makingmusic476
Member
Nope. Instead they tell me I've been lied to by the big scary liberal media. All my pesky little facts are wrong, and I just don't realize it.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2013 |OT1| Never mind, Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
- Thread starter ClovingWestbrook
- Start date
- Status
Nope. Instead they tell me I've been lied to by the big scary liberal media. All my pesky little facts are wrong, and I just don't realize it.
Jack Remington
Banned
Who are the goddamn idiot judges who ruled against recess appointments? This is probably the worst news I've read in awhile. Such an absolute travesty, and while not a Supreme Court decision, easily on par with any of the worst SCOTUS decisions in history.
Do you mean that she will get democrats the house and the senate?
Black Mamba
Member
Sorry, mobile again. What I was just trying to say was that taxes change the price the consumer pays and the quantities sold in a market and also creates dead weight loss.
compliance costs are what drives the costs up of income and corporate taxes versus sales taxes. In addition, income taxes penalizes savings. not that we need savings right now, but a larger savings investment 10 years ago could have helped our current situation.
That doesn't make sales taxes better but that is what they have going for them. There's less waste in the system since they're easier to enforce and collect as well as probably less dead weight loss (most items are pretty inelastic that get taxed) at the low tax rates and promote savings. There are numerous tax systems (didn't even get to pigouvian) and most of pros and cons.
Possibly. I'm not much a fan of payroll taxes as the workers tend to bear all of that. It also depends on how much of a VAT we're talking about which as I've seen at 35%. Truth is, no economist knows what happens with sales taxes that high and all the models trying to account for that are basically making poor guesses (human psychology is unknown). This is why a national sales tax to replace all taxes (or VAT form) is dangerous. I'd also not like the lack of an investment income tax; I don't care much for the argument that it's paid for via spending. That's horseshit as the worker is taxed both at the wage and spending levels and the investor is not. It also has no deductions in it which while I'm not a fan of deductions in general, I do think there need to be exceptions for children, medical, and student loans.
If you tax investment the same, you could lower the other taxes.
That said, if I were to design a tax system, I'd start by taxing economic rents before anything else. But that's way too radical for the United States even if Adam Smith recognized this before anyone else. After that we could do a combo of a national VAT and highly progressive income or wages/investment income tax.
Yes, a company at the margins will get hurt by the sales tax unless they are selling a highly inelastic good (milk, gasoline).
People often claim businesses just pass on taxes to the consumers but this is simply not true. That said, as someone who has experience with this, if you're a mom & pop shop, you don't always collect taxes.
Which does bring us to another issue of sales taxes, compliance at high tax levels. Sure, at 6% sales tax a mom & pop doesn't skirt much, but put it at 40% and who the fuck knows what happens.
Rocket Scientist
Member
Interesting posts on the tax discussion, thanks guys. I guess it does pop up every so often, but nothing wrong with seeing the arguments for and against certain things again.
Thankfully Republican no longer hold a super majority of both the state house and senate. They still hold a majority in both, plus the governor, but they can actually be obstructed now.
Sirpopopop
Member
Just put up my pretty long post on this at dHP.
I try not to turn the critiques into angry tirades, so I probably went too easy on that idiot, Ramirez. Still, it was a good segway into my thoughts on Benghazi and the critiques that have come out.
Yes. If any Democrat runs against her, they are hurting the democratic long term vitality.
cartoon_soldier
Member
Harkin not running for re-election. Could be an interesting and vital 2014 election now in IA.
If Republicans don't help themselves with the people they nominate, Dems don't help with all these resignations!
If Republicans don't help themselves with the people they nominate, Dems don't help with all these resignations!
PhoenixDark
Banned
Harkin is retiring. Good lord dems may be so fucked if republicans don't nominate a bunch of idiots this time.
I rather hope King runs, he'd make it through the primary and then get eviscerated in the general.
