• 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 2014 |OT| Kay Hagan and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad News

Status
Not open for further replies.
"Money is speech except that it's different" just doesn't make much sense to me. In my mind you having to argue why money is different than speech proves that money isn't speech.

Also in what way is electronic speech different from physical speech in the eyes of the law?

The difference is that money can corrupt while physical speech can't, that is why a limit in amount on one and not the other is justifiable, and I don't think that difference is enough to therefore say how you spend your money can be a form of expression.

So you think being able to give money to a cause you support, or to spend money to spread your speech isn't protected? And if that's correct then I just can't understand your position. Being able to do those things is a fundamental part of the expression of ideas these days, saying it's not protected sounds really authoritarian.
 
Hm? Brownback was trailing in the last poll in Kansas, unless you're talking about Pat Roberts Senate seat. Which I have no idea why anyone would want to waste the time and resources on the Senate in Kansas, they haven't sent a Dem to the Senate since 1932, who was then voted out in 1938.

To be honest I can actually see a Dem win in Mississippi if Cochran goes down in the primary.
I'm talking Chad Taylor in the Senate race. The governor's race is far more winnable.

Mississippi... I could see Travis Childers winning against the neo-Confederate guy. His profile could be enough to ramp up black turnout on its own - and Childers has done much better with whites than other Democrats have in that state. He could cobble together a winning coalition, but only if everything goes right. Obama got 44% in 2012 (better than his 08 performance!) but Democrats have a low ceiling.

Ironically, the Mississippi Senate race in 2012 was closer than the Michigan Senate race, which the media hyped up as a tossup because the media is fucking garbage and mouthpieces for the NRSC.
 
I'm talking Chad Taylor in the Senate race. The governor's race is far more winnable.

Mississippi... I could see Travis Childers winning against the neo-Confederate guy. His profile could be enough to ramp up black turnout on its own - and Childers has done much better with whites than other Democrats have in that state. He could cobble together a winning coalition, but only if everything goes right. Obama got 44% in 2012 (better than his 08 performance!) but Democrats have a low ceiling.

Ironically, the Mississippi Senate race in 2012 was closer than the Michigan Senate race, which the media hyped up as a tossup because the media is fucking garbage and mouthpieces for the NRSC.

Childers' House career is pretty mixed, he voted for the stimulus and SCHIP expansion but against the ACA and Waxman-Markey, but at least he said that he would be against a full repeal of the ACA.

Another Joe Manchin I guess. Also if Cochran wins the primary there's no way it's gonna be a Dem pickup, Cochran brings in a lot of money into the state due to his seniority.
 
A shrinking deficit is not helpful in the current economic environment. But hopefully the higher revenue will be offset by higher spending. Although I doubt it.

Yeah I was upset when liberals were claiming victory over the military spending cuts Hagel proposed. Unless that money gets reinvested in other public services and welfare the cuts mean nothing. I'm so fucking sick of austerity and I get so mad thinking that Obama himself bought into that stupid narrative.
 

gcubed

Member
Yeah I was upset when liberals were claiming victory over the military spending cuts Hagel proposed. Unless that money gets reinvested in other public services and welfare the cuts mean nothing. I'm so fucking sick of austerity and I get so mad thinking that Obama himself bought into that stupid narrative.

nah, i'll take the military cuts when i can get them and play the long game, when the purse strings open again you don't have to fight for military cuts, you are coming from a position of strength then.
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
I just saw Bill Kristol talking about how he was right about how the Sunni and Shia in Iraq would have no problem getting along and all it took was for U.S. forces staying there to keep them from killing each other.

When did Bill Kristol turn insane rightwing nutjob?

Guh? Is there some other Bill Kristol that you're referring to that I'm not aware of.
 
When did Bill Kristol turn insane rightwing nutjob?
When was he ever not one?

He is just a well-spoken one that can give the appearance of being sane. But is core beliefs are pretty horrible.

And as being the person who called the problem of Shia-Sunni discord in Iraq as just "Pop psychology", he should be laughed at when he give foreign policy advice.

