Support NeoGAF

[ClovingWestbrook]

Also,

Top Democrats are openly calling into doubt the chances that Congressional negotiators will reach an agreement to renew the payroll tax cut before it expires at the end of the month. The culprit, they say, is a deep schism within the Republican conference over whether the the tax holiday is a good policy or just a political gimmick to help President Obama win re-election.

The consequences of failure would result in a typical middle-class worker taking home about $1000 less this year, just as demand is starting to return to the U.S. economy and the unemployed are beginning to find work. Democrats, sensing political momentum from improving economic conditions, are warning Republicans that they’ll be held to account for the consequences if the tax cut ultimately lapses.

“Time is wasting, so that I’m very concerned about it, and whether or not they can get to agreement is in doubt at this point in time,” House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer told reporters at his weekly Capitol briefing Tuesday. “Democrats want to see the economy grow, and there are some here, frankly, who are just as satisfied to have the economy not grow, not create jobs, not have GDP growth, so it can help their politics.”

Many prominent GOPers either oppose the extension, or support it reluctantly, and then only on the condition that Democrats pay some sort of political price for having won the upper hand. However, others in the party want to avoid a repeat of the bruising fight in December, which continues to haunt the GOP.

For now, the hardliners are winning. And the result is a growing public fight over how to pay for the nearly $200 billion package — which would both renew the payroll tax cut, extend emergency unemployment benefits, and prevent an automatic cut to Medicare physician reimbursements. The battle comes as the GOP renews its demands of reforming the unemployment program to allow states to impose restrictions like drug testing on beneficiaries.

More at the link.

 

[Chichikov]

I think you are wrong, a lot of people in Iran absolutely fawn over their leaders and eat up all the anti American/Israel brainwash they are given.

A country as radical as Iran could easily manipulate its people into believing exactly what they wanted them too.

On a related note how twisted is it that people in North Korea actually think they have it made over there...

Iran has a strong and educated middle class and very developed civil society, at least in the big cities.
North Korea has an army.

Also, I think you're overestimating their mind-controlling abilities, they couldn't even manipulate the country to accept the last election's results.

 

[RustyNails]

You really don't have any clue about Iran, do you? The people of Iran aren't idiots who just drink up the propaganda being fed to them by the religious elites. The Iranian nation has a huge youth movement that is very Americanized. You want to unite them with the religious ideologues? No better way to do it than to attack their country with bombs whether its to stop a nuclear program or not.

Maybe not to the extent of N Korea, but regimes can prevail under tough sanctions. Iraq also had highly qualified professionals and an educated student body. They prevailed, yet at a human cost. Sanctions rarely work, especially not when Iran can sell its oil to countries that are not aligned with the west.

 

[A27_StarWolf]

You really don't have any clue about Iran, do you? The people of Iran aren't idiots who just drink up the propaganda being fed to them by the religious elites. The Iranian nation has a huge youth movement that is very Americanized. You want to unite them with the religious ideologues? No better way to do it than to attack their country with bombs whether its to stop a nuclear program or not.

Thanks bro, I didn't have a clue until you told me all of that.

Those kids won't go very far, no one is going to support or help them, and they are going to start silently go missing one night.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

I came to basically make this exact joke. I'm sure at some campaign event today, Newt Gingrich will say that and mean it.

https://twitter.com/#!/newtgingrich/status/166956181204647936

 

[ToxicAdam]

Also,



More at the link.

I never thought I'd see the day where Democrats are vehemently defending gimmicky tax cuts. 1000 dollars a year for the middle class? That's a lousy 20 dollars a week in 'stimulus'. Meanwhile, millions of other upper-middle class and rich also go without paying those taxes. The deficit keeps ballooning and it gives more credence (and power) to those that want to slash entitlement programs for the poor.

It's just bad policy. One for which they will pay for down the road.

 

[jamesinclair]

its not a flip flop if others are cheating their way to millions using Super PACS. its a matter of running a fair game and losing and running a dirty game and winning. Isnt this what everyone wanted? A Democrat to likes to get in the mud to fight?

Actually, a dirty election may play into the GOP

*I fucking hate these ads, there are so many they ruin life, I wish theyd just go away"
"government sucks, its so broken, we want to eliminate it so vote for us"
*votes*

so sanctions are working. Iran is cash strapped enough to default on its rice payments to india.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/07/us-india-rice-idUSTRE8160CX20120207

There is no way they dont have enough money to pay this bill. That money is being spent ways that do not benefit its citizens. They dont deserve to starve, but they do deserve a better government and pissing them off enough to try even harder to overthrow the current regime would be an adequate affect.

