Support NeoGAF

[ToxicAdam]

ToxicAdam's a complete nutjob when it comes to the environment and also uses hackjob blogs for it. Reminds me how posters mourned JayDubya's banning as if he were some worthy opponent when all he did was hit-and-run posts and selective quoting.

I don't mind the attack, but I am kind of curious to what you are referring to. I've been at this GAF game too long not to have all my sources from reputable places. It's a pretty wide-sweeping statement from someone that has just joined as a memeber in November of 2011.

As for as my 'nutjob' ideas on the environment, I believe man is having a a small effect on his climate. With the vast majority of that coming through his land use, his effect on the hydrosphere, his emissions of black carbon and methane. I believe the focus on Co2 is wildly overblown and we should instead be focusing on eliminating BC emissions and severely mitigating methane. Also, climate modelling is not something we should base policy on as it is severely limited and flawed.

That's about it in a nutshell. It's not a mainstream opinion, but in the spectrum of Global Warming belief, I don't think I am on the fringes.

What the fuck?
I'm still here and as commie as ever!

Oh, I know. Your inclusion in that list (and scorcho) might have made it look like I was saying RIP. It's just your voice has become more drowned out as GAF has become larger.

Also what compass site is that?

An older version of politicalcompass.org. From this thread.

 

[KingGondo]

Ugh, Cantor is on CBS This Morning... Refusing to condemn Bachmann, saying his views on "traditional marriage" deserve to be respected under the banner of "religious liberty."

He has to be one of the biggest tools in the entire government.

 

[Tim-E]

dnc already has an online ad on #romneyshambles


http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?deskto...youtu.be&feature=youtu.be&v=7lnhVWtT0YQ&gl=CA

I had no idea the media here was also ripping him apart on this. :lol

 

[DynamicG]

I didn't realize anybody else from my area hung around PoliGAF.

I'll ride with you to the very bottom!

=(

There are lots of folks from LA around the board. BR here.

 

[codhand]

These UK optics make Romney look like a dweeb.

 

[Tim-E]

While I don't agree with TA on the environment, he's not a "nutjob" on the issue.

 

[Hitokage]

Ugh, Cantor is on CBS This Morning... Refusing to condemn Bachmann, saying his views on "traditional marriage" deserve to be respected under the banner of "religious liberty."

He has to be one of the biggest tools in the entire government.

Three words: Mark of Cain.

 

[Chumly]

An older version of politicalcompass.org. From this thread.

I see dead people :O

 

[thefro]

wow, even the Sun and Daily Fail are piling on Romney hard... you know it's bad when even Murdoch's paper is ripping you

 

[Kosmo]

wow, even the Sun and Daily Fail are piling on Romney hard... you know it's bad when even Murdoch's paper is ripping you

Are UK papers owned by an Australian billionaire supposed to show deference to a Presidential candidate from the US? The reality distortion field Obamabots are living in has finally surpassed that of Apple fanboys bowing at the feet of Steve Jobs.

 

[Byakuya769]

Are UK papers owned by an Australian billionaire supposed to show deference to a Presidential candidate from the US? The reality distortion field Obamabots are living in has finally surpassed that of Apple fanboys bowing at the feet of Steve Jobs.

3/10.

 

[codhand]

3/10.

Life is like a box of Obamabots.

 

[empty vessel]

U.S. Economy Slowed to a Tepid 1.5% Rate of Growth

The United States economy grew at a rate of 1.5 percent in the second quarter, losing the momentum it had appeared to be gaining earlier this year, the government reported Friday.

Growth was held back as consumers curbed purchases, factories received fewer orders and exports flattened in the face of a global slowdown and a stronger dollar. Analysts had expected a 1.4 percent rate.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/28/business/economy/us-economy-expands-at-1-5-rate.html?_r=1&emc=na

This cries out for fiscal stimulus. (Not federal reserve stimulus, which is no real stimulus at all.)

 

[Black Republican]

looks loke the romney team is gonna hold a press conference call on the slow gdp numbers.

