Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- Monkeyhawk on It’s the stupidity about the economy
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/24
- okobserver on It’s the stupidity about the economy
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/24
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/24
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- Tully on It’s the stupidity about the economy
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/24
120 Comments
Tina Susman of the LA Times reports that Iranian involvement in Iraq’s civil war may not be everything it’s been cracked up to be:
There was something interesting missing from Maj. Gen. Kevin Bergner’s introductory remarks to journalists at his regular news briefing in Baghdad on Wednesday: the word “Iran,” or any form of it. It was especially striking as Bergner, the U.S. military spokesman here, announced the extraordinary list of weapons and munitions that have been uncovered in recent weeks since fighting erupted between Iraqi and U.S. security forces and Shiite militiamen.
A plan to show some alleged Iranian-supplied explosives to journalists last week in Karbala and then destroy them was canceled after the United States realized none of them was from Iran. A U.S. military spokesman attributed the confusion to a misunderstanding that emerged after an Iraqi Army general in Karbala erroneously reported the items were of Iranian origin.
When U.S. explosives experts went to investigate, they discovered they were not Iranian after all.
This was a small post on the LA Times Iraq blog. Not the front page of the LA Times, just a small online note. Would any of us have heard about it otherwise? How many times have we heard that Iran is supplying the “enemy” in Iraq? That seems to get through the media loud and clear. Why, it’s almost as if the media is simply relying on the Pentagon and the White House talking points.
Are the Wall Street Journal’s news and opinion pages going to sound like O’Reilly, O’Limbaugh, O’Hannity and Brit O’Hume and Roger O’Ailes?
Why ask?
Well, if McCain can’t beat Obama on the elephant issues, i.e. the Misbegotten War, the economy and the Elephant-sized budget deficit, then McCain will get personal, down and dirty. But who’s going to carry the message?
Are we going to read editorials in the WSJ about the importance of wearing lapel pins instead of the economic perils of a deficit budget and trade balance?
I can already hear Rupert Murdoch cranking up the Wurlitzer.
What we will get is billions of dollars of non-stop ads featuring the Rev. Wright. You see, black ministers can’t be nutty; but white ones can.
Editors?
You guys like you tube video.
Give us a thread featuring the one where Obama speaks of visiting 57 states.
Is it true that John McCain talked to John Kerry in 2004 and seriously considered running with Kerry as v.p.?
(It certainly would have been a better ticket than Lieberman.)
I wish someone — on video– would ask McCain about that. I would like to know what his thinking was.
Paul Krugman on Wealth Inequality
So there is this great arc to the middle class, away from gilded age to middle-class society and then back to the new gilded age, which is now what we’re living in. And there are really two puzzles about that. One of them is a political puzzle, which is why instead of leaning against these trends, politics has actually reinforced them. Why it is that U.S. politics moved left in the age of a relatively middle-class society, and moved right as society got more unequal?
A naïve view of politics would say that, “Gee, when a few people are winning a lot and most people are lagging behind, people ought to be voting for more social insurance and more progressive taxation, not less.” And we have some understanding of why that doesn’t happen. It has to do with the role of money, organization and all of these other things that affect politics. That story also helps us understand why politics gets so nasty.
If you actually look at some of the measures — I’m really into quantitative political science these days — of political positions that political scientists calculate, it does look as if what the main thing that moves actually over time is in fact the Republican party. The Democratic Party has not — at least with northern Democrats — gotten significantly more liberal over the past. They haven’t moved much at all over the past 30 years.
But the Republican Party, which had largely converged on the Democrats in the age of Eisenhower, has moved sharply to the right. And so that one party, in effect, moves with the income of the top 5 percent or 1 percent of the population. So that seems to be the story. I mean, we can think about reasons why that might be true. But the other puzzle, and this comes to the question of the conference, is what drove these changes? How did we become largely middle class?
Why have we become a much more unequal society once again? And the standard, what economists like to say, is “Well, it’s all invisible hand. It’s all market forces.” The history doesn’t seem to look like that, if we ask how did the society we had in 1947, which is when a lot of our data start, come into existence.
