WHAT????

Post #332,731 by beepster 9/17/10 11:59:15 PM Reply	WHAT???? There was no major economic fallout in the wake of the terror attacks. Really? You accept a blanket statement like this? Aside from the immediate .5% drop in GDP growth was the fact that international passenger commerce (think tourism) took 8 years to recover. .... and so let them expire, it will only effect the rich people...right??? According to an analysis of different tax scenarios by Deloitte Development LLC, if the Bush-era tax cuts were to expire as scheduled, a married couple (with two kids) earning a combined $70,350 would see its tax liability increase by 113%Âfrom $2,300 to $4,900. http://blogs.forbes....relatedstoriesbox That damned George Bush. Only gave money to the rich. Feh. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #332,733 by drook 9/18/10 12:27:32 AM 9/18/10 12:55:43 AM Reply	Re: Taxes Show me where anyone in the administration has advocated allowing all the tax breaks to expire. Strawman much? Oh wait, I missed the fact that you were changing the subject, too. The issue was whether supply-side theory works in the real world. The evidence says it doesn't. So can we stop pretending that cutting taxes will increase tax revenue, or substantially increase economic activity? And what the hell, while I'm at it lets look at your other point: Aside from the immediate .5% drop in GDP growth was the fact that international passenger commerce (think tourism) took 8 years to recover. You work (worked?) in the airline industry, right? So of course you're very aware of it. But your industry is not the economy. "Travel and entertainment stocks fell, while communications, pharmaceutical and military/defense stocks rose." (Quote is from Wikipedia, but it matches my recollection.) According to the USC-based Center for Risk and Economic Analysis of Terrorism Events (quoted here -- http://www.nbclosang...-Short-Lived.html): [T]he impact of the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, D.C., on the economy ranged from $35 billion to $109 billion for gross domestic product, or between 0.5 percent and 1 percent of the GDP. You said it was a drop in GDP growth. Are you saying something different from what that study concluded? If so, on what basis? Because if it was a 0.5 percent drop, then you can factor that into a single year of the period from 2001-2009, when real GDP grew by an annual average of 1.56 percent. So that means a half-percent spread across 8 years, or 0.0625 percent per year, bringing the average up to 1.6 percent. Wow, yeah, that was a huge effect. -- Drew Edited by drook Sept. 18, 2010, 12:32:11 AM EDT Edited by drook Sept. 18, 2010, 12:55:43 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #332,735 by Another Scott 9/18/10 12:40:16 AM Reply	RCP? Obama cut federal taxes for those making under $250k/yr. Even the Forbes guy says as much. Your 2nd excerpt is incomplete: Keeping middle- and lower-income people from having higher tax burdens is one reason the White House has proposed keeping the tax cuts in place for these Americans. IOW, taxes won't rise for those making under $250k when the Bush cuts expire for those making that amount. Obama isn't proposing that his cuts for those making less be recinded. Let's see you use the following and plug in some real numbers and come up with a scenario where taxes are higher under Obama's plan for those making under $250k. http://calculator.taxpolicycenter.org/ HTH! Cheers, Scott.
Post #332,745 by beepster 9/18/10 12:14:41 PM Reply	Those aren't his cuts and there is a real threat that they will do NOTHING. Which means all Bush cuts expire..which means exactly what my quote detailed is correct. The childcare credit is a Bush tax effect. The changes in tables, including the addition of the 10% level are Bush changes. Yes, Virginia, that means that EVERYBODY got a tax break under Bush..but if you listen to the press now..its only the rich that got one. So when you say "Obama isn't proposing that his cuts for those making less be recinded"...I'm not quite sure you get it. Those were not Obama's cuts. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #332,746 by Another Scott 9/18/10 1:14:36 PM Reply	You're arguing with "the press" now? It's really hard for me to parse who or what you're complaining about here. In your first reply to Drew, you said: and so let them expire, it will only effect the rich people...right??? According to an analysis of different tax scenarios by Deloitte Development LLC, if the Bush-era tax cuts were to expire as scheduled, a married couple (with two kids) earning a combined $70,350 would see its tax liability increase by 113%Âfrom $2,300 to $4,900. [linky] That damned George Bush. Only gave money to the rich. Feh. "Only"? There's your binary thinking raising its head again... :-/ Now you say, "those aren't his cuts" which is changing the subject. The "Bush cuts" will expire at the end of this calendar year. Full stop. Congress must enact new legislation to have a different result. Calling them the "Bush cuts" is shorthand. And you say, "and there is a real threat that they will do NOTHING. Which means all