Politics As Usual - Page 15

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) · 05-20-2004, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
He's just great. He's what Republicans used to be before they went apeshit.

ET provide cite:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...ert/index.html

Why the fuck is Hastert questioning McCain, a former POW, on sacrifice?

""If you want to see the sacrifice, John McCain ought to visit our young men and women at Walter Reed and Bethesda."

JFC, Mr. Speaker, at least know the background of the people you're insulting.

baltassoc · 05-20-2004, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
So which is it -- rates would not go up, or rates would go up? Your ability to put together coherent sentences, while appreciated, does not negate the fact that you are completely contradicting yourself.

You're very cranky today. While I'm aware of your personal anamosity toward Wonk, perhaps it would be better to save it for the people who actually disagree with you on the flat tax issue.

Wonk's trying to make a point that the tax actually goes higher on the one hand, but gets spun as lower on the other. Your personal feelings are making you deliberately read his postings incoherently.

God I wish the Republicans (excepting Hank, who's already up) would haul their lazy asses out of bed. It's bad when you lack prey and start turning on your own kind.

ET avoid dtb's wrath for an obvious who/whose issue.

sgtclub · 05-20-2004, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
OK.

Club, when you get in, please resolve the 1 billion versus 700 million issue. 40 million below where we want to be is a lot less than 340 million below where we want to be.

I would think it would be nice to get some royalties in to, you know, help pay for like that war-type thing (or whatever we are calling it right now). At least for a while. If we are only 40 million away from where we want to be instead of 340 million, then that seems doable.

I'm getting the 1 billion from the same post I posted yesterday from the fox interview. I believe that the 700 is capacity in LA, but not our stated goal.

ltl/fb · 05-20-2004, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Yes. We'd put it in the reserve and sell 300m barrels that are already there.

What's your point? That we should stop buying oil regardless of the reserve's capacity? Intriguing.

We should stop buying because the price is high. Buy low; sell high.

I said, we should stop buying because the price is high. Club said, no, we are at fewer than 700 million barrels and we want/need to be at 1 billion so it is a bad time to stop buying. You said, fringe, where'd you get the 1 billion number you psycho bitch, lookie here, the capacity is only 700 million. I said, if we're only 40 million below a capacity of 700 million, it seems like it would not hurt to stop buying (thanks for adopting the term rather than insisting on the bs language of "foregoing royalties") for a while. Somehow, you conclude that I am saying "we should stop buying oil regardless of the reserve's capacity." I am out of the argument. You and I agree. Take it up with club.

I have decided not to include snarky comment about rotten oil and transaction costs. Because I am done, for the moment, being fiesty/a big rude bitch.

ltl/fb · 05-20-2004, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by baltassoc
You're very cranky today. While I'm aware of your personal anamosity toward Wonk, perhaps it would be better to save it for the people who actually disagree with you on the flat tax issue.

Wonk's trying to make a point that the tax actually goes higher on the one hand, but gets spun as lower on the other. Your personal feelings are making you deliberately read his postings incoherently.

God I wish the Republicans (excepting Hank, who's already up) would haul their lazy asses out of bed. It's bad when you lack prey and start turning on your own kind.

ET avoid dtb's wrath for an obvious who/whose issue.

I despise moronity no matter what party it's emanating from. It seems like if the income tax rate goes from 10% to 25%, it's going to be kinda hard to spin it as "rates going down."

Anyway, I'm out.

taxwonk · 05-20-2004, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
So which is it -- rates would not go up, or rates would go up? Your ability to put together coherent sentences, while appreciated, does not negate the fact that you are completely contradicting yourself.

Okay, read very carefully and I will try to explain in language even you will understand.

1. The base rate will likely be higher than the lowest marginal rate under the current bracketing system. However, it will be lower than the highest current marginal rate.

2. The tax base for the wealthy will shrink to a small percentage of their income, with the removal of capital gains, dividend and interest income, and estate taxation.

3. The tax base for the middle class will rise as they lose their mortgage interest, state tax, charitable, and other itemized deductions.

4. The tax base for the poor will remain the same, but their marginal rate will increase slightly.

5. The result is that you, I, and the entire town of Peoria will have to pick up the additional burden of the taxes Dick Cheney no longer pays.

If this doesn't clarify things, perhaps I can get MR to draw you some nice stick figure pictures in pretty colors.

SlaveNoMore · 05-20-2004, 11:50 AM

Quote:

taxwonk
Actually, Bush and his friends are more about finding ways to tax the wealthy less while shifting more of the burden to the poor and middle class in ways that can be more easily sold. That's why the Republicans are so eager to find a way to sell the so-called "flat tax" and consumption taxes. That way they pay less, the poor pay more, but nobody can point to higher rates to lay the blame.

Steve Forbes, George Bush - what's the difference, right?

taxwonk · 05-20-2004, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Steve Forbes, George Bush - what's the difference, right?

Exactly. Either way it's "my Daddy gave me mine, so I should get to keep it."

SlaveNoMore · 05-20-2004, 12:21 PM

Quote:

taxwonk
Exactly. Either way it's "my Daddy gave me mine, so I should get to keep it."

Well, for one thing, only one of them has ever promoted the flat tax...

Tyrone Slothrop · 05-20-2004, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Before I forget, Pithacanthropus erectus called, he wants his brain capacity back.

Did someone steal your log-in, Hank, or is this a Gilligan episode I missed?

Secret_Agent_Man · 05-20-2004, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
No, ass. And I was not participating with Ty in the urban argument. And NY, NY was on the list of top 10 in USA Today; that does not seem boondocky to me. Obnoxious, yes; boondocky, no.

Did you guys notice that Hank's county was reporting on _per_ _capita_ income, while the newspaper list was apparently absed on _household_ income?

S_A_M

P.S. To Hank -- No on the grandfathering. I will now dub the list "Samuel" as in the "Secret_Agent_Man (sez) U Lose List" -- and refer to it as appropriate. I hereby grant others the right to use the list as necessary.

Tyrone Slothrop · 05-20-2004, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Good. Then you can explain where we put the extra 300m barrels that we don't have space for in the salt domes.

So you flood part of Wyoming. Would anyone notice?

Tyrone Slothrop · 05-20-2004, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
The simple example is how do you handle your household budget? Do you figure out how much you want/need to spend and then do whatever work you can to bring in income to meet those needs, or do you figure out how much your income is and budget from there?

Both. I do not spend money I do not have, and I do not take certain jobs because I would not have enough money.

Tyrone Slothrop · 05-20-2004, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by taxwonk If this doesn't clarify things, perhaps I can get MR to draw you some nice stick figure pictures in pretty colors.

Would you mind doing that anyway? It's been too long.

Secret_Agent_Man · 05-20-2004, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
The simple example is how do you handle your household budget? Do you figure out how much you want/need to spend and then do whatever work you can to bring in income to meet those needs, or do you figure out how much your income is and budget from there?

The more complex reason for me is based on moral grounds because I believe that taxation, over a certain level, is stealing.

(a) I hate this analogy. Way too simplistic.

(b) So long as you realize that any tax rate you choose to call "stealing" is a purely arbitrary decision on your part, rock on.

S_A_M