Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Yep. Top brackets 6%. Middle brackets, .6%. Fair and balanced, right?

Well, two responses:

1. Given who pays the taxes, yes.

2. Are you going to continue to do the all-caps bold "Only the rich got a tax cut" thingie any more? I mean, frankly, with your new definition of lying, you're WAY over the top with that statement. It's actually knowingly wrong and misleading, which is WAY beyond your "lie" standard for Republicans of "it either turned out to be incorrect, or I didn't like it."

[Aloha Mr. Learned Hand]

Originally posted by bilmore
(I asked one 40-ish earthmother-type clerk where they kept the Ann Coulter, just for fun. I swear she got pale. )

Tee hee. Might have to try that with the bohemian looking Art Institute student employees at the local Borders.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Yep. Top brackets 6%. Middle brackets, .6%. Fair and balanced, right?

So, if you went back to 1992, and compared the changes from then to 2001, and it turned out that those figures were the same, your objection would be equally vociferous?

I don't know what the data show, but I strongly suspect that Bush has at most returned the relative burdens to where they were pre-Clinton.

[bilmore]

Here's pro-Kerry Kaus' take on the ongoing saga. It's kind of fun:

"Kf's Long-Overdue Push-Back!This has undoubtedly been blogged, but I couldn't help noticing that what The Note called Michael Kranish's "long-overdue, point-by-point push-back from the Kerry campaign" on the charge that he didn't take his Swift boat into Cambodia during Christmas of 1968 contained no evidence of any sort--beyond the Kerry campaign's own assertions--that Kerry was ever in Cambodia. Instead, Kranish gave us the testimony of three Swift boat crewmen.

1) One, who supports Kerry, says "they were 'very.. very close' to Cambodia" but "did not think they entered Cambodia."

2) A second, who opposes Kerry, says they were nowhere near Cambodia.

3) A third said they got close but didn't go into Cambodia and "could not recall dropping off special forces in Cambodia or going inside Cambodia with Kerry." [Emph. added.]

If this is Kerry's mighty, mighty "push-back," I'd hate to see what a Kerry retreat would look like. Yet Kranish's account was bizarrely portrayed by The Note as a pro-Kerry turning point. ...

P.S.: The idea that Kerry was actually in Cambodia over Christmas when he said he was has apparently long been abandoned by the Kerry campaign. ...

P.P.S.: Like many of my friends, I wasn't paying much attention to the Swifties until Kerry went postal on them. (Hmm. Was that a smart move? What happened to the rope-a-dope strategy?) I don't know which side is right. I don't know that I'd even hold it against Kerry if he did exaggerate a bit to get the three Purple Hearts that let him leave Vietnam. I do know that if freedom of speech means anything it means that a group of citizens can get together to bring up this sort of charge against a presidential candidate, subject to the laws of libel. But read this New York Times editorial and see if you can avoid concluding that the Times doesn't think the Swift Boat Veterans Ad should be stopped because it might be financed with corporate or union money in violation of the spirit of McCain-Feingold. The Times doesn't even really think it should be stopped because it was financed by a rich individual Republican (something that's clearly perfectly legal under McCain-Feingold as long as the group running the ads is not incorporated). The Times thinks the ad should be stopped because you just shouldn't be able to make such "outlandish" independent charges in a campaign. They're against the speech, not the financing. Like Kerry, they're trying to come up with a "process" reason that avoids the inconveniently messy issue of truth. But their process reason--an attack on "independent" criticism per se--seems particularly dangerous.

P.P.P.S.: Respectable big-time journalist friends who met with the anti-Kerry vets recently found them a lot more credible than expected. Sorry, Note! 3:21 A.M.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Did I say they weren't? Once again, MY COMPLAINT IS THAT THE ONLY ONES WHO GOT THE TAX BREAK WERE THE WEALTHY, I AM NOT COMPLAINING ABOUT THE FACT THAT THE WEALTHY GOT THE TAX BREAK!!!

You got a tax break, they got a tax break. The percentage of taxes (in comparison to the old system) was higher for the wealthy. I do not believe that this accurately reflects your conclusion of "THE ONLY ONES WHO GOT THE TAX BREAK WERE THE WEALTHY", as (almost) everyone got a tax break. Thus, your complaint uses the terms "wealthy" and "tax break" relatively.

In other words, by the same logic, if people making 100K paid 40K in taxes, and people making 50K paid 10K in taxes, your logic would support the same conclusion if the people making 100K had taxes reduced by 4500 and people making 50K had taxes reduced by only 1000. Specifically, the upper-bracket would have received a greater reduction in both absolute terms and in terms relative to what they would have paid under the old system --4500 and >10% reduction, while the lower bracked would have only received 1000 and 10% flat. Thus, it appears your logic would still hold, though the wealthy were still paying far more in percentage and absolute terms.

Which is absurd. Almost everyone got a break compared to the old system. The wealthy still pay a far higher proportion of their income as taxes. Sure, the wealthy got a better break in absolute terms and relative to the old system.

