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
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- outlander on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- HLP on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
291 Comments
Today’s Beeg Question –
Does corn-on-the-cob taste better because it’s really better, or because it’s more fun to eat?
The myth that legal guns sales in the United States are responsible for Mexican drug cartel violence took another serious blow last week when an ATF official testified in Congress that only eight percent of weapons recovered in Mexico came through licensed U.S. gun dealers.
This figure is far lower than the 90 percent claim made previously as an appeal to reinstate ineffective gun laws that expired in 2004. The claim — still active among the less informed or serially dishonest — officially became myth during congressional testimony last week when Bill McMahon, deputy assistant director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, revealed the eight percent figure, how it was calculated, and where the 90 percent myth arose from.
Of the 100,000 weapons recovered by Mexican authorities, only 18,000 were determined to have been manufactured, sold, or imported from the United States, and of those 18,000, just 7,900 came from sales by licensed gun dealers.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/testimony-on-assault-weapons-guts-obamas-90-percent-lie/
Corn on the cob IS better, despite the need for a box of toothpicks after it’s over.
Need to try something I saw on TV over the weekend.
Brush the hot cob-o-corn with mayonaise and roll in a mix of parmesian cheese and bacon bits.
A lot of the flavor of canned corn is in the juice after cooking. Take a serving of canned corn and put as much salt and butter on it as you do corn on the cob and it will taste pretty good. Eating it off the cob still tastes better.
I got used to putting mayonnaise (real mayonnaise) on my corn on the cob when in Mexico. I also started using mayonnaise on my black eyed peas when in Mississippi.
Mayonnaise make every thing better!
Conyers Sees No Point in Members Reading 1,000-Page Health Care Bill–Unless They Have 2 Lawyers to Interpret It for Them
(CNSNews.com) – During his speech at a National Press Club luncheon, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Democratic Congressman John Conyers (D-Mich.), questioned the point of lawmakers reading the health care bill.
“I love these members, they get up and say, ‘Read the bill,’” said Conyers.
“What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?”
Democrats Thought Police strike again:
“Rep. John Carter (R-Texas) made public last week an e-mail from the Franking Commission — a bipartisan panel that oversees messages from lawmakers — asking him to change the phrase “government run” health care to “public option.”
The term was part of an audio message recorded by Carter’s staff for a town hall event on health care. The message said: “The House Democrats unveiled a government-run health care plan.”
The Franking Commission, which is authorized by law to oversee mail and other communications between members of Congress and their constituents that is paid for with federal funds, sent an e-mail to Carter’s staff requesting that the wording in the message be changed.
“I received the script back from the majority, and there are a couple of changes that need to be made to make it compliant,” the Franking Commission e-mail said. “In the first paragraph (answering machine message, automatic connection) change ‘House Democrats unveiled a government run health care plan’ to either ‘the house majority (sic) unveiled a public option health care plan’ or ‘Just this past week the House majority (sic) unveiled a health care plan which I believe will cost taxpayers ….’”
“Change this on both scripts and send it back to me,” the e-mail concluded.
Carter unveiled the e-mail at a press conference on Capitol Hill on Thursday.”
It certainly looks “government run” to me:
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/tx08_brady/71509_hc_chart.html
American Way – re-read your own posting and underline the words “a bipartisan panel”
I believe that would also include your beloved Republicans – would it not?
But, I do agree that it seems wrong to tell Congressmen how to say things. I’m all for letting any of them say whatever they want and how they want to say it. That way, the person is responsible for their own foot in the mouth disease. And that applies to both parties!
Just curious Amway – are you on Medicare or VA health care – is anyone you consider a loved one on Medicare or VA?
If so, how do explain to them that you want them to do without health care because you think government-run health care is evil?
Excerpts from a new article by Harvard trained atmospheric physicist, Dr. Richard Lindzen. I particularly agree with his comment: “Wasting resources on symbolically fighting ever present climate change is no substitute for prudence”.
——
The notion of a static, unchanging climate is foreign to the history of the earth or any other planet with a fluid envelope. The fact that the developed world went into hysterics over changes in global mean temperature anomaly of a few tenths of a degree will astound future generations. Such hysteria simply represents the scientific illiteracy of much of the public, the susceptibility of the public to the substitution of repetition for truth, and the exploitation of these weaknesses by politicians, environmental promoters, and, after 20 years of media drum beating, many others as well. Climate is always changing. We have had ice ages and warmer periods when alligators were found in Spitzbergen. Ice ages have occurred in a hundred thousand year cycle for the last 700 thousand years, and there have been previous periods that appear to have been warmer than the present despite CO2 levels being lower than they are now. More recently, we have had the medieval warm period and the little ice age. During the latter, alpine glaciers advanced to the chagrin of overrun villages. Since the beginning of the 19th Century these glaciers have been retreating. Frankly, we don’t fully understand either the advance or the retreat.
For small changes in climate associated with tenths of a degree, there is no need for any external cause. The earth is never exactly in equilibrium. The motions of the massive oceans where heat is moved between deep layers and the surface provides variability on time scales from years to centuries. Recent work (Tsonis et al, 2007), suggests that this variability is enough to account for all climate change since the 19th Century. Supporting the notion that man has not been the cause of this unexceptional change in temperature is the fact that there is a distinct signature to greenhouse warming: surface warming should be accompanied by warming in the tropics around an altitude of about 9km that is about 2.5 times greater than at the surface. Measurements show that warming at these levels is only about 3/4 of what is seen at the surface, implying that only about a third of the surface warming is associated with the greenhouse effect, and, quite possibly, not all of even this really small warming is due to man (Lindzen, 2007, Douglass et al, 2007). This further implies that all models predicting significant warming are greatly overestimating warming. This should not be surprising (though inevitably in climate science, when data conflicts with models, a small coterie of scientists can be counted upon to modify the data. Thus, Santer, et al (2008), argue that stretching uncertainties in observations and models might marginally eliminate the inconsistency. That the data should always need correcting to agree with models is totally implausible and indicative of a certain corruption within the climate science community).
….And finally, there are the numerous well meaning individuals who have allowed propagandists to convince them that in accepting the alarmist view of anthropogenic climate change, they are displaying intelligence and virtue For them, their psychic welfare is at stake.
With all this at stake, one can readily suspect that there might be a sense of urgency provoked by the possibility that warming may have ceased and that the case for such warming as was seen being due in significant measure to man, disintegrating. For those committed to the more venal agendas, the need to act soon, before the public appreciates the situation, is real indeed. However, for more serious leaders, the need to courageously resist hysteria is clear. Wasting resources on symbolically fighting ever present climate change is no substitute for prudence. Nor is the assumption that the earth’s climate reached a point of perfection in the middle of the twentieth century a sign of intelligence.
Link to article:
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2009/07/resisting-climate-hysteria
“would also include your beloved Republicans ”
Point taken on the word “bipartisan”. However, I don’t think we are seeing anything truly bipartisan coming out of the US Congress these days. Even on the committees.
But you got me wrong on the republicans. They are not “beloved” by me. I’ve critised them often. The republican party has lost direction, is stuck on abortion and christianity, guilty of earmarks, excessive spending, and failure to pass basic appropriations bills on time.
They are, the lesser of two evils to me.
Barack Obama’s admittedly knee-jerk reaction to the Gates incident and subsequent apology
(offer for beer in the white house), shows that Obama reacted based upon the color of his
Skin – instead of acting as a president. His first thought and reaction was color based.
I’m reminded of SCOTUS nominee Sonia Sotomayor and her comment, “wise Latina would make better decisions because of her life experiences than a white male.”
Like Obama’s unofficial apology [read: calibrated], Sotomayor also backed off her Latina statement.
“My play on those words fell flat. It was bad,” Sotomayor said.
The problem is, we have both a POTUS and a soon to be SCOTUS who are making decisions based upon the color of their skin. Obama realized it and now the news will be filled with his public attempt to make right his initial statement. Sotomayor understands it too. She went further to deny this and disagree with Obama on his selection criteria.
“the legal process alone will not lead you to a rule of decision….The critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge’s heart”
But I tend to believe the truth is revealed by peoples first reaction (knee-jerk) when the first words spill from their mouths. Someone wise once said, “Do not be quick with your mouth, do not be hasty in your heart.”
Maybe I do the same based upon my own background.
But decisions based upon color scare me.
The dims do not want the people to realize their plan is no more than another government program.
What happened to the “we will be more open” promised by the dims? (LOL)
With the recession and so much important legislation proposed and pending in Congress, perhaps it’s time democrats replace a very unpopular leader.
“House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is one of the most despised political figures in the country.
Last week’s Public Strategies Inc./POLITICO poll brought grim news for Pelosi, revealing that only a quarter of Americans trust the San Francisco Democrat — putting her in the basement with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and House
Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio).
Mention of the “trust” question halted the click-clack of Pelosi’s heels against Rotunda marble, and she turned to face the reporter who posed the question. II don’t know about ‘trust’ — I think I’m trusted,” she said.
Gallup now measures Pelosi’s unfavorability ratings at 48 percent — with her favorability index registering a paltry 32 percent.
That’s 12 points lower than her numbers were just six months ago, during the first flush days of the Obama administration. And it puts the most powerful woman in the country’s history on a par with Dick Cheney and only a few clicks better than Boehner, an unknown quantity to most Americans. “
What is worse, a thief or a cop that won’t do his job?
The democrats are stealing the country. The republicans are at the donut shop.
Lindsey Grahm shows up at every press conference with powdered sugar on his face.
Moran has cream filling on his tie.
On this date, Jul 27th:
1789 Congress establishes Dept of Foreign Affairs (State dept)
1897 37.5 cm (14.75″) of rainfall, Jewell, Maryland (state 24-hr record)
1939 – The temperature at Lewiston, ID, hit 117 degrees to establish an all-time record high for that location. (The Weather Channel)
1988 Radio Shack announces the Tandy 1000 SL computer
Direct quotations from New Scientist:
“Does it follow, as some scholars now think, that anyone, given the right conditions and the wrong friendships, can end up joining a terrorist group? Not entirely. We found that engineers are three to four times as likely as other graduates to be present among the members of violent Islamic groups in the Muslim world since the 1970s. Using a sample of 404 Islamic militants worldwide (with a median birth date in 1966), we tracked down the education of 284. Of these, 26 had less than secondary education, 62 completed secondary education (including madrasas), and 196 had higher education, whether completed or not. Even if none of the cases where we lack data had higher education, the share of those with higher education would be a hefty 48.5 per cent.
The next move was to find out what they had studied – and we tracked down 178 of our 196 cases. The largest single group were engineers, with 78 out of 178, followed by 34 taking Islamic studies, 14 studying medicine, 12 economics and business studies, and 7 natural sciences. The over-representation of engineers applies to all 13 militant groups in the sample and to all 17 nationalities, with the exception of Saudi Arabia.
……
We reckon that something else is going on, something at the individual level, that is, relating to cognitive traits. According to polling data, engineering professors in the US are seven times as likely to be right-wing and religious as other academics, and similar biases apply to students. In 16 other countries we investigated, engineers seem to be no more right-wing or religious than the rest of the population, but the number of engineers combining both traits is unusually high. A lot of piecemeal evidence suggests that characteristics such as greater intolerance of ambiguity, a belief that society can be made to work like clockwork, and dislike of democratic politics which involves compromise, are more common among engineers.”
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227127.200-can-university-subjects-reveal-terrorists-in-the-making.html?full=true
outlander,
Your Dr. Richard Lindzen sure uses a lot of straw to make his arguments.
Please list the scientists who agree with the AGW theory, AND who also argue that the Earth has had a “static, unchanging climate” in the past.
Then explain how past natural climate variations refute the AGW theory.
Excellent commentary on Health Care as a “Right”.
But a “human right”? Hippie, please.
I have no doubt that the owner of the thusly-stickered car considers him- or herself to be educated, informed, and thoroughly on top of things. By proclaiming health care a “right”, however, he or she demonstrates a rather galling unfamiliarity with the nature of rights.
Let’s get the most obvious point out of the way first. You cannot have a right to something that necessitates a financial obligation on someone else’s part.
When you look at our Bill of Rights, which enumerates (not “grants”) a bunch of rights, you won’t find a single Amendment in there that recognizes the right to receive a material commodity, free of charge or otherwise. In order for me to let you enjoy all the rights enumerated in that fine document, all that’s required of me is to leave you the hell alone, which doesn’t cost me a penny. Your rights to free speech, to free exercise of your religion, or to be free from unreasonable search and seizure do not make the slightest dent in my wallet or my schedule. The Second Amendment refers to a physical commodity (arms), but it only recognizes that you have the right to own a gun if you have the desire and means to acquire one, not the right to get one for free from the rest of us.
http://munchkinwrangler.wordpress.com/2009/07/26/you-keep-using-that-word-i-do-not-think-it-means-what-you-think-it-means/
Interesting article DorisKing – In my opinion, a possible reason that Engineers may be more right wing is that engineering requires precision – things must be black and white; correct or incorrect; within tolerance or out of tolerance.
There is seldom a phrase like ‘probability’ or ‘likely’ that occurs in engineering unlike some disciplines like Climatology. :)
Searching Constitution….
Ah, here it is!
“promote the general welfare”.
What Obama REALLY SAID was:
“I don’t know … what role race played in that [Gates case].”
“BlueJay
Posted July 27, 2009 at 9:41 am | Permalink
Searching Constitution….
Ah, here it is!
“promote the general welfare”.”
Yeah, the “clause” of the Constitution that guarantees handouts. Sure. I bet you can find that meaning everywhere in writings of those who wrote and approved the Constitution. It’s everywhere. Yeah, right.
I doubt that you can find that concept within what what meant by “general welfare” but go ahead and think that. It makes it easier to take from someone that actually has accomplished something, and give it to those who haven;t.
Failure probabilities measured against time are common in Engineering.
“expected useful life” is a probability.
#
DorisKing
Posted July 27, 2009 at 9:59 am | Permalink
Failure probabilities measured against time are common in Engineering.
——————-
Like ‘mean time between failures?’
Yes, that’s true – but it’s part of a generic ‘risk assessment’ statistical evaluation that all science and engineering use.