As Cuba has shown, sanctions will work any minute now. Aaaaaaany minute now. And since the soviets recently stopped supporting them, they have no where to turn, they wont last a week.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Thanks bro, I didn't have a clue until you told me all of that.

Those kids won't go very far, no one is going to support or help them, and they are going to start silently go missing one night.

From reading your post it appears you didn't have a clue, painting the Iranian people with such a broad brush and all. But hey, go in guns blazing, bombs droppin', all in the name of protecting a nation that not only has nuclear weapons but also has the greatest military in the entire Middle East. Yep. Definitely needed and a grand idea.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

I never thought I'd see the day where Democrats are vehemently defending gimmicky tax cuts. 1000 dollars a year for the middle class? That's a lousy 20 dollars a week in 'stimulus'. Meanwhile, millions of other upper-middle class and rich also go without paying those taxes. The deficit keeps ballooning and it gives more credence (and power) to those that want to slash entitlement programs for the poor.

It's just bad policy. One for which they will pay for down the road.

I wouldn't say it's the best of possible policies, but I don't see how you can call it "bad" if pretty much all economists acknowledge that ending the holiday would have a deleterious impact on the economy?

 

[Wolfgunblood Garopa]

I think you are wrong, a lot of people in Iran absolutely fawn over their leaders and eat up all the anti American/Israel brainwash they are given.

A country as radical as Iran could easily manipulate its people into believing exactly what they wanted them too.

brutal

 

[Blergmeister]

I never thought I'd see the day where Democrats are vehemently defending gimmicky tax cuts. 1000 dollars a year for the middle class? That's a lousy 20 dollars a week in 'stimulus'. Meanwhile, millions of other upper-middle class and rich also go without paying those taxes. The deficit keeps ballooning and it gives more credence (and power) to those that want to slash entitlement programs for the poor.

It's just bad policy. One for which they will pay for down the road.

I wonder, would the GOP even be considering this bill, which also includes unemployment assistance, without the Payroll tax cuts? Is the downsides of the Payroll tax cuts, plus any strings the GOP attaches, worth the other stuff?

 

[Puddles]

I never thought I'd see the day where Democrats are vehemently defending gimmicky tax cuts. 1000 dollars a year for the middle class? That's a lousy 20 dollars a week in 'stimulus'. Meanwhile, millions of other upper-middle class and rich also go without paying those taxes. The deficit keeps ballooning and it gives more credence (and power) to those that want to slash entitlement programs for the poor.

It's just bad policy. One for which they will pay for down the road.

$20 a week is significant when you're barely scraping by. Clearly you're dangerously out of touch with conditions in working class America right now.

 

[jamesinclair]

I dont think anyone posted this.

If you are a proud member of the reoublican party, I fully support self-shooting gun rights

The Republican National Committee resolution, passed without fanfare on Jan. 13, declared, “The United Nations Agenda 21 plan of radical so-called ‘sustainable development’ views the American way of life of private property ownership, single family homes, private car ownership and individual travel choices, and privately owned farms; all as destructive to the environment.”

Across the country, activists with ties to the Tea Party are railing against all sorts of local and state efforts to control sprawl and conserve energy. They brand government action for things like expanding public transportation routes and preserving open space as part of a United Nations-led conspiracy to deny property rights and herd citizens toward cities.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/04/u...jects-seeing-un-plot.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all

 

[A27_StarWolf]

From reading your post it appears you didn't have a clue, painting the Iranian people with such a broad brush and all. But hey, go in guns blazing, bombs droppin', all in the name of protecting a nation that not only has nuclear weapons but also has the greatest military in the entire Middle East. Yep. Definitely needed and a grand idea.

The fact that they have a state run media and no one is going to speak out against anything the government does is already a huge step back for them.

I never said go in guns a blazing, I do think we will see a conflict with Iran though.

 

[Allard]

I wouldn't say it's the best of possible policies, but I don't see how you can call it "bad" if pretty much all economists acknowledge that ending the holiday would have a deleterious impact on the economy?

The only reason I like the 'fight' for the payroll tax cut (Besides the fact it aids me about 50 dollars extra a month) is because its been the Dems go to legislation to also extend unemployment benefits. It does help the economy, but it really can't go on forever under the current tax policy, eventually it needs to expire or the tax code needs to be rewritten entirely to make up for the lost revenue for the functions it funds. However there are other tax cuts I would rather see go first then this one, so I say fight it till the bush tax cuts expire, and then just let it die after that.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

The fact that they have a state run media and no one is going to speak out against anything the government does is already a huge step back for them.