Bush cuts expire..which means exactly what my quote detailed is correct." You cite a "threat" that something may happen as proof that your incomplete summation is a "fact"? Interesting logic, there. Not. First, the cuts sunset because the Republicans used Reconciliation to force them through Congress in the first place. Second, you're aware, I'm sure, that under Obama's policy the only reason why the middle-class cuts wouldn't remain in place after December 31 would be due to obstruction and poison pills from your Republican friends. Oh, but I forgot, it's the nebulous "they" and "they're all the same"... :-/ You say, "Yes, Virginia, that means that EVERYBODY got a tax break under Bush..but if you listen to the press now..its only the rich that got one." So you're arguing with "the press" now? Did Drew say that only the rich got a tax break under Bush? Did the AJC piece say only the rich got a tax break under Bush? Who exactly are you arguing with? It sure looks like a strawman. You say, "So when you say "Obama isn't proposing that his cuts for those making less be recinded"...I'm not quite sure you get it. Those were not Obama's cuts." What is your beef - who gets the credit? The Bush administration isn't writing tax legislation these days. Obama's making the proposals now. Obama's actual tax proposals are in the Greenbook - http://www.treas.gov...brary/grnbk09.pdf (135 page .pdf) Pages 73-74 cover Obama's proposals for the top 2 marginal brackets, and page 125 covers the AMT, estate and gift taxes, and lower brackets. But, as Drew points out, all of this is a distraction from the initial topic... Cheers, Scott.
Post #332,747 by beepster 9/18/10 1:27:21 PM Reply	Probably your grammar. "Obama isn't proposing that his cuts for those making less be recinded." Who is "his"? Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #332,748 by Another Scott 9/18/10 1:33:32 PM Reply	See above. Sorry if I'm not always clear.
Post #332,749 by beepster 9/18/10 2:09:34 PM Reply	last I checked.. obama and the dems need zero republicans..and the new "dissent" is within his own party. http://tpmdc.talking...nd-on-tax-cut.php Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #332,750 by Another Scott 9/18/10 2:24:33 PM Reply	Check again. http://en.wikipedia....ted_States_Senate Under the current Senate rules, and their application by the Republicans, 60 votes are needed. The Democrats have 59. Without the Senate, the tax changes proposed by Obama are not going to become law. The House has already passed a lot of legislation that the Senate refuses to take up. It's not surprising they're reticent to spend time on something that will die in the Senate given the GOP's statements and actions to date. http://www.nytimes.c...l?ref=paulkrugman Cheers, Scott.
Post #332,752 by beepster 9/18/10 3:08:33 PM Reply	oops, sorry. one. and they have that in Ohio. If they grow some... Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #332,758 by Ashton 9/18/10 6:23:28 PM Reply	If patriotism '..IS the last refuge of the scoundrel'? (And when ever did Mencken get-it-wrong?) We need an imaginative similar koan for, Obstructionism is the last refuge of the ?_____? (Simultaneously: as to the ongoing msm- et al's complete amnesia/disinterest in the Difference between some flavor of 'ConservatismÂ' -VS- all that is implicit in that Other politico-category, Reactionism) -- I don't expect nuance ever to enter the yes/no digital-think habit / that now rampant anathema of this Age of Decline. And of hamster cages full of people mesmerized by a screen full of numbers for 8 hrs./day -- (or is it now more like 10-12? what with work-brought-home + cel-fone umbilical.) Carrion with the slogans; they all just merge into white noise anyway. After a few decades of the sillier ones.
Post #332,763 by Andrew Grygus 9/18/10 8:04:03 PM Reply	That's not Mencken, it's Samual Johnson. I more agree with Ambrose Bierce though Patriotism, n. Combustible rubbish ready to the torch of any one ambitious to illuminate his name. In Dr. Johnson's famous dictionary patriotism is defined as the last resort of a scoundrel. With all due respect to an enlightened but inferior lexicographer I beg to submit that it is the first.
Post #332,770 by Ashton 9/19/10 12:03:30 AM Reply	Yes, of course - brain-sort 404. Bierce is er, orthogonal? as he focuses on the nature of the flammable material ... awaiting ignition by the next cretin besotted with personal-Certainty. Added to inspirational List. Have to scan some more Bierce soon; it's been awhile since I perused the Curmudgeon's Home Companion.. thanks for tip.
Post #332,774 by boxley 9/19/10 1:01:08 AM Reply	what does Bierce have to do with bird watching? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
Post #332,778 by Ashton 9/19/10 4:31:30 AM Reply	RTFP, er, thread I could almost see voting for Palin in 2012 on the grounds that this sorry ratfucking excuse for a republic, this savage, smirking, predatory empire deserves her. Bring on the Rapture, motherfuckers! -- via RC
Post #332,760 by crazy 9/18/10 7:35:54 PM Reply	C'mon Beep This one was a series of poor misdirections. You can do so much better.