As Iraq began devolving into chaos following the invasion of 2003, Kristol offered his expertise on numerous news programs, typified by this comment from an April 2003 interview with Terry Gross on NPR's Fresh Air:

"I think there's been a certain amount of, frankly, Terry, a kind of pop sociology in America, that, you know, somehow the Shia can't get along with the Sunni, or the Shia in Iraq just want to establish some kind of fundamentalist regime. There's almost no evidence of that at all. Iraq has always been very secular."​

Edit: Damn you, Oblivion!
 
Yeah I was upset when liberals were claiming victory over the military spending cuts Hagel proposed. Unless that money gets reinvested in other public services and welfare the cuts mean nothing. I'm so fucking sick of austerity and I get so mad thinking that Obama himself bought into that stupid narrative.
I too will take the cuts as is. Although it may not be the smartest thing to do right now, showing that you are reducing the deficit gets points among the electorate.
 
A shrinking deficit is not helpful in the current economic environment. But hopefully the higher revenue will be offset by higher spending. Although I doubt it.
So Empty . . . it has been some 6 years since the 2008 economic meltdown.

At what point do you declare this to be the "new normal" instead of a bad economic situation?
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
He is just a well-spoken one that can give the appearance of being sane. But is core beliefs are pretty horrible.

There's a joke I heard a while back that this reminded me of. What is the only requirement to be conservative intellectual?

Don't have a Southern accent.
 
So Empty . . . it has been some 6 years since the 2008 economic meltdown.

At what point do you declare this to be the "new normal" instead of a bad economic situation?

Unemployment is a political choice and never an economic necessity. As is poverty and the amount of inequality. So this will be normal until people organize to change it.
 
So Empty . . . it has been some 6 years since the 2008 economic meltdown.

At what point do you declare this to be the "new normal" instead of a bad economic situation?

I hate to sound like a cheerleader for the Democratic Party right now, and it kinda pains me to say this because I sound like a liberal, but this "new normal" will end the sooner we get another Democratic controlled Congress in Washington.
 
How the fuck is anyone supposed to take the GOP seriously?

GOP:The deficit! Obama is running up massive debt! The deficit is out of control! . . . So let's cut taxes!



Troll party.

But let's not forget cutting spending to the point where the government is useless...except in defense and NASA.
 
Childers' House career is pretty mixed, he voted for the stimulus and SCHIP expansion but against the ACA and Waxman-Markey, but at least he said that he would be against a full repeal of the ACA.

Another Joe Manchin I guess. Also if Cochran wins the primary there's no way it's gonna be a Dem pickup, Cochran brings in a lot of money into the state due to his seniority.
What so you expect from a democrat in Mississippi. Obama has virtually destroyed the party in the south, and those who have survived have had to move right. Traditionally southern states love pork spending, but not since the deficit became an existential threat from the socialist communist race hater.
 
When was he ever not one?

He is just a well-spoken one that can give the appearance of being sane. But is core beliefs are pretty horrible.

And as being the person who called the problem of Shia-Sunni discord in Iraq as just "Pop psychology", he should be laughed at when he give foreign policy advice.



Edit: Damn you, Oblivion!
I thought he was one of George Will establishment types after he apologized for his Iraq warmongering and dialed back the crazy. He also appears on Sunday morning talk shows which gives you a moderate image of him. But yesterday he was even more war mongering and defending tea party as legit.
 
I thought he was one of George Will establishment types after he apologized for his Iraq warmongering and dialed back the crazy. He also appears on Sunday morning talk shows which gives you a moderate image of him. But yesterday he was even more war mongering and defending tea party as legit.
Dude...it's Bill Kristol. His "apology" on Iraq was little more than him saying the Bush admin didn't go far enough. He supports endless war, and if he had his way the US military would be in Syria and Libya right now, with more troops heading to the Ukraine.
 

adg1034

Member
Unlikely. Voodoo economics benefit Corporate America too much, and you are forgetting the golden rule: those with all the gold make the rules.

tumblr_inline_mtq1q2mFQd1rxq3r2.jpg
 

Chichikov

Member
When was he ever not one?

He is just a well-spoken one that can give the appearance of being sane. But is core beliefs are pretty horrible.

