpeteforpeace.org/obama.html
Fact is probably a misnomer there.
Jaladinozozo said:
Yeah, he's basically a moderate Republican. But considering that his opponents are mostly crazy extremist Republicans, what's a hippie liberal going to do?
I would point out that it deals frequently with the expectations had of Obama, and most of those expectations were hopelessly naive, and apparently wildly out of touch with his actual stances. Anyone who expected a liberal champion was bound to be terribly disappointed.
RustyNails
Member
poligaffers, welcome to new Libya thread
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=441851
22:11 ShababLibya tweets: According to Al-Aan & Libya Al-Ahrar, confirmed by #Mahmoud #Jibril: #Saif #Al #Islam #Gaddafi was captured by FFs at Rixos earlier today.
22:09 Al Jazeera Arabic Revolutionaries now control Fashloum, Tajura, Friday Market, Arada, Zawyat Al Dohmani and Bin Ashour districts of Tripoli.
twitter22:03 ChangeInLibya tweets: ALEX CRAWFORD IS NOW IN THE CENTRE OF TRIPOLI. CIVILIANS POURING OUT OF THEIR HOMES HUGGING REBELS. CELEBRATIONS. NO GADDAFI FORCES.
Major world changing shit going down
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=441851
22:11 ShababLibya tweets: According to Al-Aan & Libya Al-Ahrar, confirmed by #Mahmoud #Jibril: #Saif #Al #Islam #Gaddafi was captured by FFs at Rixos earlier today.
22:09 Al Jazeera Arabic Revolutionaries now control Fashloum, Tajura, Friday Market, Arada, Zawyat Al Dohmani and Bin Ashour districts of Tripoli.
twitter22:03 ChangeInLibya tweets: ALEX CRAWFORD IS NOW IN THE CENTRE OF TRIPOLI. CIVILIANS POURING OUT OF THEIR HOMES HUGGING REBELS. CELEBRATIONS. NO GADDAFI FORCES.
Major world changing shit going down
TacticalFox88
Banned
Wonder if Bams is going to take credit for thisRustyNails said:
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Can't believe Rove thinks Palin is running. All it would do is further confuse the race between conservative votes.
I wonder if Giuliani is waiting for Palin's decision. If she throws her hat into the ring, the vote is split even more and his chances increase dramatically.
I wonder if Giuliani is waiting for Palin's decision. If she throws her hat into the ring, the vote is split even more and his chances increase dramatically.
RustyNails
Member
Get that Guile theme readyTacticalFox88 said:
Byakuya769
Member
Who was in here shitting on progress in Libya just a couple of days ago?
RoninChaos
Member
Plinko said:
After seeing that daily show piece... I feel sick. Literally sick. The people on fox news constantly talk about how people are fucking over the system, how the president is "tone deaf" to things, or that he "just doesn't get it". Get what? The sheer fucking lunacy that's being displayed here? Things like taking a knock at people, acting like they're moochers because they have a mother fucking fridge?
I wish this was some bizarre reality where things weren't like this, but there are a metric fuck-ton of people out there who believe the shit Fox News is shilling. I don't even know how those people can sleep at night.
I really think my faith in this country as a whole is about gone.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Byakuya769 said:
I'll admit that shortly after we took action in Libya I was not sure it was the right move. I was happy that most nations were included with the plan, but not sure we should get involved in any other countries at this point.
besada said:
The situation with Libya was significantly different then Iraq. I'm not an expert, but from my understanding;
I think this is what happens when you basically remove the ability for a country (Libya) to supress it's people, when the people are ready to stand up and risk their lives to change things. Iraq COULD have went that way, but there was an internal conflict being placated by Sadam, and by removing Sadam we ignited it.
When you're looking at ANY proposed change in tax policy, the first question you need to ask is: Who will pay more under this system, and who will pay less?
Then you need to ask: Am I okay with this change?
You can apply this to the "fair tax" that conservatives like Herman Cain advocate, and it really illustrates where their interests lie.
Then you need to ask: Am I okay with this change?
You can apply this to the "fair tax" that conservatives like Herman Cain advocate, and it really illustrates where their interests lie.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
RoninChaos said:
My sentiments exactly. My wife felt the same way--and she was raised by parents who instilled in her the idea that the GOP could do no wrong and that democrats were evil. She was absolutely disgusted.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Clevinger said:
Oh, I know he doesn't like her. I wasn't trying to imply he did--my mistake if that's how I came off.
I just think Palin running would be:
1. Hilarious
2. Exactly the thing to put Giuliani at the front of the race because of how she'll take votes from Perry and Bachmann.
PhoenixDark
Banned
rest at: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...ow-with-anger-at-obama-debt-capitulation.html
Opposing position from an independant blogger: http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2011/08/21/obamas-circular-firing-squad/
Clinton would have been demonized and hated nearly as much as Obama, and opposed at nearly every junction. But she would also garner more respect from some republicans in the senate and congress who have either worked with her for years or know her.
More importantly, Clinton would hold no hesitations or confusion over the GOP. She knows exactly what their goal is and has dealt with it in the past. We would get none of this idiotic "can't we all get along" bullshit Obama attempts to sell, often whenever someone gets shot in the face (Giffords, Bin Laden).
Obama has been completely and utterly ineffective at dealing with this congress, whether with the debt ceiling or chairing the fed. And instead of picking a fight over it we get more concessions, more capitulation, and more hand wringing. He would be better served presiding over some academic university where people are more likely to work together and there's less money influencing behavior.
Unless the GOP throws him a Goldwater-esque softball next November, he won't win re-election. This recent pivot to jobs is a perfect example why. Everyone knew the economy would slow down once the stimulus ran out, yet the administration did nothing to address this when they had the chance. We can bitch about blue dogs all we want, but at the end of the day they would have been supportive of nearly everything in Obama's September jobs package. Why wasn't anyone talking about payroll tax holidays in 09 when democrats controlled all of government? Or patent protection, or more business tax cuts, etc. The fact of that matter is that the Obama administration passed the stimulus and immediately moved towards other topics (health care) assuming things would get better. They didn't (by much). And now the game is over.
cartoon_soldier
Member
Hillary failed at getting HCR, Obama didn't.
TacticalFox88
Banned
PD, Obama's re-election is neither guaranteed nor is his defeat guaranteed. It's a toss up at this moment.
Gonaria said:
The Daily Show - Warren Buffett vs Wealthy Conservatives
Part 2 should be linked there: World of Class Warfare - The Poor's Free Ride is Over
Neil deGrasse Tyson said pretty much the same on Real Time.PhoenixDark said:
And you know, as Hayden Planetarium goes, so goes the nation.
Edit: personally, while I'm thoroughly disappointing with Obama, I still believe that this is mostly a grass is greener on the other side situation.
What in Clinton's career suggests that she's particularly good at passing tough legislation thorough congress?
(I'm genuinely asking, I have not thought about it a whole lot, it is very possible I'm forgetting something obvious).
I presume me. And I readily admit I mistakenly dismissed the pace of recent events. While I have stated Qaddafi would eventually fall, I did not think the insurgents would have advanced on Tripoli this quickly. Yet that is the nature of revolutions. They can be capricious. And that is largely the function of unreliable information.Byakuya769 said:
Jaladinozozo
Banned
so wait, no other democrats are allowed to run against an incumbent? why arent any other dems running against obama? is it like going against your base type of thing and would be looked down upon?
- Status