Support NeoGAF

[Aaron Strife]

If Alison Lundergan Grimes runs I think he might actually be done. He barely won in 2008 against a nobody and that was when Obama got creamed by McCain. Kentucky may be too conservative to elect Obama but not for Beshear, Conway, Grimes etc. and no one likes an obstructionist dick.

 

[B-Dubs]

If Alison Lundergan Grimes runs I think he might actually be done. He barely won in 2008 against a nobody and that was when Obama got creamed by McCain. Kentucky may be too conservative to elect Obama but not for Beshear, Conway, Grimes etc. and no one likes an obstructionist dick.

That would be a hell of a day if it happened. I'd party all night if it did. That said, who would wind up replacing him as Minority Leader?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

That would be a hell of a day if it happened. I'd party all night if it did. That said, who would wind up replacing him as Minority Leader?

The Whip? John Cornyn

 

[Baraka in the White House]

McConnell going down would be too good. Which is why I'm not getting my hopes up.

 

[Oblivion]

Heh, looks like the Reps are taking a page out of the EA playbook when it comes to branding:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/...-Republicans-are-embarrassed-to-be-Republican

 

[Piecake]

Blog post that is by turns fascinating and horrifying, by someone who works in education consulting.

I recommend reading the whole thing.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130647610

You might like this as well. Makes sense though, since expectation is a powerful motivator. If youre surrounded by people with little expectations in life, you'll probably have the same (from students and even some teachers). However, if a good majority of the students expect to go to college, and the teachers expect everyone in school to do so, well, most kids live up to that expectation

 

[zero shift]

So I've been reading the Thatcher thread and well damn. She was pretty bad. I wonder who was worse Thatcher or Reagan?

 

[TacticalFox88]

So I've been reading the Thatcher thread and well damn. She was pretty bad. I wonder who was worse Thatcher or Reagan?

Reagan. Not even a contest.

Thatcher was unquestionably more evil, but Reagan damaged the USA and certain regions around the world in ways Thatcher could only dream of.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Heh, looks like the Reps are taking a page out of the EA playbook when it comes to branding:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/...-Republicans-are-embarrassed-to-be-Republican

It's ok, I'm pretty sure EA copied a lot from the Republican playbook.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Reagan. Not even a contest.

Thatcher was unquestionably more evil, but Reagan damaged the USA and certain regions around the world in ways Thatcher could only dream of.

Both loved immensely by Republicans.

 

[zero shift]

Reagan. Not even a contest.

Thatcher was unquestionably more evil, but Reagan damaged the USA and certain regions around the world in ways Thatcher could only dream of.

I agree that it would be tough to beat Reagan because well he was in charge of the world superpower (Soviet Union was in a state of being a dead corpse in which the person refuses to stop giving CPR to).

However how was Thatcher more evil?

 

[Avon Barksdale]

Heh, looks like the Reps are taking a page out of the EA playbook when it comes to branding:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/...-Republicans-are-embarrassed-to-be-Republican

It's like when Comcast rebranded their services as Xfinity.

 

[jamesinclair]

I agree that it would be tough to beat Reagan because well he was in charge of the world superpower (Soviet Union was in a state of being a dead corpse in which the person refuses to stop giving CPR to).

However how was Thatcher more evil?

She sent armed nuclear submarines into a war?

 

[Mike M]

She sent armed nuclear submarines into a war?

Nuclear armed subs are different from armed nuclear subs. I've no idea which is the case in question, but it's an important distinction.

 

[The Librarian]

Found this out in the Margret Thatcher thread. Looks like Cameron is needlessly complicating the NHS – http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19674838

 

[Chichikov]

So I've been reading the Thatcher thread and well damn. She was pretty bad. I wonder who was worse Thatcher or Reagan?

Reagan had more negative impact on the world because the US has more impact than the UK, but as a person?

They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations, because there is no such thing as an entitlement unless someone has first met an obligation"

Reagan was misguided, misinformed and a bit of a pussy who thought the commies are coming to get him any second, but I believe he generally wanted to better people's lives.
Thatcher was a vile human being without an ounce of compassion.

 

[speculawyer]

Compare English-speaking versus non-English-speaking countries:

Excluding capital gains? Isn't that like excluding the vast majority of their income?

 

[speculawyer]

McConnell going down would be too good. Which is why I'm not getting my hopes up.

It would be quite the blow against the GOP. It really hurt the Dems when their majority leader Tom Daschle got turfed out in 2004. It would be so nice to have Daschle instead of fucking Reid.

 

[zero shift]

Reagan had more negative impact on the world because the US has more impact than the UK, but as a person?