Was it a gradual process whereas the economy developed and we got out of the early days of the American industrial revolution, we gradually moved towards middle classness? Well, no, historically it happened in an eye blink. In this Claudia Golden and Bob Margot classic paper, they call it the great compression. As late as the late 30s, the income distribution appears to be highly unequal.
By the time you wake up in 1946 or so, it’s highly equal. And how did that happen? A lot of it was more or less deliberate compression of wage differentials during World War II. But if you were or had standards, supply and demand for different types of labor, you’d say that should last only as long as the wage controls lasted. It should have sprung back to where it was, but it didn’t. It actually stayed quite equal for another 30 years at least. You ask, what buttressed that? Well, partly it’s the rise of a powerful union movement, which is at least in large part a change in the political climate, but then remained in place for several decades more.
Other things we’re not sure. But it looks more or less as a leveling of the income distribution. Obviously we want to be careful about the words. No one presumably in this room, and certainly not me, is advocating Cuba. We’re not calling for a flat income distribution. But the relative equalization that seems to have taken place was engineered by a combination of top-down politics and grassroots organization that made people want a more equal society in the 30s and the 40s, and they got it.
More at link
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Krugman_Paul/Hx_Amer_Disappear_MClass.html
Here’s a possible answer to the huge question of why RepubliCONs continue to dominate politics at the national level despite their disastrious policies:
Larry M. Bartels, Professor of Politics at Princeton writes, that in contrast to Thomas Frank’s assertion that Republicans are voting against their economic interests so they can protect the unborn child and stop gay marriage,
“A better explanation for Republican electoral successes may be that while most voters, rich and poor alike, do vote with their economic interests in mind, they construe those interests in a curiously myopic way. Their choices at the polls are strongly influenced by election-year income growth but only weakly related to economic performance earlier in the president’s term. And while Republicans have presided over dismal income growth for middle-class and poor families in most years, they have, remarkably enough, produced robust growth in election years.
“Why have Republican administrations typically presided over strong election-year growth? The pattern probably reflects the fact that presidents have more clout early in their terms than at election time. Republicans have often used that clout to rein in inflation and social spending, producing or prolonging economic contractions that then wear off by the time of the next election. New or newly re-elected Democrats, for their part, have frequently stimulated the economy and expanded employment, producing economic booms that raise all boats in their second and third years but trail off as the next election approaches. As a result, even working-poor families have experienced stronger income growth under Republicans (1.8 percent) than under Democrats (1 percent) in election years.”
He concludes that this year is a major anomoly, hehehe. Finally, the chickens come home to roost. Sucks to be you, CONs . . .
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/27/magazine/27wwln-idealab-t.html?ex=1366862400&en=998c7b2fb1ff8f34&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
My prayers for the lives lost in both Seneca, MO, and Picher, Ok. I spent much time in both when I lived in Joplin, and both are somewhat poor areas. The pictures I’ve seen are devastating. What an ugly mothers day they must be living right now.
Happy Mother’s Day everyone! Remember that the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world.
Your mother is always with you…
She’s the whisper of the leaves
as you walk down the street.
She’s the smell of bleach in
your freshly laundered socks.
She’s the cool hand on your
brow when you’re not well.
Your mother lives inside
your laughter. She’s crystallized
in every tear drop…
She’s the place you came from,
your first home.. She’s the map you
follow with every step that you take.
She’s your first love and your first heart
break….and nothing on earth can separate you.
Not time, Not space…
Not even death….
will ever separate you
from your mother….
You carry her inside of you….
UNKNOWN
—————-
Happy Mother’s Day to each person who fills those shoes and I know that includes some men. I am blessed. My Mother is still alive and well, and my children treat me special. Life is good!
Oh, an Income Tax thread, and I missed it!
Using Capn’s numbers and link from yesterday, I added percentages to make for a more thoughtful analysis.
Single, income of 30,000 … $3,158 … 11% $2,756 … 9% Cut 13%
Single, income of 50,000 … $7,263 … 15% $6,606 … 13% Cut 9%
Married, income of $50,000 … $5,085 … 10% $4,013 … 8% Cut 21%
Married, income of $60,000 … $6,585 … 11% $5,513 … 9% Cut 16%
Single, income of $75,000 … $14,263 … 19% $12,856 … 17% Cut 10%
Married, income of $75,000 … $9,427 … 13% $7,763 … 10% Cut 18%
Single, income of $125,000 … $29,379 … 24% $26,472 … 21% Cut 10%
Married, income of $125,000* … $23,427 … 19% $19,463 … 16% Cut 17%
http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/23003.html
So, everyone had their taxes cut by the Bush tax cuts, by at leat 9%.