And as being the person who called the problem of Shia-Sunni discord in Iraq as just "Pop psychology", he should be laughed at when he give foreign policy advice.
Man, I remember listening to that interview driving to work, that was the exact moment that I realized how fucked up the US is going to be in Iraq.
Don't get me wrong, I thought the Iraq war was a terrible idea and opposed it from get go, but I assumed they have some sort of plan, probably install some puppet regime, but that interview made me realize neocons know shit and all about the middle east. It's one thing to spew talking points and propaganda to sell otherwise unpopular policies, but the level of apparent ignorance he displayed there (which extended beyond Iraq by the way) was just staggering.
 

Tamanon

Banned
The media is making out Obama to be so weak on Ukraine right now.

It's pretty hilarious.

"He was TOO FORCEFUL ON SYRIA"

"He's too weak on Ukraine because he's not .... threatening war on Russia for some reason!"

Couple of moronic arguments to that effect going on in the Ukraine thread here too.
 

Piecake

Member
The media is making out Obama to be so weak on Ukraine right now.

The media wants a story. Obama would lose either way. If he threatened Russia more forcefully all of the news would be about how Obama is threatening to get us in a war with Russia.

Yea, the media is mostly a joke. Long-form investigative journalism is excellent, but you are not going to get that with breaking news or click bait stories
 
Dude...it's Bill Kristol. His "apology" on Iraq was little more than him saying the Bush admin didn't go far enough. He supports endless war, and if he had his way the US military would be in Syria and Libya right now, with more troops heading to the Ukraine.

Naw, we wouldn't be sending troops to Ukraine because they would all already be Iran.
 
Man, I remember listening to that interview driving to work, that was the exact moment that I realized how fucked up the US is going to be in Iraq.
Don't get me wrong, I thought the Iraq war was a terrible idea and opposed it from get go, but I assumed they have some sort of plan, probably install some puppet regime, but that interview made me realize neocons know shit and all about the middle east. It's one thing to spew talking points and propaganda to sell otherwise unpopular policies, but the level of apparent ignorance he displayed there (which extended beyond Iraq by the way) was just staggering.
I often wonder if he actually knows better but instead spews the soothing "no worries" line because that will help him get the war he wants.

And I'm not sure if that is better or worse than him just being ignorant.
 

East Lake

Member
Boston will be nuked first because Bob Kraft accused Putin of stealing his ring and the Patriots will finally get their due for Spygate, although some will suspect CIA involvement after scorch marks not characteristic of modern hydrogen bombs are found at the scene. Also because it's physically unpossible for mud to look like it did after the nuke. Putin will be buried at sea like Bin Laden. God Bless America.
 
Why would Yanukovych go to war against Putin when they are both bffs? I think war is premature at this point...but it's a very fast changing situation. A war COULD break out.
 

Chichikov

Member
I often wonder if he actually knows better but instead spews the soothing "no worries" line because that will help him get the war he wants.

And I'm not sure if that is better or worse than him just being ignorant.
I definitely get the sense the Kristol genuinely doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about.

Does anyone know if the US will be involved in the conflict between Russia and Ukraine unfolding?
Historically, it has been proven time and time again that the west will not go into war over Eastern European countries getting fucked by Moscow.
 

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
That's the reasoning given today. The reasoning given in 1921 is also wrong for today.

Well, it may not be true that capital gains are retarded by current rates, but it's certainly true that taxing capital gains as a lump sum in the year realized is likely to result in a higher tax burden than if increases in value had been taxed annually during the holding period.

Do you have data for this? Can't say that I will take something like this on the word of huge Laissez-faire, pro-business politicians.

Also, I am not really sure why a policy that, in effect, promotes long-term investments is a bad thing.

No, I don't have data supporting what the Ways and Means Committee said, and unfortunately I don't have time to research it. And the purpose of preferential rates on long-term capital gains is to encourage long-term investment (well, more-than-one-year investments). It also has the advantage (over taxing LTCG at ordinary rates) of not discouraging sales of capital assets when it makes sense to do so.

How the fuck is anyone supposed to take the GOP seriously?