 

[codhand]

This cries out for fiscal stimulus. (Not federal reserve stimulus, which is no real stimulus at all.)

Why worry when Bernanke is "prepared to act".

 

[Kosmo]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/28/business/economy/us-economy-expands-at-1-5-rate.html?_r=1&emc=na

This cries out for fiscal stimulus. (Not federal reserve stimulus, which is no real stimulus at all.)

Tax cuts?

 

[codhand]

Tax cuts?

Yes, but not for those above 250k/year

 

[empty vessel]

Tax cuts?

Tax cuts are stimulus if directed towards consumers. I support a repeal of the payroll tax, and that would be stimulating, because tax cuts are a form of spending. However, other than repealing the payroll tax, I prefer increasing spending without tax cuts, because I think federal programs are useful. The less a government taxes, the less fiscal space it has to operate within before bumping up against inflation. (This is really why business interests seek to cut taxes--to constrict the government's ability to operate.)

 

[SouthernDragon]

Every time I drive on Miami's Express Way, I smile at the enormous amounts of construction work being done. Lots of jobs and a upgrade to infrastructure.

I do regret it's not all in the service of giving us an actual metro system, but so it goes.

 

[PantherLotus]

Are UK papers owned by an Australian billionaire supposed to show deference to a Presidential candidate from the US? The reality distortion field Obamabots are living in has finally surpassed that of Apple fanboys bowing at the feet of Steve Jobs.

I'll give you credit for taking this one (4/10) and not replying to this one with a picture of Obama bowing: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=40326752&postcount=8379

 

[tranciful]

Tax cuts?

For spenders, maybe (lower/middle class). For savers (wealthy), it won't equate to a significant increase in spending.

But that sort of sanity and logic goes against your call to raise taxes on the poor.

 

[Chumly]

While I don't agree with TA on the environment, he's not a "nutjob" on the issue.

Yea he can form coherent arguments. If you want to see nutjobs just look the global warming threads in the off topic and watch loofy post.

 

[Baraka in the White House]

Some in my workplace believe that businesses are holding back hiring deliberately until after the election. And though the rational part of me disregards that as tin foil bunk, I've met more than a few small business owners with a, well... a Kosmo mentality, for lack of a better description.

 

[codhand]

a Kosmo mentality, for lack of a better description.

The word you are looking for is learned.

 

[TacticalFox88]

Some in my workplace believe that businesses are holding back hiring deliberately until after the election. And though the rational part of me disregards that as tin foil bunk, I've met more than a few small business owners with a, well... a Kosmo mentality, for lack of a better description.

 

[ToxicAdam]

Tax cuts are stimulus if directed towards consumers.

According to new research from Moody’s Analytics, the top 5% of Americans by income account for 37% of all consumer outlays.

By contrast, the bottom 80% by income account for 39.5% of all consumer outlays

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2011-02-21-1Aluxury21_CV_N.htm

Something something fiscal cliff.

 

[Kosmo]

Some in my workplace believe that businesses are holding back hiring deliberately until after the election. And though the rational part of me disregards that as tin foil bunk, I've met more than a few small business owners with a, well... a Kosmo mentality, for lack of a better description.

You gotta hand it to Fox News for consistency:

 

[Baraka in the White House]

Of course it's probably just bullshit in most cases. It's much more likely these guys aren't hiring because they don't have the business to bring on any more employees but as business owners they have an inflated sense of political relevancy, as if employing a few crews of illegals and a $7/hour part-time secretary makes them jerrrb creators.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

Something something fiscal cliff.

Someone get Ramirez on the phone.

 

[Kosmo]

Of course it's probably just bullshit in most cases. It's much more likely these guys aren't hiring because they don't have the business to bring on any more employees but as business owners they have an inflated sense of political relevancy, as if employing a few crews of illegals and a $7/hour part-time secretary makes them jerrrb creators.

You have a comical sense of what it takes to own and run a business.

 

[empty vessel]

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2011-02-21-1Aluxury21_CV_N.htm

According to new research from Moody’s Analytics, the top 5% of Americans by income account for 37% of all consumer outlays.