Capn want to play the game with percentages and dollars and say that someone making $125,000 getting a 16% tax cut is somehow unfair if someone making $60,000 also gets a 16% tax cut.
Da*n unfair, ain’t it?
Gee, if you make more money, you pay more taxes. If you get the same percentage tax cut as someone making less money, then your cut totals more dollars. Duh.
The married person making $125,000 also paid $19,463 in taxes – MUCH MORE DOLLARS then the married person making $60,000 who paid $5,513 in taxes.
Let’s do some more math – The one with $125,000 in income paid 3.5 times more tax, while making just 2 times more income.
Your right Capn – that ain’t fair.
Whoops, the rich guy got a 17% tax cut (word wrapping sucks) vs the poor guy getting a 16% tax cut.
The math is still the same:
The married person making $125,000 also paid $19,463 in taxes – MUCH MORE DOLLARS then the married person making $60,000 who paid $5,513 in taxes.
Your right Capn – that ain’t fair.
The one with $125,000 in income paid 3.5 times more tax, while making just 2 times more income.
24% — 21% = 10% Cut?
Gee, must be the New Math
To be more precise, looking at the rounding of percent calculation:
The rich guy got a 16.9% tax cut, while the poor guy got a 16.3% tax cut.
Rounded, it is 17% and 16%.
Still not fair.
Da*n rich guy is still paying 3.5 times more taxes and only has 2 times more income.
THAT IS REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH, by the IRS aka the US Government Theif.
Look at the old tax paid divided by the income vs the new tax paid divided by the income.
Compare the two.
Do the math Chas.
Oh, facts aren’t your strongsuit, I forgot.
(You get help from that military chaplain yet?)
Max, if the tax paid under a previous system is 24%… and under the new system it is 21%, that is a 3% reduction… NOT 10%
No, YOU do the math, ok??
Max, are you in the Military?
In addition to help needed from a Chaplain, Chas needs a 3rd grade math teacher.
Please, is there anyone out there with several weeks of free time to spend on remedial math for a 50 year old preacher?
Could it be that Chas is W-R-O-N-G?
Heaven forbid!
Chas
Posted May 11, 2008 at 9:00 pm | Permalink
Max, if the tax paid under a previous system is 24%… and under the new system it is 21%, that is a 3% reduction… NOT 10%
================================================
That is truly a CLASSIC Chas.
Please do give us all a math lesson now!
Gosh Max, I wish I was only 50… Oh, you must have been talking about another preacher, since you NEVER are wrong!! Sorry bout that!!
Max, did you change the rules of Math too??
When did 24 — 21 ever equal 10??
“Chas.” –
Have you been called “not a Christian” yet tonight? Or has my watch stopped?
Not yet Monkey LOL
Chas
Posted May 11, 2008 at 9:18 pm | Permalink
Max, did you change the rules of Math too??
When did 24 — 21 ever equal 10??
——————
Chas you are embarrassing yourself.
The 10 percent change reflects the difference between Clinton taxes and Post-Bush cut which is 10 percent cut (rounded).
The percentages are the scheduled rate of taxes by income category, not the actual percent reduced. To prove it, just look at any of the other categories.
24% Pre Bush
21% Post Bush
Savings/Reduction = 3%
Looks pretty simple to me!!
Single,income of $125,000 — $29,379 — 24% $26,472 21%
Single,income of $125,000 — $29,379 — 24% — $26,472 — 21%
(Old Tax $ – New Tax $)/Old Tax $
(29379 – 26475)/ 29379
2907/29379 = .0989 = 9.89%
Look the first line of the table Chas.
Single, income of 30,000 … $3,158 … 11% $2,756 … 9% Cut 13%
Is 11% – 9% = 13%?
The percentages show in the first instances, (the pair of percentages) are the rate classification.
The cut percentage representages the actual cut of in come by percentage.
Calculate the difference between the tax table figure under Clinton $3,158 and the Bush Tax Cut figure $2,756.
You will find the difference is about 13 percent, just as the conclusion states.
Divide 2756/3158 and you get about 0.87 or 87 percent. 100 – 87 = 13 percent, which is what the conclusion states.
If you do the same thing with the line in question:
Single, income of $125,000 … $29,379 … 24% $26,472 … 21% Cut 10%
dividing 26472/29379 = 0.90 or 90 percent
100-90 = 10.
Apparently Chas, you are not seeing the forest because of the trees.
Yep Hud — There are liars, Damned Liars, and then there are Statistics…
The ACTUAL TAX savings is still only 3%
You can make the numbers SAY anything you want… But that doesnt change the FACTS!!
Hud’s solution is more elegant and even more accurate than mine. :)
I am not going to argue with stupidity anymore tonite!! The day has been too good for such nonsense!!
Chas, it doesn’t hurt to admit your wrong.
The tax savings is in real dollars calculated out.
This bottom line is what most people are concerned about, not the rate classification.
Sorry Chas but I don’t think my numbers supported your point of view.
Chuckle… I see Chas is still never wrong, even when he is wrong.
Must be tough living up to such a burden.
Regular — I CLEARLY see that there is a 3% CUT from the Clinton Tax, to the Bush Tax, on the $125,000 Single Income…
The amount of TAX PAID is 3% less!! What is so damned difficult about that?? You dont have a Tax Table to post here… What has been posted clearly shows the cuts… But hardly as much as is alleged!! Hey, 3% is GOOD… What you all bitching about??
Your figure of $2907 just happens to be 3% of the INCOME being taxed…
Summing up.
Based on the post of some of the better off here.
CLEARLY the rich are not taxed enough. Tables and charts aside. The gap between the haves and the have nots is growing.
It’s time that was addressed.
All you are doing is talking in circles… That doesnt cut it in the checkbook!!
Chas, here is your first comment.
==============================
Chas
Posted May 11, 2008 at 8:52 pm | Permalink
24% — 21% = 10% Cut?
Gee, must be the New Math
===============================
You jumped to an erroneous conclusion, we all make mistakes.
Just admit your mistake and move on.
It’s that simple, really it is.
Evangelicals try to reclaim their good name
Manifesto warns not to attach loaded labels to theological term
May 9, 2008
BY CATHLEEN FALSANI Religion Columnist
Mao Zedong published one. So did Ted Kaczynski, Ron Paul, and Valerie Solanas, the radical feminist writer who shot Andy Warhol.
The communists had one. And so did the anarchists, the humanists and the founding fathers of the Unites States of America (although they called theirs a “declaration,” not a “manifesto.”)
Now the Evangelicals have one, too.
Earlier this week, a group of more than 70 clergy, leaders and theologians released The Evangelical Manifesto, a 20-page declaration reclaiming the word “Evangelical” (with a capital “E,” they insist) from the pit of political realm where, they say, it is in danger of losing its sacred meaning.
The word “manifesto” conjures to my mind images of wild-eyed extremists with a rusty mimeograph machine and an ax to grind — the opposite, I’m guessing, of what these influential American Christians had in mind when they set out to right their religious ship.
But the word itself, which comes from the Italian manifestare, meaning, “to make public,” is much less intimidating than what we popularly associate with “manifesto” in our contemporary lexicon.
How appropriate, then, that these religious folk chose one loaded word to describe their attempts to reclaim the proper meaning of another loaded word: Evangelical.
“We are troubled by the fact that the confusions and corruptions surrounding the term Evangelical have grown so deep that the character of what it means has been obscured and its importance lost,” the authors of The Evangelical Manifesto say in its introduction. “Many people outside the movement now doubt that Evangelical is ever positive, and many inside now wonder whether the term any longer serves a useful purpose.”
more at
http://www.suntimes.com/lifestyles/religion/940682,CST-NWS-fals09.article
Regular — If you pay $X for taxes in one year, that equals 24% of your taxable income…. AND THEN, the next year you get a TAX CUT that equals 21% of your taxable income… by what percentage was your taxes reduced(CUT)??? Hmmm???
Those are the numbers posted above…. I am not wrong… You just want to FLAME me for what I posted!! So, go stick your flame in the toilet, and it will go out!!
Good Post, LR2!! It’s about time that happened!!
Hello editors?
You tube?
Obama claims to have visited 57 states?
Chas,
Everyone has been civil and respectful to you in explaining how Max’s table worked.
Evidently, you don’t see a reason to return the civility.
Max’s table is based on a false premise… What more can I say?? There IS no more to say!!
Good night; Good luck;
God bless – Whatever you conceive God to be!!
Blessings ALL!!
HAPPY MOTHER’S DAY!!
“Regular
Posted May 11, 2008 at 10:07 pm | Permalink
When have you EVER admitted you were wrong or that you had lied or you had been nic switching, McCluer?
Chas
Posted May 11, 2008 at 10:29 pm | Permalink
Max’s table is based on a false premise… What more can I say?? There IS no more to say!!
—————————————-
Just admit you made a mistake.
That’s the first sign of maturity and manhood.
Ah, the resident drunk Clark comes to pile on.
I’ve shown my other nics, Republican, Republikhan, JM and etc.
But it won’t any good it Clark?
It’s a fact you hate me, so I’m keeping that alive.
You’re the one that has to live with your hate, not me.
Like I said Clark, go kill yourself Clark.
There isn’t a person on the planet earth that will miss you.
MaxGrobnik
Posted May 11, 2008 at 9:08 pm | Permalink
In addition to help needed from a Chaplain, Chas needs a 3rd grade math teacher.
Please, is there anyone out there with several weeks of free time to spend on remedial math for a 50 year old preacher?
==================================
Regular calls this civility…. LOL!!
Chas does understand the following statement or he would not have made the post at 10:35.
Regular
Posted May 11, 2008 at 10:25 pm | Permalink
Chas,
Everyone has been civil and respectful to you in explaining how Max’s table worked.
Note, I didn’t include Max, since you are the person that insulted his conclusion, I mentioned everyone else, (hud and I)
I only admit mistakes when I make mistakes.
Not because you say so!! Get it??
er Chas doesn’t understand
What about your other nics “Regular”?
Like “American”, “American way”, “Max”, “Boxlock” etc?
Okay Chas, live in your delusional world.
civility/off
We all tried to be reasonable Chas, you are being unreasonable and stubborn.
and wrong
Well JR, JBird, Junior, Blue Jay…
That’s because those are different posters, different people.
They are not me.
But everyone knows you like the one poster posts all from the right conspiracy, so Junior, you can live in your delusional world as well.
I’ve seen ya “sasquatch”.
I can well imagine you in front of a screen all day. Inventing nics, terrorizing the blog.
In between bouts of mania and depression.
Rail all night fella. It’s all ya have.
“Like I said Clark, go kill yourself Clark.”
What a joke you are JM.
How about ‘fessing up about your service in ‘Nam, McCluer? Or your marital status? Or your other many, many nics?
“It’s a fact you hate me, so I’m keeping that alive.”
Naw, I don’t hate you, McCluer, you aren’t worth the effort.
You are just a tiny little man with nothing in this world except trying to be the know-it-all, been-it-all expert on everything on this blog.
You are just a pathetic little man, JM.
Better than what you contribute to this blog Clark.
You only come on the blog to insult people and harass them.
That’s the only reason you come on this blog.
Clark is not interested in adult discussion.
Clark should go kill himself and do the world a favor. His time for being an accomplished, respected adult has passed. Clark is now a hopeless drunk.
BTW —
$125,000 * 24% = $30,000
$125,000 * 21% = $26,250
Now what were Max’s numbers?? LOL
============================================
Max’s Numbers >>>>
Single, income of $125,000 … $29,379 … 24% $26,472 … 21%
============================================
Now, do we want to deal with some real figures, or do we still play with Max’s manipulated figures??
Well, you all figure it out amongst yourselves… I am outta here!!
James, you wouldnt know Civility if it bit you in the butt!!
I know a fool when I see one Chas and you are it.
Chas and WS?
You only dignify and feed James when you answer his posts.
He SO needs you too.
I’ve seen him. He’s a guy that does not get out alot.
Personally, I’m grateful for that.
History shows that when you starve him, he will act out and embarrass himself.
“Clark is not interested in adult discussion.”