GOP:The deficit! Obama is running up massive debt! The deficit is out of control! . . . So let's cut taxes!

Troll party.

You're confusing lower marginal rates with lower taxes. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, Camp's proposal would increase tax revenues by $3 billion over 2014 - 2023. There's a lot more to his proposal than just shuffling marginal rates.
 

Sibylus

Banned
Why would Yanukovych go to war against Putin when they are both bffs? I think war is premature at this point...but it's a very fast changing situation. A war COULD break out.
Yanukovych was voted out and he's fled the country. Moscow disavows the legitimacy of the present government in Kyiv, and not long ago approved of the usage of its forces within Ukraine (after several thousand already went sojourning in the Crimea, but who's counting). Ukraine complaining to the UN that 15,000 additional Russian troops have disembarked in the Crimea.

Monday's NATO meeting has been moved up to Sunday. (Public) UN Security Council scheduled for today. Situation volatile as hell.
 
The media is making out Obama to be so weak on Ukraine right now.

This isn't really a condemnation of Obama. Its just that the media is freaking out we're not more involved. And its not that they want war or anything its just they can't handle a story that doesn't involve the US as the prime participants in the conflict/incident.

We don't have much leverage over Russia in that part of the world. LBJ didn't do much to stop the Russian tanks invading Russia. the US didn't do much to stop the Russian invasion of Hungary. Its a power imbalance. The US can't do much short of military action which is stupid since Russia has nukes. And no, putting nukes in Poland wouldn't stop this.

This is why its in the US's favor to continue to use and promote international organizations and norms. It amplifies our power and promotes restraint in other nations
 
We don't have much leverage over Russia in that part of the world. LBJ didn't do much to stop the Russian tanks invading Russia.

I think you mean Czechoslovakia.

In September Obama was a war mongering neocon to the American people and now they consider him a weak dove, ugh.
 
The media fundamentally doesn't understand that the American people are tired of war. To the media, "anti-war sentiment" is a buzzword that went out of style shortly after the 2008 election.

The US is not the world's police force. For all the hand wringing, not a single person is coming up with constructive things we could do. You can cry about Syrian refugees all you want, and blame Obama for being "weak," but does that mean you want to waste US troops in another hostile middle eastern country, topple a government, create a vacuum, have to deal with a rebuilding process, etc all while the very people you "helped" shit on you? Our media is based on sound bytes, and it's a lot easier to complain about a complex situation than explain it.

Ukraine is in Russia's backyard. I know this analogy isn't accurate to all or most of the factors involved, but imagine if the US invaded Canada and annexed a part of it. What would the world do, outside of sanctions - but not UN sanctions, as we could simply veto them? Do people want Obama to send troops to the Ukraine, position nuclear subs, send NATO troops, what exactly?

I shit on Obama all the time but I'm more than happy he's president during events like this instead of Romney, or (worse yet) McCain. The media demands instant action to keep up with a 24/7 news cycle, and he couldn't care less about that. Thank god.
 
I shit on Obama all the time but I'm more than happy he's president during events like this instead of Romney, or (worse yet) McCain. The media demands instant action to keep up with a 24/7 news cycle, and he couldn't care less about that. Thank god.

Yeah I have mixed feelings on Obama most of the time but I think we dodged a bullet big time in 2008 especially.

We'd probably have gone into Egypt to support Mubarak, probably still have some significant presence in Iraq, invaded Libya, Syria, Iran, we wouldn't be on very good footing with North Korea to say the least, and now we'd probs be beating the drums of war with Russia.
 
The media fundamentally doesn't understand that the American people are tired of war. To the media, "anti-war sentiment" is a buzzword that went out of style shortly after the 2008 election.

The US is not the world's police force. For all the hand wringing, not a single person is coming up with constructive things we could do. You can cry about Syrian refugees all you want, and blame Obama for being "weak," but does that mean you want to waste US troops in another hostile middle eastern country, topple a government, create a vacuum, have to deal with a rebuilding process, etc all while the very people you "helped" shit on you? Our media is based on sound bytes, and it's a lot easier to complain about a complex situation than explain it.