I never said go in guns a blazing, I do think we will see a conflict with Iran though.

You support the bombing of Iran to stop them from getting nuclear weapons. Also, where were you a couple of years ago during the Presidential elections and the thousands and thousands of people protesting?

 

[PhoenixDark]

I never thought I'd see the day where Democrats are vehemently defending gimmicky tax cuts. 1000 dollars a year for the middle class? That's a lousy 20 dollars a week in 'stimulus'. Meanwhile, millions of other upper-middle class and rich also go without paying those taxes. The deficit keeps ballooning and it gives more credence (and power) to those that want to slash entitlement programs for the poor.

It's just bad policy. One for which they will pay for down the road.

I agree in general, although I do believe now is not the time to get rid of the cut. But the same argument can be applied to the Bush taxes...

 

[A27_StarWolf]

You support the bombing of Iran to stop them from getting nuclear weapons. Also, where were you a couple of years ago during the Presidential elections and the thousands and thousands of people protesting?

probably the same place the Obama administration was, somewhere doing jack shit about it. Big opportunity missed there, and as far as I'm concerned it just shows Iran that any resistance movements won't be supported by us.

 

[jamesinclair]

Rick Scott: Losing taxpayer money by turning away profits, jobs and investment.

The high-speed rail project that Gov. Rick Scott doomed last February by turning down more than $2 billion in federal money would have made an annual surplus of $31 million to $45 million within a decade of operation, according to a state report.

The Florida Department of Transportation sent the report to the Federal Railroad Administration in November. The Tampa Tribune obtained the document after a lengthy public records request.

...

The heart of the report is an analysis by two consulting firms of projected ridership, costs and the resulting surplus – or loss. If the project to link Tampa and Orlando would have gone forward, the research would have been used in determining an investment grade for bond sales.

According to data from both consulting firms hired by the state, the project, which would have given Florida the nation's first high-speed rail line, would have been a fiscally sound decision.

The firm of Steer, Davis, Gleave projected Tampa-Orlando ridership of 2.5 million and a $9.1 million deficit in 2016, the first year of operation. By 2026, though, the high-speed rail would be carrying nearly 5 million passengers a year and generate an annual surplus of $31.1 million, according to the firm.

The projection by Wilbur Smith Associates was even rosier. The firm estimated 3.6 million riders in 2016, producing a $17.6 million operating surplus. By 2026, Florida's high-speed rail would carry more than 5 million riders and produce a $44.8 million surplus, according to its analysis.

http://www2.tbo.com/news/politics/2...//t.co/ZjXJUV41&shorturl=http://tbo.ly/yJ68gC

 

[eznark]

Oh, this is what happened to PoliGAF!

Never would've spotted it.

.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

probably the same place the Obama administration was, somewhere doing jack shit about it. Big opportunity missed there, and as far as I'm concerned it just shows Iran that any resistance movements won't be supported by us.

What does that have to do with the fact that Iran isn't comprised of some monolithic populace who ascribe to serving the Mullahs? You painted Iran with a broad brush and the boycotts show that you're wrong. There is a huge youth movement that is westernized, well educated, and pushing for modernity. You want to unite them with the extremists? Bomb them. Bomb them and then you're broad brush will ring true.

 

[A27_StarWolf]

What does that have to do with the fact that Iran isn't comprised of some monolithic populace who ascribe to serving the Mullahs? You painted Iran with a broad brush and the boycotts show that you're wrong. There is a huge youth movement that is westernized, well educated, and pushing for modernity. You want to unite them with the extremists? Bomb them. Bomb them and then you're broad brush will ring true.

Where is the huge youth movement? Please tell me, because they pretty much went off the radar.

 

[remist]

I never thought I'd see the day where Democrats are vehemently defending gimmicky tax cuts. 1000 dollars a year for the middle class? That's a lousy 20 dollars a week in 'stimulus'. Meanwhile, millions of other upper-middle class and rich also go without paying those taxes. The deficit keeps ballooning and it gives more credence (and power) to those that want to slash entitlement programs for the poor.

It's just bad policy. One for which they will pay for down the road.

So are the Republicans for or against these tax cuts? At first I was hearing they were against them for the same reasons you mention. Then they claim they were for them, they just wanted them payed for. Then they wanted them payed for and a political bounty along with that. Then they claimed the whole thing came down to the last minute because they wanted a one year extension and not the 2 months.