How could I have an adult discussion with some one that can’t even tell the truth about his marital status or whether he served in ‘Nam or whether he was or was not JM?
In other words, how can one adult have an adult discussion with a pathological liar?
The pathological liar would be you, JM.
Of course, you are correct BlueJay… I am out of here for the night… You all have fun watch the impending meltdown, OK??
Drink yourself to sleep now Clark.
You know you need to or you won’t be able to sleep.
“Drink yourself to sleep now Clark.”
Naw, worked my ass off this afternoon in the yard and then made a great dinner for my daughter and her family.
So, how is your family doing, JM? Talk to your son lately? Does he call you “Dad” or “Uncle James?”
“I know a fool when I see one”
Because I see one every day when I look in the mirror.
Amazing — Almost nothing here to see, except for bad math. Well, always another day!
WSClark
Posted May 12, 2008 at 12:09 am | Permalink
“I know a fool when I see one”
Because I see one every day when I look in the mirror.
—————————-
Clark is admitting he is a fool.
On that we can agree.
SquarePeg
Posted May 12, 2008 at 12:24 am | Permalink
Amazing — Almost nothing here to see, except for bad math. Well, always another day!
————————-
Yeah okay, Chas, Das, Sugar (wink, wink)
Regular, your stupidity, and your stubbornness is a rare thing to see among competent adults. Such stubbornness is usually see among the severely mentally ill.
“Clark is admitting he is a fool.”
I was quoting you, JM, you dumbass…………
By the way, JM, does your son know about your “service” in Viet Nam or do you lie to him about that – or are you lying about having a son?
Just curious, (whatever your nic may be today.)
Hey, JM, why don’t you just use “Loser” as a nic – it would make it so much simpler.
Okay Chas, Das, Sugar, SquarePeg,
You have no one fooled, especially when you come to Chas’s aid 100 percent of the time.
I figured if you were a true businessman, you’d look at the chart and see Chas’s obvious error.
Evidently, you are a fraud and another ‘nodding head’ Lib sock puppet of Chas.
Quit trying Squarepeg, Chas, Das, Sugar – you have no one fooled on this blog. Everyone knows you are Chas.
Oh look Clark steps up to defend the fool Chas.
One fool deserves the other.
And Clark definetely deserves Chas. Maybe they should move in together.
If they haven’t already (wink)
One more time, Regular – or is it Amway, or Boxlock, or maybe Pat Herron, or American, or Blogmonitor/??
I AM NOT CHAS, or SUGAR, or DAS(whoever the hell that is) I suggest you get that through your rather dense, thick gray matter you call a brain!! Your stupidity is getting very old here. Every time you call me Chas, or any other name but my own, I will call you by one of your other names, or one of your alleged names. Maybe that will be a good lesson for your sorry ass!
Yeah okay Chas, Das, Sugar, Squarepeg, WSClark.
hahahahaha!
What a looney!
notes that all the SquarePeg and WSClark posts are coming from the same IP.
(chortles)
I did not defend Chas on anything. I simply commented that there is some bad math here on this thread. Oh, and as a business man, I can quite easily tell that a tax cut from 24% to 21% is a cut of 3%. Anybody with a modicum of simply mathematics can see that.
Apparently you havent had your daily dose of medications yet.
It is amazing that the poster who gripes the loudest about being called by nics other than the one he claims is his only one, it is amazing this this poster routinely calls other posters by names other than their own.
Hypocrisy, your name is REGULAR or JM or American or Boxlock or AmWay or or or
Yep,Squarepeg is definitely Chas.
No one can make the same error twice and realize that the sum total shown is not 3 percent, but the actual dollars saved by the tax cut.
Evidently stupid runs in all of Chas’s sockpuppet nics, no matter who he posts as.
McCluer is such an ugly son of a bitch that when he was born, the doctor slapped his mother.
He thinks that he is so smart, but he proves himself wrong everyday on the blog.
Sucks to be him.
MCluer, other than “Lefty” and Righty” and your 3D Blow Up Doll, have you ever had sex?
Still a virgin after all these years, McCluer?
Same tired old insults from Clark.
Guess when your brain gets pickeled by booze, you have nothing left but to repeat yourself.
So, McCluer, never married or your wife left you for another (better) man and took “your” son with her?
