Support NeoGAF

[RustyNails]

I'm not sure, but I think Rusty took the post that he quoted above as if I was criticizing food stamps, when I was doing the exact opposite (If so I apologize for my sentence structure). Aside from that, I don't see anyone actually criticizing food stamps.

Or maybe I just misinterpreted his response.

Sorry, maybe I misread your post. The line "liberals don't seem to care when food stamps are increased" rubbed me the wrong way. In any case, I don't want to misconstrue your post further.

 

[Open Source]

I genuinely don't understand why you think Obama is not comparable to Hoover. Both were advocates of austerity in difficult economic times.

Hoover increased government spending by 47% in constant dollars. However, he was not willing to run a sustained deficit and implemented the biggest peacetime tax hike in US history to eliminate the massive deficit that appeared after tax revenues evaporated in 1929.

In comparison, per capita spending (again, in constant dollars) by the federal government has increased by roughly 20% under Obama, about the same amount it increased during Bush 2's 8 years.

Federal spending has increased more than 300% in constant dollars since 1960, and government spending at all levels (local, state, federal) has almost quadrupled.

Hoover is an interesting case. He cut taxes soon after taking office, then hiked them back up in 1932 almost as high as they previously had been. He also adopted pro-labor policies aimed at strong-arming employers into retaining their employees. He blamed Mexicans for taking American jobs, and both he and FDR actively deported them on a fairly large scale. He adopted protectionist legislation that caused other countries to do the same in retaliation. He increased federal spending on public works projects to help ease unemployment. All in all, he was quite anti-libertarian once the Depression hit, and it can be argued that these policies are what turned a recession into a depression.

 

[Chichikov]

Ahh yes, the "Hoover was really a liberal" talking point.
It's been a while, but it's good to see it had aged well.

Edit: actually, sorry about that, this is not really an answer to anything.
But considering how many times I did this boring dance here, I think I earn some dick-credits.

p.s.
If no one else pick this up, I'll try to give a serious answer when I'm less tired.

 

[TacticalFox88]

Hoover increased government spending by 47% in constant dollars. However, he was not willing to run a sustained deficit and implemented the biggest peacetime tax hike in US history to eliminate the massive deficit that appeared after tax revenues evaporated in 1929.

In comparison, per capita spending (again, in constant dollars) by the federal government has increased by roughly 20% under Obama, about the same amount it increased during Bush 2's 8 years.

Federal spending has increased more than 300% in constant dollars since 1960, and government spending at all levels (local, state, federal) has almost quadrupled.

Hoover is an interesting case. He cut taxes soon after taking office, then hiked them back up in 1932 almost as high as they previously had been. He also adopted pro-labor policies aimed at strong-arming employers into retaining their employees. He blamed Mexicans for taking American jobs, and both he and FDR actively deported them on a fairly large scale. He adopted protectionist legislation that caused other countries to do the same in retaliation. He increased federal spending on public works projects to help ease unemployment. All in all, he was quite anti-libertarian once the Depression hit, and it can be argued that these policies are what turned a recession into a depression.

Hmm...wow. We really have gone backwards in terms of taxation. United States of Irony.

 

[empty vessel]

Ahh yes, the "Hoover was really a liberal" talking point.
It's been a while, but it's good to see it had aged well.

Lee Ohanian strikes again! Ohanian's take isn't exactly widely held. He has also "proved" that FDR's policies extended the Great Depression. It would seem that any and all "pro-labor" policy is detrimental to the economy! (Incidentally, Hoover's pro-labor "policy" amounted to asking employers not to fire workers.)

See also: http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2009/08/herbert-hoover-a-working-class-hero-is-something-to-be.html

 

[Phoenician_Viking]

Maybe the food stamps were increased due to something big that happened right before the TARP? Yeah, the collapse of Economy. The biggest pie of TARP was tax cuts: $220 billion for individuals and $60 billion for corporations. Out of $780+ billion, only $105 billion was invested in infrastructure development.

Food Stamps were $20 billion. But no, nobody wants to look at $60 billion we gave out to companies from the TARP. Yet it's bloody murder when the government gives out $20 billion to the poor, needy, unemployed and downtrodden in the form of food stamps. The circus just never seems to leave town.

With regard to energy, how much of the 43B goes to oil companies in the form of subsidies?