Ukraine is in Russia's backyard. I know this analogy isn't accurate to all or most of the factors involved, but imagine if the US invaded Canada and annexed a part of it. What would the world do, outside of sanctions - but not UN sanctions, as we could simply veto them? Do people want Obama to send troops to the Ukraine, position nuclear subs, send NATO troops, what exactly?

I shit on Obama all the time but I'm more than happy he's president during events like this instead of Romney, or (worse yet) McCain. The media demands instant action to keep up with a 24/7 news cycle, and he couldn't care less about that. Thank god.

Krauthammer's editorial two days ago called for moving a naval fleet to the Black Sea. So, yeah, that is exactly what these nutjobs (supposedly) want.
 
Well, it may not be true that capital gains are retarded by current rates, but it's certainly true that taxing capital gains as a lump sum in the year realized is likely to result in a higher tax burden than if increases in value had been taxed annually during the holding period.

It would be easy enough to require taxes be paid on unrealized capital gains as they accrue. What would you prefer?
 
or (worse yet) McCain.
This is such an apocalyptic scenario. If McCain won 2008, we would have screwed up Libya and Syria. Troops would still be in Iraq and Afghanistan probably surged. Bin Laden still alive. Iran's deal with UN would never happen (remember, the Congress only backed down on sanctions to disrupt the deal because of Obama's Veto threat). Whatever miniscule progress we have in Israel-Palestine because of Kerry will be reversed. I just cringe thinking about how dumb as a nation we could be with McCain-Palin.

Of course, President McCain would be sabre rattling with Russia right about now.
 

sc0la

Unconfirmed Member
It would be easy enough to require taxes be paid on unrealized capital gains as they accrue. What would you prefer?
Would you then untax them for unrealized losses? :p

Another problem with this is it could be difficult to pay for the taxes on unrealized gains without liquidating the securities in some cases. It's like the game show car problem, except with investments.
 

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
It would be easy enough to require taxes be paid on unrealized capital gains as they accrue. What would you prefer?

I'm not sure how easy such a requirement would be. For starters, there's the problem of tracking those unrealized gains. That would be easiest for publicly traded stock, which has a readily-ascertainable value. For everything else, it would require obtaining an appraisal each year. This would be unreasonably burdensome on the taxpayers who comply with the requirement, and impossible to enforce against the taxpayers who don't comply. Second, one of the main policies underlying the income tax system is that taxes should be imposed at a time when the taxpayer has the wherewithal to pay. Taxing unrealized gains before they are reduced to cash is contrary to that policy.

On the other hand, the current capital gains tax system doesn't make much sense, either. If longer-term investments are preferable to shorter-term investments, why does the law only distinguish between holding periods that are one year or less and those that are longer than one year? And if the concern is that taxing the gains in a lump sum is unfair because the gain was actually spread over multiple tax years, why is there a one-year-and-a-day lower limit, and why is the tax the same even for capital assets held over many years? If I sell an asset after owning it for one year, then the gain on that sale is taxed at ordinary rates. But if I wait a day, and then sell it, suddenly it's unfair to tax it at ordinary rates?

So, a better system would be one that, like the current system, taxes the gain only once it's realized and the taxpayer has (or should have) the wherewithal to pay, but unlike the current system, would account for multi-year holding periods differently than year-and-a-day holding periods. One way to do this would be the system in place during the late 1930s (according to Wikipedia): the longer the holding period of an asset, the more of the gain that is excluded from income. Another alternative would be to determine the average capital gains per year by dividing the total gains over the number of years held, and then taxing the gain attributed to each of those years at the taxpayer's marginal rate for the year. For instance, say that a taxpayer sold a capital asset after ten years, and realized $100,000.00 of gain. For the first five years of the holding period, he had paid a marginal rate of 20%; for the next five, he paid a marginal rate of 30%. $100,000.00/10 years = average (unrealized) gains of $10,000.00 per year during the holding period. His total tax on the gains would be (($10,000.00 * .2) * 5) + (($10,000.00 * .3) * 5) = $25,000.00. Either of these options would be preferable to the current system, or a system of taxing unrealized capital gains.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom