Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Good question.

On the other hand, once you're making $750,000 as a partner, you've got F-U status and can wear whatever you damn feel like. Hell, once you cross about $1.5 million, walking around in your underwear is perfectly acceptable.

At $1.2 million, you are entitled to drop trou when standing at a urinal.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I am so glad I missed this one today.

Why? Are you a fattie? I always pictured you as a fattie.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Bush may be the only candidate in the last few decades to get a "bounce" from the other Party's convention.

Kerry's speedy delivery, combined with his cold presence didn't win anyone over on initial view.

I heard the speech on radio and agree with you that he moved too fast -- trying hard to avoid his usual problem of monotony and repetition. As with the Edwards speech, I thought it was actually a pretty good speech (probably helped that I didn't see him deliver it (unlike with Edwards)).

They hit the same sort of themes -- consistent with a WaPo column the other day about Clinton's convention speech -- "Populism Without Heavies" -- spreading the message that things need to change and they can do better but without a bunch of caricatured villains (except drug companies). Thus, they hope to avoid one of Gore's key errors from 2000.

I also like the way they hit the National Security themes and values language. Why cede that ground to the jackbooted thugs? All in all -- trying to be Clinton with pants on. Not a bad idea.

If you think Shrub and Cheney will do better you're kidding yourself. And I'm pretty confident you'll have plenty of pandering and cliches as well. (Try to get more specific in a televised acceptance speech.)

That said, I expect little bounce, because as we all know, most voters made up their minds many months ago. That is why the Republicans have worked hard to create false expectations on that issue.

Who knows what will happen? The bottom line is that most Dems are hungry and pissed, and they are going into the Fall election a lot happier with their ticket than many Republicans are with the guy on the top of their ticket.

S_A_M

P.S. HEY! If that Kerry guy is elected he's going to raise my taxes! That bitch! Oh well.

"Hope is on the way!" "Stronger at Home, Respected Abroad."

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
P.S. HEY! If that Kerry guy is elected he's going to raise my taxes! That bitch! Oh well.

"Hope is on the way!" "Stronger at Home, Respected Abroad."

We will see if that was his Mondale moment. That line actually really pissed me off. Telegraphed robbery in broad daylight. Hey all you constitutional scholars out there. Isn't the constitution supposed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sgtclub
We will see if that was his Mondale moment. That line actually really pissed me off. Telegraphed robbery in broad daylight. Hey all you constitutional scholars out there. Isn't the constitution supposed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority?

I will never again feel sympathy for people making over $200,000 per year who are having tax reductions rolled back at a point when our soldiers are dying in Iraq, schools are crumbling at home, and unemployed folks aren't finding jobs before benefits run out.

Oh, wait a minute, I guess that poll was on the other board. Well, hell, cry me a river anyways.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I will never again feel sympathy for people making over $200,000 per year who are having tax reductions rolled back at a point ...

I suspect the number of people who suddenly decided to vote against Kerry when they heard of his intention to raise taxes (excuse me, "roll back tax cuts") for people making $250k or more can be counted on one hand. Nobody who prioritizes taxes that much was going to vote for him anyway (See, e.g., sgtclub). The small percentage of the small percentage of American voters in this category who would have voted for him anyway (Bill Clinton, Steven Spielberg, Steve Jobs and the like) aren't going to suddenly sit up and take notice "Oh shit, Kerry's going to raise my taxes, better vote for Bush."

[dtb]

Originally posted by baltassoc
I suspect the number of people who suddenly decided to vote against Kerry when they heard of his intention to raise taxes (excuse me, "roll back tax cuts") for people making $250k or more can be counted on one hand. Nobody who prioritizes taxes that much was going to vote for him anyway (See, e.g., sgtclub). The small percentage of the small percentage of American voters in this category who would have voted for him anyway (Bill Clinton, Steven Spielberg, Steve Jobs and the like) aren't going to suddenly sit up and take notice "Oh shit, Kerry's going to raise my taxes, better vote for Bush."

Of course, the "tax cut" wasn't really a tax cut, because the AMT kicks in, and you're (well obviously, I don't know about you personally, but YKWIM) paying the same amount of taxes, just characterized a different way. Smoke and mirrors.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by baltassoc
I suspect the number of people who suddenly decided to vote against Kerry when they heard of his intention to raise taxes (excuse me, "roll back tax cuts") for people making $250k or more can be counted on one hand. Nobody who prioritizes taxes that much was going to vote for him anyway (See, e.g., sgtclub). The small percentage of the small percentage of American voters in this category who would have voted for him anyway (Bill Clinton, Steven Spielberg, Steve Jobs and the like) aren't going to suddenly sit up and take notice "Oh shit, Kerry's going to raise my taxes, better vote for Bush."

A whole lot of people, the vast majority of whom vote, make over $250k/year. And a whole lot of them -- us -- recognize that as nice as it is to have that extra 20 grand or whatever in your pocket, the ballooning deficit is not worth the tradeoff.

That's particularly so for those who are post-Boomer. The deficits today are dramatically more threatening than those the last Repub administrations ran up, because we are much closer to the Boomer retirement that will strain our system so severely. Social Security can be tweaked in several ways to ease this problem a little bit, but that's only at the margins. Unless we deal with our budget, we face devastating consequences in the not-too-distant future.

The fed government has never effectively dealt with deficits without raising taxes. Yes, spending can be cut, but the political will to do it enough is lacking and we have cut domestic spending so drastically in so many areas that this too jeopardizes our future. Even Reagan recognized the need to raise taxes to reduce deficits. Even Bush I recognized that, and went back on his infamous "read my lips" pledge. Neither of them did it enough, and Clinton had to do it seriously to cure the deficits he inherited.

So, yeah, I expect my taxes to be raised, and it's a worthwhile tradeoff even without looking at the other issues that motivate me in this election (like the Iraq war, and the loss of world sympathy and respect, and not having John Ashcroft tell me what I can read and look at).

Meanwhile, I'm hoping to pay off my mortgage before the Boomers retired because I think that deduction may be history when the consequences of the Bush borrow-and-spend spree are realized.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
A whole lot of people, the vast majority of whom vote, make over $250k/year.

1% of the population. Because of the propensity to vote that you mentioned, probably a higher percentage of voters; could be 2, maybe even 3%. No idea what percentage of those would vote for Kerry regardless, but I'm pretty sure the number who changed their minds is a pretty small percentage. So we're looking at 3-5% of 1-3% of the voting population (or rounding up, .0.2% of the voting public) would have a negative reation. Compared to a probably equal percentage of the middle class who (if the believe him) are breathing a sigh of relief the tax increase would not be aimed at them, and therefore are ready to get off the fence and vote for Kerry. 3-5% of 80% is a much bigger number. This call by Kerry was a no brainer.

It remains to be seen whether this will outweigh the people who were turned off by the John "I served in Vietnam" F. "Vietnam, where Bush didn't serve" Kerry "Did I mention Vietnam, yah, I went there" film (including many shots taken when he was in Vietnam) and speach (which started with the monumentally stupid line "Reporting for duty" - probably an clumsy attempt to make an allusion to the little known fact he served in Vietnam).

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I will never again feel sympathy for people making over $200,000 per year who are having tax reductions rolled back at a point when our soldiers are dying in Iraq, schools are crumbling at home, and unemployed folks aren't finding jobs before benefits run out.

Oh, wait a minute, I guess that poll was on the other board. Well, hell, cry me a river anyways.

Where do you live? $200k is NOT a lot of money in my area, and I'm in a shit city. $200k ain't diddly in SF or NYC for a family with a reasonably solid approaching-the-high-end-of-middle-class lifestyle.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again (as I'm prone to do) - Taxes need to be assessed based on the cost of living in certain locations. A man in SF should not lose his tax breaks over $200k. Nor should a family where mom and dad have student loans, etc... All this eventually leads to the only correct and fair answer to the tax question - WE MUST HAVE A FLAT TAX. But, of course, this would put countless bean counters, tax planners, lawyers and useless govt workers (and their pensions - which they deserve, tireless workers they are) out on their asses, which is where they ought to be anyway.

If we are to be a real capitalist country, why do we provide govt jobs in mass amounts, at great expense, to the least talented and laziest of us. Its like an opt out clause of sorts: "I hereby opt out of capitalism and having to survive in the private sector and will take mediocre pay and fantastic benefits to do nothing for the rest of my life." I wish I had the capacity to accept failure which allows one to jump into such a cushy deal.

I'd accept MORE taxes tomorrow if I could personally monitor that the money got to needy people who want to have beeter lives. But these fucking bodies jamming the govt payrolls.... fuck them all. I say starve that fucking beast. They deserve to be homeless and desititute... free riding sons of bitches. They're the ones stealing money from the mouths of the poor.