However, risk assessment in food service sanitation, process engineering and flight control all use similar methodology, but the underlying categories of risk are defined each according to the parameters (biological, physical, chemical, etc.)
Regular wants more soup.
“Promote the General Welfare” is in the bill of rights?
#
cosmos_originally
Posted July 27, 2009 at 10:08 am | Permalink
Regular wants more soup.
——————————
Regular is writing from decades of experience and education and training – not make it up as you go along pseudo science like AGW. :)
Heckler-
No, it’s in the preamble. as is “Securing the BLessings of Liberty” whomever Liberty is
You’re going to die, BlueJay.
You’re choice, go to your maker with the dignity of a life lived well or go begging and pleading with a government beurocrat for one more pill.
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If the government pays for one of your ‘rights’ it has to take away part of my freedom.
Tax dollars equal my time. I work ten hours a day. Six of them are for taxes to the government in one form or another, two of them are for insurance in one form or another. When my time is taken paying for taxes I can’t live my life in the pursuit of happiness. Taking my time to pay taxes equals taking my freedom.
You have a right to free speach. I don’t have to listen.
You have a right to ‘bear arms’. I don’t have to buy your ammo.
You don’t have a right to smoke and drink and get health care on my dime.
I stand corrected. The term is also wihtin Article 1, Section 8. However, there is, and has been from early times, a disagreement about what it means.
“According to James Madison, the clause authorized Congress to spend money, but only to carry out the powers and duties specifically enumerated in the subsequent clauses of Article I, Section 8, and elsewhere in the Constitution, not to meet the seemingly infinite needs of the general welfare. Alexander Hamilton maintained that the clause granted Congress the power to spend without limitation for the general welfare of the nation. The winner of this debate was not declared for 150 years.”
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/General+Welfare
Today’s non-event, Sarah is a ‘Free Agent’.
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.
Thomas Jefferson
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
Thomas Jefferson
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
Thomas Jefferson
Newspaper industry’s next trick: Fake words
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17939_109-10296150-2.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-5
The New York Post announced Monday that it has inked a deal with SpectrumDNA to bring the company’s Addictionary software-as-a-service platform to the newspaper’s Web site.
According to a statement, both SpectrumDNA and the Post believe the Addictionary engine will help the newspaper achieve more “viral and word-of-mouth distribution.” They also said they believe it could increase advertising revenue.
‘Global warming not just about heat ‘
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/science/global-warming-not-just-about-heat/article787530/
I smell a democrat rat….
“Infectious Diseases Study Site Questioned
Tornado Alley May Not Be Safe, GAO Says
The Department of Homeland Security relied on a rushed, flawed study to justify its decision to locate a $700 million research facility for highly infectious pathogens in a tornado-prone section of Kansas, according to a government report.” WashPost
I suspect there is a nice fat blue state which would become safer, I mean be safer to locate this huge industry and financial gainer.
Movement away from Open Government and toward secret government:
“Leaders at the agencies most responsible for New Jersey’s child-protection agency say the state no longer will publicly disclose the details of DYFS prior actions when a child it has supervised dies from abuse or neglect.
The decision signals a change in policy after the state issued annual reports detailing what happened in each child-death case for the past six years. Instead, the state will issue reports focusing on trends it has found.”
Trust the government to do what’s best. No need to disclose to the public HOW they do that.
Concerning Healthcare proposals
On his White House blog, Orszag – who served as CBO director in 2007 and 2008 – downplayed the office’s small probable savings number in favor of the proposal’s more speculative long-term benefits.
“The point of the proposal, however, was never to generate savings over the next decade. …
Then explain how past natural climate variations refute the AGW theory.
ockham’s razor
““The point of the proposal, however, was never to generate savings over the next decade. …”
Really? I swore I heard on the television commercials which aired all day and night yesterday that the democrats healthcare plan would save us money?!?
Resisting climate hysteria
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2009/07/resisting-climate-hysteria
by Richard S. Lindzen on Quadrant Online
Climate alarmists respond that some of the hottest years on record have occurred during the past decade. Given that we are in a relatively warm period, this is not surprising, but it says nothing about trends.
Given that the evidence (and I have noted only a few of many pieces of evidence)strongly implies that anthropogenic warming has been greatly exaggerated, the basis for alarm due to such warming is similarly diminished. However, a really important point is that the case for alarm would still be weak even if anthropogenic global warming were significant.
Polar bears, arctic summer sea ice, regional droughts and floods, coral bleaching, hurricanes, alpine glaciers, malaria, etc. etc. all depend not on some global average of surface temperature anomaly, but on a huge number of regional variables including temperature, humidity, cloud cover, precipitation, and direction and magnitude of wind. The state of the ocean is also often crucial.
Our ability to forecast any of these over periods beyond a few days is minimal (a leading modeler refers to it as essentially guesswork). Yet, each catastrophic forecast depends on each of these being in a specific range. The odds of any specific catastrophe actually occurring are almost zero. This was equally true for earlier forecasts of famine for the 1980’s, global cooling in the 1970’s, Y2K and many others.
Regionally, year to year fluctuations in temperature are over four times larger than fluctuations in the global mean.
A recent paper (Ramanathan, 2007) points out that aerosols can warm as well as cool, while scientists at the UK’s Hadley Centre for Climate Research recently noted that their model did not appropriately deal with natural internal variability thus demolishing the basis for the IPCC’s iconic attribution (Smith et al, 2007).
Barkstrom, B.R., 1984: The Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE), Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 65, 1170–1185.
Douglass,D.H., J.R. Christy, B.D. Pearsona and S. F. Singer, 2007: A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions, Int. J. Climatol., DOI: 10.1002/joc.1651
Keenlyside, N.S., M. Lateef, et al, 2008: Advancing decadal-scale climate prediction in the North Atlantic sector, Nature, 453, 84-88.
Lindzen, R.S. and Y.-S. Choi, 2009: On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data, accepted Geophys. Res. Ltrs.
Lindzen, R.S., 2007: Taking greenhouse warming seriously. Energy & Environment, 18, 937-950.
Ramanathan, V., M.V. Ramana, et al, 2007: Warming trends in Asia amplified by brown cloud solar absorption, Nature, 448, 575-578.
Santer, B. D., P. W. Thorne, L. Haimberger, K. E. Taylor, T. M. L. Wigley, J. R. Lanzante, S. Solomon, M. Free, P. J. Gleckler, P. D. Jones, T. R. Karl, S. A. Klein, C.
Mears, D. Nychka, G. A. Schmidt, S. C. Sherwood, and F. J. Wentz, 2008: Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in the tropical troposphere, Intl. J. of Climatology, 28, 1703-1722.
Smith, D.M., S. Cusack, A.W. Colman, C.K. Folland, G.R. Harris, J.M. Murphy, 2007: Improved Surface Temperature Prediction for the Coming Decade from a Global Climate Model, Science, 317, 796-799.
Tsonis, A. A., K. Swanson, and S. Kravtsov, 2007: A new dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts, Geophys. Res. Ltrs., 34, L13705, doi:10.1029/2007GL030288
Wong, T., B. A. Wielicki, et al., 2006: Reexamination of the observed decadal variability of the earth radiation budget using altitude-corrected ERBE/ERBS nonscanner
WFOV Data, J. Climate, 19, 4028–4040.
Richard S. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Oh goody! The Obama goof is going to stay in the news for many months to follow.
“Cambridge City Manager Bob Healy announces an informal study into the events of July 16th involving the Cambridge Police Department and Prof Gates. It’s live now……(Fox)”
By golly you are going to give that woman an abortion or we are going to fire you!!!
“A New York nurse claims she was forced to choose between her religious convictions and her job when Mount Sinai Hospital ordered her to assist in a late-term abortion against her will.
The hospital even exaggerated the patient’s condition and claimed the woman could die if the nurse, a devout Catholic, did not follow orders, the nurse alleges in a lawsuit.
“It felt like a horror film unfolding,” said Catherina Cenzon-DeCarlo, 35, who claims she has had gruesome nightmares and hasn’t been able to sleep since the May 24 incident.
The married mother of a year-old baby was 30 minutes into her early-morning shift when she realized she had been assigned to an abortion. She begged her supervisor to find a replacement nurse for the procedure. The hospital had a six-hour window to find a fill-in, the suit says.
Bosses told the weeping Cenzon-DeCarlo the patient was 22 weeks into her pregnancy and had preeclampsia, a condition marked by high blood pressure that can lead to seizures or death if left untreated.
The supervisor “claimed that the mother could die if [Cenzon-DeCarlo] did not assist in the abortion.”
But the nurse, the niece of a Filipino bishop, contends that the patient’s life was not in danger. She argued that the patient was not even on magnesium therapy, a common treatment for preeclampsia, and did not have problems indicating an emergency.” NYPost
“Heckler” offers up –
“Promote the General Welfare” is in the bill of rights?”
Oh, my.
I’ve had moments when I’ve considered “Heckler” to be something more than a blithering idiot.
But this little comment reminds me when some lady called me up on the radio and said, “It’s not in the CONSTITUTION, it’s only an “amendment!!!”
C’mon, “Heckler.” Tell us all where the words “Bill of Rights” are “in” the Constitution. Hell, I’ll cut you some slack and even let you include some amendments along the way.
Some days WE Blog serves as a monument to
John Stuart Mill:
“Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”
This is one of those days.
soldevvb posted July 27, 2009 at 10:58 am
Then explain how past natural climate variations refute the AGW theory.
ockham’s razor
————————
False.
Natural climate factors alone do not explain the observed data.
“Lsy down, Sally, and fuc# me.”
– Thomas Jefferson
Obama to continue one way trade with China that Bush was blamed for. Obama to encourage China to keep loaning us more of our money back – to finance his deficit spending:
“Washington (AP) – President Barack Obama said Monday that the relationship between the United States and China will shape the history of the 21st century”
“I remember way back when a Liberal was one who was generous with his own money.”
- Will Rogers
BJ – if the “general welfare” clause was meant to be anything Congress/Pres/Courts wanted it to mean, why did they go through the process of specifically enumerating said powers in Art 1, Sec 8?
Folks like Madison & Henry were very clear about their fears that just such a distortion of the words “general welfare” would be employed. Same with “necessary & proper”/commerce clause. It’s WHY they specifically spelled out powers.
James Madison 1792:
“Such an interpretation of the clause would render the special and careful enumeration of powers which follow the clause nugatory and improper. Such a view of the Constitution would have the effect of giving to Congress a general power of legislation instead of the defined and limited one hitherto understood to belong to them….in short, everything, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress.”
Now, granted, I know you’re cool with DC being the end-all solution, judge/jury/executioner of all things…but that was never the intent. If you want it to mean anything you want, amend the Constitution in the open instead of relying on weak interpretations of the Constitution.
““Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.” (MH)
‘The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they’re ignorant; it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.’ – Ronald Reagan
Regular posted July 27, 2009 at 11:07 am
by Richard S. Lindzen on Quadrant Online.
——————–
That’s the perfect publication for Dr. Lindzen’s deceptive, non-scientific op-ed.
http://www.quadrant.org.au/pages/about-us
“Quadrant magazine is Australia’s leading journal of ideas, essays, literature, poetry, and historical and political debate. . . .
Since 1956 Quadrant has maintained a tradition of publishing original writing on every aspect of society, as well as some of Australia’s best fiction and poetry.”
“Conservative: a statesman who is enamoured of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others.”
– Ambrose Bierce
“A liberal is man who will give away everything he doesn’t own.”
– Frank Dane
Monkey”boy”
It’s obvious you missed the point. I’m not going to waste my time trying to untwist your train of thought.
Hey Heckler,
Of course MonkeyHawk missed the point. He’s not stupid so we can only assume he missed it on purpose.
Probably because he’s having a little trouble explaining how we’ve been so stupid for the last 200 years in the ‘fact’ that ‘promoting the general welfare’ means free health care for illegal aliens.
White House eases stimulus lobbyist restrictions
By Roxana Tiron
Posted: 07/25/09 01:25 PM [ET]
In a significant change, the Obama administration will now allow lobbyists to meet and have telephonic discussions with government officials regarding economic recovery projects.
The lifting of the ban comes after K Street has cried foul for months and has challenged the White House on its restrictions.
In March, President Obama announced that government officials would not be allowed to consider the views of lobbyists regarding specific stimulus projects unless the requests are put in writing. The materials also had to be posted on an agency’s website within three business days of receipt. Lobbyists have said that the policy was one more example of the administration’s disdain for their industry.
Now, the just-revised rules will allow government personnel to accept meetings and calls from federally registered lobbyists on the implementation of stimulus projects. The head of the Office of Management and Budget, Peter Orszag, issued a new guidance late Friday regarding the administration’s communications with registered lobbyists about economic recovery funds.
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/white-house-eases-stimulus-lobbyist-restrictions-2009-07-25.html
======
Is anyone surprised by this? Or is this that “openness” in gov’t we were told would be coming along with the “hope” and “change?”
Evidence again of a perennial truth: the more gov’t regulates business and the economy, the more corrupt gov’t will be. It’s like night following day.
However, MonkeyHawk actually may be stupid if he still clings to the old ‘Jefferson fathered Hemming’s children’ myth.
There’s no evidence, it’s been debunked.
http://www.ashbrook.org/articles/mayer-hemings.html
When you are an executive in a failed business that needs to be bailed out by the taxpayer what happens? That’s right, you demand your $100 million bonus.
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/07/27/business/econwatch/entry5191048.shtml
He’s an energy trader so it was his job to trade oil commodities and jack up the price of oil. So when we were paying $4 a gallon this guy was raking in the cash. Then the bottom fell out and his company begged for $25 billion. Thankful for the money they laid off 52,000 employees (they had previously laid off 23,000). The government backed $306 billion in loans in exchange for you and I owning 33% of the practically worthless company.
So, yeah, that kind of effort of getting a bunch of free government money earns one a $100 million bonus.
That’s the rich for you, when they make money you lose, when they lose money you lose, but there’s always enough money to make themselves richer at your expense. As shareholders, shouldn’t we demand that these huge bonuses of our money be paid back to the government?