By contrast, the bottom 80% by income account for 39.5% of all consumer outlays

Something something fiscal cliff.

You realize why that is and why this information is meaningless in and of itself, right? This just looks at the distribution of consumer spending. Of course those with more money will make up the greater share. The very problem we are having is that those on the bottom (in America, about 80% of the population) are lacking the financial capacity to consume. So the point of stimulus is precisely to boost that spending capacity. You give the top 5% more, they aren't going to spend much more (they are already by and large spending what they want). You give the bottom 80% more, they will, because their spending is currently constrained. Aggregate demand increases, investment increases, production increases, welfare increases, etc.

You can't just go get random information. You have to process and analyze it, too.

 

[KingGondo]

You have a comical sense of what it takes to own and run a business.

You're right, he forgot to mention the fact that bootstraps are crucial.

 

[RDreamer]

Of course it's probably just bullshit in most cases. It's much more likely these guys aren't hiring because they don't have the business to bring on any more employees but as business owners they have an inflated sense of political relevancy, as if employing a few crews of illegals and a $7/hour part-time secretary makes them jerrrb creators.

I kind of doubt those types would be hiring many illegals, honestly.

 

[The Technomancer]

You realize why that is and why this information is meaningless in and of itself, right? This just looks at the distribution of consumer spending. Of course those with more money will make up the greater share. The very problem we are having is that those on the bottom (in America, about 80% of the population) are lacking the financial capacity to consume. So the point of stimulus is precisely to boost that spending capacity. You give the top 5% more, they aren't going to spend much more (they are already by and large spending what they want). You give the bottom 80% more, they will, because their spending is currently constrained. Aggregate demand increases, investment increases, production increases, welfare increases, etc.

You can't just go get random information. You have to process and analyze it, too.

This is what I was trying to type up but I couldn't quite think of how to word it. But yes, if you are making fifty million dollars a year you are spending (in a consumer sense) as much as you're ever going to spend, with or without tax cuts. Tax cuts might give you more money to invest, but once you reach that scale of wealth you can afford anything on the market that you want without batting an eye. Going from 50m to 52m a year doesn't open up any new avenues for consumption in the same way that going from 50k to 52k does.

 

[tranciful]

Some in my workplace believe that businesses are holding back hiring deliberately until after the election. And though the rational part of me disregards that as tin foil bunk, I've met more than a few small business owners with a, well... a Kosmo mentality, for lack of a better description.

There might be a few of those, but for the most part companies aren't hiring because there's no demand because the middle class is still hurting. Corporate profits are up and have largely recovered, but there's no reason to hire until there's demand to satisfy.

 

[ToxicAdam]

You realize why that is and why this information is meaningless in and of itself, right? This just looks at the distribution of consumer spending. Of course those with more money will make up the greater share. The very problem we are having is that those on the bottom (in America, about 80% of the population) are lacking the financial capacity to consume. So the point of stimulus is precisely to boost that spending capacity. You give the top 5% more, they aren't going to spend much more (they are already by and large spending what they want). You give the bottom 80% more, they will, because their spending is currently constrained. Aggregate demand increases, investment increases, production increases, welfare increases, etc.

You can't just go get random information. You have to process and analyze it, too.

If your sole aim is to use tax cuts (or keep taxes historically low) as a form of stimulus than you cannot deny reality.

 

[Chichikov]

If your sole aim is to use tax cuts (or keep taxes historically low) as stimulus than you cannot deny reality.

I think the sole aim of every policy maker is to come up with the best policy.
You're being pedantic.
Tax cuts for the rich are some of the least efficient ways a government can spend money.
That is the reality that you really shouldn't deny.

 

[ToxicAdam]

Tax cuts for the rich are some of the least efficient ways a government can spend money.
That is the reality that you really shouldn't deny.

Judging by the past 12 years, tax cuts for everyone is the least efficient and effective way to spend money.

 

[codhand]

The only reason conservatives want better GDP growth is to get richer. We can have economic improvement without GDP growth at 3-5%, of course the mess we are in now, a number better than 1.5% would have been nice.