 

[Open Source]

Ahh yes, the "Hoover was really a liberal" talking point.
It's been a while, but it's good to see it had aged well.

Edit: actually, sorry about that, this is not really an answer to anything.
But considering how many times I did this boring dance here, I think I earn some dick-credits.

p.s.
If no one else pick this up, I'll try to give a serious answer when I'm less tired.

No, he was not a liberal, in either the classic or modern sense. His economic policies after 1929 would best be described as "populist", i.e., economic snake oil.

 

[dschalter]

No, he was not a liberal, in either the classic or modern sense. His economic policies after 1929 would best be described as "populist", i.e., economic snake oil.

i would call them bad, but not really populist at all.

 

[Open Source]

i would call them bad, but not really populist at all.

Deporting Mexicans because they took er jawbs? Populist
Leaning on employers to maintain a "living wage"? Populist
Knee-jerk protectionism? Populist
Tax hikes on the rich? Populist

 

[Invisible_Insane]

What are your guys' thoughts on the talk emerging about Obama resolving the debt ceiling dispute constitutionally? The relevant section is quoted below.

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.

I'm not sure of precisely what it would entail, but I think if it had to come down to that, it would be another grievous blow for the separation of powers, checks and balances, etc.

Sidebar: Hitokage, as long as you were going to take issue with the title, why didn't you correct the lack of Oxford comma? I've always been of the opinion that using it is the best way to make clear that (in this case) four rather than three entities are being enumerated.

 

[PhoenixDark]

How would markets, domestic and global, react to the constitutional option? Seems like quite an extreme measure, and I wonder how republicans would react as well. Can't help but think they'd attempt to sue and bring the case to the Supreme Court instead of attempting impeachment

 

[Hitokage]

Sidebar: Hitokage, as long as you were going to take issue with the title, why didn't you correct the lack of Oxford comma? I've always been of the opinion that using it is the best way to make clear that (in this case) four rather than three entities are being enumerated.

I didn't notice until you mentioned it just now. That 's' was like a flashlight in my eyes!

 

[cartoon_soldier]

How would markets, domestic and global, react to the constitutional option? Seems like quite an extreme measure, and I wonder how republicans would react as well. Can't help but think they'd attempt to sue and bring the case to the Supreme Court instead of attempting impeachment

I assume there will be a shit load of confusion, Republicans would definitely sue and call Obama a dictator and Hitler and what not. Everything would be on the edge until the Supreme Court delivered judgement.

If that path is taken and if Obama is successful in that path, I imagine markets to explode.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

I assume there will be a shit load of confusion, Republicans would definitely sue and call Obama a dictator and Hitler and what not. Everything would be on the edge until the Supreme Court delivered judgement.

If that path is taken and if Obama is successful in that path, I imagine markets to explode.

More than they'd be exploding if we got to the point where Obama felt it necessary to exercise the Constitutional option in the first place?

I agree that it'd probably end up before the Supreme Court--which way do you think they'd be likely to vote?

 

[cartoon_soldier]

More than they'd be exploding if we got to the point where Obama felt it necessary to exercise the Constitutional option in the first place?

I agree that it'd probably end up before the Supreme Court--which way do you think they'd be likely to vote?

Well, if we got to the point where Obama had to exercise the Option markets would be exploding downwards, so after all the air clears out, they would go upwards.

Also, SC verdict is hard to tell. I will assume they will vote against Obama, 5-4.

 

[empty vessel]

What are your guys' thoughts on the talk emerging about Obama resolving the debt ceiling dispute constitutionally? The relevant section is quoted below.



I'm not sure of precisely what it would entail, but I think if it had to come down to that, it would be another grievous blow for the separation of powers, checks and balances, etc.

I think the debt limit probably is constitutional insofar as it limits assumption of debt but unconstitutional insofar as it would preclude payment of it. From the Supreme Court:

The Fourteenth Amendment, in its fourth section, explicitly declares: 'The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law , ... shall not be questioned.' While this provision was undoubtedly inspired by the desire to put beyond question the obligations of the government issued during the Civil War, its language indicates a broader connotation. We regard it as confirmatory of a fundamental principle which applies as well to the government bonds in question, and to others duly authorized by the Congress, as to those issued before the amendment was adopted. Nor can we perceive any reason for not considering the expression 'the validity of the public debt' as embracing whatever concerns the integrity of the public obligations.