I googled Lindzen expecting to find a petroleum company tool, but, no, this guy is the real deal.
As I’ve said before, Global Warming is very complicated, perhaps too complicated to be fully knowable by anybody.
Sol brings up a good point–massive temp swings in the past have not been fully explained by today’s models.
How can one know what is going to happen in the future if one cannot know the past?
According to the “slushball Earth” theory, the Earth was once so cold that the seas were nearly frozen even at the equator.
Al Gore would have us believe that the Earth could never heat up again because all that ice would act as bright, shiny mirror reflecting “90 percent of potential heat back into space.”
But of course, the Earth did heat up again, fortunately for us.
So . . . what I’m saying is that 1. the issue may be too complicated to know for sure right now and 2. however if we wait until we’re sure, it may be too late.
It makes sense to take steps to prevent Global Warming even if it is not happening because those steps are good for the environment in other ways as well.
At least PART of the rest of the story
1) Hall’s potential nine-figure payday is stipulated in his contract with Citigroup, nullifying an existing contract simply on the basis of its unpopularity, (is) a prospect fraught with legal complications.
2) Phibro was very profitable, and was not a contributor to the need of Citigroup being bailed out (which I opposed anyway)
3. satisfying the government’s demands for fiscal sanity in executive pay structure would also mean perhaps losing its top money-earners, making its return to profitability all the more difficult.
Note the 11:47 post and the 11:57 post. Connection? Again: is anyone surprised?
Only fools.
#
cosmos_originally
Posted July 27, 2009 at 11:31 am | Permalink
Regular posted July 27, 2009 at 11:07 am
by Richard S. Lindzen on Quadrant Online.
——————–
That’s the perfect publication for Dr. Lindzen’s deceptive, non-scientific op-ed.
http://www.quadrant.org.au/pages/about-us
“Quadrant magazine is Australia’s leading journal of ideas, essays, literature, poetry, and historical and political debate. . . .
Since 1956 Quadrant has maintained a tradition of publishing original writing on every aspect of society, as well as some of Australia’s best fiction and poetry.”
——————————
In other words, cosmos is unable to refute Dr. Lindzen’s writing that references peer-reviewed scientific literature.
More arm flailing by the alarmist cosmos.
littlejohn
Posted July 27, 2009 at 12:12 pm | Permalink
At least PART of the rest of the story
1) Hall’s potential nine-figure payday is stipulated in his contract with Citigroup, nullifying an existing contract simply on the basis of its unpopularity, (is) a prospect fraught with legal complications.
2) Phibro was very profitable, and was not a contributor to the need of Citigroup being bailed out (which I opposed anyway)
3. satisfying the government’s demands for fiscal sanity in executive pay structure would also mean perhaps losing its top money-earners, making its return to profitability all the more difficult.
===
Well, yes, but that cuts into that oh-so-satisfying self-rightous moral indignation.
But the nurse, the niece of a Filipino bishop, contends that the patient’s life was not in danger. She argued that the patient was not even on magnesium therapy, a common treatment for preeclampsia, and did not have problems indicating an emergency.” NYPost
*****
In other words, the nurse knew better than the doctors.
Wow. Let’s give that nurse a raise and fire the doctors.
Or better yet, never force anyone to treat anyone they don’t like.
For instance, if Dick Cheney comes in with a heart attack, the attending cardiologist can just say, “I think he’ll be alright” and let him die.
“In 2012, if the unemployment rate is over 10%, Republicans will be swept back into power. If it’s under 8%, the Dims continue to roll. If it’s between 8-10%, it’ll be a dogfight.” [Anonymous - email]
It’s the economy, stupid.
#
CapnAmerica
Posted July 27, 2009 at 12:16 pm | Permalink
But the nurse, the niece of a Filipino bishop, contends that the patient’s life was not in danger. She argued that the patient was not even on magnesium therapy, a common treatment for preeclampsia, and did not have problems indicating an emergency.” NYPost
*****
In other words, the nurse knew better than the doctors.
Wow. Let’s give that nurse a raise and fire the doctors.
Or better yet, never force anyone to treat anyone they don’t like.
For instance, if Dick Cheney comes in with a heart attack, the attending cardiologist can just say, “I think he’ll be alright” and let him die.
=============================
A good nurse will often catch the mistakes of a physician, because the nurse knows the difference between diagnosis of convenient ploy from that of necessity.
If their laws are like Kansas laws, it would take two physicians to sign off on this.
Lying would put them in serious legal trouble.
It’s possible that the nurse is correct and the doctors are all wrong, but then they are in serious legal trouble.
Doesn’t seem as likely as Nurse Goody-Two-Shoes just doesn’t want to do her job.
The interests of the environmental movement in acquiring more power, influence, and donations are reasonably clear. So too are the interests of bureaucrats for whom control of CO2 is a dream-come-true. After all, CO2 is a product of breathing itself. Politicians can see the possibility of taxation that will be cheerfully accepted because it is necessary for ‘saving’ the earth. Nations have seen how to exploit this issue in order to gain competitive advantages. But, by now, things have gone much further. The case of ENRON (a now bankrupt Texas energy firm) is illustrative in this respect. Before disintegrating in a pyrotechnic display of unscrupulous manipulation, ENRON had been one of the most intense lobbyists for Kyoto. It had hoped to become a trading firm dealing in carbon emission rights. This was no small hope. These rights are likely to amount to over a trillion dollars, and the commissions will run into many billions. Hedge funds are actively examining the possibilities; so was the late Lehman Brothers. Goldman Sachs has lobbied extensively for the ‘cap and trade’ bill, and is well positioned to make billions. It is probably no accident that Gore, himself, is associated with such activities. The sale of indulgences is already in full swing with organizations selling offsets to one’s carbon footprint while sometimes acknowledging that the offsets are irrelevant. The possibilities for corruption are immense. Archer Daniels Midland (America’s largest agribusiness) has successfully lobbied for ethanol requirements for gasoline, and the resulting demand for ethanol may already be contributing to large increases in corn prices and associated hardship in the developing world (not to mention poorer car performance). And finally, there are the numerous well meaning individuals who have allowed propagandists to convince them that in accepting the alarmist view of anthropogenic climate change, they are displaying intelligence and virtue For them, their psychic welfare is at stake.
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2009/07/resisting-climate-hysteria
_________________
Talk about a straw argument. Capn and cosMo want to make a big deal about the fossil fuels industry trying to salvage their industry while ignoring the hundreds of billions in nothing but paper trading.
Funny how conservatives are in favor of labor contracts when it isn’t a union employee involved.
Natural climate factors alone do not explain the observed data.
So sayeth the warmomger alarmists.
#
CapnAmerica
Posted July 27, 2009 at 12:30 pm | Permalink
If their laws are like Kansas laws, it would take two physicians to sign off on this.
Lying would put them in serious legal trouble.
It’s possible that the nurse is correct and the doctors are all wrong, but then they are in serious legal trouble.
Doesn’t seem as likely as Nurse Goody-Two-Shoes just doesn’t want to do her job.
=======================
I doubt anyone is in trouble, except for the nurse, who is trouble with her administration.
Doctors pretty much have free reign on defining what is a life-threatening condition.
I’m sure however, that reviewed with strict physiological guidelines and conditions at the time, the physicians were squirm with great discomfort about their decision.
“Funny how conservatives are in favor of labor contracts when it isn’t a union employee involved”
So Says Maggotpunk,
Yet, I have yet to see a conservative argue for ignoring any labor contract for union employee and pay the employee whatever felt good or was “popular”
Here is an example of the care that Quadrant takes in vetting scientifically themed articles.
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/life-and-style/quadrant-falls-victim-to-hoax-story/2009/01/06/1231004052236.html
Why did this happen? Because Quadrant has a right wing editorial bias, and in the case of the example above, that bias was used to sting the editor of Quadrant.
A publication that uses editorial bias (or as AmWay says, “principles”) instead of objective factchecking immediately forfeits credibility. You are not going to find an article that indicates that anthropogenic global warming/climate change is a pressing issue in Quadrant, because that is inconsistent with the publication’s editorial bias.
And the National Science Foundation (you know, the HONOR society for American scientists) has not changed their tune in favor of AGW skepticism.
Like I’ve said before, when in doubt, give the benefit to the people who do NOT have a political agenda. And despite reflexive right wing projections to the contrary, working climate scientists and the editorial boards of the highest tier of peer reviewed journals (like Nature and Science) are much less inclined to let ideology get in the way of assessing the quality of studies and research articles.
Phantom yesterday finally tried to answer the question raised by his own post from yesterday:
WHAT is your Fair Share of taxes?
Phantom
Posted July 26, 2009 at 10:57 pm | Permalink
Their fair share is what ever is required of them by the tax code, not allowing for them to place their money in off shore tax dodges. Congress will determine what is appropriate, along with the executive branch.
The govt. was built on a progressive income tax, and that’s how it should remain. The more debt we accumulate, the more everyone’s fair share increases, even if not proportionately.
———————————————–
That is the CLASSIC LIB non-answer response.
I’d still like to know what is a fair share of taxes. And in response to Phantom’s ‘points’:
1. Whatever the Government decides is fair? So what Bush pushed for tax cuts was fair, and what Obama is pushing for tax increases is fair. There is no best progressive tax rate structure, as long as the rich simply pay MORE?
2. How do progressive taxes build Government? You mean Government PROGRAMS are built with progressive taxes, and it’s best for the country to have more Government PROGRAMS.
3. The bigger the Debt the higher the fair share? Unequal sized shares of Debt is fair. So why are unequal sized shares of Income not fair?
In other words, Phantom can’t answer the question as to what is the fair share of taxes for someone. Phantom can’t specify what tax rate the rich should have, as compared to the poor and middle income citizens.
But Phantom does like to complain about the Rich not paying their fair share of taxes!
Language warning.
US sniper takes out car bomber.
http://shock.military.com/Shock/videos.do?displayContent=193350&page=7&ESRC=dod.nl
“Windschuttle didn’t check the paper or ring the CSIRO. He says: ‘We’re not a science journal.’ But in any case, he doesn’t believe Quadrant has to check the facts in its articles. Though he has flayed historians for small errors in obscure footnotes in the past, he doesn’t believe his handling of the article falls short of his own standards. ‘I am not the author in this case. I’m the editor.’”
Great source there guys.
Glenn Beck’s cry in the darkeness! They are coming to take him away!!!!
From Beck’ radio show:
“Please don’t let this message fall on deaf ears. Please. I fear that there will come a time when I cannot say things that I am currently saying. I fear that it will come to television and to radio, and I will stop saying these things. Understand me clearly. Hear me now. If I ever stop saying these things, you will know why. Because I will have made a choice that I can only say certain things, and I haven’t lost all of the rights. But know that these things are true. And if you hear me stop saying these things, it’s because I can no longer say them to you. But hear them between the sentences. Hear them, please. I will be screaming them to you. ”
His imitation of an insane paranoid is very convincing!
Yeah, I wonder how many of those 75,000 employees Citigroup laid off had a contract. According to these executives contracts they could burn down the business and still get their bonuses for running a company into the ground. These are the same folks who demand tax cuts and an end to government handouts (for anyone other than the rich).
Being a major shareholder it’s a shame the government won’t demand this guy to be kicked out on his arse.
American_Way
Posted July 26, 2009 at 12:59 pm | Permalink
“I know exactly what the teabaggers are about,”
Unless you’ve been there – you don’t know squat. But claiming you do just shows ignorance.
“don’t want to pay their fair share.”
And what is their “fair share”?
How much is fair Pedant? Who decided?
——————————
You will NEVER hear the answer to that question from a Lib.
Fair Share means high taxes for SOMEBODY ELSE, and low or no taxes for themselves.
Doctors pretty much have free reign on defining what is a life-threatening condition.
I’m sure however, that reviewed with strict physiological guidelines and conditions at the time, the physicians were squirm with great discomfort about their decision.
******
Okay, since Nurse Kill-the-Mom is so sure of her diagnosis that she’s taking it to court, we’ll have a test of that theory.
Richard Lindzen
“Lindzen is a recipient of the American Meteorological Society’s Meisinger and Charney Awards, American Geophysical Union’s Macelwane Medal, and the Leo Prize from the Wallin Foundation in Goteborg, Sweden. He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), and the Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters, and was named Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Meteorological Society. He is a corresponding member of the NAS Committee on Human Rights, and a member of the United States National Research Council Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate. He was a consultant to the Global Modeling and Simulation Group at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, and a Distinguished Visiting Scientist at California Institute of Technology’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory”
You will NEVER hear the answer to that question from a Lib.
Fair Share means high taxes for SOMEBODY ELSE, and low or no taxes for themselves.
————————————————–
And the silence is deafening.
Fair Share means high taxes for SOMEBODY ELSE, and low or no taxes for themselves.
*****
Actually that’s false, JMax.
Polls showed that Americans were willing to pay higher taxes (during the Clinton Presidency) if the money was used to balance the budget and pay down the debt, which it did.
As for what is a “fair” rate, I would like to see rates where they were during the 60’s.
I would be willing to pay higher taxes myself if richer people also paid higher taxes.
The ‘jawless fish’ like cosmos rejects the statement because of the medium. Poor Professor Einstein who once wrote a theory regarding relativity on a napkin would have no chance with these two.
– Argumentum ad ignorantiam
Why is it that republicans who don’t really have two nickles to rub together always serving as apologists for rich republicans? I have never been able to figure that one out.
More and More Americans Killed in War
July 26, 2009
——————————————————————————–
DoD Identifies Army Casualty
The Department of Defense announced today the death of a soldier who was supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Spc. Herberth A. Berrios-Campos, 21, of Bealeton, Va., died July 24 in Salman Pak, Iraq, of injuries sustained from a non-combat related incident. He was assigned to the 1st Battalion 505th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division, Fort Bragg, N.C.
The circumstances surrounding the incident are under investigation.
O’Bama, When Will You Stop The Killing?
StevenEDavis
Posted July 27, 2009 at 12:53 pm | Permalink
Why is it that republicans who don’t really have two nickles to rub together always serving as apologists for rich republicans? I have never been able to figure that one out.