 

[Chichikov]

Judging by the past 12 years, tax cuts for everyone is the least efficient and effective way to spend money.

True, but tax cuts for the rich are much worse than tax cuts to the poor.
Why are you ignoring that distinction?

p.s.
12?
More like 40.

 

[codhand]

More like 40.

I was watching Chuck Schumer say that the Senate Bill to extend Bush tax cuts to middle/lower income people was the first time the arguments regarding taxation have shifted at all in the last 30 years.

 

[AlteredBeast]

Tax cuts need to end, period.

 

[Chichikov]

The only reason conservatives want better GDP growth is to get richer. We can have economic improvement without GDP growth at 3-5%, of course the mess we are in now, a number better than 1.5% would have been nice.

Usually I would put RFK's GDNP quote here, but I'm reading The Passage of Power now, so fuck RFK.

Seriously, between that book and Maria Shriver not standing by her man, I think I hate that entire clan now.

Tax cuts need to end, period.

I think we really need to stop thinking about tax rates as policy.
Taxes is how you pay for policy.
You decide what services you want the government to provide, then you set the appropriate taxation levels.

The only policy discussion around taxation should be about who do we collect it from and how.

p.s.
And if one have to talk about tax rates, one should talk about the tax rates, and not about cuts/raises.
This is what really matters.

 

[Tim-E]

Tax cuts need to end, period.

+1

 

[ToxicAdam]

True, but tax cuts for the rich are much worse than tax cuts to the poor.
Why are you ignoring that distinction?

Because it's pointless to draw distinctions between bad policy. Bad is bad.

But if we are going to do it, I would argue that the tax cuts for the non-rich were actually worse because they represent a far larger amount of lost revenue over decades time. Which greatly influences and tempers policy decisions made down the road due to debt/deficit fearmongering.

If the Bush Tax cuts didn't exist, I think the ARRA and HCR could have been much greater and given a chance to be even more effective. I doubt Obama and the Dems would have limited themselves in such a manner. Which of course, would have benefitted the poor and working class the most.

 

[reggieandTFE]

Of course it's probably just bullshit in most cases. It's much more likely these guys aren't hiring because they don't have the business to bring on any more employees but as business owners they have an inflated sense of political relevancy, as if employing a few crews of illegals and a $7/hour part-time secretary makes them jerrrb creators.

They aren't hiring because it's cheaper and easier to squeeze productivity out of your current workforce by holding the "bad" economy over their head.

The greatest lie in this country is that we "owe" our jobs to these fanciful CEOs and job creators. Jobs are created by demand and there isn't enough right now because those at the top are hoovering up wealth and income at a pace not seen since the gilded age. Unfortunately, this is the Republicans' and most Beltway Democrats' ideal economy.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Are UK papers owned by an Australian billionaire supposed to show deference to a Presidential candidate from the US? The reality distortion field Obamabots are living in has finally surpassed that of Apple fanboys bowing at the feet of Steve Jobs.

lol. You're awesome.

 

[Chichikov]

Because it's pointless to draw distinctions between bad policy. Bad is bad.

But if we are going to do it, I would argue that the tax cuts for the non-rich were actually worse because they represent a far larger amount of lost revenue over decades time. Which greatly influences and tempers policy decisions made down the road due to debt/deficit fearmongering.

That's true if you look at it through the prism of the Bush tax cuts, yes, the cuts for the middle class cost more than the cuts for the rich.
But I think it's more useful to see benefits per dollar spent.

And I don't understand why it's pointless to make that distinction.
Politics is the art of the possible, and you can't always get everything you want, I think it's important to be able to prioritize your goals.

 

[speculawyer]

Are UK papers owned by an Australian billionaire supposed to show deference to a Presidential candidate from the US?

Yeah . . . Rupert Murdoch is well-known for being extremely unfair against Republicans. All his media outlets ever do is bash Republicans.


Are you really that stupid or do you think we are that stupid?

 

[speculawyer]

Excellent. They are going to let other people get the business then.