We conclude that the Joint Resolution of June 5, 1933, in so far as it attempted to override the obligation created by the bond in suit, went beyond the congressional power.

In that case:

Plaintiff brought suit as the owner of an obligation of the United States for $10,000, known as 'Fourth Liberty Loan 4 1/4% Gold Bond of 1933- 1938.' This bond was issued pursuant to the Act of September 24, 1917, 1 et seq. (40 Stat. 288), as amended, and Treasury Department circular No. 121 dated September 28, 1918. The bond [294 U.S. 330, 347] provided: 'The principal and interest hereof are payable in United States gold coin of the present standard of value.'

Plaintiff alleged in his petition that at the time the bond was issued, and when he acquired it, 'a dollar in gold consisted of 25.8 grains of gold .9 fine'; that the bond was called for redemption on April 15, 1934, and, on May 24, 1934, was presented for payment; that plaintiff demanded its redemption 'by the payment of 10,000 gold dollars each containing 25.8 grains of gold .9 fine'; that defendant refused to comply with that demand; and that plaintiff then demanded '258,000 grains of gold . 9 fine, or gold of equivalent value of any fineness, or 16,931.25 gold dollars each containing 15 5/21 grains of gold .9 fine, or 16,931.25 dollars in legal tender currency'; that defendant refused to redeem the bond 'except by the payment of 10,000 dollars in legal tender currency'; that these refusals were based on the Joint Resolution of the Congress of June 5, 1933, 48 Stat. 113 (31 USCA 462, 463), but that this enactment was unconstitutional, as it operated to deprive plaintiff of his property without due process of law; and that, by this action of defendant, he was damaged 'in the sum of $16,931.25, the value of defendant's obligation,' for which, with interest, plaintiff demanded judgment.

In other words, the US issued a bond, that, due to subsequent legislation, it refused to pay according to its terms. The Court found the subsequent legislation unconstitutional. The rationale:

The Constitution gives to the Congress the power to borrow money on the credit of the United States, an unqualified power, a power vital to the government, upon which in an extremity its very life may depend. The binding quality of the promise of the United States is of the essence of the credit which is so pledged. Having this power to authorize the issue of definite obligations for the payment of money borrowed, the Congress has not been vested with authority to alter or destroy those obligations.

I am of two minds. I actually think sovereignty comes before the interests of private creditors. In other words, if the choice is between telling bondholders to fuck off or appeasing them by instituting severe pain on the domestic population, bondholders can, in my view, fuck off. And any retaliation can, if necessary, be met with the organized force of the State. At that same time, I don't think this is anything to be done lightly, but I don't think there is any reason for an entire society to be held captive by capital.

Also, the Court decision above is pretty generous in its interpretation of the 14th Amendment. The clause I bolded above is important. Read in context, this section of the 14th Amendment (the same post-Civil War amendment that required state governments to extend and protect federal constitutional rights) is clearly meant to signal that the government would be honoring debts of the United States but rejecting any debts incurred by the Confederacy. The next sentence of the Section reads: "But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void." I suspect that sentence is the true purpose of the section--to disclaim any obligation for the debts incurred by the rebellion, whereas the first sentence was intended as reassurance. The Supreme Court interpreted it very broadly when it didn't have to do so, but there it is.

Of course, reaching the debt limit does not mean that the US has to quit paying on its obligations. It just means it cannot incur more debt. It may mean the US will have to quit paying for itself, which will be very injurious to Americans. This raises the precise question above: at what point does the interests of the public supersede the interests of bondholders?

 

[PhoenixDark]

Well, if we got to the point where Obama had to exercise the Option markets would be exploding downwards, so after all the air clears out, they would go upwards.

Also, SC verdict is hard to tell. I will assume they will vote against Obama, 5-4.

I can't imagine them voting against Obama and crashing the global economy. The SC tends to vote alongside corporate interests, and with that in mind they'd likely support a constitutional debt option.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

I can't imagine them voting against Obama and crashing the global economy. The SC tends to vote alongside corporate interests, and with that in mind they'd likely support a constitutional debt option.

I think a lot of the conservative justices personally don't like Obama, and I think that will come into play when they vote on HCR or the constitutional option.