But hey, some people who paid no taxes either way didn't get a bigger welfare check either. Where's the fairness in that? Huh? Its like they are giving their money to the wealthy.

[sgtclub]

A Bush-Cheney '04 ad released Aug. 13 accuses Kerry of being absent for 76% of the Senate Intelligence Committee's public hearings during the time he served there. The Kerry campaign calls the ad "misleading," so we checked, and Bush is right.

Official records show Kerry not present for at least 76% of public hearings held during his eight years on the panel, and possibly 78% (the record of one hearing is ambiguous).

Kerry points out that most meetings of the Intelligence Committee are closed and attendance records of those meetings aren't public, hinting that his attendance might have been better at the non-public proceedings. But Kerry could ask that his attendance records be made public, and hasn't.

Aides also claimed repeatedly that Kerry had been vice chairman of the intelligence committee, but that was Bob Kerrey of Nebraska, not John Kerry. . . .

http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=241

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me

Thus, it appears your logic would still hold, though the wealthy were still paying far more in percentage and absolute terms.

Which is absurd. Almost everyone got a break compared to the old system. The wealthy still pay a far higher proportion of their income as taxes. Sure, the wealthy got a better break in absolute terms and relative to the old system.

It appears that Wonk believes the tax burden should be on a one-way ratchet, allowing only for increases in the burden borne by the wealthy, regardless of whether there have been other increases recently. Marx would agree.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by bilmore
Well, two responses:

1. Given who pays the taxes, yes.

2. Are you going to continue to do the all-caps bold "Only the rich got a tax cut" thingie any more? I mean, frankly, with your new definition of lying, you're WAY over the top with that statement. It's actually knowingly wrong and misleading, which is WAY beyond your "lie" standard for Republicans of "it either turned out to be incorrect, or I didn't like it."

Actually, I was thinking we've beaten this dead horse into school lunch hamburger. I'd say it's painfully obvious we have agreed to disagree.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by bilmore
During a casual stroll through downtown this morning, I was in three bookstores. Two big-chain stores, one indie.

Tons of Franken, Moore, Ivins, Krugman, Alterman occupying the front tables and shelves.

Nary a Swiftboats book to be seen.

For one, I think you need to get back to work, if you're prowling bookstores on a Friday morning to see if they are "fair" in their presentation of political books.

But perhaps this is more reflective of the tastes of the community rather than the bookstores. They (especially the chains) are in the business of selling books, after all. Perhaps all the Republicans are picking up their copies out in the 'burbs, like the Borders near my house, which seems to have every pro-Bush/anti-Kerry screed front and center as you come in the door (although it did also have a big display of the Clinton book about a month back). And I live in Mary(might as well be Taxachusetts)land.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by bilmore
During a casual stroll through downtown this morning, I was in three bookstores. Two big-chain stores, one indie.

Tons of Franken, Moore, Ivins, Krugman, Alterman occupying the front tables and shelves.

Nary a Swiftboats book to be seen. Not one pro-Bush book unless you went to the back of the stores in obscure sections.

(I asked one 40-ish earthmother-type clerk where they kept the Ann Coulter, just for fun. I swear she got pale. )

The free market at work, bilmore. In these parts, seems all I see are books by Hannity, O'Reilly, et al.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
The free market at work, bilmore. In these parts, seems all I see are books by Hannity, O'Reilly, et al.

To both of you:

Minnesota is about fifty-fifty these days. I think that, by itself, makes your "they're just giving the public what it wants" idea short shrift.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by bilmore
To both of you:

Minnesota is about fifty-fifty these days. I think that, by itself, makes your "they're just giving the public what it wants" idea short shrift.

Well, what kind of bookstores are open when people should be at work.? Who shops then? Don't those people have jobs? It may just be a simple matter of target demographics.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by bilmore
To both of you:

Minnesota is about fifty-fifty these days. I think that, by itself, makes your "they're just giving the public what it wants" idea short shrift.

Minnesota is, but what about downtown wherever-the-hell you are? That was one of my points. Maryland is nothing close to 50-50, but the area surround the local Borders is probably 60% pro-Bush.

Of course, RT has provided an excellent alternative explanation for SS in particular.

Anyway, BFD. It's not like booksellers have pledged to be fair and balanced.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
During a casual stroll through downtown this morning, I was in three bookstores. Two big-chain stores, one indie.

Tons of Franken, Moore, Ivins, Krugman, Alterman occupying the front tables and shelves.

Nary a Swiftboats book to be seen. Not one pro-Bush book unless you went to the back of the stores in obscure sections.

(I asked one 40-ish earthmother-type clerk where they kept the Ann Coulter, just for fun. I swear she got pale. )

You can't see that invisible hand, but you can see what it's done!

Minnesota is about fifty-fifty these days. I think that, by itself, makes your "they're just giving the public what it wants" idea short shrift.

Well, sure, if you're going to call the children's section "obscure."

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You can't see that invisible hand, but you can see what it's done!

I can swear with certainty bilmore was not within 50 yards of a book store this AM.

bilmore's secretary