GOP Failure Watch Part III

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by argentine soccer fan, Sep 2, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. yossarian

    yossarian Moderator
    Staff Member

    Jun 16, 1999
    Big City Blinking
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I think my too-clever-but-maybe-not play on the name of a certain attacking midfielder may have failed.
    :unsure:
     
  2. Danwoods

    Danwoods Member

    Mar 20, 2000
    Bertram, TX, US
    Club:
    Houston Dynamo
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Can't really see her teeth in that picture.

    Boehner finally admitted it,

    "there are ways to limit deductions, close loopholes and have the same people pay more of their money to the federal government without raising tax rates, which we believe will harm our economy."

    http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/05/politics/fiscal-cliff/index.html?hpt=hp_bn3

    It doesn't matter how much you take, it's how you take it.
     
  3. JohnR

    JohnR Member+

    Jun 23, 2000
    Chicago, IL
    The only soccer players I know are Pele, that Madonna guy, and Freddy Adu.
     
    Barbara repped this.
  4. JohnR

    JohnR Member+

    Jun 23, 2000
    Chicago, IL
    Uh-huh. Tell me those ways, Johnny.
     
  5. fatbastard

    fatbastard Member+

    Aug 1, 2003
    Lincoln (ish), Va
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I just don't understand any part of their argument with deductions vs marginal rates. Maybe it is because I am too stupid, maybe it's because I'm not .....

    But how is it okay for the economy to make someone pay $5,000 more by denying them a "loophole" or by taking away a deduction - but horrible for the economy to have that same person pay the same additional $5k with a tweak to the rate.

    The only answer I can come up with is: We are smart enough to stop spending money on the things that you took our deductions away for and move the cash into something you added deductions or a loophole for - so you can "claim" it will raise a future $5k but I won't actually ever have to pay it, only some schmuck with a lesser-paid accountant will pay it.
    Which means - in reality the money will never be paid to the government. And if it is, it will only be for the first year until they can move their deductions around.
     
  6. JohnR

    JohnR Member+

    Jun 23, 2000
    Chicago, IL
    You would understand the real argument, if the Republicans were permitted to state it. Higher marginal rates will cause the wealthy to pay more in taxes. However, eliminating the deductions may not. It's one thing to talk vague about loopholes being closed; it's quite another to get bipartisan agreement on such actions, with lobbyists stirring up noise. And to the extent that the deductions *are* eliminated, it might be middle-class perks that suffer rather than the upper-class deductions.
     
  7. chaski

    chaski Moderator
    Staff Member

    Mar 20, 2000
    redacted
    Club:
    Lisburn Distillery FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Turks and Caicos Islands
    Another GOP failure.
     
  8. stanger

    stanger BigSoccer Supporter

    Nov 29, 2008
    Columbus
    Club:
    Columbus Crew
    Nat'l Team:
    United States


    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/how-the-gop-should-handle-the-fiscal-cliff/

     
  9. raza_rebel

    raza_rebel Member+

    Dec 11, 2000
    Club:
    Univ de Chile
    oh snap. Peaches is here too?
     
  10. ratdog

    ratdog Member+

    Mar 22, 2004
    In the doghouse
    Club:
    Chicago Red Stars
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    [​IMG]
     
  11. ratdog

    ratdog Member+

    Mar 22, 2004
    In the doghouse
    Club:
    Chicago Red Stars
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    It's the WSJ Op Ed page. They think Art Laffer is a Great Intellectual for ********'s sake. Nobody takes them seriously.
     
  12. Dr. Wankler

    Dr. Wankler Member+

    May 2, 2001
    The Electric City
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    Note that you're talking to the guy who started the Wall Street Journal Failure thread.
     
  13. taosjohn

    taosjohn Member+

    Dec 23, 2004
    taos,nm
    o_O

    In a Marxist world there would be nothing to inherit IIRC.

    Not sure what a "neo-Marxist is...?
     
  14. chaski

    chaski Moderator
    Staff Member

    Mar 20, 2000
    redacted
    Club:
    Lisburn Distillery FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Turks and Caicos Islands
    Reagan
     
  15. ratdog

    ratdog Member+

    Mar 22, 2004
    In the doghouse
    Club:
    Chicago Red Stars
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Obviously stanger has no idea what it means either because it does not mean what he thinks it does.

    I'd post a snarky picture from "Princess Bride" but I can't be bothered.
     