 

[Open Source]

I can only imagine the howls of righteous indignation from the NYT if Bush had floated the idea of ignoring Congress on the debt limit. Blog and forum posters would work themselves into a Constitutional tizzy.

I don't think Obama would sidestep Congress in the end. It's just an attempt to get some leverage for negotiation.

And I don't think the SC would side with them - separation of powers isn't a liberal or conservative thing. Congress' power of the purse would certainly outweigh an obscure argument without any precedent directly supporting it.

Traditionally, debt limit negotiations are just a chance for the President's opponents to make some political hay and get a few items from their agenda passed. I can't remember the opposition ever demanding as much as they are now.

 

[Averon]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-07-03-01-47-26

Justice Ginsburg's future plans closely watched

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Democrats and liberals have a nightmare vision of the Supreme Court's future: President Barack Obama is defeated for re-election next year and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, at 78 the oldest justice, soon finds her health will not allow her to continue on the bench.

The new Republican president appoints Ginsburg's successor, cementing conservative domination of the court, and soon the justices roll back decisions in favor of abortion rights and affirmative action.

But Ginsburg could retire now and allow Obama to name a like-minded successor whose confirmation would be in the hands of a Democratic-controlled Senate. "She has in her power the ability to prevent a real shift in the balance of power on the court," said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California at Irvine law school. "On the other hand, there's the personal. How do you decide to leave the United States Supreme Court?"

For now, Ginsburg's answer is, you don't.

 

[Kosmo]

I can only imagine the howls of righteous indignation from the NYT if Bush had floated the idea of ignoring Congress on the debt limit. Blog and forum posters would work themselves into a Constitutional tizzy.

I don't think Obama would sidestep Congress in the end. It's just an attempt to get some leverage for negotiation.

And I don't think the SC would side with them - separation of powers isn't a liberal or conservative thing. Congress' power of the purse would certainly outweigh an obscure argument without any precedent directly supporting it.

Traditionally, debt limit negotiations are just a chance for the President's opponents to make some political hay and get a few items from their agenda passed. I can't remember the opposition ever demanding as much as they are now.

Don't be so sure - seems to be working OK in Libya thus far.

 

[PhoenixDark]

I think a lot of the conservative justices personally don't like Obama, and I think that will come into play when they vote on HCR or the constitutional option.

eh, you base this on what exactly?

 

[cartoon_soldier]

eh, you base this on what exactly?

Thomas's wife and her activities, Alito's SOTU moment.

 

[Kosmo]

Thomas's wife and her activities, Alito's SOTU moment.

Virginia Thomas is on the Supreme Court?

Obama broke protocol by publicly scolding the Supreme Court, Alito did nothing worse than Obama. Would you say Obama hates those who ruled for Citizen's United because 4 of them are white?

 

[jamesinclair]

I can only imagine the howls of righteous indignation from the NYT if Bush had floated the idea of ignoring Congress on the debt limit. Blog and forum posters would work themselves into a Constitutional tizzy.
.

Remind me, what did congress vote on concerning iraq?

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Virginia Thomas is on the Supreme Court?

Obama broke protocol by publicly scolding the Supreme Court, Alito did nothing worse than Obama. Would you say Obama hates those who ruled for Citizen's United because 4 of them are white?

Thomas's wife activities create a big conflict of interest, but then Thomas's SC tenure has many such conflict of interest areas.

 

[Mercury Fred]

Virginia Thomas is on the Supreme Court?

Obama broke protocol by publicly scolding the Supreme Court, Alito did nothing worse than Obama. Would you say Obama hates those who ruled for Citizen's United because 4 of them are white?

To be fair, Clarence Thomas is the most corrupt justice ever to serve on the SC.

And can you imagine the non-stop over the top outrage that would happen if the spouse of say, Ginsburg were involved in lobbying to the extreme degree for left wing causes that Virginia Thomas is for far right groups?

 

[Oblivion]

Nice article about how the founding fathers shockingly enough, WEREN'T anti-government tea baggers:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...on-really-said/2011/07/02/AGugyvwH_story.html

 

[Alpha-Bromega]

Yeah I tried explaining to some the more 'nuanced' aspects of the American Revolution, as in the complex social, political, economic conditions that brought them and the finer points of the constitution/declaration... I was branded a traitor and a brigand!

oh america

 

[Measley]

Bill Clinton calls for corporate tax cut

President Bill Clinton says the nation’s corporate tax rate is “uncompetitive” and called for a lower rate as part of a “mega-deal” to raise the debt ceiling.

