Meet your new thread, same as the old thread.

[SlaveNoMore]

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Indeed, the batshit loony Republicans can be seen on this board quite regularly.

Anyone talked to Penske lately?

Actually, your recent tirades have made it quite clear to everyone who the batshit loons on this Board are.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Icky Thump
Do you know which way to face to pray to Mecca? Obama does.

The best thing on that page is the ad for singlemuslim.com

[SlaveNoMore]

Atticus Grinch
I just enjoy pointing out that Libertarians and hard-right Republicans who use "Government" as some kind of third-person bogeyman are not intellectually honest.

Is anyone?

Last I checked, 78% of Americans want the government to "do more" but 83% want "less taxes".

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
Sorry, SAM but if there is a hunger, the hungry family is not taking advantage of a zillion programs to feed the family. You can't home invade and drag the residents out to food pantries or make them sign up for assistance. If you're unintentionally starving in America, you are either stoopid/have mental issues or in the care of someone stoopid/having mental issues.

What if they don't have homes?

What if they live in Sugarland, and the Ft. Bend County food stamp office is is Rosenberg and they don't have a car?

What if Mom manages to beg $3 and has four kids?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by taxwonk
You ignored the first part of my post. The money that taxpayers have already paid tax on is called "basis." They recover that tax-free. Capital gains are only the amount received above basis. As far as I'm concerned that is the same thing as "income." It should be taxed accordingly.

As for incentives for saving and investing, I think the opportunity to earn dividends, interest, capital gains, and not have to eat cat food when you retire is incentive enough. I don't think we need a big, intrusive government paying us to save and invest. That's not how I roll.

I understood the first part of your post. You're missing, or avoiding, my point.

You cannot tell me that a person will be just as well off in retirement with a cap gains rate equal to the tax on wages, which is what you suggested, or at least implied. Higher taxes equal less money in people's pockets. I'm no tax lawyer, but its hard for me to see that any other way. What you're now arguing is more honest. You're admitting that, yes, raising the cap gains rate would decrease the quality of people's lives both pre and post retirement. And you're admitting you are seeking a wealth redistribution from those with accumulated capital to those without. That's govt interference.

I would support wholeheartedly a tax cut for workers to bring their taxes in line with the cap gains rate. If we must have parity, I'd say that's pretty fair. If Henry Kravis can have his advantageous rate on carried interest, why not the school janitor on his paycheck? Why don't we see the argument made from that perspective? Would you support that?

And please, don't try to repackage the lower cap gains rate as govt interference to try to make yourself out to be on the side of smaller govt. That's pretty transparent. The interference is the fact that we have a govt spending ungodly sums on that ludicrous war and so much pork throughout ourt country. Ultimately, people like you and I shouldn't disagree on these things. We should get together against the common enemy that steals from everyone - our bloated Fed Govt.

Start first with a downgrading of all federal benefits. Move next to eviscerating the defense contracting industry, which looks to me like one huge subsidy for a sector of the economy that ought to be dormant except when absolutely needed (See: Not Iraq).

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I would support wholeheartedly a tax cut for workers to bring their taxes in line with the cap gains rate. If we must have parity, I'd say that's pretty fair. If Henry Kravis can have his advantageous rate on carried interest, why not the school janitor on his paycheck? Why don't we see the argument made from that perspective? Would you support that?

Once you acknowledge that it makes sense for gains not be taxed favorably compared to wages, the question should be what the rate should be.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Indeed, the batshit loony Republicans can be seen on this board quite regularly.

Anyone talked to Penske lately?

I don't think Democrats are batshit crazy at all. I disagree with them on a lot of things. You might want to rephrase your criticisms of the GOP.

Here's why...

What you call batshit crazy is just a philospohy different from yours. You seem to believe in a benevolent, involved govt that tries to even the playing field for all Americans. That's a fair, reasonable desire. Not crazy in the least.

I believe in a country where people rise and fall (quite dramatically, and into dire consequences), based on their own decisions and risks. I think in that sink or swim scenario, where people are incentivized by low govt interferences and taxation, we maximize the innovation, ingenuity and economic muscle of the country. That's equally reasonable and fair.