———————————————
Could it possibly be that they don’t see success and wealth as something evil?
“Yeah, I wonder how many of those 75,000 employees Citigroup laid off had a contract.”
WOnder all you want, unless you have an answer, and know if their contract guaranteed them not getting laid off.
“According to these executives contracts they could burn down the business and still get their bonuses for running a company into the ground.”
Umm, read the article. Hall was head of a division that MADE money, he obviously did not run it into the ground.
Note: I am not in overall disagreement with you on executive compensation. However, the government has no right to come in and arbitrarily change a contract, just because in their mind….it stinks.
When Bush gave people a tax cut, most people preferred to keep taxes where they were and pay down the debt.
Nevermind, Bush cut taxes mainly on the rich and eliminate 1.8 TRILLION dollars in the stroke of a pen.
That’s almost double what we need to insure everyone in the United States with health care.
Oh, yeah, and the surplus evaporated and the national debt doubled.
Helluva job, Brownie.
Aggie, with regard to the Lindzen article, you sure went to a lot of trouble to accuse a website with a right wing bias of having a right wing bias. OK. lets say that it does. What then? It certainly isn’t some wacko site.
I also notice you have little to say about Lindzen himself. And as if a Lindzen article would ever appear on a website with a left wing bias.
So anyway, nice try.
Well, not really.
“As for what is a “fair” rate, I would like to see rates where they were during the 60’s.”
You mean where the government could take 87% of someones income? That’s real nice of you
All this talk about obama and taxes.
Review the following…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeYscnFpEyA
AmWay speculates: “I smell a democrat rat….
“‘Infectious Diseases Study Site Questioned
Tornado Alley May Not Be Safe, GAO Says’”
Uh huh. And you know that this GAO is now questioning the site in Manhattan because of the actions of a Democrat how? Particularly since the biggest noise objecting to locating the lab in Kansas comes from that blue state Texas.
And you speculate that I argue just for the sake of argument.
Your partisan speculation is baseless.
CapnAmerica
Posted July 27, 2009 at 12:52 pm | Permalink
Fair Share means high taxes for SOMEBODY ELSE, and low or no taxes for themselves.
*****
Actually that’s false, JMax.
Polls showed that Americans were willing to pay higher taxes (during the Clinton Presidency) if the money was used to balance the budget and pay down the debt, which it did.
As for what is a “fair” rate, I would like to see rates where they were during the 60’s.
I would be willing to pay higher taxes myself if richer people also paid higher taxes.
———————————
Ok, tell me then, specifically, what is the FAIR SHARE Tax Rate for:
1. The rich. How much income = rich?
2. The middle class. How much income = middle class?
3. The poor. How much income = poor?
Those poor put-upon millionaires…. sniff sniff..
“Nevermind, Bush cut taxes mainly on the rich and eliminate 1.8 TRILLION dollars in the stroke of a pen”
Per year? Per decade? Per what? Pleas show your work
I work ten hours a day. Six of them are for taxes to the government in one form or another . . .
BS. Total BS.
Federal and state taxes are by far the biggest tax you’ve got and that’s probably only about 30 percent of your total gross.
No way you’re paying 30 percent of gross for prop tax and car tags, unless you bought one helluva house and car.
My favorite rich people stories have to do with the handful of billionaires whose incredibly vast holdings may take a hit from inheritance taxes. They spend many millions of dollars annually lobbying Congress. They have even convinced normal people that there is a “Death Tax” that may affect them.
Totally bogus, totally “Masters of the Universe” stuff.
“In honor of the American soldier, stop making stuff up.”
Freebird1971
Posted July 27, 2009 at 12:55 pm | Permalink
StevenEDavis
Posted July 27, 2009 at 12:53 pm | Permalink
Why is it that republicans who don’t really have two nickles to rub together always serving as apologists for rich republicans? I have never been able to figure that one out.
———————————————
Could it possibly be that they don’t see success and wealth as something evil?
————————————–
Could it be that,
1. When they were 18 and just starting out, they recognized the reward they would get for working their way through college; working their way up the ladder in a company or the military, or forming a company of their own, or gaining a the skills needed to become an independent contractor (skilled trades, mechanics, engineers, doctors, lawyers, other professional occupations), and having the expectation that what you sow you are also able to reap?
2. They recognize the highly progressive tax structure already in place today where the top 1% of wage earners pay 40% of the income tax; the top 5% of wage earners pay 60% of the income tax; the top 10% of wage earners pay 71% of the income tax; the top 25% of wage earners pay 86% of the income tax; and the top 50% of wage earners pay 97% of the income tax?
Libs, what is the FAIR SHARE?
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/06in05tr.xls
soldevvb posted July 27, 2009 at 12:37 pm
Natural climate factors alone do not explain the observed data.
So sayeth the warmomger alarmists.
———————-
No. . . so sayeth the observed data.
Outlander misses the point. Top flight peer reviewed publications do not publish articles based on whether the research results or review favors one political ideology or another.
Quadrant does. Because they do, they got scammed by someone who wrote an article on a scientific topic that comformed with their bias.
That’s reality.
As for the troll Regular. Einstein may have first wrote his relativity (or special relativity) theory on a napkin, but that’s not where he published it. Your example is irrelevant.
And your charge of argumentum ad igorantium is false. While Quandrant’s sloppy vetting of articles of a scientific nature does not automatically invalidate any particular article, the fact that they are more concerned with publishing articles that agree with their editorial bias than with fact checking should elicit skepticism from any fair minded person. If one can predict that any article or editorial on global warming published in Quadrant will be promote the “skeptics” line because of the editorial board’s political bias, then the logical conclusion is that “here you will not find objective information on this topic.” And that’s a fact.
Now, no more soup for you.
outlander,
Aren’t you going to respond to my earlier post?
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2009/07/open-thread-727-3/comment-page-3/#comment-625579
“Why did this happen? Because Quadrant has a right wing editorial bias, and in the case of the example above, that bias was used to sting the editor of Quadrant.” AGNATHA
______________
What do you expect from someone from the far left.
Please answer the question: What is a FAIR SHARE from the right wing point of view…
To put it another way. The reason why the information about Quadrant getting scammed is relevant is not to “prove” the the article quoted is false or misleading, but to bring up this salient point:
If this logic and information in this article/editorial is so compelling, why was it necessary for the author to publish it in Quadrant?
#
cosmos_originally
Posted July 27, 2009 at 1:11 pm | Permalink
soldevvb posted July 27, 2009 at 12:37 pm
Natural climate factors alone do not explain the observed data.
So sayeth the warmomger alarmists.
———————-
No. . . so sayeth the observed data.
________________
No…. so sayeth the computer models from the cherry picked data.
“What do you expect from someone from the far left.”
Devoid of any content except ad hominem through attempted political labeling.
Re: donndublin
DNFTT
Cosmos: Why would I want to do that? Then I’d have to listen to your same predictable arguments, which you seem to never tire of, but just bore the stuffing out of me.
No, it’s best if I just let Dr. Lindzen’s article stand on it’s own merit. And it has a lot.
The ‘jawless fish’ purports that logical conclusion derives from fluffing the pillows of asymmetrical pigeonholing.
Regular posted July 27, 2009 at 12:53 pm
The ‘jawless fish’ like cosmos rejects the statement because of the medium.
—————–
No, I reject Dr. Lindzen’s opinions because he does not any science to support them.
Multi-tasking and not proof-reading. ..
“No, I reject Dr. Lindzen’s opinions because he does not have any science to support them.”
DavidB
Posted July 27, 2009 at 1:14 pm | Permalink
Please answer the question: What is a FAIR SHARE from the right wing point of view…
=====================================
Oh I have, and will again if you like, but Phantom was the one complaining the Rich are not paying their Fair Share.
I’ve never seen a Lib answer this question.
Can you?
#
cosmos_originally
Posted July 27, 2009 at 1:19 pm | Permalink
No, I reject Dr. Lindzen’s opinions because he does not any science to support them.
=============================
cosmos struggles with making a complete sentence.
Ok, tell me then, specifically, what is the FAIR SHARE Tax Rate for:
1. The rich. How much income = rich?
2. The middle class. How much income = middle class?
3. The poor. How much income = poor?
******
Household income distribution
POOR
Bottom 30%
$0 to $30,000
MIDDLE CLASS
31% to Top 5%
over 30,000 to 167,000
WELL OFF
Top 5% to Top 1.5%
over 167,000 to 250,000
RICH
Top 1.5% and above
250,000 and above
Agnatha
Posted July 27, 2009 at 1:17 pm | Permalink
“What do you expect from someone from the far left.”
Devoid of any content except ad hominem through attempted political labeling.
————–
That’s exactly what Agnatha did with a diarrhea of words.
The Top
1% pay 40% of the income tax. What is the Fair Share?
5% pay 60% of the income tax. What is the Fair Share?
10% pay 71% of the income tax. What is the Fair Share?
25% pay 86% of the income tax. What is the Fair Share?
50% pay 97% of the income tax. What is the Fair Share?
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/06in05tr.xls
They recognize the highly progressive tax structure already in place today where the top 1% of wage earners pay 40% of the income tax; the top 5% of wage earners pay 60% of the income tax; the top 10% of wage earners pay 71% of the income tax; the top 25% of wage earners pay 86% of the income tax; and the top 50% of wage earners pay 97% of the income tax?
******
This is a total canard.
What if the total amount of money the government collects is 100 dollars?
The top 50 percent of wage earners have to pay . . . OMGosh! 97 dollars of it! That averages out to less than two dollars per percentage point.
Oh, the humanity!
*****
What matters is not the percentage collected from which group, but the totals PAID from which group.
Agnatha
Posted July 27, 2009 at 1:11 pm | Permalink
Outlander misses the point. Top flight peer reviewed publications do not publish articles based on whether the research results or review favors one political ideology or another.
————
Ahem… Aggie, it’s an opinion piece.
And what is it with you and Cosmos and soup? Is it like a soup club or something? Or are you stuck in a time warp with the old Seinfeld episodes?
CapnAmerica
Posted July 27, 2009 at 1:23 pm | Permalink
Ok, tell me then, specifically, what is the FAIR SHARE Tax Rate for:
1. The rich. How much income = rich?
2. The middle class. How much income = middle class?
3. The poor. How much income = poor?
******
Household income distribution
POOR
Bottom 30%
$0 to $30,000
———————————-
The bottom 50% earn <$31,987.
I agree, call them poor. What tax rate should they pay?
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/06in05tr.xls
outlander posted July 27, 2009 at 1:18 pm
Cosmos: Why would I want to do that?
——————
outlander,
You obviously would NOT want to respond to my earlier post.
——-
Please list the scientists who agree with the AGW theory, AND who also argue that the Earth has had a “static, unchanging climate” in the past.
Then explain how past natural climate variations refute the AGW theory.
——-
You would fail at both points, and prove that your copy/paste from Dr. Lindzen is a fatally flawed opinion column.
#
cosmos_originally
Posted July 27, 2009 at 1:20 pm | Permalink
Multi-tasking and not proof-reading. ..
“No, I reject Dr. Lindzen’s opinions because he does not have any science to support them.”
____________
cosMo is the “Nick Stokes” of WE blog. A make believe scientist who thinks he knows more than a MIT Climatologist.
CosMo must have gotten his PHD from the Peking school of propaganda.
Conservatives are so silly in their effort to appear to be serfs laboring for their noble masters. They pine for the old days when they’d fight over scraps and put their lives on the line to defend their landlord’s wealth. The modern ones are much worse, they actually believe that by scraping and bowing they’ll grovel their way out of their serfdom.
So naive, I suppose we should pat the little children on the head and tell them the fairy tale books read to them as as children are really true. That way they’ll sleep at night with a smile on their faces.
MIDDLE CLASS
31% to Top 5%
over 30,000 to 167,000
——————————–
Not sure where you found the 31% and top 5%. What are these figures?
I would say:
Poor is <$30,000
donndublin,
Help the “MIT Climatologist”.
List the scientists who agree with the AGW theory, AND who also argue that the Earth has had a “static, unchanging climate” in the past.
Then explain how past natural climate variations refute the AGW theory.
cosMo, you would fail at both points, and prove that your unscientific biased opinion is from a fatally flawed moron.
#
cosmos_originally
Posted July 27, 2009 at 1:36 pm | Permalink
donndublin,
Help the “MIT Climatologist”.
List the scientists who agree with the AGW theory, AND who also argue that the Earth has had a “static, unchanging climate” in the past.
Then explain how past natural climate variations refute the AGW theory.
==========================
cosmos is in his perpetual student mode. Trying to stay even in discussions by assigning homework.
A typical cosmos answer though – diversion.
1% pay 35% of their earned income and 15% of their unearned or investment income.
What is the Fair Share?
Answer: a helluva lot more than that. The National debt ballooned at the same time as Reagan cut taxes on the rich. In 1980, the top marginal tax rate was twice as high as it is now 70 percent instead of 35 percent.
In 1964 when we were paying down the national debt, the top rate was 77 percent.
What is a fair rate now?
Repeal the “capital gains” tax break that rewards people for investing instead of working.
Raise the top rates to at least 50 percent.
5% pay 60% of the income tax. What is the Fair Share?
10% pay 71% of the income tax. What is the Fair Share?
25% pay 86% of the income tax. What is the Fair Share?
50% pay 97% of the income tax. What is the Fair Share?
“Tax dollars equal my time. I work ten hours a day.”
Maybe it’’s just me. I don’t call answering the phone for your wife “work”.
Jimbo,
I figure as rich anyone who takes home 10+X what I do in any given year. I figure middle class as anyone from my income up to 10X. Anyone who makes less than me is dirt poor.
Liberals are so silly in their effort to appear to be serfs laboring for their noble masters who hide their wealth in multi-billion dollar trust funds while saying they only earn merger wages. They are slaves to the Kennedys, Rockefellers and the likes of Soros, Kerry, Gore, and Pelosi, who want to shut the doors on their elitist social clubs while claiming to be the Robin Hoods for the poor.
CapnAmerica
Posted July 27, 2009 at 1:39 pm | Permalink
1% pay 35% of their earned income and 15% of their unearned or investment income.