You may be right about the economic benefits of the tax cuts. I'd like them purely for selfish reasons, but this whole thing seems like a political mess for the house Republicans. They claim they took a political beating a while back so that they could stand on "principle", but it seems to me they can't settle on which principle theyre fighting for.

 

[Puddles]

The only reason I like the 'fight' for the payroll tax cut (Besides the fact it aids me about 50 dollars extra a month) is because its been the Dems go to legislation to also extend unemployment benefits. It does help the economy, but it really can't go on forever under the current tax policy, eventually it needs to expire or the tax code needs to be rewritten entirely to make up for the lost revenue for the functions it funds. However there are other tax cuts I would rather see go first then this one, so I say fight it till the bush tax cuts expire, and then just let it die after that.

I don't think we should cut any of this stuff until unemployment gets under 6%.

5% unemployment is considered a "natural" rate of churn, so that's the target we should aim for.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Where is the huge youth movement? Please tell me, because they pretty much went off the radar.

Perhaps we're not paying attention to them anymore? Perhaps they were beaten down by the violence and response by the Mullah's? Perhaps they're waiting for another opportunity? Where was the huge movement against Syria and Assad a year ago? Where was the huge anti Gaddafi movement a year ago? I'd say to read up on the Iranian youth movement but...

 

[ToxicAdam]

$20 a week is significant when you're barely scraping by. Clearly you're dangerously out of touch with conditions in working class America right now.

No, it's not. 20 dollars is not shit. Especially when you consider the amount of taxes they have been forgiven for the past 11 years now. Time to eat your peas.

People who earn between $30,000 and $200,000 a year make a total of around $5 trillion and pay less than 10 percent of that in taxes (owing mostly to tax incentives and the fact that most families make less than $68,000, where larger tax rates begin). Increasing the middle-class tax burden an additional 8 percent, however, would actually have a bigger impact than taxing millionaires at 100 percent.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/13/magazine/adam-davidson-tax-middle-class.html


It's enough of this bullshit coddling. We are ruining the fiscal health of this country because of weepy, hand-wringers like yourself.

 

[Wolfgunblood Garopa]

It's enough of this bullshit coddling. We are ruining the fiscal health of this country because of weepy, hand-wringers like yourself.

It really is that simple. Stop being such babies, and take a bath while you're at it.

 

[Jackson50]

I think you are wrong, a lot of people in Iran absolutely fawn over their leaders and eat up all the anti American/Israel brainwash they are given.

A country as radical as Iran could easily manipulate its people into believing exactly what they wanted them too.

On a related note how twisted is it that people in North Korea actually think they have it made over there...

The problem is not the Iranian citizens being brainwashed. The problem stems from our continual interference in Iranian politics. Our actions validate the narrative that the U.S. is a malevolent actor. We have continually interfered in Iran's domestic politics. We supported a tyrant. We aided Iraq in the Iran-Iraq War. We have supported terrorist organizations that have perpetrated atrocities against the Iranians. Now, we have imposed crippling sanctions harming the populace. This perpetuates the narrative constructed by the regime and permits them to foment opposition to the United States. If our goal is to ensconce the regime and galvanize support for their actions, we only have to meddle further.

Moreover, this is relevant to the notion that the U.S. could have aided the Green movement. The best decision was to refrain from interjecting ourselves into the process. The quickest method to enervate genuine opposition to the regime is American interference.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

The problem is not the Iranian citizens being brainwashed. The problem stems from our continual interference in Iranian politics. Our actions validate the narrative that the U.S. is a malevolent actor. We have continually interfered in Iran's domestic politics. We supported a tyrant. We aided Iraq in the Iran-Iraq War. We have supported terrorist organizations that have perpetrated atrocities against the Iranians. Now, we have imposed crippling sanctions harming the populace. This perpetuates the narrative constructed by the regime and permits them to foment opposition to the United States. If our goal is to ensconce the regime and galvanize support for their actions, we only have to meddle further.

Moreover, this is relevant to the notion that the U.S. could have aided the Green movement. The best decision was to refrain from interjecting ourselves into the process. The quickest method to enervate genuine opposition to the regime is American interference.

Thank you.

 

[A27_StarWolf]

Perhaps we're not paying attention to them anymore? Perhaps they were beaten down by the violence and response by the Mullah's? Perhaps they're waiting for another opportunity? Where was the huge movement against Syria and Assad a year ago? Where was the huge anti Gaddafi movement a year ago? I'd say to read up on the Iranian youth movement but...