That's the real crux of the difference between the parties. I'd let some suffer for the better of all. You'd try to protect all at all times.

Keep in mind that if the country trends toward more of mommy state, we necessarily make our population more and more dependent on the govt. I can't see how that's a good thing. I see that turning us into the worst elements of Europe, a bloated quasi-welfare state. Maybe I'm wrong and you're right, but I'm not batshit crazy, and neither are you.

That your poli sci professor in college told you people like me were batshit crazy, and that you parrot that sort of talk here doesn't make you sound smart. It makes you sound like another person who'd probably be better off posting on DailyKos.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I don't think Democrats are batshit crazy at all. I disagree with them on a lot of things. You might want to rephrase your criticisms of the GOP.

Here's why...

What you call batshit crazy is just a philospohy different from yours. You seem to believe in a benevolent, involved govt that tries to even the playing field for all Americans. That's a fair, reasonable desire. Not crazy in the least.

I believe in a country where people rise and fall (quite dramatically, and into dire consequences), based on their own decisions and risks. I think in that sink or swim scenario, where people are incentivized by low govt interferences and taxation, we maximize the innovation, ingenuity and economic muscle of the country. That's equally reasonable and fair.

That's the real crux of the difference between the parties. I'd let some suffer for the better of all. You'd try to protect all at all times.

Keep in mind that if the country trends toward more of mommy state, we necessarily make our population more and more dependent on the govt. I can't see how that's a good thing. I see that turning us into the worst elements of Europe, a bloated quasi-welfare state. Maybe I'm wrong and you're right, but I'm not batshit crazy, and neither are you.

That your poli sci professor in college told you people like me were batshit crazy, and that you parrot that sort of talk here doesn't make you sound smart. It makes you sound like another person who'd probably be better off posting on DailyKos.

You believe in evolution and aren't refighting the civil war and slavery. Not batshit crazy.

But, for the Rs to win, they will need to cater to the folks who claim they're not monkey spawn and think slavery remains an important issue. What does this do to the state of Republican discourse?

I'm not denying that we don't have our nuts. The R's are just out of hand.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Once you acknowledge that it makes sense for gains not be taxed favorably compared to wages, the question should be what the rate should be.

I left that barn door opening trying to goad someone into saying we should tack them all to the higher rate.

BTW, I would agree with utilizing a median rate. Lower the tax on wages and modestly increase the tax on cap gains. That would be an excellent compromise because it would blend the two forms of income conceptually, so when somebody tried to later argue for an across the board tax increase the workers and the investors would be unified in saying no. And it would go a long way toward defusing the class warfare antics of loathsome degenerates like John Edwards.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
You believe in evolution and aren't refighting the civil war and slavery. Not batshit crazy.

But, for the Rs to win, they will need to cater to the folks who claim they're not monkey spawn and think slavery remains an important issue. What does this do to the state of Republican discourse?

I'm not denying that we don't have our nuts. The R's are just out of hand.

That's fair. I can't argue that the GOP doesn't have most of the more obscene sorts. But spend a minute or so at DailyKos and you'll see the crazy wing of the Dems is doing its damnedest to catch up.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
the folks who ..........think slavery remains an important issue.

unless you explain this, I don't think you have any ability to criticize anyone here ever again. or alternatively, I could post a grand dragon Byrd picture.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I understood the first part of your post. You're missing, or avoiding, my point.

You cannot tell me that a person will be just as well off in retirement with a cap gains rate equal to the tax on wages, which is what you suggested, or at least implied. Higher taxes equal less money in people's pockets. I'm no tax lawyer, but its hard for me to see that any other way. What you're now arguing is more honest. You're admitting that, yes, raising the cap gains rate would decrease the quality of people's lives both pre and post retirement. And you're admitting you are seeking a wealth redistribution from those with accumulated capital to those without. That's govt interference.

I would support wholeheartedly a tax cut for workers to bring their taxes in line with the cap gains rate. If we must have parity, I'd say that's pretty fair. If Henry Kravis can have his advantageous rate on carried interest, why not the school janitor on his paycheck? Why don't we see the argument made from that perspective? Would you support that?