Iowa is my home state, I've been proud of Harkin's work. I really wish that douchebag Grassley retired first. :\
PhoenixDark
Banned
You don't think King could win? Iowa is a bit isolated from the country in terms of having low unemployment, but it could still see a dem backlash over guns or immigration.
I bet Harkin is disappointed as fuck with Obama the president vs Obama the 2007/2008 candidate. They seemed pretty close early on, with Harkin really launching his Iowa journey by inviting him to the fair BBQ speaking spot
I bet Harkin is disappointed as fuck with Obama the president vs Obama the 2007/2008 candidate. They seemed pretty close early on, with Harkin really launching his Iowa journey by inviting him to the fair BBQ speaking spot
Frank the Great
Banned
2014 is not going to be pretty for dems
The Librarian
Banned
Harkin's retiring? Fuck, he's one of my favorite senators.
No, I don't think King would win. There's a solid rural/urban (well, college) divide in Iowa, and Harkin and Grassley represented that well. But Iowa is not the land of the crazies as a whole, folks generally have solid values, and I don't think King would stand a chance so long as Dems put up a semi-competent opponent. In a wave election, possibly. But I don't think 2014 will be a wave election. (I was born and raised in Iowa, until age 26, when I moved to Oregon. So Harkin and Grassley were my Senators for all my adult life.)
I disagree about your Harkin assessment as well. He's much more of a progressive than Obama is, but my understanding is he's been pleased with the direction Obama has moved in. They worked together on on a number of issues. He was an advocate for the public option in healthcare and for more progressive taxes and such. But I don't think he can be too upset at the progress made, as they largely reflected his priorities as well.
But sales taxes change the prices of goods much more directly than other forms of taxes.
First of all, investment is the opposite of saving, what encourage saving discourage investment and vice versa.
Also, income tax doesn't really penalize saving on the personal level, it's not like I can buy things with my pre-tax dollars, it does discourage corporations from saving, or more accurately, sitting on a mountain of cash, but that's not a bad thing, unless you're a supply side economist (are you? I tend to assume the worst about Lakers fans, but I'll give the benefit of the doubt).
I don't think they're easier to enforce, they definitely create more avoidance, which is a bad thing.
As for the deadweight loss issue, I've never seen it address taxes in such gradual level, it was about the level of taxation and maybe some simple modeling about the progressiveness of the tax code, never the details of collection mechanism.
That doesn't mean it's wrong, that means that this theory claim that increased inequality yield better economic efficiency, and if that's the case you're making (please say if I'm barking at the wrong tree though) I think it can and should be attacked on more substantial ground that the efficiency of the markets.
Finally, you really need to show that "market distortion" is a bad thing.
I mean, minimum wages distort the market in a more profound way than all our tax code put together, does that mean it's a bad thing?
RustyNails
Member
Which year has been, other than 2008 and 2012.
2006.
Definitely. Many times. And usually it's the more dumb ones that have no other way of countering what you're saying.
2006, 2008 and 2012 were good years for Dems. Only 2010 did they get reamed. I think 2014 will fall somewhere in between, certainly won't be the waves of 2006 and 2010.
cartoon_soldier
Member
Yea...I don't see how progressives can be disappointed with Obama's 1st term progress. Not perfect, but a lot of progressive goals were also met.
I wouldn't be surprised if the stupid ass Filibuster deal made Harkin decide, as Senate gridlock won't go away. He doesn't have issues raising money, it is a bit of a strange decision.
I'm disappointed he did nothing about the two issues I cared the most about - wall street and the so called war on terror.
Historical ranking and performance evaluations can wait for when he is retired, for a sitting president, it's much more important to point failings so you can start affecting change.