Reagan was misguided, misinformed and a bit of a pussy who thought the commies are coming to get him any second, but I believe he generally wanted to better people's lives.
Thatcher was a vile human being without an ounce of compassion.

From that quote it seems that Thatcher was an objectivist. Someone who would read Atlas Shrugged every year. Reagan while right wing was blend between a neoliberal and a conservative who also liked guns.

 

[jamesinclair]

Nuclear armed subs are different from armed nuclear subs. I've no idea which is the case in question, but it's an important distinction.

The subs were loaded with nuclear missiles

 

[empty vessel]

Excluding capital gains? Isn't that like excluding the vast majority of their income?

Where do you get that supposition from?

 

[Gotchaye]

Where do you get that supposition from?

The y-axis, I assume.

 

[speculawyer]

It's ok, I'm pretty sure EA copied a lot from the Republican playbook.

I'm not sure who is getting the bigger insult here.

 

[Oblivion]

Thatcher supported UHC at least, didn't she? That alone would make her light years better than Reagan.

 

[Chichikov]

.

 

[Chichikov]

Thatcher supported UHC at least, didn't she? That alone would make her light years better than Reagan.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/thatcher-was-wrong-on-apartheid-mandela/article10926500/

Edit: wait, Reagan did pretty much the same, bah, both were fucking dicks, at least Reagan admitted he was wrong eventually.

 

[zero shift]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/thatcher-was-wrong-on-apartheid-mandela/article10926500/

Edit: wait, Reagan did pretty much the same, bah, both were fucking dicks, at least Reagan admitted he was wrong eventually.

I heard she supported Suharto as well? How much was he involved in the mass "communist" killings?

 

[Oblivion]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/thatcher-was-wrong-on-apartheid-mandela/article10926500/

Edit: wait, Reagan did pretty much the same, bah, both were fucking dicks, at least Reagan admitted he was wrong eventually.

I be confused.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

I heard she supported Suharto as well? How much was he involved in the mass "communist" killings?

http://guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jan/28/indonesia.world

 

[Oblivion]

Nevermind. Just saw Chris Hayes go over her greatest hits and it seems she wanted to privatize the NIH.

Goddamn, it really is hard to see which one's the bigger shithead.

 

[speculawyer]

I be confused.

Both Thatcher and Reagan were assholes that kept propping up the racist Apartheid government of South Africa instead of pushing for change.

More current dark lord Cheney called Neslon Mandela a terrorist and voted against a 1986 resolution calling for Mandela's release. Racist assholes.

 

[zero_suit]

Nevermind. Just saw Chris Hayes go over her greatest hits and it seems she wanted to privatize the NIH.

Goddamn, it really is hard to see which one's the bigger shithead.

Reagan was worse by default since the U.S. has greater influence on world affairs.

 

[mightynine]

When it comes to Jindal, somebody I work with just kept saying over and over "I don't understand why people don't want to get rid of income tax."

When it came to the recent poll showing around 60% of those surveyed didn't like the plan, he was "I bet they asked that question as only 'Do you want to pay more taxes?"

I just kept responding "A. No one is saying they wouldn't want to get rid of income tax, just that this idea didn't sound like the best way. B. What's wrong with asking people if they want to pay more?"

Then it became "Just make it like Texas and Florida" and I was like, "Well, Jindal's plan was nothing like that, and things are much different in those states, especially because Texas taxes more locally than on the state level."

Jindal's screwed. His political capital in Louisiana is sinking fast, and I just feel to the national party, he looks like a Romney as his gubernatorial stint was ending.

 

[Oblivion]

Both Thatcher and Reagan were assholes that kept propping up the racist Apartheid government of South Africa instead of pushing for change.

More current dark lord Cheney called Neslon Mandela a terrorist and voted against a 1986 resolution calling for Mandela's release. Racist assholes.

Right, but I'm not sure what that had to do with my question about UHC.

 

[empty vessel]

The y-axis, I assume.

Ah! I didn't see that. I'd like to see the data of income inclusve but I'm not sure it would matter.

 

[Chichikov]

Right, but I'm not sure what that had to do with my question about UHC.

I was trying to make the case that she was in fact worse than the gipper, alas, I was foiled by my archnemesis facts.
Damn you facts, I'll get you next time.

Regardless, Team Thatcher all the way, not even close.

 

[Meus Renaissance]

The subs were loaded with nuclear missiles

Furthermore, it is alleged that she was willing to use nuclear weapons in the conflict.

 

[jamesinclair]

More fun from republicans.

The chair of the board at Community Medical Centers, also a prominent Valley grower and Republican, was forced to step down after making a racially insensitive statement about President Barack Obama.