Aren't you the witty one, still taking something I said and using it in the wrong context are we? Need I remind you I said I didn't need to go read up on my political beliefs.

As for you and the Iranian youth movement? Well they got censored, shot, tortured, and shut down.

They got smart and left, because they understood this could work in a lot of countries, but not Iran. Obama missed a big opportunity to really help these people, encourage them, and help propagate the movement with other countries around the world. Instead he did little, and no one else came to their aid, physically or verbally. This proved that Iran could squash the revolution like a bug, and not have to worry about it coming back. They won't let this happen again, they will continue to push propaganda on people until they either start listening, or become too afraid to fight back.

I actually feel like a couple of actions by the Obama administration have strengthened Iran's resolve, and they probably think he is a bit of a coward. They are testing how long their leash is, and I think this administration has let it get far too long.

The problem is not the Iranian citizens being brainwashed. The problem stems from our continual interference in Iranian politics. Our actions validate the narrative that the U.S. is a malevolent actor. We have continually interfered in Iran's domestic politics. We supported a tyrant. We aided Iraq in the Iran-Iraq War. We have supported terrorist organizations that have perpetrated atrocities against the Iranians. Now, we have imposed crippling sanctions harming the populace. This perpetuates the narrative constructed by the regime and permits them to foment opposition to the United States. If our goal is to ensconce the regime and galvanize support for their actions, we only have to meddle further.

Moreover, this is relevant to the notion that the U.S. could have aided the Green movement. The best decision was to refrain from interjecting ourselves into the process. The quickest method to enervate genuine opposition to the regime is American interference.

I'm not going to disagree with you, the United States has really screwed up in the past with our actions towards Iran. However now, partly because of our actions, they are led by a very unpredictable, radical regime. This regime must not be allowed Nuclear Weapons, or Power, at all costs. Any grab at Nuclear Power is a cover for getting weapons, and the weapons will be used as the ultimate bargaining chip against Israel, and other nations like Saudi Arabia. They can't be trusted with these things, and they cannot be allowed to obtain them. Just look at how increasingly hostile Iran is growing, threats to close the straight, bringing in speed boats very close to American ships, claiming they "hacked" our drone, how about trying to kill the Saudi Ambassador on our own soil? I honestly feel like Iran would likely do something dangerous and harmful to either Israel, Saudi Arabia, or the Untied States, even if it caused massive destruction for their own nation.

 

[Byakuya769]

Take actions to make Healthcare and college education affordable, and then we can discuss a greater tax burden on the true middle class. However, the insistence on raising their taxes while ignoring the price of social mobility, and decline of well paying jobs that only need a high school education, is inflicting pain for the sake of imaginary constraints.

A27_StarWolf: it does seem like you're making a lot of broad assertions without a proper understanding or knowledge of Iranian history.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Aren't you the witty one, still taking something I said and using it in the wrong context are we? Need I remind you I said I didn't need to go read up on my political beliefs.

As for you and the Iranian youth movement? Well they got censored, shot, tortured, and shut down.

They got smart and left, because they understood this could work in a lot of countries, but not Iran. Obama missed a big opportunity to really help these people, encourage them, and help propagate the movement with other countries around the world. Instead he did little, and no one else came to their aid, physically or verbally. This proved that Iran could squash the revolution like a bug, and not have to worry about it coming back. They won't let this happen again, they will continue to push propaganda on people until they either start listening, or become too afraid to fight back.

I actually feel like a couple of actions by the Obama administration have strengthened Iran's resolve, and they probably think he is a bit of a coward. They are testing how long their leash is, and I think this administration has let it get far too long.

Read the post above you? This ISN'T our responsibility. Any type of change has to be from within. It was Egypt that overthrew Mubarak. It was the Libyans who overthrew Gaddafi. It will be the Syrians who over throw Assad.

 

[ToxicAdam]

Oh boo hoo ... the poor middle class .. how will they go without buying Chipotle for one night? Less money to go see another Adam Sandler movie. Oh boo hoo ...

Meanwhile, in ten years, they will be the one's voting in the Neo-Ron Paul's to gut the government because the deficit has ballooned even further out of control. Guess who loses out on that deal? The very poor.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

I dont think anyone posted this.

If you are a proud member of the reoublican party, I fully support self-shooting gun rights

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=34826967&postcount=1174

No, it's not. 20 dollars is not shit. Especially when you consider the amount of taxes they have been forgiven for the past 11 years now. Time to eat your peas.