PhoenixDark
Banned
2014 will be a test on whether the new dem "majority" will actually vote, or whether they only care when Obama is on the ballot. I can understand why they didn't show up in 2010 even if I disagree with the decision. 2014 should be a better year than 2010; at least unemployment shouldn't be 10%. But Obama will need to get a good immigration bill passed for the Hispanic vote
I hope the lessons learned in 2012 are applied. The focus on early voting and quick absentees was essential to combat voter obstruction, but in 2014 it could be essential to combat apathy. Many minorities don't care about their representatives; it took me days to convince a black friend to vote for his rep, who he labeled a "swagless CAC." Making it faster and easier for them to vote will be essential, and require a huge gotv machine.
I'd imagine white people won't be rejected dems wholesale like in 2010 either, which will be essential. Dems won't take the house but they need to continue chipping away. And they need to keep the senate...
I hope the lessons learned in 2012 are applied. The focus on early voting and quick absentees was essential to combat voter obstruction, but in 2014 it could be essential to combat apathy. Many minorities don't care about their representatives; it took me days to convince a black friend to vote for his rep, who he labeled a "swagless CAC." Making it faster and easier for them to vote will be essential, and require a huge gotv machine.
I'd imagine white people won't be rejected dems wholesale like in 2010 either, which will be essential. Dems won't take the house but they need to continue chipping away. And they need to keep the senate...
If you want to see if this new coalition cares when Obama isnt on the ballot, a better test is 2016. 2014 is not a good test because less enthusiastic voters dont show up for non-presidential elections
RustyNails
Member
I don't think 2014 will be a major upset for Democrats. There's gonna be significant changes coming. 2014 is when exchanges kick in w/ regards to obamacare and everyone will be like "hey this is kinda like expedia". 2014 is when Afghanistan drawdown happens. 2014 should be a sweet spot in terms of economic progress, job creation and housing wise, for the Democrats. And finally, this election will decide the fate of Republicans who will finally vote for amnesty in Obama's comprehensive immigration reform.
cartoon_soldier
Member
Its just unfortunately a numbers game and the fact that none of the GOP seats look vulnerable at the moment.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
I'm glad the filibuster reform wasn't extensive because Republicans will probably take the Senate in 2014.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
I wouldn't be surprised if the Republicans pretty much neuter the fillibuster
I think the threat of that happening is probably what held it back, but is there anything actually showing that it's likely they'll take the senate? Polls still seem to favor Dems as far as I can tell.
It's in the long term interest of progressives to not have such barriers standing in the way of change.
Try to think on cases where the filibuster was used to achieve good things, there aren't too many of them.
And finally, no one is even suggesting removing the filibuster, at most we're talking about a talking filibuster, which is only a bad thing if you're trying to block popular legislation, and that's not really something we should encourage in a democracy.
Carpe Libertatem
Member
It seems possible that Collins gets primaried from the right given her approval rating (which is about 6x% with everyone, but extremely low with "very conservative" and "conservative"). Her approval rating with Republicans is about ten points lower than Murkowski's when she got primaried. If Collins isn't the Republican nominee the Democrats will pick up the seat. (I hope this doesn't happen because I like Susan Collins).
Georgia could provide a pickup with Chambliss retiring. The candidate will undoubtedly be far right and the state's demographics have been changing in the past decade. Kentucky is also possible because of how visible McConnell is.
PhoenixDark
Banned
As if McConnell would care about senate tradition. I don't think he'll nuke it, but he'll definitely propose something along the lines of Merkley's plan for a talking filibuster and require the minority to sustain a filibuster. Which is how it should be imo
Dems missed their shot. One thing is for certain: when Obama, Reid, etc start talking big about reform in September/October 2014, yall better not be making positive posts about how things are gonna get changed.
...and then they'll immediately nuke the filibuster.
Or perhaps not, maybe McConnell is a fan of tradition as much as Reid and won't pull the trigger. But I'd be very surprised if we made it to 2020 with the filibuster still resembling any form we currently recognize.
What good does that do them if Obama is still President? 2016 I could see it happening.