“When I was president, we raised the corporate income-tax rates on corporations that made over $10 million [a year],” the former president told the Aspen Ideas Festival on Saturday evening.

“It made sense when I did it. It doesn’t make sense anymore — we’ve got an uncompetitive rate. We tax at 35 percent of income, although we only take about 23 percent. So we should cut the rate to 25 percent, or whatever’s competitive, and eliminate a lot of the deductions so that we still get a fair amount, and there’s not so much variance in what the corporations pay. But how can they do that by Aug. 2?”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/58275.html

 

[empty vessel]

Bill Clinton calls for corporate tax cut

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/58275.html

Looks like he called for a tax raise to me. But you have to love the language. Apparently, governments now have to be "competitive." Who is in charge here?

 

[worldrunover]

Virginia Thomas is on the Supreme Court?

No worse. She has her very own puppet proxy.

 

[elrechazado]

To be fair, Clarence Thomas is the most corrupt justice ever to serve on the SC.

And can you imagine the non-stop over the top outrage that would happen if the spouse of say, Ginsburg were involved in lobbying to the extreme degree for left wing causes that Virginia Thomas is for far right groups?

Someone needs some history lessons. I'm not sure what you even mean by "corrupt" in this context at all.

 

[Oblivion]

Looks like he called for a tax raise to me.

Eh?

 

[empty vessel]

Eh?

Just by his own language: "We tax at 35 percent of income, although we only take about 23 percent. So we should cut the rate to 25 percent...and eliminate a lot of the deductions." That's an increase of 2%. But then he does say removing only "a lot" of the "deductions" (as opposed to all) so who knows what the hell he is saying. I don't know if he's said anything more specific but the quote given doesn't look like he put much thought into it. It is true that the 35% tax rate is fictional.

Someone needs some history lessons. I'm not sure what you even mean by "corrupt" in this context at all.

Thomas has apparently been busy accepting lucrative gifts from wealthy people and organizations whose interests he judges. Not entirely unlike Abe Fortas, who resigned (and who liberals called on to resign).

 

[Oblivion]

Okay, I don't usually like laughing at people's deaths, and I won't in this case either, but it really does prove an important point:

A 55-year-old biker protesting New York State’s law requiring helmet use died at a hospital Saturday after striking his head in an accident.

The Associated Press reports that Phillip A. Contos of Parish, N.Y., was riding with others through the town of Onondaga on Saturday afternoon without head protection, to protest the state’s requirement that bikers wear helmets.

State Troopers told the Syracuse Post-Standard that Contos was driving a 1983 Harley Davidson when his bike fishtailed and he flipped over the handlebars, striking his head on the pavement. He was later pronounced dead at Upstate University Hospital. Police say that had he been wearing a helmet, Contos would probably have survived the accident.

The ride was organized in part by ABATE (American Bikers Aimed for Education), according to a local ABC affiliate reporting on the accident. A spokesperson for the group said they didn't know if Contos was a member.

http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/moral-when-you-always-put-your-own-in

Just by his own language: "We tax at 35 percent of income, although we only take about 23 percent. So we should cut the rate to 25 percent...and eliminate a lot of the deductions." That's an increase of 2%. But then he does say removing only "a lot" of the "deductions" (as opposed to all) so who knows what the hell he is saying. I don't know if he's said anything more specific but the quote given doesn't look like he put much thought into it. It is true that the 35% tax rate is fictional.

Ah, okay.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

Someone needs some history lessons. I'm not sure what you even mean by "corrupt" in this context at all.

Supreme Court justices aren't formally bound by a code of ethics, but their behavior is supposed to be beyond reproach, and Thomas' is clearly not, as the stuff EV posted has demonstrated. Any federal judge behaving in such a fashion would have long since been kicked off the bench.

Okay, I don't usually like laughing at people's deaths, and I won't in this case either, but it really does prove an important point:
http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madr...ut-your-own-in

And the Darwin Award goes to...

 

[Mercury Fred]

Someone needs some history lessons.

Not really, no.

 

[manipulate]

Thomas probably isn't "corrupt" in an accurate sense of the word but there's definitely something of a conflict of interest going on. The Koch brothers are on record as being significant benefactors in his wife's conservative fundraising. For that reason alone he should have recused himself from the Citizen's United ruling.