Post #333,756 by CRConrad 10/6/10 11:05:19 AM Reply	But was that actually a 9/11 effect? BeeP argues that 9/11 did too have a significant effect on the economy: international passenger commerce (think tourism) took 8 years to recover. Sure, but "recover" from what -- 9/11, or Security Fascism / Security Theatre? Still arguably Bush's (and his gang's) fault, rather than Osama's (and his gang's). (And no, before you even try it, that's NOT the same thing. Cooler heads said as early as, at a guess, 9/12, that the whole sorry Homeland Spectacle was unnecessary, counter-productive, and self-defeating.) -- Christian R. Conrad Same old username (as above), same old GMail.
Post #334,042 by Ashton 10/12/10 2:10:35 AM Reply	Can bin-L claim credit for predicting That overreaction, too ? (Although making the whole nonsense so reminiscent of Fatherland___ -- that must have been a real bonus.) But as a pure Econ War-as-Bizness calculation: How to calculate bin-L's R.O.I. of a few hundred thou $US expenditure ... daunting. Cost of all the warz to date, cost of Ill-Will generated to extent of numberless fresh young jihadists seeking immolation? and so much more. OK -- surely at least a Billion:One ROI, is my guesstimate, (unless one wants to credit bin-L of also factoring-in: that our National Hubris has imploded the entire fucking Empire; then, it's maybe more like a Trillion:One ?)
Post #334,087 by boxley 10/12/10 8:49:17 AM Reply	Re: Can bin-L claim credit for predicting That overreaction, yes, a tremendous amount of stock in the magnitudes of billions was sold short just before 9/11 heavily in the airline sector Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
Post #334,126 by mhuber 10/12/10 4:01:44 PM Reply	As much as St. Ronnie can claim victory over the USSR. --------------------------------------- I think it's perfectly clear we're in the wrong band. (Tori Amos)
Post #334,132 by Ashton 10/12/10 6:24:24 PM Reply	Pithy.. yeah, like That. I could almost see voting for Palin in 2012 on the grounds that this sorry ratfucking excuse for a republic, this savage, smirking, predatory empire deserves her. Bring on the Rapture, motherfuckers! -- via RC
Post #334,160 by crazy 10/13/10 6:22:55 AM 10/13/10 6:25:40 AM Reply	Oh c'mon As much as I hated the bastard (really, when he went into forgetful old man mode, I just wanted to string him up), he really had a huge effect. Make people believe it is better, and shazaam, it's better. And he (ok, yeah, many moments leading to that moment, but he pushed it) bankrupted the soviets, which you may not have liked, but it worked for us. Before that point, the US lived in a shadow of Russian nukes. Any kids growing up before that should be able to remember the deep gut level fear, programmed in, and that phrase should be enough to trigger it. After that moment, poof. Talk to kids today and see if their mind set is shaped by nukes falling out of the sky. Nope. I think that's a good thing, and I think uncle Ronnie was a strong piece of it. On the family level, we had many arguments over him. My dad loved him. At dinner one night, he said: Say what you will, but all my kids have jobs right now. A few years later, he wasn't in such close agreement. My dad thought he paid too little in taxes based on RR's tax cuts. My dad was an accountant. He NEVER thought he paid too little in taxes. He fought the IRS for years for his clients. He loved it. He was good at it. And then he became a soda company executive. He though RR's tax strategy was going to do serious harm to the country, even though it was beneficial to him, and it was wrong. Edited by crazy Oct. 13, 2010, 06:25:40 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #334,168 by hnick 10/13/10 7:25:20 AM Reply	Huge effect is one way of phrasing it, I suppose. He inherited a country that was a world class lender and passed on a country that was a world class debtor. As I recall, he was the beginning of the "we don't have to make stuff, just money" POV. I tend to regard him as the beginning of the end. Just my two remaining pennies...
Post #334,174 by folkert 10/13/10 7:49:26 AM Reply	And now you've spent them thar pennies... Did you make copies of them?
Post #334,175 by hnick 10/13/10 8:04:32 AM Reply	Isn't that what couch cushions are for? Spare change?
Post #334,348 by mhuber 10/15/10 7:14:29 PM Reply	Yeah, happened on his watch But he didn't even realize it was happening until it was over. Hell, on 9/10 George W. was still fighting the USSR. --------------------------------------- I think it's perfectly clear we're in the wrong band. (Tori Amos)

Welcome to IWETHEY!