  16. ratdog

    ratdog Member+

    Mar 22, 2004
    In the doghouse
    Club:
    Chicago Red Stars
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Only if "neo-marxist" means "almost destroyed our economy with monetarism and bamboozled Americans into thinking they could borrows their way to riches to keep taxes lower than they should have been"...
     
    fatbastard repped this.
  17. stanger

    stanger BigSoccer Supporter

    Nov 29, 2008
    Columbus
    Club:
    Columbus Crew
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Obviously that was a quote from an article.
     
  18. ratdog

    ratdog Member+

    Mar 22, 2004
    In the doghouse
    Club:
    Chicago Red Stars
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Obviously you'd have been better questioning what neo-marxism was instead of quoting a source that has no clue either.

    On the (very) off chance you were wondering:

    Neo-marxism: (ethics) A loose movement of late-20th-century political and social theorists who emphasized the humanism and idealism of Marx's early works (written before he formulated his theories of dialectical materialism and economic determinism). The neo-Marxists emphasized psychological liberation instead of political revolution and thus were closer to some strains of anarchism than to state socialism or communism.

    So "neo-marxism" means pretty much the opposite of what the article thinks it does. Meaning that for the author of the article "marxism" means "anything I don't like" because the author can't be bothered to look up the proper definition and assumes (correctly) that the natural audience for the article is also just as lazy and ignorant.
     
  19. stanger

    stanger BigSoccer Supporter

    Nov 29, 2008
    Columbus
    Club:
    Columbus Crew
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Agreed. The rest of it? I see some of you advocating letting us fall off the cliff. I don't see that as being an option.
     
  20. chaski

    chaski Moderator
    Staff Member

    Mar 20, 2000
    redacted
    Club:
    Lisburn Distillery FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Turks and Caicos Islands
    Stick to estate taxes.
    According to the article, 55% is a neoMarxist estate tax rate.
    That was the rate under Reagan
     
  21. taosjohn

    taosjohn Member+

    Dec 23, 2004
    taos,nm
    Well, yeah, there is that too; but my actual mistake was wondering what Stanger thought he was driving at...
     
  22. stanger

    stanger BigSoccer Supporter

    Nov 29, 2008
    Columbus
    Club:
    Columbus Crew
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I was driving at the fact that going over the cliff will have monumental consequences. Some of you don't think so.
     
  23. dapip

    dapip Member+

    Sep 5, 2003
    South Florida
    Club:
    Millonarios Bogota
    Nat'l Team:
    Colombia
    Because it is not a cliff.. Is more like a speed bump...

    Krugman has been right about almost everything since 2001... I trust the guy, you should too.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/26/opinion/krugman-fighting-fiscal-phantoms.html?hp

    So let’s step back for a minute, and consider what’s going on here. For years, deficit scolds have held Washington in thrall with warnings of an imminent debt crisis, even though investors, who continue to buy U.S. bonds, clearly believe that such a crisis won’t happen; economic analysis says that such a crisis can’t happen; and the historical record shows no examples bearing any resemblance to our current situation in which such a crisis actually did happen.
    If you ask me, it’s time for Washington to stop worrying about this phantom menace — and to stop listening to the people who have been peddling this scare story in an attempt to get their way.
     
  24. JohnR

    JohnR Member+

    Jun 23, 2000
    Chicago, IL
    Every Republican does. You think Art Laffer's a joke, I think Art Laffer's a joke, but they don't think Art Laffer's a joke, because The Wall Street Journal tells them that Art Laffer is a serious economist.

    The Wall Street Journal Op-Ed section is The Book of Mormon of Republicanism.

    Oh heck what am I saying, it's more than just Republicans -

    Blame the Journal. It has spent 4 years working people into a lather about DEFICITS, so as to attack Obama. Now it says the CLIFF IS BAD, so as to attack Obama.

    That the cliff will fix the deficits, well that tells you two things. One the Journal doesn't give a shit about the actual arguments, it just wants to beat on Democrats. And two, the Journal and its minions are quite successful at confusing the hell out of most Americans -- because people don't expect the nation's largest newspaper, funded by an enormous amount of money, to be talking gibberish.
     
  25. Naughtius Maximus

    Jul 10, 2001
    Shropshire
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    Nat'l Team:
    England
    Ah, you mean 'Red Ronnie' or 'Comrade Reagan' if we're being formal :)
     

Share This Page