Mark Borba of Riverdale referred to the president as "Blackie" in a rant about federal water policy, which he shared with other farmers via an email obtained by The Bee. The email also used expletives to discuss others in Washington.

Borba has since apologized for the comments, but only after his email circulated up the chain of the state's powerful agricultural community and even into offices of federal lawmakers.

The 15-member board oversees the largest hospital system in the San Joaquin Valley, with three hospitals in the Fresno area and more than 6,000 employees.

...

He also is an advocate of the state's farming industry, supporting mostly Republican politicians who promote agriculture. He has given tens of thousands of dollars to state and national campaigns, including those of Reps. Devin Nunes of Tulare and Kevin McCarthy of Bakersfield as well as presidential candidate Mitt Romney.

Read more here: http://www.fresnobee.com/2013/04/08/3249151/community-medical-centers-board.html#storylink=cpy


The irony on top is that republicans hate the fed and Obama because they set water deliveries every year based on snow pack (and river restoration).

They get upset not all the water is released.

The irony, of course, is that the water is stored in federal reservoirs behind federal dams, most built during the new deal.

Damn feds.

 

[Oblivion]

I was trying to make the case that she was in fact worse than the gipper, alas, I was foiled by my archnemesis facts.
Damn you facts, I'll get you next time.

Regardless, Team Thatcher all the way, not even close.

Ah, okey dokey.

 

[Chichikov]

Watching The Daily Show, is David Stockman retarded?

He's like that crazy uncle who corner you at wedding and insist on telling you about the horrors of white meat and Asian women.

Edit: fuck, that clown better not get his crazy stink on Glass Steagall, we need it.

 

[Oblivion]

Okay, someone help me out on this and tell me what I'm not getting with the argument about lowering corporate tax rates while closing the loopholes.

WSJ dipshit, Stephen Moore made this argument on Real Time the other day (which I linked) so that the corporations who are currently paying zero or close to zero taxes won't be able to get away with paying such low rates (essentially create a corporate flat tax). I understand what he's TRYING to get at, but like with many things, the more one digs in, the less sense it makes.

Let's use GE as an example (as it's the one that Maher used), who paid nothing in taxes last year. Even though our marginal rate is 35%, GE is doing just fine due to all the loopholes and whatnot. It would be reasonable to think that GE wouldn't take too kindly to this flat tax proposal to lower the marginal tax rates to 17% (Moore's suggestion) and close the loopholes so that GE would be presumably paying the 17% rate.

But doesn't that contradict one of the other right wing arguments, that corporations will never bring their money back to the U.S. to be taxed? I mean, Moore doesn't make it sound like he wants to give the corporations the option of paying what tax rates they prefer. The only reason they're going overseas to all these tax shelters and whatnot, is because we're simply allowing them to do so!


That post might be kind of inarticulate, but I hope I got my point across.

 

[B-Dubs]

Okay, someone help me out on this and tell me what I'm not getting with the argument about lowering corporate tax rates while closing the loopholes.

WSJ dipshit, Stephen Moore made this argument on Real Time the other day (which I linked) so that the corporations who are currently paying zero or close to zero taxes won't be able to get away with paying such low rates (essentially create a corporate flat tax). I understand what he's TRYING to get at, but like with many things, the more one digs in, the less sense it makes.

Let's use GE as an example (as it's the one that Maher used), who paid nothing in taxes last year. Even though our marginal rate is 35%, GE is doing just fine due to all the loopholes and whatnot. It would be reasonable to think that GE wouldn't take too kindly to this flat tax proposal to lower the marginal tax rates to 17% (Moore's suggestion) and close the loopholes so that GE would be presumably paying the 17% rate.

But doesn't that contradict one of the other right wing arguments, that corporations will never bring their money back to the U.S. to be taxed? I mean, Moore doesn't make it sound like he wants to give the corporations the option of paying what tax rates they prefer. The only reason they're going overseas to all these tax shelters and whatnot, is because we're simply allowing them to do so!


That post might be kind of inarticulate, but I hope I got my point across.

No, I get what you're saying. It is really dumb and makes no sense, but honestly so long as he doesn't make both arguments it's fine. We do have to remember that there are always different shades of ideology. Not everyone is "get the government out of my social security/medicare" crazy. That said we all know why flat taxes just straight up don't work, for some it's a sizable portion of income that they may need to grow and for others it's a drop in the bucket.

 

[Piecake]

Okay, someone help me out on this and tell me what I'm not getting with the argument about lowering corporate tax rates while closing the loopholes.