What is the Fair Share?
Answer: a helluva lot more than that.
—————————————–
I gave it a shot Capn. I thought you were brighter then most. You obviously are unable to answer the Fair Share question in any rational manner.
Have a nice day.
MPunk–
The difference is that under the old feudal system, the serfs didn’t have much, but what they had couldn’t be taken away.
Under our system, the rich capitalists have found that it’s much easier to rent slaves than to own them.
When an owned slave gets sick or lacks housing, you have to do something about it, same as you would for your car that breaks down.
But when you RENT your slaves, you just turn them out and get another one.
“The National debt ballooned at the same time as Reagan cut taxes on the rich.”
As I recall, governmental income increased as well, just nowhere near as fast as government spending
Fair share is whatever the dem. congress and pres. say it is. You lost, get over it.
Here’s the rest of the answer you left out, JMax.
What is a fair rate now?
Repeal the “capital gains” tax break that rewards people for investing instead of working.
Raise the top marginal rate to at least 50 percent.
“Then explain how past natural climate variations refute the AGW theory.” – cosMo
Is this suppose to be a trick question? I think even a third grader can explain that 99% of the “past natural climate variations refute the AGW theory” because man was too insignificant or absent over that past one million plus years.
“As I recall, governmental income increased as well”
Probably true . . . as the economy grows, more wealth is produced and therefore tax revenue goes up too, even if you cut taxes.
However, cutting taxes does NOT always produce economic growth. It has a spotty record at best. Clinton raised taxes and the economy grew, so did FDR.
CapnAmerica
Posted July 27, 2009 at 1:23 pm | Permalink
Ok, tell me then, specifically, what is the FAIR SHARE Tax Rate for:
1. The rich. How much income = rich?
2. The middle class. How much income = middle class?
3. The poor. How much income = poor?
******
Household income distribution
POOR
Bottom 30%
$0 to $30,000
MIDDLE CLASS
31% to Top 5%
over 30,000 to 167,000
WELL OFF
Top 5% to Top 1.5%
over 167,000 to 250,000
RICH
Top 1.5% and above
250,000 and above
===========================================
Unfortunately, your Income Amounts and Population Percentage Distributions (if THAT is what you were attempting) are not supported.
If you had wanted to deal with just dollars, that would have been meaningful.
There is no point in dealing with made up percentages.
#
CapnAmerica
Posted July 27, 2009 at 1:51 pm | Permalink
Here’s the rest of the answer you left out, JMax.
What is a fair rate now?
Repeal the “capital gains” tax break that rewards people for investing instead of working.
Raise the top marginal rate to at least 50 percent.
________________
Why not tax wealth instead of income? You know like trust funds.
That will be the day.
Phantom
Posted July 27, 2009 at 1:50 pm | Permalink
Fair share is whatever the dem. congress and pres. say it is. You lost, get over it.
————————————-
Another non-answer.
Your ignorance is now predictable, and frankly, boring.
donndublin
Posted July 27, 2009 at 1:57 pm | Permalink
#
CapnAmerica
Posted July 27, 2009 at 1:51 pm | Permalink
Here’s the rest of the answer you left out, JMax.
What is a fair rate now?
Repeal the “capital gains” tax break that rewards people for investing instead of working.
Raise the top marginal rate to at least 50 percent.
________________
Why not tax wealth instead of income? You know like trust funds.
That will be the day.
——————————–
Ahhh…like the Personal Property Tax which many states have.
Obama will have to steal wealth (assets) in some manner. There isn’t enough income to tax, to create the revenue needed for Obama’s exponentially growing Socialist Programs.
minutelady
Posted July 27, 2009 at 10:19 am | Permalink
You’re going to die, BlueJay.
You’re choice, go to your maker with the dignity of a life lived well or go begging and pleading with a government beurocrat for one more pill.
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If the government pays for one of your ‘rights’ it has to take away part of my freedom.
Tax dollars equal my time. I work ten hours a day. Six of them are for taxes to the government in one form or another, two of them are for insurance in one form or another. When my time is taken paying for taxes I can’t live my life in the pursuit of happiness. Taking my time to pay taxes equals taking my freedom.
You have a right to free speach. I don’t have to listen.
You have a right to ‘bear arms’. I don’t have to buy your ammo.
You don’t have a right to smoke and drink and get health care on my dime.
—————————————-
Being secure in one’s person and property is the very definition of Freedom. (At least that’s part of the argument made by the abortionists.)
I’m sure the arguments made in passing the 16th Amendment did NOT include discussions about tax rates getting anywhere close to 50% of income.
The 16th surely would NOT have been enacted if the future progressive tax rate implications were known at the time.
I don’t know what you mean by “made up percentages.”
Let’s say you had 100 kids and you wanted to grade them by how many push ups they could do.
The traditional “curve” method uses a Bell shaped distribution curve.
So the top 2 percent would be A’s, the second quintile or 16 percent would be B’s, the third quintile or 68 percent would be C’s, the fourth quintile again 16 percent would be D’s and the bottom quintile or 2 percent would be F’s.
That’s why I chose the top 1.5 percent as a safe bet for defining “rich.”
Wow, a 7% Top Tax Rate!
The first tax was delicate by today’s standards. After a whopping exemption on the first $4,000 of family income, the government took only one percent of the first $20,000, two percent at $50,000, and the highest rate was seven percent on incomes in excess of $500,000. These were all astronomical incomes in 1913, so it was only the very wealthy who paid any tax at all.
http://mwhodges.home.att.net/tax-history.htm
BTW, CONs–
How many guns has Obama confiscated from you?
I mean, so far?
He hasn’t taken any of my guns.
CapnAmerica
Posted July 27, 2009 at 2:11 pm | Permalink
BTW, CONs–
How many guns has Obama confiscated from you?
==============================================
He’s still alive, isn’t he?
CapnAmerica
Posted July 27, 2009 at 2:09 pm | Permalink
I don’t know what you mean by “made up percentages.”
—————————
You posted:
POOR
Bottom 30%
$0 to $30,000
————————————–
Fine, I agreed with your definition of Poor at <$30,000.
But this is not the bottom 30%.
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/06in06tr.xls
The bottom 50% earn <$31,987.
That’s why I said your percentages were messed up.
No need to make up the percentages, when dollar ranges would be satisfactory for discussion purposes.
Real life doesn’t always follow the curve.
You mean, Unlike Dr. Tiller and the members of the Universalist Church, Anti?
donndublin posted July 27, 2009 at 1:37 pm
cosMo, you would fail at both points,. . .
————–
Yes, I would. And so would Dr. Lindzen, outlander, and donndublin.
donndublin is extra “slow” today.
Who’s guns did Tiller try to confiscate?
CapnAmerica
Posted July 27, 2009 at 2:11 pm | Permalink
BTW, CONs–
How many guns has Obama confiscated from you?
———————————
The Democrat Senate just killed Nationwide Concealed Carry.
What’s next?
Capn’A,
What does Tiller and the Universalist Church have to do with gun confiscation?
It’s amazing that the basic math knowledge required to understand Federal taxes is lacking in most.
Publik Edukation!
I remember a basic Economics class in High School, where Federal tax structure was taught. Of course those were the horse and buggy days.
Certainly in college Econ101 this is taught in more detail, or it used to be.
You didn’t have National Concealed Carry under Bush and the RepubliCONs either.
Not relevant.
How many guns has he confiscated?
How many has he outlawed?
What now can’t you do gun-wise that you used to be able to do under Bush?
Whose guns did Tiller try to confiscate?
Certainly not Roeder’s.
Heigh ho.
Capn’A,
I noticed you have created a distraction.
I guess Jay Jay is calling for immediate, unconditional withdrawal of all US troops from Iraq, based on his rantings about troop casualties.
Sounds kinda cut and run-ish. Or are these just more pointless hand grenades thrown into the dance?
And he still hasn’t laid out his tax proposals and “fair share” guidelines. He just throws more grenades, hoping to hit something.
Anti–
You said, “Obama is still alive.”
Which could easily be interpreted as “As long as Obama is alive, he poses a threat to the 2nd Amendment.”
Which could be further interpreted as “If you love the Constitution, you have to protect it from people like Obama by whacking them.”
Don’t play dumb.
ANTI
Posted July 27, 2009 at 2:23 pm | Permalink
Capn’A,
I noticed you have created a distraction.
—————
Ya think?
DavidB
Posted July 27, 2009 at 2:23 pm | Permalink
I guess Jay Jay is calling for immediate, unconditional withdrawal of all US troops from Iraq, based on his rantings about troop casualties.
Sounds kinda cut and run-ish. Or are these just more pointless hand grenades thrown into the dance?
And he still hasn’t laid out his tax proposals and “fair share” guidelines. He just throws more grenades, hoping to hit something.
————————————-
I’ll show ya mine if you show me yours.
“And he still hasn’t laid out his tax proposals and ‘fair share’ guidelines. He just throws more grenades, hoping to hit something.”
Actually, if JJ is the poster formerly known as Max/Max Grobnik, as I suspect he is, he laid out a tax proposal. I just don’t think it will make much of a difference in terms of the percentage of revenues collected.
This is persistent theme with JJ, the percentage of taxes collected. However, it is an apple and oranges comparison. The top 50%, he11 the top 10%, have many times more income than the bottom 50%. The percentage of revenue collected is going to be in the upper percentages because that is where the money/taxable income is. One person at the very top of 1% is going to pay more than hundreds, indeed perhaps thousands, of people in the bottom 1%, and indeed up to 50+ times more than a person at the bottom end of the top 1%.
As I have said before, I don’t think we need to be cutting taxes for ANYBODY.
Obama has said:
1. He supports a new Assault Weapons Ban.
2. He does not support the right to carry.
Of course, why should one believe what he says?
Oh, and let’s not forget how Obama TWICE voted against legislation allowing one to defend themself in their own home with firearms.
Put another way, looking at the top percentages of wage earners and the amount of revenue collected from a given percentage is not a way to assess “fairness” in a tax code.
To go back to the example I gave, a person at the top end of the top 1% will contribute many times the amount into the federal treasury as a person at the bottom end of the top 1%, and that amount will have far less impact on top person’s personal economy than the bottom person’s personal economy (that is, the person’s ability to meet his/her needs and wants).
JMax–
You claim I didn’t answer your question when I did.
Who’s rich and what is their fair share?
The rich, who make over 250K a year, should pay a top marginal rate of 50 (Up 15 percent from now) and the capital gains tax break should be eliminated.
As for your contention that 50 percent of households make less than 30,000 a year, I didn’t see it in your link.
Also, that is a distraction, because that’s not what you asked.
CapnAmerica
Posted July 27, 2009 at 2:26 pm | Permalink
Anti–
You said, “Obama is still alive.”
Which could easily be interpreted as “As long as Obama is alive, he poses a threat to the 2nd Amendment.”
Which could be further interpreted as “If you love the Constitution, you have to protect it from people like Obama by whacking them.”
Don’t play dumb.
=======================================
Nope.
That’s your interpretation.
What now can’t you do gun-wise that you used to be able to do under Bush?
__________________
Buy ammo at a reasonable price.
To understand Barack Obama on the Second Amendment, you have to know about the clash of character between the then-Chicago state senator and an ordinary citizen who exercised his right to armed self-defense in violation of a local gun ban.
That citizen was a 52-year-old resident of Wilmette, Illinois, who, on Dec. 28, 2003, woke to find that, during the night, his home had been invaded by a career criminal; a thief who stole household items, keys and the homeowner’s car.
The victim, Hale DeMar, described his fear in a letter to the Chicago Sun- Times: “For me, the seconds until I found my children still safely tucked in their beds were horrifying . . . The police were called and in routine fashion they came, took the report and with little concern left, promising to increase surveillance. Little comfort, since the invader now had keys to our home and our automobiles. The police informed me that this was not an uncommon event in east Wilmette and offered their condolences . . .” Not 24 hours after the first burglary, the thief returned. Using DeMar’s house keys, the man entered the home, this time setting off the alarm system, automatically notifying the security company. Given the previous night’s lackluster response by police, DeMar was prepared, armed with a handgun–legally purchased years before and kept in a safe. But under Wilmette’s gun ban, that firearm in the home was illegal.
DeMar confronted the criminal, and believing his children were in danger, shot the burglar, who then fled the home.
“Until you are shocked by a piercing alarm in the middle of the night and met in your kitchen by a masked invader as your children shudder in their beds, until you confront that very real nightmare, please don’t suggest that some village trustee knows better “ “If my actions have spared only one family from the distress and trauma that this habitual criminal has caused hundreds of others, then I have served my civic duty and taken one evil creature off of our streets, something that our impotent criminal justice system had failed to do, despite some thirty odd arrests, plea bargains and suspended sentences.” The burglar, who was arrested after driving DeMar’s stolen SUV to a hospital, had an extensive criminal record.
Cook County prosecutors ultimately declared DeMar’s use of a firearm to be justified.
But Wilmette village officials pressed nonetheless to prosecute him for illegal possession of his handgun–a charge punishable by a huge fine and jail time. A town official was quoted in Reason magazine saying, “We need to set the example that we’re trying to protect our citizens.” And he said, DeMar–by possessing a legally purchased handgun–”is endangering innocent civilians.” The outcry of the Illinois public was heard all the way to the state capitol.
As a result, the Illinois House and Senate passed legislation in May 2004 to protect citizens who use handguns in self-defense in their homes or businesses despite local handgun bans.
The House accepted the DeMar selfdefense bill by a vote of 86-25 and the Senate moved the legislation on a 38-20 vote.
And here lies the seminal moment for state Senator Barack Obama. When Obama turned thumbs down on the bill, he voted against the most basic element of the Second Amendment– the right of defense of self and family– the reason that millions of Americans own firearms.
When the governor vetoed the bill, Obama once again voted against a citizen’s right to self-defense.
Despite his vote, the veto override passed the Senate and the House by overwhelming majorities, thereby enacting this bill into law.
Now, fast forward to today’s slippery oratory of U.S. Sen. Barack Obama just three years from being an unknown state senator–now morphed by the media into a spellbinding U.S. senator seeking to be president of the United States.