Why can’t you answer the question?
Can’t admit that you were the cuckold husband with the child that probably wasn’t yours?
McCluer, who’s your baby’s daddy?
“the sum total shown is not 3 percent, but the actual dollars saved by the tax cut.”
That is not what is shown in the so-called Table posted much earlier by Max – who has totally disappeared from posting.
Apparently Max’s keepers took away his computer. :-)
Notice that when Chas, Das, Sugar, Squarepeg gives up, WSClark steps up.
I guess sitting at the same computer does that.
heh heh heh heh
What a fraud and severe mental deficient.
In fact, there is no “sum total” shown in the so-called Table. That would make Regular, a circular thinking, lying SOB.
Apparently Max’s keepers took away his computer
——————————
Only Chas uses the word “keepers” on this blog.
Further proof that Chas, Das, Sugar, Squarepeg are the same person.
(chortles)
If there was ever time for the Editors to make a point on cleaning up this blog, banning Regular and WS Clark for a bit would sure be a good start.
Aw, what the Hell, I gotta get up early tomorrow – someone else please continue slapping down McLoser – he loves the abuse – obviously – he keeps asking for it.
What a joke of a “man” he is.
(What man denies that he has been married just to avoid dealing with the issue of the paternity of his child?)
I am out of here for the night.
Regular believes that only one person can use a word, or else that poster has to be somebody else. Yep, time for Regular/James/American/Blogmonitor/JM to take his nightly meds. He is approaching the danger level.
That could be, Nathaniel
Well, I am back on the road again tomorrow. I hate living out of my suitcase like I have done the past couple of weeks. You all have a good week now! And Power to Riverfest! Long may it live!
Really Nathaniel, ban me?
After all that bashing you been inflicting on Chas the past week?
Wow.
If you didn’t notice Nathaniel, both Hud and I were being very, very fair to Chas, until he refused to admit that he made an error.
Thanks there Marine.
You can call me sir from here on out, I out rank you.
Regular, you dont outrank anybody who wears a uniform. According to you, you are retired. You dont have a rank! Stow it, retiree.
Regular,
The back and forth insults and name calling is what I am talking about.
I have your back. Just don’t sink to their level.
Nathaniel
Posted May 12, 2008 at 1:33 am | Permalink
“If there was ever time for the Editors to make a point on cleaning up this blog, banning Regular and WS Clark for a bit would sure be a good start.”
I thought you wanted to meet Regular, Nathan. You fellows are not buddies any more? What caused this change of heart?
WS Clark is already at the bottom of the pit and there is no reason to jump in there with him when you can simply stand above him and point out how low he is.
When I want your advice Squarepeg, I’ll ask for it.
Everytime I go on base, I’m addressed by my rank.
The rank is permanent.
You have a new friend there Chas,das, squarepeg, sugar.
Nodding off now…
Steven,
I would love to meet Regular. I agree with most of what he says and think we would have a great conversation.
Nathan,
Our posts crossed. Never mind.
Damned Idiot – Regular is definitely American, and AmWay, and Boxlock, and American, and – and – and – It is obvious, because they all have the same fallacy of thought.
Crossed again. But, isn’t it a little inconsistent to want him banned, if you admire him so much?
Oh, and rank is permanent, only the active status changes.
Anyways,
I’m so outta here…..
Good Night, Wichita!
“Damned Idiot – Regular is definitely American, and AmWay, and Boxlock, and American, and – and – and – It is obvious, because they all have the same fallacy of thought.”
This would not prove anything, there are many different conservative posters who display the same worn out falacious arguments. Proves nothing.
Steven,
I don’t want him banned.(permanently) I think posts like these need to be address and/or punished. If banning someone for a period of time does the trick, then do it.
It gets really old to try to post on here, since Regular and his gang of goons cant even respond to anything I post without assigning me a host of other names. When people do that to Regular, he has a hissy fit. And he whines. Oh well, thats what happens when mentally deficient people get out of their cages. Well, you all have a good week. See you later! Long Live America!
It’s OK Steven. Just trying to give him the same crap he gives me on this Blog. I know they are different. :-)
Regular posted
“notes that all the SquarePeg and WSClark posts are coming from the same IP.