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/13/ma...dle-class.html


It's enough of this bullshit coddling. We are ruining the fiscal health of this country because of weepy, hand-wringers like yourself.

I'm mostly on board with what you're saying, but again, I think the payroll tax cut is achieving in the short term what it's supposed to be achieving, so I'm not sure why you think it's "bad" policy.

 

[DasRaven]

No, it's not. 20 dollars is not shit. Especially when you consider the amount of taxes they have been forgiven for the past 11 years now. Time to eat your peas.

It's enough of this bullshit coddling. We are ruining the fiscal health of this country because of weepy, hand-wringers like yourself.

$20/week is the difference between me eating out twice a week supporting a local business or not. No stimulative effect there you say?

Very convenient timing for this outrage. How about equalize tax rates on capital gains versus ordinary income, bring back a non-dynastic inheritance tax, kill the carried interest loophole, and then perhaps peas will be eaten by the middle class who've been caught in the undertow of the 1%'s wealth wave.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Oh boo hoo ... the poor middle class .. how will they go without buying Chipotle for one night? Less money to go see another Adam Sandler movie. Oh boo hoo ...

Meanwhile, in ten years, they will be the one's voting in the Neo-Ron Paul's to gut the government because the deficit has ballooned even further out of control. Guess who loses out on that deal? The very poor.

I want to punch whoever made that chart. A good swath of the population, including yours truly, are red/green colorblind, and can't tell the differnce between the top and bottom quintiles.

I do agree with the premise that taxes should be raised broadly (or more accurately, restored to previous levels). I am for keeping taxes very low on the lower income brackets. $20/week does matter when you are barely getting by (having been there both when on my own and when my mother was the one doing it). I currently take home more than the median household income, and feel that I am under-taxed. I support lifting them, so long as taxes on the wealthy end of the scale are also raised, and steeply.

In the short term, I want to see more stimulative policy, and while the payroll tax cut impact is small, it should be extended in the absence of an alternative.

$20/week is the difference between me eating out twice a week supporting a local business or not. No stimulative effect there you say?

Very convenient timing for this outrage. How about equalize tax rates on capital gains versus ordinary income, bring back a non-dynastic inheritance tax, kill the carried interest loophole, and then perhaps peas will be eaten by the middle class who've been caught in the undertow of the 1%'s wealth wave.

This is more like it.

 

[Puddles]

ToxicAdam tries to make an argument using a subgroup with incomes between $30k and $200k. Christ on a crutch.

How about we split that up a little bit, guy? That's a very broad range you've got there. Someone making $30k is barely scraping by. Someone making $200k could run out of things to spend his money on.

 

[A27_StarWolf]

Take actions to make Healthcare and college education affordable, and then we can discuss a greater tax burden on the true middle class. However, the insistence on raising their taxes while ignoring the price of social mobility, and decline of well paying jobs that only need a high school education, is inflicting pain for the sake of imaginary constraints.

A27_StarWolf: it does seem like you're making a lot of broad assertions without a proper understanding or knowledge of Iranian history.

I've read a good deal about Iranian history.

Read the post above you? This ISN'T our responsibility. Any type of change has to be from within. It was Egypt that overthrew Mubarak. It was the Libyans who overthrew Gaddafi. It will be the Syrians who over throw Assad.

Egypt is currently under military rule, and no closer to their freedom, and oh, more people are currently being killed there:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/02/egypt-violent-clashes_n_1250016.html

Libya would never have accomplished their goals without the aid of the United States and NATO forces. It's likely we had special forces in Libya as well, along side similar units from France and England.

We wouldn't dare run any sort of air operations without men on the ground, I'm sure we also trained the rebels some.


Lastly the Syrians? Who are you kidding? They aren't getting saved unless we save them or NATO does. With Russia and China putting a stop to that every last rebel will be slaughtered. The Syrian army is high in number and well armed, with over 7,000 innocent people dead its like shooting fish in a barrel.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

I've read a good deal about Iranian history.




Egypt is currently under military rule, and no closer to their freedom, and oh, more people are currently being killed there:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/02/egypt-violent-clashes_n_1250016.html

Libya would never have accomplished their goals without the aid of the United States and NATO forces. It's likely we had special forces in Libya as well, along side similar units from France and England.

We wouldn't dare run any sort of air operations without men on the ground, I'm sure we also trained the rebels some.