Using words like “protecting sportsmen,” Obama is now saying that he believes in the Second Amendment “ but with almost universal exceptions, all of which he lists under the heading of “common sense gun safety laws.” “Common sense gun safety” and the Second Amendment? Like endorsing the D.C. gun ban, which outlaws armed self-defense in the home–now being challenged before the U.S. Supreme Court. Obama, who as president would be in the position to nominate justices to that high court, has declared that the D.C. ban doesn’t violate the Second Amendment.
“Common sense gun safety” and the Second Amendment? In a “1998 National Political Awareness Test,” he pledged to support a “Ban [on] the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons”–meaning most handguns and many rifles and shotguns that you and I own.
“Common sense gun safety” and the Second Amendment? Like demanding that the federal government preempt the 40 hard-won state laws creating Right-to-Carry.
Here’s how the Chicago Tribune put it: “Obama said he opposed allowing ordinary citizens to carry concealed weapons and that a federal law banning concealed carried weapons except for law enforcement is needed.” “Common sense gun safety” and the Second Amendment? Like the draconian proposals funded to the tune of $18,000,000 by the rabidly anti-gun Joyce Foundation while Obama was an activist member of its board of directors.
Obama’s alleged support of the Second Amendment is utterly cynical and false. Barack Obama is not for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms; he’s out to destroy it.
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?id=286&issue=042
“capital gains tax break should be eliminated.”
Simply put, why?
Just like the Republicans in Congress.. JJ as lots of loaded questions, but no answers.
All hat, no cows.
In answer to Helen Thomas’s question about reinstating the ban, Gibbs said, “Obviously, we, while we were overseas last week, were surprised and shocked at the news at what had happened in New York. … That’s one of the reasons that increased money to hire more police officers as in the Recovery Act. I was asked specifically about assault weapons. I think the president would — the president believes there are other strategies we can take to enforce the laws that are already on our books.”
This new position is in direct contrast to an ABC News story in late February that Obama was seeking a new assault weapons ban. Last night on CBS News Attorney General Eric Holder said that he looks forward to working with the NRA, and would not endorse bringing back the assault weapons ban.
http://www.politicususa.com/en/Obama-Assault-Weapons-Ban
Poor BlueJay,
Half the liberals consider you an embarassment and you think that half the conservative posters are all one person posting under different nics for no other reason than to annoy you!
Strange little sad world you live in.
You’re still going to die.
Agnatha
Posted July 27, 2009 at 2:35 pm | Permalink
Put another way, looking at the top percentages of wage earners and the amount of revenue collected from a given percentage is not a way to assess “fairness” in a tax code.
To go back to the example I gave, a person at the top end of the top 1% will contribute many times the amount into the federal treasury as a person at the bottom end of the top 1%, and that amount will have far less impact on top person’s personal economy than the bottom person’s personal economy (that is, the person’s ability to meet his/her needs and wants).
————————–
Ok, let’s clarify your ‘example’.
If I make $1,000,000, then how many dollars should I pay in taxes?
If I make $250,000, then how many dollars should I pay in taxes?
If I make $100,000, then how many dollars should I pay in taxes?
If I make $75,000, then how many dollars should I pay in taxes?
If I make $50,000, then how many dollars should I pay in taxes?
If I make $25,000, then how many dollars should I pay in taxes?
LJ–
If you paint your neighbor’s house and you get 3,000 dollars for it, you have to pay 18-35 percent tax depending on your income.
However, if you make 3,000 dollars from investing in Halliburton before Bush hired them to run the Iraq War, you’d pay at most 15 percent.
Why should the man working for his money be charged at a higher rate than the man who just plops money into a fund?
It’s unfair.
(Since it’s not fair, and too complicated to talk percentages, I presented dollars.)
JMax–
I’m not gonna do all your work for you.
First tell me how much those earners pay now.
#
DavidB
Posted July 27, 2009 at 2:42 pm | Permalink
Just like the Republicans in Congress.. JJ as lots of loaded questions, but no answers.
All hat, no cows.
————
All hat, no cattle.
Greenhorn.
CapnAmerica
Posted July 27, 2009 at 2:46 pm | Permalink
LJ–
If you paint your neighbor’s house and you get 3,000 dollars for it, you have to pay 18-35 percent tax depending on your income.
However, if you make 3,000 dollars from investing in Halliburton before Bush hired them to run the Iraq War, you’d pay at most 15 percent.
Why should the man working for his money be charged at a higher rate than the man who just plops money into a fund?
It’s unfair.
———————–
I agree. Let’s have a flat tax on all income above $25,000/year. If you earn <$25,000/yr, you pay zero tax.
And let’s tax certain tax-exempt income too, like municipal bonds. Look at the Kerry’s for example, and how Theresa Heinz Kerry earned something like $500,000/yr in tax free municipal bond income!
The ritch btich should have to pay taxes like everybody else.
CapnAmerica
Posted July 27, 2009 at 2:48 pm | Permalink
JMax–
I’m not gonna do all your work for you.
First tell me how much those earners pay now.
—————————-
No, you can determine the Fair Share. What’s your opinion?
Yep, I’m a danged city slicker.
I have never seen a Greenhorn cow. Is it a breed like Black Angus? ;-)
“However, if you make 3,000 dollars from investing in Halliburton before Bush hired them to run the Iraq War, you’d pay at most 15 percent”
Why not just answer the question, instead of bring politics into it? I didn;t support Bush, or Halliburton. Just another way to bring Bush up as a distraction? Or somehow paint people who actually save and invest money with the Same Brush?
Ok, let’s clarify your ‘example’.
If I make $1,000,000, then how many dollars should I pay in taxes?
If I make $250,000, then how many dollars should I pay in taxes?
If I make $100,000, then how many dollars should I pay in taxes?
If I make $75,000, then how many dollars should I pay in taxes?
If I make $50,000, then how many dollars should I pay in taxes?
If I make $25,000, then how many dollars should I pay in taxes?
(Psssst…I can’t make this any simpler for you. Now you ask me to form your opinion for you? Dang! Socialists now want others to think for them too!)
“Why should the man working for his money be charged at a higher rate than the man who just plops money into a fund?
It’s unfair.”
TO continue the nonpartisan dialogue, why is unfair? If I invest money, and 10 years of inflation take that value and double it, and it is not really worth any more than the day I invested it, why should I pay any tax on it? That isn;t fair!
“Why should the man working for his money be charged at a higher rate than the man who just plops money into a fund?
It’s unfair.”
TO continue the nonpartisan dialogue, why is unfair? If I invest money, and 10 years of inflation take that value and double it, and it is not really worth any more than the day I invested it, why should I pay any tax on it? That isn;t fair!
If I invest money, and 10 years of inflation take that value and double it, and it is not really worth any more than the day I invested it, why should I pay any tax on it? That isn;t fair!
*****
Then the rate of inflation which is calculated by the CPI consumer price index should be figured in and the gross profit reduced by an equal amount.
That’s not an argument I’ve heard used in favor of low capital gains taxes, btw.
Usually, it’s “low gains taxes equals money for productive companies” or some such other excuse to justify welfare for the rich.
“JimJohnson” asks –
“If I make $1,000,000, then how many dollars should I pay in taxes?”
Nothing at all!
Because the day you make a million dollars everyone will go out and sit on a hill and welcome Jesus back to earth.
“Federal and state taxes are by far the biggest tax you’ve got and that’s probably only about 30 percent of your total gross.” (Capn)
_______________
I don’t know who this was in response to, but it’s a common misconception that politicians count on. You’re partially right, in that federal/state income taxes are usually a person’s highest direct tax, but of course you need to add to that the FICA/Medicare tax (7.65%) plus the employer match and employer paid state/fed unemployment insurance premiums as opportunity cost, ie, money that could be spent on employees.
But after you’ve been taxed directly with fed/state income & FICA/Med taxes, what’s most often overlooked is the indirect taxes. Harder to pin a number on these, however you pay them all with your “after tax” paycheck:
Inflation
Sales Tax
Vehicle Property Tax/Tags
Home Property Tax
State/Fed Fuel Excise Tax
Alcohol/Tobacco Excise Tax
Various Taxes on your landline/cell phone bill
Various Taxes on your utility bills
Airline ticket taxes
Rental car taxes
Motel taxes
Show/Concert ticket taxes
Corporate taxes passed through on retail prices
Import tariffs passed through on retail prices
Licensing fees (CPA, teacher, doctor, etc)
Etc, etc, etc, etc
The amount of taxes you pay, all depend on what choices you make with your purchases.
“Then the rate of inflation which is calculated by the CPI consumer price index should be figured in and the gross profit reduced by an equal amount.”
it’s not now, nor has it ever been.
“justify welfare for the rich.”
Welfare for the rich is them keeping their own money? Perhaps you need a new difinition of welfare.
Saving and ivnesting should be encouraged. Give it a better tax break, okay by me? Same as investing in munie bonds tax free, or do you disagree with that also? Or investing in renewable energy sources or energy savings for the home gets a tax break, or do you object to those also?
Quite using code words and get down to real discussion, why not?
Why should the man working for his money be charged at a higher rate than the man who just plops money into a fund?
_____________________________________
Well, if I ‘plop’ money into stocks it’s money I’ve already paid income tax on. That money is then at risk. Obama or some other pacifist could get elected and I could lose my shirt on Haliburton stock!
It’s not a matter of how much tax one pays that matters, in my opinion.
It’s what you (and the nation as a whole) gets in return for those taxes that is important.
A recent essay by and American who moved to the Netherlands was shocked when he found 52% of his pay was deducted for various taxes. But as the year went by, he discovered the benefits of a state dedicated to providing benefits and services to the citizens..
He seemed to think 52% was pretty fair!
“That’s not an argument I’ve heard used in favor of low capital gains taxes, btw.”
It’s been stated often. Perhaps you chose not to hear because the messsenger was one of the eeeevil rich?
“DFB” —
Please print and clip your list –
Sales Tax
Vehicle Property Tax/Tags
Home Property Tax
State/Fed Fuel Excise Tax
Alcohol/Tobacco Excise Tax
Various Taxes on your landline/cell phone bill
Various Taxes on your utility bills
Airline ticket taxes
Rental car taxes
Motel taxes
Show/Concert ticket taxes
Corporate taxes passed through on retail prices
Import tariffs passed through on retail prices
Licensing fees (CPA, teacher, doctor, etc)
Etc, etc, etc, etc”
For the next time a discussion touches on the Earned Income Tax Credit and CONs bellyache about people who “don’t pay taxes.”
You CONs really need to get your lies straight.
Hoo boy . . . okay here goes:
Married filing jointly
35 percent over 372,950
So 1 million in earned income would mean 627050 taxed at .35 or roughly 220,000 on that portion.
Then 33 percent on the 208,850 to 372,950 portion or 164000 x .33 or 54,000 on that portion.
Then 28 percent on the 137,050 to 208,850 portion or 71,800 x .28 or 15,000.
And from there it hardly matters but it’s roughly 20,000 on the bit from 137 K down.
*****
So, this household would owe on a gross earned income of 1 million somewhere in the neighborhood of 309,000 or about a 31 tax rate.
Of course, in real life, a millionaire would probably have zillions of tax dodges like writing the yacht off as a business expense with depreciation etc. And there’s the ultra low capital gains tax and most of the millionaire’s income would probably fall under that category.
But, ignoring all that . . . what would a fair tax be?
I think it should go back at least to the tax rate of 1998 when the tax rate was sufficient to pay down the national debt. The highest rate was 39.6 instead of 35 now. Also no special cap gains rate IIRC.
So this hypothetical millionaire household should pay 5 to 15 percent more than it does now based on most recent “best practices.”
I personally a better model would be 1980 when the top marginal rate was not Clinton’s but JFK-LBJ-Nixon-Carter’s 50 percent rate.
Until gov’t spending can be brought under control, and that means healthcare under Medicare and the 51 percent of our tax dollars we spend militarizing the world, tax rates cannot be reduced.
“Of course, in real life, a millionaire would probably have zillions of tax dodges like writing the yacht off as a business expense with depreciation etc.”
Kinda like the average Joe writing off the interest on his travel trailer as a “second home”
“And there’s the ultra low capital gains tax and most of the millionaire’s income would probably fall under that category”
Youi mean like getting a tax break for investing in GREEN technology?
Now they’re getting ready to clamp down on those poor misunderstood derivatives! Boohoo, don’t pick on the rich and famous.
http://www.energyideas.org/
Wrong link:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090727/bs_nm/us_congress_derivatives_5
Oops correction:
In 1960, under Eisenhower, the top rate was 91 percent.
JFK-LBJ reduced that to 77 percent in 1964 and down to 70 percent in 1965. (The Act JFK supported reduced it.)
Bush said it was ‘our money’ and we should have it returned to us in more tax cuts. I say “It’s our debt, and we should get busy paying down on it, even if it means tax hikes.
The Borrow-Goers, only see the first point however.
Because the day you JMax make a million dollars everyone will go out and sit on a hill and welcome Jesus back to earth.
ROFLOL! Dude, ain’t that the truth.
precamplaysia is life threatening particularly to the mother……………to simple casearean will solve……………………i agree abortion will also but not required to save the “life” of the mother……..abortion simply kills the child
A dollar has no memory of whether it was paid as compensation for labor, or investment. It should be taxed the same.
to simple= a simple
The day JJ makes a million dollars is the day that groceries will cost him 250k a week!
“51 percent of our tax dollars we spend militarizing the world, tax rates cannot be reduced.”
Better check your figures again.
Total National Defense: 565,309 (in millions)
Total federal budget . 2,140,528 (in millions)
(without Social Security)
Doesn;t look like 51% to me
Income security (not counting social security)
$399,313 (in millions)
capn…..read up on precamplaysia……..you might learn something……….oops, i take that back
Health, not including Medicare
$312,320 In millions
It only began July the 24th and this is the 27th.
SO, it is early to know for sure.
But according to Wichita area car dealers at least, the cash for clunkers program is a PHENOMENAL success!!