WSJ dipshit, Stephen Moore made this argument on Real Time the other day (which I linked) so that the corporations who are currently paying zero or close to zero taxes won't be able to get away with paying such low rates (essentially create a corporate flat tax). I understand what he's TRYING to get at, but like with many things, the more one digs in, the less sense it makes.

Let's use GE as an example (as it's the one that Maher used), who paid nothing in taxes last year. Even though our marginal rate is 35%, GE is doing just fine due to all the loopholes and whatnot. It would be reasonable to think that GE wouldn't take too kindly to this flat tax proposal to lower the marginal tax rates to 17% (Moore's suggestion) and close the loopholes so that GE would be presumably paying the 17% rate.

But doesn't that contradict one of the other right wing arguments, that corporations will never bring their money back to the U.S. to be taxed? I mean, Moore doesn't make it sound like he wants to give the corporations the option of paying what tax rates they prefer. The only reason they're going overseas to all these tax shelters and whatnot, is because we're simply allowing them to do so!


That post might be kind of inarticulate, but I hope I got my point across.

Wouldnt a VAT basically solve all of this? We should just eliminate the corporate tax rate and institute a VAT

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Watching The Daily Show, is David Stockman retarded?

He's like that crazy uncle who corner you at wedding and insist on telling you about the horrors of white meat and Asian women.

Edit: fuck, that clown better not get his crazy stink on Glass Steagall, we need it.

What is all this talk about Stockman today? What happened?

Spoiler

I also may or may not have been informed I need to know this information for a class tomorrow

 

[Chichikov]

Okay, someone help me out on this and tell me what I'm not getting with the argument about lowering corporate tax rates while closing the loopholes.

WSJ dipshit, Stephen Moore made this argument on Real Time the other day (which I linked) so that the corporations who are currently paying zero or close to zero taxes won't be able to get away with paying such low rates (essentially create a corporate flat tax). I understand what he's TRYING to get at, but like with many things, the more one digs in, the less sense it makes.

Let's use GE as an example (as it's the one that Maher used), who paid nothing in taxes last year. Even though our marginal rate is 35%, GE is doing just fine due to all the loopholes and whatnot. It would be reasonable to think that GE wouldn't take too kindly to this flat tax proposal to lower the marginal tax rates to 17% (Moore's suggestion) and close the loopholes so that GE would be presumably paying the 17% rate.

But doesn't that contradict one of the other right wing arguments, that corporations will never bring their money back to the U.S. to be taxed? I mean, Moore doesn't make it sound like he wants to give the corporations the option of paying what tax rates they prefer. The only reason they're going overseas to all these tax shelters and whatnot, is because we're simply allowing them to do so!


That post might be kind of inarticulate, but I hope I got my point across.

It doesn't make any sense, it conflate two unrelated issues - a popular one - addressing the many tax breaks in our tax code (calling them "loopholes" is misleading, most of them are laws) and an unpopular one - lowering the corporate tax rates.
It's a very common way for conservative to operate, I mean, they don't really have any popular ideas left, gotta try and sneak them in.

Wouldnt a VAT basically solve all of this? We should just eliminate the corporate tax rate and institute a VAT

No, VAT is a stupid, regressive, paperwork heavy, hard to enforce tax that can only be justified using weird nebulous terms like "market distortions".

 

[Piecake]

No, VAT is a stupid, regressive, paperwork heavy, hard to enforce tax that can only be justified using weird nebulous terms like "market distortions".

Then why do Canada and Northern Europe all have one? It seems to me that their basic model is to tax efficiently and spend progressively. It sounds a lot better than whatever the hell or model is

 

[Black Mamba]

Okay, someone help me out on this and tell me what I'm not getting with the argument about lowering corporate tax rates while closing the loopholes.

WSJ dipshit, Stephen Moore made this argument on Real Time the other day (which I linked) so that the corporations who are currently paying zero or close to zero taxes won't be able to get away with paying such low rates (essentially create a corporate flat tax). I understand what he's TRYING to get at, but like with many things, the more one digs in, the less sense it makes.

Let's use GE as an example (as it's the one that Maher used), who paid nothing in taxes last year. Even though our marginal rate is 35%, GE is doing just fine due to all the loopholes and whatnot. It would be reasonable to think that GE wouldn't take too kindly to this flat tax proposal to lower the marginal tax rates to 17% (Moore's suggestion) and close the loopholes so that GE would be presumably paying the 17% rate.

But doesn't that contradict one of the other right wing arguments, that corporations will never bring their money back to the U.S. to be taxed? I mean, Moore doesn't make it sound like he wants to give the corporations the option of paying what tax rates they prefer. The only reason they're going overseas to all these tax shelters and whatnot, is because we're simply allowing them to do so!