Lastly the Syrians? Who are you kidding? They aren't getting saved unless we save them or NATO does. With Russia and China putting a stop to that every last rebel will be slaughtered. The Syrian army is high in number and well armed, with over 7,000 innocent people dead its like shooting fish in a barrel.

NATO came in after a Civil War had already begun. NATO also doesn't have a history seen as meddling in Libya as the U.S. has with Iran. Regarding Egypt, it's been less than a year since Mubarak was removed. You actually believe its going to be all peaches and teddy bears in that time? Egypt removed Mubarak without the assistance of one U.S. bomb or bullet. How much did it take us to remove Saddam? Oh yea... Syria? Civil War is happening and when the Syrians remove Assad one way or another it will be their own victory, even if NATO comes into assist as it did with Libya. What you're arguing for is Obama should've done something on behalf of the U.S., i.e. not an international response. Because that worked so well beforehand in other countries, right?

 

[Crisco]

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/Religion/post/2012/02/contraception-catholic-bishops-obama-hhs/1

.a majority of voters, including a majority of Catholics, don't believe Catholic hospitals and universities should be exempted from providing the benefit.

...Independent voters support this benefit by a 55/36 margin; in fact, a majority of voters in every racial, age and religious category that we track express support. In particular, a 53 percent majority of Catholic voters, who were oversampled as part of this poll, favor the benefit, including fully 62 percent of Catholics who identify themselves as independents.

In case anyone was worried about this issue hurting Obama in November. Polls categorically prove it won't.

 

[ToxicAdam]

ToxicAdam tries to make an argument using a subgroup with incomes between $30k and $200k. Christ on a crutch.

How about we split that up a little bit, guy? That's a very broad range you've got there. Someone making $30k is barely scraping by. Someone making $200k could run out of things to spend his money on.

You still don't get it. When you keep payroll taxes artificially low (or income taxes), you are sparing the guy making 30k a year a few dollars a week (and that's literally what it would be for someone making that amount), but LOSING billions of dollars of revenue for everyone else above that threshold.

That's why showing you that sub-group was so important. To see the vast amount that is being lost every year because you want to save some guy 20 bucks a week.

There are other ways to better target tax relief for people in the bottom rungs without forgiving millions of others that can easily afford it.

Roll back all taxes to 1996. That should be the Democrat mantra. Who would effectively argue that our tax code was debilitating to the economy in 1996? Nobody successfully, that's who.

 

[empty vessel]

so sanctions are working. Iran is cash strapped enough to default on its rice payments to india.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/07/us-india-rice-idUSTRE8160CX20120207

There is no way they dont have enough money to pay this bill. That money is being spent ways that do not benefit its citizens. They dont deserve to starve, but they do deserve a better government and pissing them off enough to try even harder to overthrow the current regime would be an adequate affect.

So it's moral to hurt innocent people in order to coerce them to serve your own ends?

You still don't get it. When you keep payroll taxes artificially low (or income taxes), you are sparing the guy making 30k a year a few dollars a week (and that's literally what it would be for someone making that amount), but LOSING billions of dollars of revenue for everyone else above that threshold.

This is false. First, taxes do not fund the government. Second, even if they did, keeping taxes low on one group does not mean a loss for everybody else. For example, we could raise taxes on incomes over $1,000,000 to 80 or 90%.

That's why showing you that sub-group was so important. To see the vast amount that is being lost every year because you want to save some guy 20 bucks a week.

It's not being lost. The government cannot "lose" money, it can only create or destroy it. Allowing some poor guy to spend 20 extra bucks a week is a better use of the money than the government's destroying it (and worsening the economy). I mean, it doesn't make any sense to take the money from the guy. What's the government going to do besides give it right back to him? If not back to him, then who, somebody better off than him?

Roll back all taxes to 1996. That should be the Democrat mantra.

Higher spending on the poor. That should be the mantra. And when the economy recovers, it should be tax the rich.

 

[PhoenixDark]

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/Religion/post/2012/02/contraception-catholic-bishops-obama-hhs/1



In case anyone was worried about this issue hurting Obama in November. Polls categorically prove it won't.

edit: nm

Interesting...

 

[GhaleonEB]

A couple economic data points came out today.

Consumer credit surged in December, indicating greater confidence and greater spending. It exceeded expectations and if if continues would be a major plus for the economy.

Job openings continued their upward trend in December. I find the graph included with the CR post quite useful as it adds some insight into why the jobs number is shifting the way it is. If that continues (and the January jobs report implies it has) it would also be a significant plus.