(chortles)”
James, how can anyone possibly know that? I pride myself on being a computer nerd and I have been unable to create an tool to track IPs via an embedded image (and believe me I’ve tried).
If you’ve figured it out, I am very impressed. Otherwise, it’s a pretty silly and unfunny kind of joke. You can do better!
I love coming onto the blog HST after everyone is asleep and checking out the carnage in the open threads.
Yeah, Regular can’t do that, Tara.
That’s why we call him “ReguLIAR.”
I will say in his defense that he seems to be lying less than he used to.
Still does it though . . .
Who’s right in the great tax cut math debate?
BOTH SIDES ARE.
Chas is exactly right that if you are taxed at 24 percent and then you get a “tax cut” the following year and are taxed at 21 percent, it’s three percent lower.
That three percent is three percent of your total earnings. So if you made 50K, it’d be 1,500 less dollars you’d pay.
However, Box and Max are also right: if you look at the percentage of the TAX you pay, it’d be 21/24 or 88 percent, down 12 percent.
You can think of it either way, and you’d be right either way.
One of the CONs wrote: “Let’s do some more math – The one with $125,000 in income paid 3.5 times more tax, while making just 2 times more income.
Your right Capn – that ain’t fair.”
Okay, CON, I got a deal for you. Since poor people pay so much less in taxes and you’re saying they get a break, why don’t you voluntarily cut your salary down to 20 or 30 K a year so you can get their “unfair” advantage?
Yeah.
Didn’t think so.
When you make more, and thus benefit more, you should pay more. That’s the foundation of progressive taxation that every modern advanced society uses.
If you don’t like it, you might try Somalia. Taxes are very low there.
Also, it’s ridiculous to argue that someone with taxable income of 1 million dollars getting a three percent cut is fair because the guy who makes 10K also gets a three percent cut.
The million dollar earner gets a 30,000 tax break. The 10K earner only gets 300 dollars back. There’s no comparison between the two.
Obviously, you can’t just look at percentages–you also have to look at the numbers those percentages represent.
Take for instance this headline: “CRIME RATES SOAR 30 PERCENT!”
A little town who had 9 instances of shoplifting in 2007 and 12 in 2008 would indeed have a big percentage increase. But do three more crimes in a year justify the idea of a “soaring 30 percent increase?” Technically, yes. Realistically, no.
Nathaniel
Posted May 12, 2008 at 1:57 am | Permalink
Steven,
“I don’t want him banned.(permanently) I think posts like these need to be address and/or punished. If banning someone for a period of time does the trick, then do it.”
Maybe a time-out would be a developmentally appropriate consequence. Those who know say you should give a kid a time-out the number of minutes of their age. What about giving a time-out of the number of days for each year of age? For JM that could be nearly a couple of months. And I believe a nearly equal amount of days for Clark. Would be near the same amount of time for me.
I wonder if there could be some way to voluntarily enter into such a set of conditions. Might even keep me on the straight and narrow, for a while, any way.
Of course, the problem with the plan would be, who would be the judge of the posts, etc.??
On second thought, could be a lot more trouble than it would be worth…
Each poster represents who they are with their own words and do it very effectively — whether that is a complimentary representation, or not.
If everyone could try harder to control the need of rebuttal the blog would be better for all. If one person drops out of the fight between two people it leaves one fighting with them self. That sheds a revealing light, don’t you think?
So if it’s a great disagreement on opinions and everyone is sticking to defending their positions — GO FOR IT! We all gain from hearing different sides to each story! We sure have enough public figures to criticize without needing to pick on one another. When it becomes personal we should all try to recognize that we’re in a pissing match and get out as quickly as possible! We give ourselves the needed time out.
If someone is less than civil and you stick around you’ve given permission to be treated without civility.
If some posters enjoy the arguments and throwing out as good as they get back, maybe our scroll wheels are a way to let them have their fun (?) without affecting anyone else. If someone stays to participate I think they have no valid reason to complain about what the blog is or could be!
“James, how can anyone possibly know that? I pride myself on being a computer nerd and I have been unable to create an tool to track IPs via an embedded image (and believe me I’ve tried).” [Tara]
That would be a good trick, since I was not even in Wichita last night. I was in KC until 8 a.m. this morning! Want to try again JAMES?? LOL