[SlaveNoMore]

baltassoc
It remains to be seen whether this will outweigh the people who were turned off by the John "I served in Vietnam" F. "Vietnam, where Bush didn't serve" Kerry "Did I mention Vietnam, yah, I went there" film (including many shots taken when he was in Vietnam) and speach (which started with the monumentally stupid line "Reporting for duty" - probably an clumsy attempt to make an allusion to the little known fact he served in Vietnam).

Did I miss something? Was Kerry in Vietnam?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
A whole lot of people, the vast majority of whom vote, make over $250k/year. And a whole lot of them -- us -- recognize that as nice as it is to have that extra 20 grand or whatever in your pocket, the ballooning deficit is not worth the tradeoff.

That's particularly so for those who are post-Boomer. The deficits today are dramatically more threatening than those the last Repub administrations ran up, because we are much closer to the Boomer retirement that will strain our system so severely. Social Security can be tweaked in several ways to ease this problem a little bit, but that's only at the margins. Unless we deal with our budget, we face devastating consequences in the not-too-distant future.

The fed government has never effectively dealt with deficits without raising taxes. Yes, spending can be cut, but the political will to do it enough is lacking and we have cut domestic spending so drastically in so many areas that this too jeopardizes our future. Even Reagan recognized the need to raise taxes to reduce deficits. Even Bush I recognized that, and went back on his infamous "read my lips" pledge. Neither of them did it enough, and Clinton had to do it seriously to cure the deficits he inherited.

So, yeah, I expect my taxes to be raised, and it's a worthwhile tradeoff even without looking at the other issues that motivate me in this election (like the Iraq war, and the loss of world sympathy and respect, and not having John Ashcroft tell me what I can read and look at).

Meanwhile, I'm hoping to pay off my mortgage before the Boomers retired because I think that deduction may be history when the consequences of the Bush borrow-and-spend spree are realized.

You're right as it gets on this one. Most people I discuss this with fall into two categories:

Yours (and mine) - The money up front ain't enough to offset what I know I'm going to pay later.

Theirs - I don't trast the govt to ever give me shit. I'd rather have the money in hand and take the chance on the future being brighter, or, I'll use the money now to make myself more money which will offset the tax increase later (stupid for a variety of reasons).

Although it may hurt me a bit now, I think having Kerry win will be good because gridlock in DC is always preferable. Also, the notion "pigs get slaughtered" is not limited to the market. Bush and the limited sector which benefits most from his policies have made pigs of themselves, and the backlash will be severe. If Kerry gets eleceted, the gridlock will lead to a populist government, whereas another 4 years of bush will galvanize the left Democrats, and when they get control again, as they will someday, it will be a liberal takeover, a return to the New Deal. It will kill all of us just when we need the money most (I might have akid by 2008). I'm surprised Bush never learned, despite his patrician roots, the first rule of old money - never do anything to draw attention to what you have. That includes not making a pig of yourself. That's new money's job, and they always get commupence for it. You should take what you need to live nice and fat, but be reasonable. Leave something so the masses don't storm the Bastille. But these dumbasses don't care about that. They just want to gobble until someone says stop, and while they shelter their massive boatloads of dough, us poor $200k "rich" fucks will take the beating from wealth redistribution whores in the "entitlement" crowd. Thanks George. Thanks.

[SlaveNoMore]

baltassoc
It remains to be seen whether this will outweigh the people who were turned off by the John "I served in Vietnam" F. "Vietnam,

You think all the flag-waving will make the majority of vets forget this:



The upside-down flag is a really nice touch.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
A whole lot of people, the vast majority of whom vote, make over $250k/year. And a whole lot of them -- us -- recognize that as nice as it is to have that extra 20 grand or whatever in your pocket, the ballooning deficit is not worth the tradeoff.

...

I note that the Bush Recession cost me one hell of a lot more than $20,000.

Whereas, the Clinton Boom was one hell of an economic party in these parts!

-- Greedy (oh yeah!), Greedy, (very, very) Greedy

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
You think all the flag-waving will make the majority of vets forget this.

Imagine, someone speaking out against the Vietnam War. I mean, that was one of the proudest moments of our nation's history (up until we invaded Iraq to prevent them from .... um, whatever it was.)