And then there's stuff like this: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/19/us/politics/19thomas.html

At the end of the day, it's not so much 'corruption' as 'hangs out and rubs shoulders with the country club conservative elite'. Whether that's having any tangible effect on his performance as a SCU.... I suppose your mileage may vary

 

[Oblivion]

Herman Cain: "I don't need no stinkin book learnin!"

“You don’t need foreign policy experience to know who your friends are and who your enemies are. And you don’t need foreign policy experience to know that you don’t tell your enemy what your next move is.”

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/herman-c...licy-experience-to-know-who-your-friends-are/

:usa

 

[Salazar]

You just look into their eyes/soul, Oblivion. The Dubya stare.

 

[speculawyer]

Someone needs some history lessons. I'm not sure what you even mean by "corrupt" in this context at all.

Corrupt . . . meaning he takes money from people who are in cases before his court and rules for those people. That should be simple enough for you to understand, no?

 

[quaere]

Herman Cain: "I don't need no stinkin book learnin!"



http://www.mediaite.com/tv/herman-c...licy-experience-to-know-who-your-friends-are/

:usa

Does anyone other than Huntsman actually have worthwhile foreign policy credentials?

 

[Kosmo]

Just by his own language: "We tax at 35 percent of income, although we only take about 23 percent. So we should cut the rate to 25 percent...and eliminate a lot of the deductions." That's an increase of 2%. But then he does say removing only "a lot" of the "deductions" (as opposed to all) so who knows what the hell he is saying. I don't know if he's said anything more specific but the quote given doesn't look like he put much thought into it. It is true that the 35% tax rate is fictional.

He called for a tax cut, but believe what you will. By your logic, you would be calling for a top tax rate of something like 20% and eliminating "a lot of the deductions" since most of the wealthy pay around 16-17% - that would be a 3-4% increase. Last I checked, you'd probably love a 90% top marginal rate.

 

[Particle Physicist]

He called for a tax cut, but believe what you will. By your logic, you would be calling for a top tax rate of something like 20% and eliminating "a lot of the deductions" since most of the wealthy pay around 16-17% - that would be a 3-4% increase. Last I checked, you'd probably love a 90% top marginal rate.

Sounds like Bill Clintons plan might work.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

He called for a tax cut, but believe what you will. By your logic, you would be calling for a top tax rate of something like 20% and eliminating "a lot of the deductions" since most of the wealthy pay around 16-17% - that would be a 3-4% increase. Last I checked, you'd probably love a 90% top marginal rate.

You still don't understand the difference between marginal and effective rates.

 

[empty vessel]

He called for a tax cut, but believe what you will. By your logic, you would be calling for a top tax rate of something like 20% and eliminating "a lot of the deductions" since most of the wealthy pay around 16-17% - that would be a 3-4% increase. Last I checked, you'd probably love a 90% top marginal rate.

I don't really care what Clinton called for. His quoted statement was vague was the point. And, yes, I would support any change in the structure of the tax code that had the effect of raising the wealthy's effective tax rate. And, yes, I would support a 90% top marginal rate, depending on where the bracket was set.

 

[PantherLotus]

He called for a tax cut, but believe what you will. By your logic, you would be calling for a top tax rate of something like 20% and eliminating "a lot of the deductions" since most of the wealthy pay around 16-17% - that would be a 3-4% increase. Last I checked, you'd probably love a 90% top marginal rate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_bracket#Tax_brackets_in_the_United_States

Take a class or something already.

 

[Oblivion]

Got a question for anyone.

We all know that Reagan cut taxes in 1981, the top tax rate went from 70% to 50%. We also know that Reagan increased taxes the following year and continued to do so for 6 of the 8 years he was in office. But exactly what rates did he change?

 

[RustyNails]

“You don’t need foreign policy experience to know who your friends are and who your enemies are. And you don’t need foreign policy experience to know that you don’t tell your enemy what your next move is.”

This quote scares me more than anything from Bachmann and Palin combined. No Herman, you don't need foreign policy experience to know who your friends are. You need pizza making experience.

We are seriously fucked if a candidate like this moves anywhere in the primaries. Herman Cain, Palin and Glenn Beck are anti-education, anti-thinking and anti-intellectual crusaders.