And please, don't try to repackage the lower cap gains rate as govt interference to try to make yourself out to be on the side of smaller govt. That's pretty transparent. The interference is the fact that we have a govt spending ungodly sums on that ludicrous war and so much pork throughout ourt country. Ultimately, people like you and I shouldn't disagree on these things. We should get together against the common enemy that steals from everyone - our bloated Fed Govt.

Start first with a downgrading of all federal benefits. Move next to eviscerating the defense contracting industry, which looks to me like one huge subsidy for a sector of the economy that ought to be dormant except when absolutely needed (See: Not Iraq).

I didn't repackage the lower capital gains rate as government interference; that's exactly what it is. Look at Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code and you'll see what I mean. Sec. 1(a) provides the tax rate. Sec. 1(h) provides for a reduction in that rate for dividends and capital gains.

I don't view seeking parity in tax rates as income distribution. The wage-earning population will not get one thin dime of the additional tax revenues. Wealth distribution would involve a transfer payment (e.g., refund or credit to wage-earners). Parity in tax rates simple removes a tax benefit currently afforded under the statute.

You may favor lower tax rates for everyone. I don't disagree in the abstract, although I would hold off onnreducing rates until we eliminate the deficit and reduce wasteful spending. In fact, I agree with you that without these two evils, it would be possible to reduce tax rates. We are just arguing over semantics (with respect to whether the law gives a break to dividends and cap gains) and timing.

[SlaveNoMore]

sebastian_dangerfield
That's fair. I can't argue that the GOP doesn't have most of the more obscene sorts. But spend a minute or so at DailyKos and you'll see the crazy wing of the Dems is doing its damnedest to catch up.

No, it's not fair.

Because ALL of the Dem candidates, as well as such Dem leaders as Pelosi and Reid, pander at the feet of "grassroots" [gag] organizations like MoveOn, ANSWER, CodePink and YearlyKos. They supplicate America-loathing thugs like George Soros while flooding their coffers with his money. They curiously lend support to the tin-foil hat Troofer brigade and their lies.

The GOP may tolerate their fringe elements for votes - but the fringe of the Left is the Democrats current soul.

And with each additional post, GGG is proving my point.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
No, it's not fair.

Because ALL of the Dem candidates, as well as such Dem leaders as Pelosi and Reid, pander at the feet of "grassroots" [gag] organizations like MoveOn, ANSWER, CodePink and YearlyKos. They supplicate America-loathing thugs like George Soros while flooding their coffers with his money. They curiously lend support to the tin-foil hat Troofer brigade and their lies.

The GOP may tolerate their fringe elements for votes - but the fringe of the Left is the Democrats current soul.

This is good, but for the complete tableau I think you need to include the part about Barack, Hillary and Nancy closing each tripartite meeting by drinking the blood of slain Heritage Foundation members.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
No, it's not fair.

Because ALL of the Dem candidates, as well as such Dem leaders as Pelosi and Reid, pander at the feet of "grassroots" [gag] organizations like MoveOn, ANSWER, CodePink and YearlyKos. They supplicate America-loathing thugs like George Soros while flooding their coffers with his money. They curiously lend support to the tin-foil hat Troofer brigade and their lies.

The GOP may tolerate their fringe elements for votes - but the fringe of the Left is the Democrats current soul.

And with each additional post, GGG is proving my point.

This may be a YMMV issue. Based on geography I'm sure you see a good bit more of the ludicrous side of the Dems than I do.

I don't see Obama as a darling of the Lefty Dems, and his win was decisive. Maybe I'm being naive, but he seems to be a realist. If Edwards were to get the nomination and more support from the party, that would show the Dems were indeed pandering to the silliest elements of their party. But he's not. Hell, even the NYTimes maligned him as a "trial lawyer" and "hedge fund exec" in its Oped page today.

The machine is still behind Hillary, and she's basically a centrist.

BTW, I didn't suggest the loons were the soul of the GOP. I just suggested that the GOP's loons were a little more overtly loony than the Dems'. ...And the GOP did just hand Iowa to a guy who doesn't buy Evolution, so...