Same good it does for them to control the house? Pass lots of legislation to get people on records of touchy issues, pretend like they're trying to govern and it's the President who won't work with them by giving them everything they want for nothing in return, etc.
jamesinclair
Banned
Have you met the republicans?
If the GOP has 52 seats, theyll change all the rules so that 52 is needed for anything and everything.
Jack Remington
Banned
The filibuster needs to go, just for the sake of appointments, if nothing else. Reid is a spineless old fool.
If the Supreme Court upholds the DC Circuit Court's decision (unlikely, I think, but still possible), then you have a situation where the minority party in the Senate will feel comfortable in demanding major changes to a bureaucratic organization in exchange for confirming the head of that organization, which should never happen.
Now suddenly, a minority party with 41 Senators can force changes to the executive branch, because the alternative is that no one gets confirmed. It'll be an absolute clusterfuck of a situation. I'm hoping the SCOTUS does the right thing, but I wouldn't bet money on that.
If the Supreme Court upholds the DC Circuit Court's decision (unlikely, I think, but still possible), then you have a situation where the minority party in the Senate will feel comfortable in demanding major changes to a bureaucratic organization in exchange for confirming the head of that organization, which should never happen.
Now suddenly, a minority party with 41 Senators can force changes to the executive branch, because the alternative is that no one gets confirmed. It'll be an absolute clusterfuck of a situation. I'm hoping the SCOTUS does the right thing, but I wouldn't bet money on that.
Jack Remington
Banned
Not really, because it's only a small fraction of what needed to be done.
Rocket Scientist
Member
Why in the god damned hell is a talking filibuster or minimum required senators present so much to ask for sdghfyusgfmsfsdgfsdgd. Guys it's done lets move on this is too frustrating.
Jack Remington
Banned
Since we know John Roberts is concerned first and foremost with his legacy, I don't see any way he upholds the Circuit Court's ruling, knowing that to do so is to strike down nearly 200 years of executive precedent. At least I hope that's the case.
Goddamn, all the gleeful Republican comments on Politico regarding the Circuit Court ruling are making me feel slightly genocidal.
Goddamn, all the gleeful Republican comments on Politico regarding the Circuit Court ruling are making me feel slightly genocidal.
What are the results possible?
a) We end up nulling centuries of law
b) All appointments up to the ruling are valid, but not going forward
c) Congress's abuse of recess to block all appointments is ruled unconstitutional
I mean if the Republicans go further assuming they take the Senate. What's it matters who it's done by as long as it gets done?
Thought this was worth mentioning. So that WSJ graphic that everyone had a good laugh at from a few days ago, well it seems somebody tracked down the dude who drew it. Turns out he was just as flabbergasted as everyone else:
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Bwahaha, amazing
Holy shit :lol
Lmao.
Jack Remington
Banned
There are a huge number of possibilities, but I think these are the most likely ones:
1) SCOTUS sides with Obama, upholding the age-old practice of recess appointments, and declaring that pro-forma sessions are a sham. This is what any rational and unbiased person should do, and I think Roberts is just rational enough to do it.
2) SCOTUS agrees with Republicans on pro-forma sessions, but strikes down the Circuit Court's ruling that recess appointments can only be made for vacancies that arise during that recess, and that a recess is only the formal break between sessions. This requires our rational John Roberts to somehow not see pro-forma sessions as the complete joke that they are, but I wouldn't rule it out. If this happens, recess appointments are dead unless the President's party controls both Houses of Congress.
3) SCOTUS upholds the ruling in its entirety. An absolute disaster that will paralyze the government for years to come.
Dice
Pokémon Parentage Conspiracy Theorist
I'm not into this debate and I did a search for a prior thread and found nothing, but because I'm not into it I don't know if it has been made into a thread.
I thought this was interesting:
States crime rates show scant linkage to gun laws
Someone more into it than me can make a thread if they want.
I thought this was interesting:
States crime rates show scant linkage to gun laws
Someone more into it than me can make a thread if they want.
- Status