That post might be kind of inarticulate, but I hope I got my point across.

corporations don't avoid all taxes with overseas shelters. A company incorporated in the US has to pay taxes here even if it works overseas (same for US citizens, btw).

A lot of tax avoidance is accounting. Moving losses and profits over, depreciation, etc etc.

For instance, just because it's hilarious, did you know that sports teams owners are allowed to assume their players are depreciating assets? Kevin Durant is literally considered a depreciating asset and some of his contract is a tax write-off. It's called the roster depreciation allowance.

Anyway, the argument that countries won't bring money back to the US because of taxes has already been debunked when Bush repatriatized overseas money and countries opted to take the tax break and then bring the money back overseas rather than into the US. It has absolutely nothing to do with taxes.

 

[Black Mamba]

Wouldnt a VAT basically solve all of this? We should just eliminate the corporate tax rate and institute a VAT

A VAT has its taxes shifted onto consumers (not all but a significant part). A corporate tax mostly does not. I know think doesn't seem right, but a corporate tax is a tax on profits, meaning after supply and prices have been determined, so it really can't affect prices (lack of perfect information changes this a bit but not much).

Then why do Canada and Northern Europe all have one? It seems to me that their basic model is to tax efficiently and spend progressively. It sounds a lot better than whatever the hell or model is

Other states impose regressive taxes like a VAT but they make up for it with huge social safety nets. Nothing wrong with a VAT but it entirely depends on complimentary policies.

A VAT in the US to replace the corporate tax with no other policy changes would simply be a shift of taking taxes from corporate profits (held mostly by the wealthy) to everyone else.

 

[speculawyer]

Okay, someone help me out on this and tell me what I'm not getting with the argument about lowering corporate tax rates while closing the loopholes.

WSJ dipshit, Stephen Moore made this argument on Real Time the other day (which I linked) so that the corporations who are currently paying zero or close to zero taxes won't be able to get away with paying such low rates (essentially create a corporate flat tax). I understand what he's TRYING to get at, but like with many things, the more one digs in, the less sense it makes.

Let's use GE as an example (as it's the one that Maher used), who paid nothing in taxes last year. Even though our marginal rate is 35%, GE is doing just fine due to all the loopholes and whatnot. It would be reasonable to think that GE wouldn't take too kindly to this flat tax proposal to lower the marginal tax rates to 17% (Moore's suggestion) and close the loopholes so that GE would be presumably paying the 17% rate.

But doesn't that contradict one of the other right wing arguments, that corporations will never bring their money back to the U.S. to be taxed? I mean, Moore doesn't make it sound like he wants to give the corporations the option of paying what tax rates they prefer. The only reason they're going overseas to all these tax shelters and whatnot, is because we're simply allowing them to do so!


That post might be kind of inarticulate, but I hope I got my point across.

Well the foreign dollars is a completely separate issue.

Regarding the GE, I want to know what they are doing in order to pay no tax. I presume they are getting production tax-credits or something for putting up wind turbines. If that is what it is, I'm fine with them paying no taxes since they are creating jobs and creating pollution-free emissions-free energy. That is how we get the private market to do good things that are not directly profitable. Of course, I'd rather go with a carbon tax but that is pretty hard to get passed, so the tax-credit thing accomplishes sort of the same thing from a different angle.


We should lower the corporate tax rate and get rid of some loopholes. But I would not go for a flat tax. And yeah, Stephen Moore is a turbo-douche. He lied and mislead so many times. That kid Zach was the best. That Huntsman woman was a useless ditz.

 

[Chichikov]

Then why do Canada and Northern Europe all have one? It seems to me that their basic model is to tax efficiently and spend progressively. It sounds a lot better than whatever the hell or model is

Sorry, my mistake, I should've said "can only be justified using weird nebulous terms like "market distortions" and appealing to authority of foreign legislatures".

Can you defend VAT on its merits?

What you want to do is tax wealth right?
Marginal utility and all that shit, the problem is that taxing wealth is hard, but you try to get as close to it while being practical, and personally I think an income tax and an inheritance is all we really need (not 100% on property tax, it feel like a perfect system wouldn't need it but a realistic one would, but that's more of a hunch than rigorous analysis).
Yeah, you can through complicated rates and legislation kinda, sorta, get with that on VAT, but why fucking bother?
Even greatly designed VAT has a huge problem of avoidance, which mean that you reward the cheaters.

Really, is there one good reason outside political viability?
And if that the only reason, you need to ask yourself why that tax is viable, that should hint you about what type of tax we'll get if we go down that route.