The money was allocated through Nov. 1 and appears to already be running out after not 3 days. An extension and further investment would seem not only indicated but mandated.
Older cars get off the roads.
The economy is stimulated by the purchase of new cars in a bad economy.
I don’t think the cons make much of a case against that.
Phantom–
Yes, indeed.
Saying that “you already paid taxes on investments” because you already paid income taxes on the money you invest is to say that the car mechanic shouldn’t have to pay income taxes on the money you paid him because you already paid income taxes on it when you made the income.
Dumb.
You paid taxes on the money you invest, yes. But you didn’t pay taxes on the PROFITS you make until you take them.
And btw, if you lose money when you sell, you can deduct that from your income as a loss and reduce your tax liability.
So according to Minutelady, you shouldn’t be able to deduct that loss because “you already paid taxes on it.”
Wichihick–
No matter how much I read, I won’t know more than the doctors treating the case.
That’s why I pay people like them to treat my health care problems.
Not you.
Total Outlays (Federal Funds): $2,650 billion
MILITARY: 54% and $1,449 billion
NON-MILITARY: 46% and $1,210 billion
http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm
I’m guessing ‘War Resisters’ are probably a bit biased.
That 596 billion that LJ cited probably refers to “current military.”
That doesn’t include the cost of Iraq and Afghanistan, past military costs, military costs in other budgets, and interest on the debt for military debt.
Obama slammed as ‘racist’ at Jerusalem rally
‘This insolence will bring about the downfall of the American leadership’
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=105173
Israel is entitled to extremists, too.
but capn you know everything except when somebody asks you a question………..this lady did not want to assist in performing a late term abortion …………….you don’t want to answer the tax questions posed to you………….should we abort or fire you? ……..you jumped the lady,,,,,,,,,,,,now read up on precamplaysia…………….or are you acting stupidly?
CapnAmerica
Posted July 27, 2009 at 3:28 pm | Permalink
Hoo boy . . . okay here goes:
Married filing jointly
35 percent over 372,950
So 1 million in earned income would mean 627050 taxed at .35 or roughly 220,000 on that portion.
Then 33 percent on the 208,850 to 372,950 portion or 164000 x .33 or 54,000 on that portion.
Then 28 percent on the 137,050 to 208,850 portion or 71,800 x .28 or 15,000.
And from there it hardly matters but it’s roughly 20,000 on the bit from 137 K down.
*****
So, this household would owe on a gross earned income of 1 million somewhere in the neighborhood of 309,000 or about a 31 tax rate.
Of course, in real life, a millionaire would probably have zillions of tax dodges like writing the yacht off as a business expense with depreciation etc. And there’s the ultra low capital gains tax and most of the millionaire’s income would probably fall under that category.
But, ignoring all that . . . what would a fair tax be?
I think it should go back at least to the tax rate of 1998 when the tax rate was sufficient to pay down the national debt. The highest rate was 39.6 instead of 35 now. Also no special cap gains rate IIRC.
So this hypothetical millionaire household should pay 5 to 15 percent more than it does now based on most recent “best practices.”
————————–
Just to clarify:
15% more then $309,000 in taxes then would be $355,000.
$355,000 is the amount of taxes you think the person earning $1,000,000 should pay?
CapnAmerica
Posted July 27, 2009 at 4:03 pm | Permalink
Total Outlays (Federal Funds): $2,650 billion
MILITARY: 54% and $1,449 billion
NON-MILITARY: 46% and $1,210 billion
——————-
Oh we can cut out every military installation in Kansas if you like. Starting with McConnell – Let’s see how that would affect your lifestyle and redistributed tax base.
(chortles)
CapnAmerica
Posted July 27, 2009 at 4:09 pm | Permalink
That 596 billion that LJ cited probably refers to “current military.”
That doesn’t include the cost of Iraq and Afghanistan, past military costs, military costs in other budgets, and interest on the debt for military debt.
———————–
So that $1.5 Trillion the CBO guesses will be the 10-yr cost for ObamaCare, likely doesn’t include costs for Medicare and Medicaid, past costs, health care costs in other budgets, and interest on the debt for ObamaCare debt.
“It really hurt me to see all those beautiful (African-American) men in those prisons! They ought to be out there defending the masses!”
“Then I visited the prisoners, and all I gotta say is, ‘Thank Gawd for prisons!’ ”
“I asked ‘em, ‘Why did you kill all da people in da house?’ ”
“Dey wuz home,” the prisoners responded.”
Richard Pryor in one of his concert films
Oh, dear. I believe little Scottie Roeder is woefully misinformed about prison life. I believe he’s looking forward to martyrdom – the long, long road to martyrdom. He seems to regard prison life and/or sex as a cakewalk.
Oh, the little fellow.
The poor, poor little fellow…….
Jim is all questions and no answers,, just looking for an opening to launch an attack.
What is FAIR, Mr Johnson?
If I make $1,000,000, then how many dollars should I pay in taxes?
Capn says $355,000
If I make $250,000, then how many dollars should I pay in taxes?
If I make $100,000, then how many dollars should I pay in taxes?
If I make $75,000, then how many dollars should I pay in taxes?
If I make $50,000, then how many dollars should I pay in taxes?
If I make $25,000, then how many dollars should I pay in taxes?
Anybody else out there know what a Fair Share tax amount would be fore each of the income levels above?
Wichick-
What?
DavidB
Posted July 27, 2009 at 4:36 pm | Permalink
Jim is all questions and no answers,, just looking for an opening to launch an attack.
What is FAIR, Mr Johnson?
———————————-
You haven’t shown me your plan yet.
You Libs seem to know what is a Fair Share. Why don’t you give it a shot?
First of all, Scottie: Your addin’ and subtractin’ abilities match your moral abilities. In twenty-five years, you gonna be nearly 77 – not 71. And that’s the best case scenario.
Furthermore, twenty-five years of prison frolicking won’t do much for your joie de vivre. Do the names “Jeffrey Dahmer” and “John Geoghan” mean anything to you? They came to ignominious ends.
I shed no tears.
JimJ–
Typing real slow now.
Return top tax rates to what they were when we were paying down the debt instead of raising it.
That goes way back to 2000 . . . raise the top rate to 39.5 and cut the special taxes for cap gains.
Long question, simple answer.
Here’s a little admonition today: Our prisons are very, very overcrowded. Therefore, the security isn’t always the best.
And darling, there won’t be all that much you can do about it. H——-ing yourself to Shelley Shannon’s pics and/or fantasizing about rottweiler rutting won’t take you all that far.
Dude – you’re probably f—ed in the booties right about now (sorry for the inuendo there)….
I mean, you know ALL about that – since you’ve got two kiddies with a crapheap for a father figger and all…….
Not only that – but the abject, overweening ARROGANCE of domestic terrorists (regarding this or any other subject) is stultifying, I must say.
My goodness, I can see it now. Had I given birth 34 years ago, I can just see myself sayin’: “Dear, you’re alive because of one thing! The Pillsbury Doughboy offed my doctor! He dispatched him with a goo-wun! Praise Jeezuth and/or Saint Paul Hill!”
Holy s———……………..Is THAT a reason for bringing new life into the world or WHAT??? Is this part of the “respect life” – ALL life – credo?
That, a–wipe, is a disgrace. That’s even more vile than saying, “You’re alive ‘cuz I didn’t wanna cover my see-yun….”
Oh, help me Jesus (the REAL Jesus – whoever he is). The absurdities of this world – this cold, cruel world of ours – are sometimes overwhelming.
You really think domestic terrorism is going to “end abortion?”
Get real, Mr. Roeder. The truth is about to be visited upon your miserable excuse for a life.
And the big, bad b–ch (that’s me, not the prison b–ch you’re going to become) is going to explain it to you….
FilmFan,
I understand your frustration, but I don’t think Scottie has Internet access.
You, Mr. Roeder, are not 1) intelligent enough; 2) important enough; 3) compassionate enough; 4) non-hypocritical enough; 5) exemplary enough; and 6) omnipotent enough to effect any societal changes.
And now you’re about to find about just how icky prison life is going to be.
But don’t worry, darling. From one rape victim to another, I can share with you some sage wisdom my own attacker conveyed to me.
Even if it didn’t do s–t.
And I could even conjure up the name of a homosexual rock group from the 1980s (hint: the name “Hollywood” is included in there somewhere)……
It’ll be gross and disgusting, Scottie. But all is not lost. The FilmFan says, “Offer it up to gawd.”
Frankie says, “Relax.”
Speaking of POS’s;
Bicycles used by special-needs children stolen from Heartspring
http://www.kansas.com/news/breaking/story/907064.html
Oh, Anti: Encourage me in my innocence, won’t you please?
The mofo can make phone calls. He can receive (and send) letters. He can mind–ck the Wichita Eagle and/or CNN. He can mindmeld with his own intestines for all I know.
How can we be so sure he doesn’t have internet usage? Hell, they get everything else in jail. Even cable TV, from what I understand….
How can we be so sure he doesn’t have internet usage? Hell, they get everything else in jail. Even cable TV, from what I understand….
=========================
True enough….I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised.
My Grandfather used to tell stories of a time when prison was actually a punishment, that was a long time ago.
CapnAmerica
Posted July 27, 2009 at 4:43 pm | Permalink
JimJ–
Typing real slow now.
Return top tax rates to what they were when we were paying down the debt instead of raising it.
That goes way back to 2000 . . . raise the top rate to 39.5 and cut the special taxes for cap gains.
Long question, simple answer.
——————————-
I asked for a Fair Share dollar amount for a tax. What’s easier then that?
You know 39.5% top rate does not mean someone earning $1 Million pays 39.5% on the entire million, and you did most of the math.
If you can’t confirm one number, $355,000 then there is no rational discussion that can be had with you.
Have a nice evening.
You Libs cry about Fair, yet can’t define it.
ANTI
Posted July 27, 2009 at 4:53 pm | Permalink
Speaking of POS’s;
Bicycles used by special-needs children stolen from Heartspring
http://www.kansas.com/news/breaking/story/907064.html
———————————
Possibly the DIRT THIEF took them?
Never mind, BJ traded his klunker for kash and got a new Yugo.
He wouldn’t need a bike for himself, but maybe his son needed one.
Has anybody installed that reflective foil in their attics/rafters? Does it save any energy? From what I’ve read unless the majority of your seasons is spent cooling there isn’t much benefit.
#
Phantom
Posted July 27, 2009 at 5:15 pm | Permalink
Has anybody installed that reflective foil in their attics/rafters? Does it save any energy? From what I’ve read unless the majority of your seasons is spent cooling there isn’t much benefit.
=======================
Just for my hat – it keeps the cosmic rays out.
Probably keeps your head cooler too! Maybe if while in the sun, else I guess it might have the opposite effect.
Phantom
Posted July 26, 2009 at 12:43 pm | Permalink
The tea-baggers are tax sandbaggers, don’t want to pay their fair share.
———————————————–
Phantom
Posted July 26, 2009 at 10:57 pm
Their fair share is whatever is required of them by the tax code.
Congress will determine what is appropriate, along with the executive branch.
———————————————–
Phantom based upon your own definition of what is fair (you provided two of them), the people attending the Tea Parties are already paying their “fair share” of taxes.
Your second definition indicates that “fair” is soley based upon the political whim of whatever party is in power. An entirely arbitrary number.
Fair is subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one’s discretion.
Therefore, you will never be able to define whether or not anyone is paying their “fair” share.
There is no right, just, or morally correct amount to tithe to the king.
If you can’t confirm one number, $355,000 then there is no rational discussion that can be had with you.
I do confirm it.
That would be a good start.
JimJohnson: What is a fair tax rates?
Given that a household with a million in earned income now pays about 309,000, how much would be “fair” to a CON?
Ok then, Capn, you have dollar amounts of Fair Share for the other incomes listed?
It would be nice just to peg a fair share tax amount to each income, without getting caught-up in complex percentages.
Got some BBQ to attend to.
Back later.
CapnAmerica
Posted July 27, 2009 at 5:22 pm | Permalink
Given that a household with a million in earned income now pays about 309,000, how much would be “fair” to a CON?
————————-
I suspect we’re not far apart, if we can both cut the BS and talk dollars.
Time to grill though!
Who is shaping U.S. foreign policy? The president or members of his team, even the most respected ones?” said Kremlin foreign policy adviser Sergei Prikhodko.
Good question. No one in the US seems to know.
He won’t talk dollars. He avoided it all day.
Bottom line, the method, %’s, progressive scale, etc of tax revenue collection is a meaningless debate, unless you get the spending side of the equation under control.
The battlecry for healthcare is “costs are rising 3X faster than wages”…when’s the last time the fed govt budget went down or just increased at something less than inflation? The overall fed govt debt/unfunded liabilities still total $70T-$100T. If it were possible to collect every $ of GDP as taxes, it would still take 5-7 yrs just to pay off the debts, assuming they spent $0 for each of those years and before interest/inflation. We’ve outran our coverage to the point where the tax revenues are meaningless, because the solution has always been palliative (ie, print/borrow & spend some more!).
I can’t find the link, but USA Today did a story a few months ago that detailed US budgets going back to like the 40’s (if I remember right) in a graph. It was pretty much a CEO’s dream, nothin’ but up and to the right, baby!
And rises in healthcare costs to business are eating up money that could go to higher wages… part of the reason the working class has been falling behind for 20 years.
actual rates vs. the incremental tax rates:
Actual Taxes Paid 2006
The figure below shows actual taxes paid on the reported income in IRS filings in 2006. The effective tax rate (taxes/taxable income) increase until $5,000,000 annual income and then decrease to 18% at $100,000,000 annual income. Note, the middle class pays 12% on $50,000, millionaires pay 27% and the super rich 18% (or 1.5x the rate of the middle class). The Super Rich Tax Break is the drop in effective tax rate from 27% to 18% for the income levels of $5 to $100 million per year. If we do not raise taxes on anyone, that would lock in the super rich tax break that resulted from the Bush tax cuts. The Obama plan does raise taxes on the super rich group. The McCain plan does not. The effective tax rate is less than the marginal tax rate at upper incomes. For example, the marginal US tax rate peaks at 35% after $358,000. Yet the average tax rate for people earning over ten million dollars annually was 23.3% based on the amount paid versus taxable income. Tax breaks such as the capital gains (maximum rate 15%) are used to keep their paid taxes well below the marginal tax rate
”
Now that just doesn’t seem fair!
President Obama has surrounded himself with experienced, trusted advisors. His style is to take in all points of view… he encourages those with divergent views to pitch in. He weighs what he has heard. Then he announces his decision.
You get your talking points from the Russians now??????????? whahahahhahaha!!!!
“He won’t talk dollars. He avoided it all day.”
Maybe that’s because it was a liberal poster who initially posted that some people didn’t want to pay their fair share.
So the question remains for the liberals who feel Americans are not paying their fair share to answer the mail.
All day people have posted all around it. Only Capn America, from what I have read, has provided a number, but only for one group of Americans.
Those tbaggers are the same ones tha rejoiced about bush’s tax cuts that primarilly helped the wealthies amongst us. The same ones that believe total revenues can only increase by cutting taxes (esp. for the rich) How’d that work out?
Gotta be rough, taking the taliban/al-quida side one day, and the Kremlin’s the next. Why do they hate America?
Something completely different.
Really old postcards
http://kansasmediocrity.wordpress.com/2009/07/27/antique-postcards/
“Repeal the “capital gains” tax break that rewards people for investing instead of working.”
In 2008, 47 percent of U.S. households (54.5 million) owned equities and/or bonds. 10.9 million, or 85%, of the 12.8 million taxable returns which reported long-term capital gains distributions to the Internal Revenue Service for 2006 were filed by individuals and couples with AGI of under $200,000. Those 10.9 million individuals and couples had capital gains distributions of $32.2 billion, or 57% of the $56.3 billion reported on all taxable returns. Taxed at the top long-term capital gains tax rate of 15%, they paid a total of $8.4 billion.
From the rapid growth mutual fund investing, deductible, non-deductible IRA’s, Roth IRA’s, ESOP’s, etc… many middle class Americans are fully invested in the markets. Many are not hanging out waiting for social security to retire on.
I’d guess millions of working Americans own equities in one form or another. These are workers who are saving for their futures – instead of borrowing and spending every penny they earn. It’s not just a few old men sitting on Boardwalk. Repealing the Capital Gains Tax breaks would hurt many middle class working Americans.
Be careful what you wish for.
sekanblog – pretty cool. When I was preparing my parent’s house for auction after they passed, I found an old trunk of my Mom’s that had a couple hundred late 1800’s – early 1900’s postcards in it. It was correspondence between my great great grandmother and her friends back in the day. I spent hours reading through them. Cool stuff.
“How’d that work out?”
Phantom, as long as Congress and the President(s) keep spending money faster than they can raise revenue – it will never work out.
And I don’t believe you can tax your way out of the new annual deficits and national debt – if you took every penny the rich AND poor have.
Meanwhile, Obama looks into the future with plans to spend even more.
” rejoiced about bush’s tax cuts ”
So what? Everyone, even the poor got a break. Rejoicing at getting a break is a bad thing in America now?
Only when after looking inside your tricker-treat bag, and saw your candy – did you look at your fellow goblin to see what he got. Greedy much?
Roeder was just like all the other fundie freaks- he can make the children, demand they be born, but once here they don’t give a dam about them.
Why is it these psychos seem to think their seed is so important? That children are a gift of life from Gawd, but they see them only as a burden and leave them to the women to raise…all alone no doubt.
I keep telling you people, those freakish OR people are all just this crazy. I have to think there is some serious neglect, abuse or mental illness in themselves, or their parents were crazy too.
like that guy who used to post here as Tiller Hater…when I found out who he was, his blog wrote of how he abused his mentally disabled girlfriend. I’m sure he and Roeder were friends.
Wonder what name he’s using here now?
What BS, under Bush, multi-million dollar earners saved hundreds of thousands, Working class peeps didn’t even get back a tank of gas,
Why is it these psychos seem to think their seed is so important?
CONTROL CONTROL CONTROL
“didn’t even get back a tank of gas,”
That’s all they paid in. That’s all they got back.
Did you expect the government to write a check to each of them using the money collected from the evil rich?
A decent rebate to the working class would have been spent and circulated through the economy. Stimulative. The millionaires just socked it away. Not so stimulative.
The proof of the pudding is in the tasting. Bush’s tax rebates were targeted for the rich and failed to help raise the whole boat. Bush’s policies failed.
Already Obama’s efforts are showing results…
Home Sales Surge 11 Percent
June beats analysts’ expectations, another sign housing market could be starting to stabilize. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/27/AR2009072700967.html?hpid=topnews
Newsweek declares; The Recession is Over.
I may be out in front on this story only because I know someone who is shopping for a new car.
The vouchers for clunkers program is selling cars (at least locally) like gangbusters! It’s only three days in and dealers are starting to worry that the money will run out.
Now IF it did, anyone who got a new car might be responsible for the difference between the voucher ($3500 or $4500) and the bluebook value of their clunker.
The dealers have a lot invested in ads. We are getting less fuel efficient cars off the road. I predict we will see more funding for this program and very soon.
So did you buy a car and help the economy Jay?
” Bush’s tax rebates were targeted for the rich and failed to help raise the whole boat. ”
Let me see if I understand you correctly DavidB.
Bush decreases taxes for everyone, and that failed to raise the whole boat.
Obama plans to increase taxes only on the rich, and that is going to raise the whole boat?
Whatever happened to the ol’ cliche “a penny saved is a penny earned”? Why are cuts avoided at all costs, but more taxes/increased spending welcomed with open arms?
Short of finding the cure to cancer, diabetes & AIDS, or figuring out the holy grail of cold fusion, next personal computer, or crop able to withstand drought/flood/pests/self pollenates & doesn’t require fertilizer, our economy can’t grow its way out of the US govt debt.
Still don’t understand why they haven’t taken advantage of the only freebie left on the table. And incentive tax on allowing the repatriation of foreign held dollars by US people/companies. Last estimate I heard was $14T-$16T sitting in foreign banks. While the tax to bring it back is punitive, it stays there. Lower it to 15% or so, and there’s at least a short term windfall, plus banks, stock markets, companies domestically are recapitalized overnight. It’s the only chance the TARP funds will ever get paid back & govt can cancel the $7T in guarantees it’s still holding for GE/Banks/Auto finance/etc. Of course wouldn’t fit the chorus of “eat the rich” well, but has tons of upside and zero downside. The chorus of boo’s from the peanut gallery could be shushed by coupling it with closing the loophole.
“Repeal the “capital gains” tax break that rewards people for investing instead of working.”
Capn America here is more the subject.
“Mr. Obama has also said he’s open to raising – indeed, nearly doubling to 28% – the current top capital gains tax rate of 15%, which would in fact be a tax hike on some 100 million Americans who own stock, including millions of people who fit Mr. Obama’s definition of middle class.
But Mr. Gibson also probed a little deeper, asking the candidate why he wants to increase the capital gains tax when history shows that a higher rate brings in less revenue.
“Bill Clinton in 1997 signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20%,” said Mr. Gibson. “And George Bush has taken it down to 15%. And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. The government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28%, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?”
The facts about capital gains rates and revenues are well known to our readers, but we’ll repeat them as a public service to the Obama campaign. As the nearby chart shows, when the tax rate has risen over the past half century, capital gains realizations have fallen and along with them tax revenue. The most recent such episode was in the early 1990s, when Mr. Obama was old enough to be paying attention. That’s one reason Jack Kennedy proposed cutting the capital gains rate. And it’s one reason Bill Clinton went along with a rate cut to 20% from 28% in 1997.
Either the young Illinois Senator is ignorant of this revenue data, or he doesn’t really care because he’s a true income redistributionist who prefers high tax rates as a matter of ideological dogma regardless of the revenue consequences. Neither one is a recommendation for President.
By the way, a higher capital gains tax rate isn’t the only middle-class tax increase that Mr. Obama is proposing. He also wants to lift the cap on wages subject to the payroll tax. That cap was $97,500 in 2007 and is $102,000 this year. “Those are a heck of a lot of people between $97,000 and $200[,000] and $250,000,” said Mr. Gibson. “If you raise the payroll taxes, that’s going to raise taxes on them.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120847505709424727.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks
“It’s possible that the nurse is correct and the doctors are all wrong, but then they are in serious legal trouble.
Doesn’t seem as likely as Nurse Goody-Two-Shoes just doesn’t want to do her job.”
CapnAmerica this might surprise you, but in that Canadian socialized healthcare system you are always bragging about – a nurse or doctor can refuse to perform/provide care when it is against their religious, ethical, or moral beliefs.
Well for David the Whiner, I’ll post dollars for one of the income ranges. I dare you to add another one. Capn did one group. I’ll do another.
Phantom can’t post siht. All he can do is post about OTHERS who don’t pay their FAIR SHARE, yet he CANNOT say what that Fair Share Dollar Amount and/or Percentage should be.
If I make $1,000,000, then how many dollars should I pay in taxes?
Capn says $355,000
If I make $250,000, then how many dollars should I pay in taxes?
If I make $100,000, then how many dollars should I pay in taxes?
If I make $75,000, then how many dollars should I pay in taxes?
If I make $50,000, then how many dollars should I pay in taxes?
If I make $25,000, then how many dollars should I pay in taxes?
Johnson says $0 for the $25,000 and under group.
Anybody else out there know what a Fair Share tax amount would be for each of the income levels above?
Done with the BBQ, now have a new mower to put together. May be back later, if I learn how to read Chinese.
“Anybody else out there know what a Fair Share tax amount would be for each of the income levels above?”
JJ – problem is too little data. You’d have to know # of dependents, standard vs itemized deductions, how much is due to what type of income (ie, cap gains, interest, rental income, wages, dividends,etc) are there prior period loss carryforwards, etc, amongst just a few questions you’d have to answer…the key is, the way the progressive tax rates are set up, the %’s only apply to the range between the corresponding lower rate & higher rate, when it changes again. Can’t remember where it tops out at 36% or whatever it is now, on all income over X$’s..and I’m too lazy to actually look it up.
” problem is too little data. You’d have to know # of dependents” etc.etc.etc.,
DFB – no you don’t. We are each stating what is “fair” based upon income. As you have posted, there is no other way of making an apples to apples comparison. Using AGI would require consideration of all the politically driven adjustments (which is by the way – all of them).
You have to think like libs think. They, including Obama talk about those “making over $250K, or “one million dollars”, when they discuss spreading it around a little. There is no consideration for deductions. It’s all logic based upon the “evil rich” and punishment. It really doesn’t have anything to do with revenue/expenses either. Nothing rational about it. It’s payback.
Libs post the rich are not paying their “fair share”.
Yet they cannot define how much that is. Further, if they KNOW what is “fair” for the rich, surely they MUST know what is “fair” for everyone else too.
They would have to – or their logic or claim is totally unfounded.
To move forward, we have to have some ground rules, or we can get caught up in the 9,000 tax publications with rules, exceptions, and computations. (You could, but then that would really put those making claims on “fair share” into a tizzy.) JJ tried earlier with percentages and people got lost.
This requires KISS principles.
Of course no one wants to discuss the purpose for all this “fairness” discussion.
How much revenue does our federal government need?
And that’s perfect because for most libs that is really not the point anyway.
And again, nobody says we’re modeling our system after ANY other system.
Gotta laugh at the lack of response from the Libs.
Libs complain rich don’t pay their Fair Share, yet even on a blog, they don’t have the gonads to peg a Fair Share Tax Amount for a given income level.
The Dailykos/Demunderground/Politico/Obamaesque web sites just have Sound Bites and Talking Points. No detail provided.
But they think their mantra sounds good, and it makes them feel better to repeat the Lib Dogma.
Especially shocked at David. He couldn’t even post one dollar amount, yet he hounded me all day for a figure.
He whines more and more like a lil pri ck every day.
I bet he needs a magnifying glass whenever he takes a pi ss.
DFB
Posted July 27, 2009 at 5:47 pm | Permalink
Bottom line, the method, %’s, progressive scale, etc of tax revenue collection is a meaningless debate, unless you get the spending side of the equation under control.
———————-
Not completely true. Yes, spending needs to have some limits, God knows if Obama sees ANY limits.
But the Tax Side of the equation is important to make sure everyone pays their FAIR SHARE.
You see, even the poorest, tiniest Lib here would be afraid to admit that ZERO is what is fair for them, so they would have to peg some dollar figure as being FAIR, even for themselves.
(Though they privately hope for ZERO, or even negative for those with multiple child and other credits and EIC.)
So if the lower income groups have to pay something, even a whopping $1,000, then at least they would pay more attention to modified flat tax increases, even if a 10% increase in taxes only meant $100 more dollars to them.
But the HOPE for Fair Shares is gone. Alas, the Socialist Redistribution will tax the top 50% more, and give more and more credits to the bottom 50% so that they actually enjoy Negative Taxes.
(Yes folks, many today receive tax refunds which are larger then the amount of tax they paid in!)
8% of Mexican Arms Come from US Gun Dealers?
Surely Brownlee will post another pro-gun topic tomorrow!
——————————————-
Heckler
Posted July 27, 2009 at 6:42 am | Permalink
The myth that legal guns sales in the United States are responsible for Mexican drug cartel violence took another serious blow last week when an ATF official testified in Congress that only eight percent of weapons recovered in Mexico came through licensed U.S. gun dealers.
Too funny –
http://gawker.com/5324026/sarah-palins-gradual-descent-into-incoherency
The penultimate paragraph –
” It’s like Peggy Noonan, Jack London, and William Faulkner wandered into the woods with three buttons of peyote and one typewriter, and only this speech emerged.
And she wrote this speech! In advance, on paper!
Speaking in tongues explained –
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CTlJ3rAD9o&feature=player_embedded
(”Chas,” if your services aren’t like this you obviously are not a “true Christian.”
“HA HA HA HA HA HA!”)
Hi there,
I am new here and thought it would be good to introduce myself. I am a contractor, basically a handyman. Has nothing much to do with this here. But thought somebody might want to know.
So, Hi there!