Related, Goldman does not expect the labor participation to improve until the end of 2013. If that proves to be the case, the reported unemployment rate will continue to fall this year. Huge implications for the election.

 

[ToxicAdam]

So it's moral to hurt innocent people in order to coerce them to serve your own ends?



This is false. First, taxes do not fund the government. Second, even if they did, keeping taxes low on one group does not mean a loss for everybody else. For example, we could raise taxes on incomes over $1,000,000 to 80 or 90%.

I don't live in your make-believe world. So, I can't make a case on whether that would work or not. I live in the world of reality of what is possible through policy and the electorate that exists today. Rolling back tax rates to 1996 levels is within that realm of possibility. Raising taxes to 80% on those making 1mil+ is not reality, nor would it be the silver bullet to remedying our problems.

It's not being lost. The government cannot "lose" money, it can only create or destroy it. Allowing some poor guy to spend 20 extra bucks a week is a better use of the money than the government's destroying it (and worsening the economy). I mean, it doesn't make any sense to take the money from the guy.

Of course it does. Every year the government has a 'nut' to meet. When you tax people less than what is needed to make that nut, they are effectively 'losing' money. Deficits matter because they drive elections. The bigger the deficits get, the bigger the pushback will be for austerity. It's inescapable.

What's the government going to do besides give it right back to him? If not back to him, then who, somebody better off than him?

Sounds like a Mitt Romney plea.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Related, Goldman does not expect the labor participation to improve until the end of 2013. If that proves to be the case, the reported unemployment rate will continue to fall this year. Huge implications for the election.

Wow, this is big if true. I wouldn't call it "good news" from a policy or human perspective; people will still be hurting. But from a political perspective, mainly Obama's, it's very good news. Plus a falling rate would most likely result in more "confidence"/spending, thus more jobs...

 

[Invisible_Insane]

A couple economic data points came out today.

Consumer credit surged in December, indicating greater confidence and greater spending. It exceeded expectations and if if continues would be a major plus for the economy.

Job openings continued their upward trend in December. I find the graph included with the CR post quite useful as it adds some insight into why the jobs number is shifting the way it is. If that continues (and the January jobs report implies it has) it would also be a significant plus.

Related, Goldman does not expect the labor participation to improve until the end of 2013. If that proves to be the case, the reported unemployment rate will continue to fall this year. Huge implications for the election.

That latter point doesn't necessarily strike me as positive, given the tendency of the official unemployment number to understate the degree to which people who need work have stopped looking or can't find it?

 

[GhaleonEB]

Wow, this is big if true. I wouldn't call it "good news" from a policy or human perspective; people will still be hurting. But from a political perspective, mainly Obama's, it's very good news. Plus a falling rate would most likely result in more "confidence"/spending, thus more jobs...

Yeah, I tried to frame it in purely polical terms, since it's not 'good news' in any other context.

I want to see a couple more months data roll in, but it's hard not to look at the data and get the sense that the economy really is starting to roll forward a bit, and not just a temporary pop. In particular, the forward-looking measures are all turning up, such as job openings, manufacturing orders, and so on. Still plenty of problems and potential economic shocks on the horizon, but I'm gradually becoming more optimistic that the last two jobs reports may continue.

That latter point doesn't necessarily strike me as positive, given the tendency of the official unemployment number to understate the degree to which people who need work have stopped looking or can't find it?

Please note my framing: I referenced the reported unemployment rate (as opposed to the actual), and the political implications, rather than economic, because that is the point I was emphasizing. I did not (and don't) characterize it as good news in any other way. We agree about the practical implications.

 

[Joe Shlabotnik]

That latter point doesn't necessarily strike me as positive, given the tendency of the official unemployment number to understate the degree to which people who need work have stopped looking or can't find it?

It's not positive in real terms, but it's technically positive for Obama because a falling unemployment number looks better politically than a rising one, even if that would actually indicate recovering labor participation.

"Unemployment numbers are rising because people are encouraged about looking for work again" is too nuanced a message for an election.

 

[PhoenixDark]

That latter point doesn't necessarily strike me as positive, given the tendency of the official unemployment number to understate the degree to which people who need work have stopped looking or can't find it?

It's about mind games and perception, really. If UE is falling public perception on the economy improves, businesses hire more, etc. But in real terms it means millions of people are still not looking for jobs/given up and suffering.

We've seen some pushback from republicans on this issue in response to the recent positive jobs reports. I expect it to continue and it might become Romney's main argument if UE becomes 7.8-8.2 due to this. I just don't see it working, especially coming from a politician as bad as Romney.