Romney's classic mistake
Sometimes you run across a piece that describes the situation perfectly. Peggy Noonan did that for me this morning with this analysis on the GOP primary candidates.
It includes this gem:
"Mitt Romney's aides are making the classic mistake of thinking the voters want maturity, serenity and a jolly spirit. What they want is a man who knows what time it is, who has a passion to reform our country, and who yet holds these qualities within a temperament that is mature, serene and jolly. Newt Gingrich has half the package: He has a passion to reform, but it exists inside a crazy suit. Mitt has no particular passion within an obviously sane suit."
Perfect.
This entry was posted on Saturday, Feb. 11, 2012 at 07:58 AM
and is filed under The Complete Las Vegan.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response.
122
Responses
to "Romney's classic mistake "
Thats right they want Obama.
"I am severely conservative" -- Mitt Romney
WE NEED A NATIONAL PRIMARY TO TRUNCATE THE ELECTION CYCLE, DOING SO WOULD REDUCE THE COST OF RUNNING AND FOCUS THE ELECTORATE.
BTW BARRY.....TO THE DEUCE;)
BTW BARRY.....TO THE DEUCE;)
Myself, I'll take Ron Paul over any of the candidates. One can see how Nevada voted for Harry Reid over Sharon Angle. Harry Reid is the type leader Nevada votes for. Nevadans now want the same kind of leadership with Romney. Gimme a break.
Ron Paul has a few good things that he says, but over all what he says is very simular to the guy who puts tin foil on his head and waits for allien to come and get him, other than that he's likable as long as you pay no attention to what he says
@petenyc. That was not a Romney quote. It was a leed written by reporters used in the headline to grab attention.
The tactic seems to have worked on you. So now you want those to be the words Romney used. Spin meet petenyc.
Romney to CPAC yesterday.
"I fought against long odds in a deep blue state, but I was a severely conservative Republican governor, I have been on the front lines and I expect to be on the front lines again."
The tactic seems to have worked on you. So now you want those to be the words Romney used. Spin meet petenyc.
Romney to CPAC yesterday.
"I fought against long odds in a deep blue state, but I was a severely conservative Republican governor, I have been on the front lines and I expect to be on the front lines again."
@petenyc. That was not a Romney quote. It was a leed written by reporters used in the headline to grab attention.
The tactic seems to have worked on you. So now you want those to be the words Romney used. Spin meet petenyc.
Romney to CPAC yesterday.
"I fought against long odds in a deep blue state, but I was a severely conservative Republican governor, I have been on the front lines and I expect to be on the front lines again."
The tactic seems to have worked on you. So now you want those to be the words Romney used. Spin meet petenyc.
Romney to CPAC yesterday.
"I fought against long odds in a deep blue state, but I was a severely conservative Republican governor, I have been on the front lines and I expect to be on the front lines again."
Oh, OK. So Romney is saying is that he once was "severely conservative" back when he introduced the individual mandate to the American healthcare system, signed an assault weapons ban, expanded the use of contraceptives, and described himself as progressive.
So now what kind of conservative is he?
"Severely squared"?
"Severely severely?"
Severely-but-this-time-I-really-mean-it-trust-me conservative"?
Please advise.
So now what kind of conservative is he?
"Severely squared"?
"Severely severely?"
Severely-but-this-time-I-really-mean-it-trust-me conservative"?
Please advise.
@petenyc I don't claim to care about Romney's stance on just about anything. He flips too much for me.
I was only trying to make you stand up for your level of spin. If you want to misquote people for a point, then make a point of posting your point.
I was only trying to make you stand up for your level of spin. If you want to misquote people for a point, then make a point of posting your point.
I am so thankful that PeteNYC is extremely happy about Obama's big deal with Big Pharm that protects them from drug imports and Medicare negotigations.
PeteNYC also is jumping for joy that Obama admin has stated that they can hold detainees indefinitely without any trial or even a military tribunal.
He is also throwing a party for Obama because Obama has not closed Gitmo and backtracked on giving a evil guy a full blown US trial.
He gave Obama 3 cheers for not going for single payer system.
PeteNYC is sooooo happy about all these things.
He hopes Obama continues on this track.
PeteNYC also is jumping for joy that Obama admin has stated that they can hold detainees indefinitely without any trial or even a military tribunal.
He is also throwing a party for Obama because Obama has not closed Gitmo and backtracked on giving a evil guy a full blown US trial.
He gave Obama 3 cheers for not going for single payer system.
PeteNYC is sooooo happy about all these things.
He hopes Obama continues on this track.
This is the kind of GOD that the Romney's of this world will never understand:
"You want to know what’s wrong with our waterfront? It’s the love of a lousy buck. It’s makin’ the love of the lousy buck, the cushy job, more important than the love of man! It’s forgettin’ that every fellow down here is your brother in Christ! But remember, Christ is always with you. Christ is in the shape up. He’s in the hatch. He’s in the union hall. He’s kneeling right here beside Dugan. And He’s sayin’ with all of you, if you do it to the least of mine, you do it to me! And what they did to Joey, and what they did to Dugan, they’re doin’ to you. And you. You. All of you! And only you, only you with God’s help, have the power to knock ‘em out for good." Father John Corridan
Mitt Romney: "let it hit bottom" .."I like to fire people"
"You want to know what’s wrong with our waterfront? It’s the love of a lousy buck. It’s makin’ the love of the lousy buck, the cushy job, more important than the love of man! It’s forgettin’ that every fellow down here is your brother in Christ! But remember, Christ is always with you. Christ is in the shape up. He’s in the hatch. He’s in the union hall. He’s kneeling right here beside Dugan. And He’s sayin’ with all of you, if you do it to the least of mine, you do it to me! And what they did to Joey, and what they did to Dugan, they’re doin’ to you. And you. You. All of you! And only you, only you with God’s help, have the power to knock ‘em out for good." Father John Corridan
Mitt Romney: "let it hit bottom" .."I like to fire people"
to sgt.rock: I agree with all those things.
the New Republic made an interesting point today about Romney's "severe conservative" line:
"But again, no one should be surprised by Romney’s adverbial embellishment. As I argued at the time of the “firing”comment, Romney seems incapable of not gravitating toward whatever he perceives the magnet of his audience to be. The “firing” comment came when he was speaking to New Hampshire businessmen who he imagined would like that kind of tough talk; his comment a day earlier about his having feared getting a pink slip came before an audience in a working-class town; and, for CPAC, he cannot help but declare himself “severely conservative.” This is what David Brooks meant in his spot-on column today about Romney’s “other-directedness.”"
"But again, no one should be surprised by Romney’s adverbial embellishment. As I argued at the time of the “firing”comment, Romney seems incapable of not gravitating toward whatever he perceives the magnet of his audience to be. The “firing” comment came when he was speaking to New Hampshire businessmen who he imagined would like that kind of tough talk; his comment a day earlier about his having feared getting a pink slip came before an audience in a working-class town; and, for CPAC, he cannot help but declare himself “severely conservative.” This is what David Brooks meant in his spot-on column today about Romney’s “other-directedness.”"
A spot on look at Romney petenyc. I especially like the line "Romney seems incapable of not gravitating toward whatever he perceives the magnet of his audience to be."
I have posted nearly the same many times. Romney will say whatever he thinks the current audience wants to hear.
You know, as I do, Ø is getting another 4 years. You also know the Senate is in play and discussing it is off the table for that very reason.
I have posted nearly the same many times. Romney will say whatever he thinks the current audience wants to hear.
You know, as I do, Ø is getting another 4 years. You also know the Senate is in play and discussing it is off the table for that very reason.
Ahh, Miss Peggy ignores Dr. Unelectable, as has become so common with the insiders that love klepto-republicrats and the Orwellian warfare/welfare state...
Congressman Ron Paul is very electable. He is a multiterm congressman after all.
If he could break through the primary process and run for president on one of the major party tickets he would be electable there too.
Thing is, if that were to happen, people like Vin S and Winston S would chain Ron Paul to the banksters as another bought and paid for pol.
The only way to make it to a presidential general election is to sell out, right guys?
Every president has been compared to hitler (lower h on purpose) then compared to a monkey, is going to take away all the guns, etc,etc,etc. This is due to every one of them being bankster sell outs right?
Could it be due to the situation they find themselves in once they take the reigns of power? They all have to try and steer the boat after it is under weigh and it is very difficult to change direction mid stream.
If he could break through the primary process and run for president on one of the major party tickets he would be electable there too.
Thing is, if that were to happen, people like Vin S and Winston S would chain Ron Paul to the banksters as another bought and paid for pol.
The only way to make it to a presidential general election is to sell out, right guys?
Every president has been compared to hitler (lower h on purpose) then compared to a monkey, is going to take away all the guns, etc,etc,etc. This is due to every one of them being bankster sell outs right?
Could it be due to the situation they find themselves in once they take the reigns of power? They all have to try and steer the boat after it is under weigh and it is very difficult to change direction mid stream.
xfmrhsd, you just destroy your credibililty with your very first sentence, 'Ron Paul is very electable.' No, he is not, and if you don't believe me ask any Republican, in Nevada, what they think about Ron Paul's views on what America's response should be if Iran acquires a nuclear weapon. God find a single Republican anywhere who will like Ron Paul's response to that question and then I will agree with you how 'electable' Ron Paul really is.
And Sherman, if not Mitt, who? Rick Santorum, the guy who LOST his senate seat, as an incumbent, in Pennslylvania by 17 points in just a few year ago? Or Newt, who even conservatives don't want? You'd better get on board with Romney pretty quick Sherman, he is your only hope to prevent not just 4 more years of Obama, but maybe 8 years of Michele Obama after first 8 years of Hillary. How does that sound to you?
And Sherman, if not Mitt, who? Rick Santorum, the guy who LOST his senate seat, as an incumbent, in Pennslylvania by 17 points in just a few year ago? Or Newt, who even conservatives don't want? You'd better get on board with Romney pretty quick Sherman, he is your only hope to prevent not just 4 more years of Obama, but maybe 8 years of Michele Obama after first 8 years of Hillary. How does that sound to you?
Yeager my second sentence holds water quite well.
I am glad you are PeteNYC.
Now we just need for Obama to run ads prouding boasting about them.
I am sure you agree that his lib base will just love, love, love all those things.
Now we just need for Obama to run ads prouding boasting about them.
I am sure you agree that his lib base will just love, love, love all those things.
No to Mittens. Yes to Santorum. Yes to even Newt. Ron Paul? I agree with all his domestic stance and for bringing home all the troops in Europe and Japan.
However:
He's being played as Elmer Fudd. My fear would be the Sharron Angle affect. He is so marginalized by the right, what would happen if the MSM had to tear into him (like they do Newt, Herman Cain, or Gov. Perry)?
But Ron Paul is LIGHT YEARS better than Mittens, and MacShamnesty. At least we'd be offered a clear choice. Freedom or Tyranny.
And petey. You are a typical liberal, "let's spend the money of someone else to solve all the problems I think are important".
You didn't get the UNLV tickets I needed, thus crushing the spirit of my son. Hateful, lying, false promise, spend someone else money, morally bankrupt, snotty egotist is what you are, petey.
You and all your liberal deluded buddies.
You DESERVE the big Ø! Hope and change my @ss.
However:
He's being played as Elmer Fudd. My fear would be the Sharron Angle affect. He is so marginalized by the right, what would happen if the MSM had to tear into him (like they do Newt, Herman Cain, or Gov. Perry)?
But Ron Paul is LIGHT YEARS better than Mittens, and MacShamnesty. At least we'd be offered a clear choice. Freedom or Tyranny.
And petey. You are a typical liberal, "let's spend the money of someone else to solve all the problems I think are important".
You didn't get the UNLV tickets I needed, thus crushing the spirit of my son. Hateful, lying, false promise, spend someone else money, morally bankrupt, snotty egotist is what you are, petey.
You and all your liberal deluded buddies.
You DESERVE the big Ø! Hope and change my @ss.
WE NEED TO BE HEARD!!!
I am a member of golf's lower 99%.
I am an indifferent golfer, and there's no way I could ever make it to
the professional level. I will never put in the practice time to be
the best. I will never have the shots, skills, or mental toughness to
make it in the sport. I just never felt like working all that hard
at it.
However, I am a part of the golfing community and, as such, feel I
should be paid by the top 1% of golfers for what I do. It isn't fair
that those players who have worked harder, have studied the game, have
better equipment and are more skilled and dedicated should make all
that BIG money.
Where's my share? I'm a Victim!
The top 1% should pay for my club memberships and green fees and
lessons, buy me new clubs, balls, clothes and shoes, and pay me some
of their winnings. They can afford it. They are the rich. The whole
system should be changed to accommodate people like me. I think we
should get together and occupy a golf course and demand that those who
are better at what they do, pay for us who generally suck. Whining
should get us something - maybe we'll make the cover of Time Magazine,
garnish some public sympathy. Hell, during this election year we may
even get a law or two passed by legislators who want our votes.
P.S. Don't mention this to tennis players. We thought of it first.
I am a member of golf's lower 99%.
I am an indifferent golfer, and there's no way I could ever make it to
the professional level. I will never put in the practice time to be
the best. I will never have the shots, skills, or mental toughness to
make it in the sport. I just never felt like working all that hard
at it.
However, I am a part of the golfing community and, as such, feel I
should be paid by the top 1% of golfers for what I do. It isn't fair
that those players who have worked harder, have studied the game, have
better equipment and are more skilled and dedicated should make all
that BIG money.
Where's my share? I'm a Victim!
The top 1% should pay for my club memberships and green fees and
lessons, buy me new clubs, balls, clothes and shoes, and pay me some
of their winnings. They can afford it. They are the rich. The whole
system should be changed to accommodate people like me. I think we
should get together and occupy a golf course and demand that those who
are better at what they do, pay for us who generally suck. Whining
should get us something - maybe we'll make the cover of Time Magazine,
garnish some public sympathy. Hell, during this election year we may
even get a law or two passed by legislators who want our votes.
P.S. Don't mention this to tennis players. We thought of it first.
VERY GOOD ATHOS;)
HEARD DAVE RAMSEY SPEAK YESTERDAY, EXCELLENT!!!
HEARD DAVE RAMSEY SPEAK YESTERDAY, EXCELLENT!!!
"Athos" believes that the distribution of economic resources in this country is exactly like the distribution of talents in golf.
I think that is nuts.
I think that is nuts.
"distribution of economic resources in this country " as spoken by our resident socialist.
Have just read your Sunday 12th blog. Love you Sherman! Have you read "Greedy Bastards" by Dylan Ratigan? It's worth it.
1. to "sgt rock" - you really have absolutely no idea of how much of a capitalist I am.
2. I wonder why the phrase "distribution of economic resources in this country" so spooks you. Is inequality a forbidden topic?
2. I wonder why the phrase "distribution of economic resources in this country" so spooks you. Is inequality a forbidden topic?
Yeah as long as I get set all the fixing of the inequality.
I make sure it is fair.
Just make me king. I will correctly take the correct amount from Paul to give to Peter.
I also make sure that everybody under the Sun gets to score par on the golf course, too.
Then we will all be happy in paradise.
I make sure it is fair.
Just make me king. I will correctly take the correct amount from Paul to give to Peter.
I also make sure that everybody under the Sun gets to score par on the golf course, too.
Then we will all be happy in paradise.
Written by: Yeager "xfmrhsd, you just destroy your credibililty with your very first sentence, 'Ron Paul is very electable."
Yeager, He is elected every two years in his district. So he is in fact electable.
Yeager, He is elected every two years in his district. So he is in fact electable.
to "sgt.rock": I have no interest in "fixing" the level of inequality. However, I do believe that the tax code should be adjusted so that Warren Buffet and Sheldon Adelson do not pay lower tax rates than their secretaries do.
Pete, I agree. Buffet should be taxed more. Let's occupy his house!!!!
Gentlemen, just to be clear here, Ron Paul in currently running to be President of the United States, a pipe dream thank God but that is the office is he currently running for. So when xmfrhsd writes how "electable" Ron Paul is, I just thought we might be talking about how "electable" he really is for the office in which he is currently running. Silly me, you guys were talking about how "electable" Ron Paul is running for the congressional seat he has held for God knows how long, who knew?
You sure don't seem to know a lot of things.
You say, "no idea of how much of a capitalist I am"...that is true for you don't seem much one of.
YOu say, "adjusted so that Warren Buffet and Sheldon Adelson do not pay lower tax rates than their secretaries do"....you don't have no clue what either of them pay for both refuse to release their tax papers.
But let's say you know what you "think" you know which means you are proposing to raise the capital gains tax rate to something like 35%.
So had any capitalism in you then you would know how that would wreck havoc on our economy.
Also you are clueless on the fact that Buffet's secretary makes over $500k a year.
Here is some more facts to add to soup.
The top 10% of income earners pay over 70% of the income taxes.
Nearly half the country pays 0% income tax.
30% of the country pays 0% income and get cash via the Earned Income Tax.
So go play with Obama as his plays his Class Warfare game.
Also you probably play along with him as the Democrats play the race warfare cards too.
They have absolutely nothing else to offer except those two things.
They don't have a record to run on.
Go play the class warfare card.
Go take from Paul to pay Peter.
You say, "no idea of how much of a capitalist I am"...that is true for you don't seem much one of.
YOu say, "adjusted so that Warren Buffet and Sheldon Adelson do not pay lower tax rates than their secretaries do"....you don't have no clue what either of them pay for both refuse to release their tax papers.
But let's say you know what you "think" you know which means you are proposing to raise the capital gains tax rate to something like 35%.
So had any capitalism in you then you would know how that would wreck havoc on our economy.
Also you are clueless on the fact that Buffet's secretary makes over $500k a year.
Here is some more facts to add to soup.
The top 10% of income earners pay over 70% of the income taxes.
Nearly half the country pays 0% income tax.
30% of the country pays 0% income and get cash via the Earned Income Tax.
So go play with Obama as his plays his Class Warfare game.
Also you probably play along with him as the Democrats play the race warfare cards too.
They have absolutely nothing else to offer except those two things.
They don't have a record to run on.
Go play the class warfare card.
Go take from Paul to pay Peter.
I do feel for you, just a little, Sherman, this late in the game and you still don't have a candidate.
I remember 2008, my candidate, Hillary Clinton lost, and I can tell you, it was a bitter defeat, even though we Hillary supporters saw it coming after Iowa.
But now, I will admit how nice it is not having to go through that. I have a candidate, I am just waiting for guys like you Sherman to decide who is going to be your candidate.
And I am not being arrogant about this, I was also an Al Gore supporter so I know how elections can be stolen but my point is Mitt Romney is your guy Sherman. Your job now is to make people believe he is your guy.
I remember 2008, my candidate, Hillary Clinton lost, and I can tell you, it was a bitter defeat, even though we Hillary supporters saw it coming after Iowa.
But now, I will admit how nice it is not having to go through that. I have a candidate, I am just waiting for guys like you Sherman to decide who is going to be your candidate.
And I am not being arrogant about this, I was also an Al Gore supporter so I know how elections can be stolen but my point is Mitt Romney is your guy Sherman. Your job now is to make people believe he is your guy.
Rick Santorum has many attractive qualities but EVERY TIME he starts talking about any kind of sexual isssue, he loses about 80 percent of the electorate.
Just ask Rick Santorum his views on birth control.
Just ask Rick Santorum his views on birth control.
By Yeagers reckoning Ronald Reagan was unelectable even though he was governor of CA for several terms, but became electable at least twice when he was elected and re-elected president.
Ron Paul is doing some of the same things Reagan did by making several runs at the office.
He remains electable because people elect him and re elect him to office.
You did not restrict your statement to the office of president in your original post you simply spin it later and get huffy with any that disagree with you.
Gee who knew that would be your approach?
Ron Paul is doing some of the same things Reagan did by making several runs at the office.
He remains electable because people elect him and re elect him to office.
You did not restrict your statement to the office of president in your original post you simply spin it later and get huffy with any that disagree with you.
Gee who knew that would be your approach?
So, are you ever going to tell us what state you live in Yeager?
Or how much you're making posting on this site?
Sherm have your boys scared THAT much?
Or how much you're making posting on this site?
Sherm have your boys scared THAT much?
About all you've shown, SgtRock, is your complete misunderstanding as to what economic inequality means. You've drank the cool aid from the right; you believe them when they say they pay a higher percentage in income tax, while admitting they refuse to show their tax returns (remember when Ronald Reagan paid no tax one year? Do you know how many companies paid no tax at all?) They sold you on the idea that 30% pay no taxes into the general fund. They sold you on the idea there should be no minimum wage; or that "kids should work for nothing, just for the experience." (Newt). That not taxing many Wall Street transactions is good for the economy and "creates jobs" (and the tax-free $100 million bonuses they get).
They feed you the propaganda by calling the true information from the left, "Class Warfare," and lies. And when shown that we're headed to the "class warfare" of old England; where the King and his court (top 2% of the country) controlled all the 'economic equality' while we surfs smiled and bowed down to the king; you're showing you're an Economic Illiterate. But you keep drinking their cool aid and selling their story. They love you for it.
They feed you the propaganda by calling the true information from the left, "Class Warfare," and lies. And when shown that we're headed to the "class warfare" of old England; where the King and his court (top 2% of the country) controlled all the 'economic equality' while we surfs smiled and bowed down to the king; you're showing you're an Economic Illiterate. But you keep drinking their cool aid and selling their story. They love you for it.
Yes...shallow analysis by a speech writer with a smug and condescending attitude...Now can you find someone with actual thought going on please?
to "sgt rock": - you guys throw out so much disinformation, post after post after post, that it is hard to disentagle it all. And it is frustrating that after I clear up one lie or another, I find it popping up again two weeks later. Conservative epistemic closure at work.
First, the contention that Warren Buffet's secretary makes a half million dollars annually is stupid and absurd, and has been denied by both Buffet and his secretary. You are borrowing from a blog post from some guy at Forbes who tried to "reverse engineer" her salary. He estimated that, since "taxpayers earning adjusted gross incomes of $200,000 to $500,000, pay an average tax rate of nineteen percent, Buffett must pay Debbie Bosanek a salary above two hundred thousand." You took that range, dropped the presented the single higest figure -- $500k -- as her salary. Pretty mendacious, but par for the course for you and the contemporary conservative movement.
But it gets worse -- the Forbes guy who started all this looked only at income taxes, not payroll taxes, compared to AGI, not gross income. That's why, if you read the comments, his fellow staffers at Forbes pretty much demolished his argument.
As for Buffet's own tax rate, it is 11% of his AGI http://www.forbes.com/sites/janetnovack/2011/10/12/warren-buffets-effective-federal-income-tax-rate-is-just-11/
First, the contention that Warren Buffet's secretary makes a half million dollars annually is stupid and absurd, and has been denied by both Buffet and his secretary. You are borrowing from a blog post from some guy at Forbes who tried to "reverse engineer" her salary. He estimated that, since "taxpayers earning adjusted gross incomes of $200,000 to $500,000, pay an average tax rate of nineteen percent, Buffett must pay Debbie Bosanek a salary above two hundred thousand." You took that range, dropped the presented the single higest figure -- $500k -- as her salary. Pretty mendacious, but par for the course for you and the contemporary conservative movement.
But it gets worse -- the Forbes guy who started all this looked only at income taxes, not payroll taxes, compared to AGI, not gross income. That's why, if you read the comments, his fellow staffers at Forbes pretty much demolished his argument.
As for Buffet's own tax rate, it is 11% of his AGI http://www.forbes.com/sites/janetnovack/2011/10/12/warren-buffets-effective-federal-income-tax-rate-is-just-11/
Now, for your canard about tax payments, I keep shooting this zombie time after time, and it keeps popping up again.
First, for some reason you guys think the only taxe people pay in this country is FIT. Why do you leave out of your statement payroll taxes? Or state income taxes? Or sales taxes? Or gax taxes? Or property taxes? The reason is that incuding all the taxes that people pay, and not just the one tax that has progressivity would blow up your argument. So you leave them out.
It is as if I wanted to argue that the US tax system was sharply regressive by mentioning only the taxes on cigarettes and gas.
In reality, according to the Institute on Taxation and
Economic Policy, when all federal, state, and local taxes are taken into account, the bottom fifth of households paid 16.3 percent of their incomes in taxes, on average, in 2010. As for those who don't pay anything, including payroll taxes, mostly, they are people who don’t make very much money. Many are elderly: Think a widow living only on Social Security benefits. Others are parents earning less than $20,000. Only about 5 percent are non-elderly households making more than $20,000.
Why do you want to raise their taxes?
First, for some reason you guys think the only taxe people pay in this country is FIT. Why do you leave out of your statement payroll taxes? Or state income taxes? Or sales taxes? Or gax taxes? Or property taxes? The reason is that incuding all the taxes that people pay, and not just the one tax that has progressivity would blow up your argument. So you leave them out.
It is as if I wanted to argue that the US tax system was sharply regressive by mentioning only the taxes on cigarettes and gas.
In reality, according to the Institute on Taxation and
Economic Policy, when all federal, state, and local taxes are taken into account, the bottom fifth of households paid 16.3 percent of their incomes in taxes, on average, in 2010. As for those who don't pay anything, including payroll taxes, mostly, they are people who don’t make very much money. Many are elderly: Think a widow living only on Social Security benefits. Others are parents earning less than $20,000. Only about 5 percent are non-elderly households making more than $20,000.
Why do you want to raise their taxes?
Of course the more the modern day liberals fix the economy the more expensive it gets for the middle class. The upper class gets to put their money in safe havens while we never get out of the standard deduction. This ensures we pay and they don't. Even though they pay far and away the bulk of the cash the feds get in revenue.
Modern day liberal solutions are as bad as modern day conservative solutions. But you great thinkers will all claim its just the conservatives preventing your programs being implemented as you see fit.
Thing is all of your great ideas have been implemented and they are causing huge trouble, you don't see it but you will and when it happens you will be shocked.
Conservatives will be hurt too but we expect it, maybe we will have some cushion in place to absorb it when it does all crash for real.
All those fancy equations economists use to back their theories. What about those mortgage backed securities? Even your greatest liberal economists couldn't figure those out. It is simple, when we spend more than we take in we eventually run out of money and credit. But never mind that, it won't happen during yours or my lifetime so its of no concern.
Tell that to Greece and their shop owners who have been burned out by the riots over their economy. It will fix all the problems, right?
Modern day liberal solutions are as bad as modern day conservative solutions. But you great thinkers will all claim its just the conservatives preventing your programs being implemented as you see fit.
Thing is all of your great ideas have been implemented and they are causing huge trouble, you don't see it but you will and when it happens you will be shocked.
Conservatives will be hurt too but we expect it, maybe we will have some cushion in place to absorb it when it does all crash for real.
All those fancy equations economists use to back their theories. What about those mortgage backed securities? Even your greatest liberal economists couldn't figure those out. It is simple, when we spend more than we take in we eventually run out of money and credit. But never mind that, it won't happen during yours or my lifetime so its of no concern.
Tell that to Greece and their shop owners who have been burned out by the riots over their economy. It will fix all the problems, right?
Finally, the share of federal income taxes ("income" again!!) paid by the top 1% is completely irrelevant unless you compare it to their share of total income. The top 1% pay a higher share of the tax burden because they have disproportionately large share of the total income (and assets) in this country. That is an undisputable fact. According to the recent CBO study, between 1979 and 2007 the top fifth of the population saw a 10-percentage-point increase in their share of after-tax income. Most of that growth went to the top 1 percent of the population. All other groups saw their shares decline by 2 to 3 percentage points. And for the top 1%, between 1979 and 2007 income for this group grew by 275 percent, and the share of income doubled from around 10 percent to around 20 percent of total income. However, the share of taxes for this group less than doubled.
So your statistic is worse than meaningless - it is affirmatively misleading.
So your statistic is worse than meaningless - it is affirmatively misleading.
Trouble is even if we took the total income of the upper classes and taxed it at a real 35% it would not be enought to take good bite out of the debt. Even if we taxed it at 100% it still is not enough to bite the debt.
Worse, even when the liberals claim they have a plan to slow the increase in spending by "cutting" budgets and increasing these upper class taxes, it is ALWAYS give us the money now and we PROMISE to slow the spending later. Note they always slow the spending not actually cut REAL budget amounts and this applies to todays conservatives too.
Just for once how about doing actual budget cuts so the real dollar amount spent goes down and stays down, then once all is settled and budgets are truly smaller we can increase taxes and apply the revenue where it is needed, not where it is projected to be needed.
Worse, even when the liberals claim they have a plan to slow the increase in spending by "cutting" budgets and increasing these upper class taxes, it is ALWAYS give us the money now and we PROMISE to slow the spending later. Note they always slow the spending not actually cut REAL budget amounts and this applies to todays conservatives too.
Just for once how about doing actual budget cuts so the real dollar amount spent goes down and stays down, then once all is settled and budgets are truly smaller we can increase taxes and apply the revenue where it is needed, not where it is projected to be needed.
Not that this cause x to actually think and broaden in any way: http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/04/15/135423586/when-the-u-s-paid-off-the-entire-national-debt-and-why-it-didnt-last
I know the US paid its debt fully only 2 times, both in the 1800's.
No where did I advocate paying it in full.
Never doubt, MS will spin it any way he wants. He will do so in spite of what you write. Or maybe just an attempt to spite you.
No where did I advocate paying it in full.
Never doubt, MS will spin it any way he wants. He will do so in spite of what you write. Or maybe just an attempt to spite you.
Just for once how about doing actual budget cuts so the real dollar amount spent goes down and stays down, then once all is settled and budgets are truly smaller we can increase taxes and apply the revenue where it is needed, not where it is projected to be needed.
Just blindly cut budgets? It's more complicated than that generalized, right-wing, suggestion. How do you cut the budget for services promised (budgeted for)? Bush 'budgeted' a new program for Medicare, but he didn't budget how to pay for it. Then there's the two wars that he spend money on, unbudgeted. Then the tax cut for the rich, unbudgeted. How do you cut those? Once again, you've been feed the bumper sticker answer the right wing (and Sherman) can't actually address.
Just blindly cut budgets? It's more complicated than that generalized, right-wing, suggestion. How do you cut the budget for services promised (budgeted for)? Bush 'budgeted' a new program for Medicare, but he didn't budget how to pay for it. Then there's the two wars that he spend money on, unbudgeted. Then the tax cut for the rich, unbudgeted. How do you cut those? Once again, you've been feed the bumper sticker answer the right wing (and Sherman) can't actually address.
And you once again offer nothing but complaints about Bush. I ask a simple thing, cut first then we address tax increases.
First we address tax increases (heck, lets just move them back to where they were a short 15 years ago when the economy was booming, then we won't even need to talk about spending cuts (as we shouldn't since they just make no sense whatsoever) and we can talk about borrowing more money at the lowest rates in history to reform this country's economy and move into the future.
SEE? Now there is truth in advertising. Liberal poster BTDT does not even mention cuts in spending, let alone try to snow me with a false promise of "future" cuts.
At least its an honest post even as it stinks of being couched in untruths. (You can only get a return if the money is invested, this borrowed money is definitely not being invested. It is being spent by the best spendaholics in history.)
At least its an honest post even as it stinks of being couched in untruths. (You can only get a return if the money is invested, this borrowed money is definitely not being invested. It is being spent by the best spendaholics in history.)
Socialism (and it's twisted sister, liberalism) is a phenomenon that closely resembles spoiled children throwing tantrums.
Time to grow up, little liberals. Greece is but a precursor.
It's truly liberating to take responsibility for your own lives!
Embrace the Liberation!
Time to grow up, little liberals. Greece is but a precursor.
It's truly liberating to take responsibility for your own lives!
Embrace the Liberation!
Obama promised to cut the deficit in half by now.
This week he proposed a $1.3 trillion deficit.
The deficit has not been cut but has grown.
It is about time for Obama to go.
This week he proposed a $1.3 trillion deficit.
The deficit has not been cut but has grown.
It is about time for Obama to go.
xfmrhsd, a far right winger, "thinks" that the money this country borrows and invests in education, roads, and maintaining the strength of this country returns NOTHING; now THAT is a true "conservative" "thinker".
Tell our children today that rather than INVEST the money we borrow today to insure that there is the country that WE enjoyed, that we decided to simply NOT invest the money and allow the country to go straight down the right wing toilet and ask them what they think?
Tell you children that rather than pay the electric bill, the mortgage, and save for their education (or borrow the money to pay for it) that we are simply going to take that money and blow it at a casino (like the rich do each day) and see if they understand that we are thinking about them or not.
Ah "conservatives"; its a wonder they managed to crawl out of their caves.
Tell our children today that rather than INVEST the money we borrow today to insure that there is the country that WE enjoyed, that we decided to simply NOT invest the money and allow the country to go straight down the right wing toilet and ask them what they think?
Tell you children that rather than pay the electric bill, the mortgage, and save for their education (or borrow the money to pay for it) that we are simply going to take that money and blow it at a casino (like the rich do each day) and see if they understand that we are thinking about them or not.
Ah "conservatives"; its a wonder they managed to crawl out of their caves.
Typical liberal reaction. Cant support its beliefs with logic. Make crap up and sling it against the wall, like all the other times it shows what the truth is. Lots of people read these posts BTDT. They may or may not respond but they read and understand. You come off as a fool.
And you once again offer nothing but complaints about Bush.
No, I showed you how you don't know what you're talking about.
I ask a simple thing, cut first then we address tax increases.
And I asked you to show us how to make those cuts; and showed how they couldn't be done. You couldn't answer; so you simply make phony charges against the messenger.
No, I showed you how you don't know what you're talking about.
I ask a simple thing, cut first then we address tax increases.
And I asked you to show us how to make those cuts; and showed how they couldn't be done. You couldn't answer; so you simply make phony charges against the messenger.
Obama promised to cut the deficit in half by now.
Republicans blocked it.
This week he proposed a $1.3 trillion deficit.
Republicans promise to block it.
The deficit has not been cut but has grown.
Because of Republican obstructionism.
It is about time for Obama to go.
For a second term with a Democratic controlled congress.
Republicans blocked it.
This week he proposed a $1.3 trillion deficit.
Republicans promise to block it.
The deficit has not been cut but has grown.
Because of Republican obstructionism.
It is about time for Obama to go.
For a second term with a Democratic controlled congress.
Jerry, you libs keep promising cuts AFTER tax increases. You guys must know what you plan on cutting so I am fully willing to set you free to cut what you promise. Just do so BEFORE getting any tax increases.
That is IF you ever had any intention of following through with those promises.
Thats it for me you are the energizer bunny of spin and it took a day for you to spin this. What a load.
That is IF you ever had any intention of following through with those promises.
Thats it for me you are the energizer bunny of spin and it took a day for you to spin this. What a load.
Ah the far, far, far right lunatics appear and refute...nothing.
While a constant poster to this board, the thinking folks (that excludes any "conservative" type obviously) understand that the (I'm giving him all the benefit of the doubt here) PEOPLE like xfmhrsd actually CONTRIBUTE nothing to any reasoned discussion.
I mean, somehow these just out of the cave dwellers "think" that cutting spending will magically "create" a better economy. Its akin to "thinking" that thinking less will make you smarter; but that is what "conservatives" do all day long.
Its like this folks (the thinking ones) if we CUT spending, the economy will DECREASE and there aint no nonsensical namecalling that will change it.
Back to the home school where you all were "educated" for some simple math maybe?
While a constant poster to this board, the thinking folks (that excludes any "conservative" type obviously) understand that the (I'm giving him all the benefit of the doubt here) PEOPLE like xfmhrsd actually CONTRIBUTE nothing to any reasoned discussion.
I mean, somehow these just out of the cave dwellers "think" that cutting spending will magically "create" a better economy. Its akin to "thinking" that thinking less will make you smarter; but that is what "conservatives" do all day long.
Its like this folks (the thinking ones) if we CUT spending, the economy will DECREASE and there aint no nonsensical namecalling that will change it.
Back to the home school where you all were "educated" for some simple math maybe?
Jerry, you libs keep promising cuts AFTER tax increases.
Even Bush didn't do that. He kept increasing his borrowing and spending. The Democrats promise cuts. Why can't you address that?
Even Bush didn't do that. He kept increasing his borrowing and spending. The Democrats promise cuts. Why can't you address that?
Hey, beentheredonethat, why are you soooo hard on Obama? You stated that is not thinking. He is planning to cut deep into defense speeding. You are finally correct on something your wrote. You get two stars for good work.
You said, "Its like this folks (the thinking ones) if we CUT spending, the economy will DECREASE and there aint no nonsensical namecalling that will change it."
You said, "Its like this folks (the thinking ones) if we CUT spending, the economy will DECREASE and there aint no nonsensical namecalling that will change it."
Jerry, you libs keep promising cuts AFTER tax increases.
Even Bush didn't do that. He kept increasing his borrowing and spending. The Democrats promise cuts. Why can't you address that?
Even Bush didn't do that. He kept increasing his borrowing and spending. The Democrats promise cuts. Why can't you address that?
I did. you don't.
Sgt.: So hard on Obama? Well, I guess its cause I'm not the robot most far, far, far right wing types like yourself are and I don't have any particular loyalty to this president.
See, whatever President Obama has done, or hasn't done, doesn't change whether what he has done or hasn't done is right or wrong; you get that right?
Cutting spending will decrease economic ouput and no right wing "uh uh" from nitwits will change it; whether those nit wits include the president or not.
I mean, even a far right winger like you can agree with that (even if you don't have enough sense to be able to think it through yourself) right?
See, whatever President Obama has done, or hasn't done, doesn't change whether what he has done or hasn't done is right or wrong; you get that right?
Cutting spending will decrease economic ouput and no right wing "uh uh" from nitwits will change it; whether those nit wits include the president or not.
I mean, even a far right winger like you can agree with that (even if you don't have enough sense to be able to think it through yourself) right?
Half right BTDT.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jul/07/barack-obama/obama-claims-job-rate-soared-after-clinton-raised-/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jul/07/barack-obama/obama-claims-job-rate-soared-after-clinton-raised-/
Beenthere - So we should INCREASE spending ?
Arent you the guy who believes that the Clinton era tax rates is what created a robust economy ?
Arent you the guy who believes that the Clinton era tax rates is what created a robust economy ?
xfmrhsd:
Half right about what? What I said was that if we increase taxes on the wealthiest, and don't decrease spending a dollar, and we choose to use the increased tax revenue to pay off the debt (which would be a VERY bad idea at this moment in time) the deficit would be reduced.
There isn't anything there that is half right, even according to the piece you cited.
And "Lester":
Yes, of course we should increase GOOD spending (you do realize there is a difference between that and other spending right?)
but no, I never argued that it was taxes that CREATED a better economy; apparently you and xfmrhsd went to the same home school.
Half right about what? What I said was that if we increase taxes on the wealthiest, and don't decrease spending a dollar, and we choose to use the increased tax revenue to pay off the debt (which would be a VERY bad idea at this moment in time) the deficit would be reduced.
There isn't anything there that is half right, even according to the piece you cited.
And "Lester":
Yes, of course we should increase GOOD spending (you do realize there is a difference between that and other spending right?)
but no, I never argued that it was taxes that CREATED a better economy; apparently you and xfmrhsd went to the same home school.
BTDT you did not read all the way though or you refuse to see. Whatever. You are for sure a true supporter of your brand.
"It does not prove that tax increases cause growth and tax cuts retard it," Toder said. "Lots of other stuff was happening in both decades, and simple correlations don’t prove causation."
"It is true that when Clinton raised the top marginal tax rate to 39.6 percent -- the same level Obama would like to return it to now -- the U.S. saw strong job growth in the ensuing years. But to the extent Obama is suggesting a cause and effect relationship between those two events -- and we think he certainly leaves that impression when he says we "should go with what works" -- that is dubious, according to the cross-section of economists we spoke to. There were many other economic factors that played a larger role in job growth, they said. However, most agree that the tax increases did not appear to hinder job growth, and that's significant given the dire warnings some Republicans have issued about Obama's plan to return the top tax rate to Clinton levels. Perhaps, as Foster argues, the situation is different enough now -- more precarious -- that a tax hike would have a more damaging effect."
"It does not prove that tax increases cause growth and tax cuts retard it," Toder said. "Lots of other stuff was happening in both decades, and simple correlations don’t prove causation."
"It is true that when Clinton raised the top marginal tax rate to 39.6 percent -- the same level Obama would like to return it to now -- the U.S. saw strong job growth in the ensuing years. But to the extent Obama is suggesting a cause and effect relationship between those two events -- and we think he certainly leaves that impression when he says we "should go with what works" -- that is dubious, according to the cross-section of economists we spoke to. There were many other economic factors that played a larger role in job growth, they said. However, most agree that the tax increases did not appear to hinder job growth, and that's significant given the dire warnings some Republicans have issued about Obama's plan to return the top tax rate to Clinton levels. Perhaps, as Foster argues, the situation is different enough now -- more precarious -- that a tax hike would have a more damaging effect."
BTDT Spinmeister
So you didn't post:
First we address tax increases (heck,lets just move them back to where they were a
short 15 years ago when the economy was booming,
So you didn't post:
First we address tax increases (heck,lets just move them back to where they were a
short 15 years ago when the economy was booming,
Maybe btdt went to the same school as Pelosi "for every dollar of money spent on welfare, we add 1.65 to the economy"
xfmrhsd:
Yes, I did say that, and you said I was "half-right".
I guess my question is since the economy was booming back then, and rates were higher, what was I wrong about?
And "Lester":
Yes, you can't count me in with Nancy Pelosi, because what she said was of course, 100% true (although I believe she was being VERY "conservative"...how's that for a liberal?)
Yes, I did say that, and you said I was "half-right".
I guess my question is since the economy was booming back then, and rates were higher, what was I wrong about?
And "Lester":
Yes, you can't count me in with Nancy Pelosi, because what she said was of course, 100% true (although I believe she was being VERY "conservative"...how's that for a liberal?)
Factchecker proof that Obama in 3 years is worse for the economy, than Bush was in 8 years.
http://factcheck.org/2012/02/dueling-debt-deceptions/
http://factcheck.org/2012/02/dueling-debt-deceptions/
So with that reasoning, why dont we just give evrybody a million dollars ? or raise minimum wage to $25 hr?
No Nancy was not 100% correct on that but once again half right. Under the right conditions unemployment insurance does support a down economy.
http://www.politifact.com/rhode-island/statements/2010/aug/05/james-langevin/langevin-says-each-dollar-spent-unemployment-benef/
Again a half right.
http://www.politifact.com/rhode-island/statements/2010/aug/05/james-langevin/langevin-says-each-dollar-spent-unemployment-benef/
Again a half right.
So BTDT you are ok with waiting for the economy to boom like it was 15 years ago before raising taxes.
In that case I agree.
But once again you did not read the whole article. It was a strong combination of a boom economy, cuts in spending by both Clinton and Bush one and the tax increases actually throttled the boom as is a good idea in that kind of economy.
Currently we do not have the economy that inspires economists to support tax increases.
In that case I agree.
But once again you did not read the whole article. It was a strong combination of a boom economy, cuts in spending by both Clinton and Bush one and the tax increases actually throttled the boom as is a good idea in that kind of economy.
Currently we do not have the economy that inspires economists to support tax increases.
Deep:
Its funny how people can read the stuff right in front of their eyes and come to the conclusions that they do. I mean, even the piece you cited says:
"We won’t attempt here to assess which side is more to blame for the mounting debt, or how much of the increase is Obama’s fault.:
But you soldiered on in a far right wing way didn't you?
Its funny how people can read the stuff right in front of their eyes and come to the conclusions that they do. I mean, even the piece you cited says:
"We won’t attempt here to assess which side is more to blame for the mounting debt, or how much of the increase is Obama’s fault.:
But you soldiered on in a far right wing way didn't you?
So, does that mean that you didn't read it Beenthere?
Do you not understand that facts can be, wait for it, NON BIAS?
Does that make you a JACK-assess because you are a typical democrat?
I suggest you read the piece and come back with something other than that drivel.
Do you not understand that facts can be, wait for it, NON BIAS?
Does that make you a JACK-assess because you are a typical democrat?
I suggest you read the piece and come back with something other than that drivel.
xfmrhsd:
Yes, Nancy Pelosi was 100% correct, and nothing you've cited changes it. The multiplier effect which unemployment benefits (as well as the welfare benefits that Nancy Pelosi spoke of) are subject to makes the difference, and while the article correctly pointed out that the impact of the multiplier changes from time to time depending on how well the economy is doing AT THE POINT WHEN NANCY PELOSI SAID WHAT SHE SAID (please keep that in mind when responding) the economy was at PRECISELY the point at which the multiplier effect of welfare spending peaks (the worst economic times) and so again, what she said was 100% correct.
And, no, xfmrhsd, we don't need to, nor should we "wait" until the economy is "booming" to raise taxes. In case you didn't realize it, the wealthiest people in the country today are wealthier than people have been in this country, in this country's history. That money ain't doing them, or anyone else, any good whatsoever and if "conservatives" (or cave people as I like to call them cause they "think" as if they just got out of their caves) want to worry about the "deficit" (all the sudden) then now is the time to increase taxes (all the way back to, and even higher than, they used to be back when Clinton was president) so that we can cut the deficit.
That is with the understanding that now is NOT the time to cut ANY spending because to do so would be the exact OPPOSITE of what is needed. In fact, if we increase taxes, and DO NOT decrease spending, the small increase that the rich will be paying, will almost certainly come back to them as the economy will immediately improve and they will get back the money in due course.
See, here's a liberal who willing to advocate for the rich, even when they seem unable to see what's in their best interest.
Yes, Nancy Pelosi was 100% correct, and nothing you've cited changes it. The multiplier effect which unemployment benefits (as well as the welfare benefits that Nancy Pelosi spoke of) are subject to makes the difference, and while the article correctly pointed out that the impact of the multiplier changes from time to time depending on how well the economy is doing AT THE POINT WHEN NANCY PELOSI SAID WHAT SHE SAID (please keep that in mind when responding) the economy was at PRECISELY the point at which the multiplier effect of welfare spending peaks (the worst economic times) and so again, what she said was 100% correct.
And, no, xfmrhsd, we don't need to, nor should we "wait" until the economy is "booming" to raise taxes. In case you didn't realize it, the wealthiest people in the country today are wealthier than people have been in this country, in this country's history. That money ain't doing them, or anyone else, any good whatsoever and if "conservatives" (or cave people as I like to call them cause they "think" as if they just got out of their caves) want to worry about the "deficit" (all the sudden) then now is the time to increase taxes (all the way back to, and even higher than, they used to be back when Clinton was president) so that we can cut the deficit.
That is with the understanding that now is NOT the time to cut ANY spending because to do so would be the exact OPPOSITE of what is needed. In fact, if we increase taxes, and DO NOT decrease spending, the small increase that the rich will be paying, will almost certainly come back to them as the economy will immediately improve and they will get back the money in due course.
See, here's a liberal who willing to advocate for the rich, even when they seem unable to see what's in their best interest.
Oh no Deep, I read it, but more importantly I understood it, which I would never expect from a far right wing loon; and fortunately you didn't disappoint.
See, the article did indeed cite facts, BUT most importantly they said:
""We won’t attempt here to assess which side is more to blame for the mounting debt, or how much of the increase is Obama’s fault."
Now, YOU in your mouth breathing, far, far, far right wing way of "thinking" came back and said that the article said something about "Factchecker proof that Obama in 3 years is worse for the economy, than Bush was in 8 years."
So, YOU tried to claim that "Factchecker" was saying something about President Obama's impact on the economy, and Factchecker said that it had NO opinion on that issue.
But, I wouldn't expect a cave dweller, afraid to see the eclipse in the sky for fear that the world was going to end tomorrow "conservative" to understand that.
See, the article did indeed cite facts, BUT most importantly they said:
""We won’t attempt here to assess which side is more to blame for the mounting debt, or how much of the increase is Obama’s fault."
Now, YOU in your mouth breathing, far, far, far right wing way of "thinking" came back and said that the article said something about "Factchecker proof that Obama in 3 years is worse for the economy, than Bush was in 8 years."
So, YOU tried to claim that "Factchecker" was saying something about President Obama's impact on the economy, and Factchecker said that it had NO opinion on that issue.
But, I wouldn't expect a cave dweller, afraid to see the eclipse in the sky for fear that the world was going to end tomorrow "conservative" to understand that.
So you stick to "eat the rich" It may or may not help, according to all of the things I read. The best thing is a growing and stable economy. We don't have one of those now.
In the end the trouble with your posts is you always have to "explain" or spin them in subsequent posts. This last post about Pelosis's comment is correct.
The portion about taxes is dubious at best. It consistantly earns a half right on Politifact and others. I like Politifact for their consistancy and willingness to self correct. Something you could learn from for that matter.
But you will insist you covered the little detail about economic conditions ruling the results of effects from unemployment insurance disbursements in your original post won't you?
In the end the trouble with your posts is you always have to "explain" or spin them in subsequent posts. This last post about Pelosis's comment is correct.
The portion about taxes is dubious at best. It consistantly earns a half right on Politifact and others. I like Politifact for their consistancy and willingness to self correct. Something you could learn from for that matter.
But you will insist you covered the little detail about economic conditions ruling the results of effects from unemployment insurance disbursements in your original post won't you?
xfmrhsd:
No, I got no intention to eat the rich, heck I might be one of them and I ain't no cannibal.
What I'm saying is that NOW is the time to take rates back to where they were before the criminal in office only a short four years ago seized power.
There is not a single good economic reason not to and there are many good economic and moral reasons why they should be.
You want to reduce the deficit, you increase the taxes and the wealthy and hold spending where it is today and the deficit will be reduced.
You want to increase economic growth? Raise taxes on the wealthy AND raise spending. Although the deficit will not decrease AS QUICKLY, the growth fostered by the increase in spending will ultimately lead to higher employment and thereby higher revenues which will lead to a reduction in the deficit.
You want to increase fundamental fairness in the country; increase taxes on the people who benefit the most by the fact that this country has the system it does; those who receive the greatest benefit should pay the most.
However, REDUCING tax rates on the wealthy (which is what bush did, and this president has done since becoming president) stands in the way of economic growth AND fundamental fairness.
No, I got no intention to eat the rich, heck I might be one of them and I ain't no cannibal.
What I'm saying is that NOW is the time to take rates back to where they were before the criminal in office only a short four years ago seized power.
There is not a single good economic reason not to and there are many good economic and moral reasons why they should be.
You want to reduce the deficit, you increase the taxes and the wealthy and hold spending where it is today and the deficit will be reduced.
You want to increase economic growth? Raise taxes on the wealthy AND raise spending. Although the deficit will not decrease AS QUICKLY, the growth fostered by the increase in spending will ultimately lead to higher employment and thereby higher revenues which will lead to a reduction in the deficit.
You want to increase fundamental fairness in the country; increase taxes on the people who benefit the most by the fact that this country has the system it does; those who receive the greatest benefit should pay the most.
However, REDUCING tax rates on the wealthy (which is what bush did, and this president has done since becoming president) stands in the way of economic growth AND fundamental fairness.
There is economic theory that more government spending is good for the economy.
Sure look what it did for ancient greece and the romans. They survived!
Sure look what it did for ancient greece and the romans. They survived!
OK the filter doesn't want me posting this complete so lets split it up.
If AMT ever sneaks past us, we will all be “rich” with the exception of those earning somewhere around 30 grand a year or less... (1969 amount has to be exempted each year it was never set to adjust for inflation)
Economic theories as regards tax rates vary.
As for moral reasons, it is impossible to legislate morality. In fact I believe it immoral to attempt legislating morality.
Based on math I disagree, taxes have the effect of slowing an economy. This is good during a boom and should have been used during the shrubs administration but was not. Believe it or not carrying the current taxes forward is a good thing until the economy does hit a stable footing, make no mistake this will happen. When it does increasing tax rates will be necessary, but it is the economy first, not taxes.
One of the things in that article you missed (or don't mention) is tax rates AND SPENDING CUTS (DURING BUSH SR. AND CLINTON) were what made the federal deficit reach a surplus. This was AFTER the boom started. The economy enjoyed a host of new technologies and this is what raised revenues to the point that allowed the feds to run as they did then. Revenue was great then. By contrast revenue in a down economy will only drop with a raise in tax rates because it removes money from circulation, this is the same as lowering spending.
You encourage spending but take it away by raising taxes.
If AMT ever sneaks past us, we will all be “rich” with the exception of those earning somewhere around 30 grand a year or less... (1969 amount has to be exempted each year it was never set to adjust for inflation)
Economic theories as regards tax rates vary.
As for moral reasons, it is impossible to legislate morality. In fact I believe it immoral to attempt legislating morality.
Based on math I disagree, taxes have the effect of slowing an economy. This is good during a boom and should have been used during the shrubs administration but was not. Believe it or not carrying the current taxes forward is a good thing until the economy does hit a stable footing, make no mistake this will happen. When it does increasing tax rates will be necessary, but it is the economy first, not taxes.
One of the things in that article you missed (or don't mention) is tax rates AND SPENDING CUTS (DURING BUSH SR. AND CLINTON) were what made the federal deficit reach a surplus. This was AFTER the boom started. The economy enjoyed a host of new technologies and this is what raised revenues to the point that allowed the feds to run as they did then. Revenue was great then. By contrast revenue in a down economy will only drop with a raise in tax rates because it removes money from circulation, this is the same as lowering spending.
You encourage spending but take it away by raising taxes.
And now for part 2
Keep in mind all this spending/low tax rates is wholly based on borrowed money. Eventually we have to pay a bunch of it back so we can access new credit in the future and we are rapidly getting close to our limit.
Considering our current manufacturing base is imports what we should do is go back to import tariffs and get rid of income tax altogether, this would truly encourage a make it here attitude in our corporate minds. If we don't do that soon we won't have the buying power to do it in the future.
Also keep in mind the Constitution does not promise fairness, it only provides the means for us to do this for ourselves daily.
“The criminal in office.” How about that, another from the left of center discouraged by the current president. Yes we did not have much of a choice in 07 but a lesser of two evils WILL slow the travel to “evil” but has the effect of allowing some thought and possibly a course change along the way.
Keep in mind all this spending/low tax rates is wholly based on borrowed money. Eventually we have to pay a bunch of it back so we can access new credit in the future and we are rapidly getting close to our limit.
Considering our current manufacturing base is imports what we should do is go back to import tariffs and get rid of income tax altogether, this would truly encourage a make it here attitude in our corporate minds. If we don't do that soon we won't have the buying power to do it in the future.
Also keep in mind the Constitution does not promise fairness, it only provides the means for us to do this for ourselves daily.
“The criminal in office.” How about that, another from the left of center discouraged by the current president. Yes we did not have much of a choice in 07 but a lesser of two evils WILL slow the travel to “evil” but has the effect of allowing some thought and possibly a course change along the way.
There is a theory that drinking water is good for you, but then there are those, on the far, far, far right wing that will point out that it didn't help the passengers on the Titanic.
Just ain't no reasoning with some "people".
Just ain't no reasoning with some "people".
xfmrhsd:
The biggest problem in a down economy is a lack of spending and fear.
Those are the problems that the economy has had lately and no reduction in taxes and/or spending will solve those problems.
However, we can resolve BOTH of those problems by taxing and spending and here's how:
The rich are sitting on cash, and businesses are sitting on cash. They both "fear" what is going to happen tomorrow and therefore, they sit...and they don't spend.
Because they have cash, but it ain't "working" the economy won't get any better and the only way for it to get better, is for some of that money to make it back into the economy which it won't do until the economy gets better and businesses and the wealthiest stop being afraid.
So here's what we do; tax some of the money that the richest and the businesses are sitting on and do something with it. Now I know this ain't nothing that you haven't heard before, but since you said "By contrast revenue in a down economy will only drop with a raise in tax rates because it removes money from circulation, this is the same as lowering spending. You encourage spending but take it away by raising taxes."
I had to remind you about why this is so wrong.
You're confusing the necessity of getting money from the wealthy back into the economy with "taking it away" from the economy. There is no taking away, because the money that businesses and the wealthy are sitting on today is not in the economy. Once that money is taxed, and spent by the government THEN it becomes part of the economy again and actually contributes something.
The biggest problem in a down economy is a lack of spending and fear.
Those are the problems that the economy has had lately and no reduction in taxes and/or spending will solve those problems.
However, we can resolve BOTH of those problems by taxing and spending and here's how:
The rich are sitting on cash, and businesses are sitting on cash. They both "fear" what is going to happen tomorrow and therefore, they sit...and they don't spend.
Because they have cash, but it ain't "working" the economy won't get any better and the only way for it to get better, is for some of that money to make it back into the economy which it won't do until the economy gets better and businesses and the wealthiest stop being afraid.
So here's what we do; tax some of the money that the richest and the businesses are sitting on and do something with it. Now I know this ain't nothing that you haven't heard before, but since you said "By contrast revenue in a down economy will only drop with a raise in tax rates because it removes money from circulation, this is the same as lowering spending. You encourage spending but take it away by raising taxes."
I had to remind you about why this is so wrong.
You're confusing the necessity of getting money from the wealthy back into the economy with "taking it away" from the economy. There is no taking away, because the money that businesses and the wealthy are sitting on today is not in the economy. Once that money is taxed, and spent by the government THEN it becomes part of the economy again and actually contributes something.
So, if we are surviving now, with what the government is providing, why do we need more government and more taxes again?
“Once that money is taxed, and spent by the government THEN it becomes part of the economy again and actually contributes something.”
I have a cushion, its my savings. Its been taxed already. When I spend some of it this is directly effecting the economy. You are wrong in assuming it takes the force of government to make it move again.
What is really needed is stable policy all of us can trust so we can all move money again. Not just the “rich” but all of us. The middle class as a group has far more cash than the wealthy do. But taxing the middle class would only worsen the problem because I would clam up like never before and not one penny would get spent that did not absolutely have to.
What we have now is an unclear investment path so no return on investment can be planned. Keep in mind a tax on this return is expected, its the unknown tax that prevents the movement of money at the level you describe.
That is what prevents me from spending and investing at my level. I could and have and used to, spend right up to the paycheck to paycheck level but today I refuse. I need that cushion to support me if the worst happens so I can look for a fill in during the life of the cushion.
Its true, money by itself is worthless. Money cannot keep the rain off my head but it can by a roof. I cannot eat money but money can buy food. Money is only useful as a tool and its more like a river, it must remain in motion or it stagnates. This is why investment is so important. Savings actually move around on the way to making the investor wealthier. But why invest if you cannot plan on the cost (tax) you will have to incur? This is the lack of stability we have today. This is what stops the the flow and taking it by force will only slow it even more. Give me stability so I can take risk.
I have a cushion, its my savings. Its been taxed already. When I spend some of it this is directly effecting the economy. You are wrong in assuming it takes the force of government to make it move again.
What is really needed is stable policy all of us can trust so we can all move money again. Not just the “rich” but all of us. The middle class as a group has far more cash than the wealthy do. But taxing the middle class would only worsen the problem because I would clam up like never before and not one penny would get spent that did not absolutely have to.
What we have now is an unclear investment path so no return on investment can be planned. Keep in mind a tax on this return is expected, its the unknown tax that prevents the movement of money at the level you describe.
That is what prevents me from spending and investing at my level. I could and have and used to, spend right up to the paycheck to paycheck level but today I refuse. I need that cushion to support me if the worst happens so I can look for a fill in during the life of the cushion.
Its true, money by itself is worthless. Money cannot keep the rain off my head but it can by a roof. I cannot eat money but money can buy food. Money is only useful as a tool and its more like a river, it must remain in motion or it stagnates. This is why investment is so important. Savings actually move around on the way to making the investor wealthier. But why invest if you cannot plan on the cost (tax) you will have to incur? This is the lack of stability we have today. This is what stops the the flow and taking it by force will only slow it even more. Give me stability so I can take risk.
I like how the guy from Boston talks about Nancy Pelosi. That Liberal *itch! Sherm, you should really check out his video... "The guy from boston"
“Once that money is taxed, and spent by the government THEN it becomes part of the economy again and actually contributes something.”
It was part of the economy BEFORE they taxed it dummy.
It was part of the economy BEFORE they taxed it dummy.
Factchecker proof that Obama in 3 years is worse for the economy, than Bush was in 8 years.
You're correct, BTDT, their "just ain't no reasoning with some people." They just cannot admit they're wrong. Like something as simple as Deep not understanding what he read at Factchecker. There is no getting around the real fact that the economy went down under Bush and went up - and is still going up - under Obama. Try denying that all they want; but it's simply fact they cannot live with. The first thing you'll have to do is get them to admit to that one simple fact. But they won't. They can't. Sherman can't either. They dodge and squirm and change the subject. You'll never get a legitimate discussion going with these wing nuts until you drag them - kicking and screaming - to admitting the present economy, is in fact, improving. Go ahead; ask them. In fact, watch:
Tell us, Deep, is the economy improving?
You're correct, BTDT, their "just ain't no reasoning with some people." They just cannot admit they're wrong. Like something as simple as Deep not understanding what he read at Factchecker. There is no getting around the real fact that the economy went down under Bush and went up - and is still going up - under Obama. Try denying that all they want; but it's simply fact they cannot live with. The first thing you'll have to do is get them to admit to that one simple fact. But they won't. They can't. Sherman can't either. They dodge and squirm and change the subject. You'll never get a legitimate discussion going with these wing nuts until you drag them - kicking and screaming - to admitting the present economy, is in fact, improving. Go ahead; ask them. In fact, watch:
Tell us, Deep, is the economy improving?
xfmrhsd:
You said a mouthful and I don't think you knew it.
You are a microcosm of what I said about fear; you are holding on to your money UNTIL the economy stabilizes. By doing so, and because you are not alone, you are ensuring that the economy NEVER stabilizes. This is precisely what Keynes, and others, have called the paradox of savings. You are currently "afraid" of what might happen tomorrow economically, and so you do the logical, rational thing; you save to prepare yourself. Unfortunately, millions of people do the same thing, and by doing so, the economy suffers, which makes people more fearful, which causes them to spend less, and the spiral continues.
AND as Keynes discovered, IT DOES END UNTIL SOMEONE STARTS SPENDING. Now, Keynes thought, and was proven to be correct, that if the government stepped in, and started spending, that the pump would be primed, and the economy would stabilize, and then people would be less fearful, and the spending would start again, and then you had an "upward" spiral. That is PRECISELY what we have had in the last several quarters.
The government primed the pump, the fed did its share, and the recovery started again. That is where we are today,and as Jerry pointed out, it just keeps going.
You said a mouthful and I don't think you knew it.
You are a microcosm of what I said about fear; you are holding on to your money UNTIL the economy stabilizes. By doing so, and because you are not alone, you are ensuring that the economy NEVER stabilizes. This is precisely what Keynes, and others, have called the paradox of savings. You are currently "afraid" of what might happen tomorrow economically, and so you do the logical, rational thing; you save to prepare yourself. Unfortunately, millions of people do the same thing, and by doing so, the economy suffers, which makes people more fearful, which causes them to spend less, and the spiral continues.
AND as Keynes discovered, IT DOES END UNTIL SOMEONE STARTS SPENDING. Now, Keynes thought, and was proven to be correct, that if the government stepped in, and started spending, that the pump would be primed, and the economy would stabilize, and then people would be less fearful, and the spending would start again, and then you had an "upward" spiral. That is PRECISELY what we have had in the last several quarters.
The government primed the pump, the fed did its share, and the recovery started again. That is where we are today,and as Jerry pointed out, it just keeps going.
That all depends on your point of view Jerry.
You are obviously happy about your choice of party and President, I remain dubious.
Some things are better for being propped up, some are not. A major question I have is just how long can we continue to prop these things up before it crashes again? (and) Will the economy become strong enough soon enough? Or do we see never ending growth of borrowing to support a continually anemic economic condition? Put simply when does it ROI. (I know, you say it is now).
http://www.politifact.com/ohio/article/2012/feb/14/john-boehner-and-state-economy/
"So there clearly are signs of improvement out there some areas with clear trends to the good. But, there also are rough spots that show the economy isn’t in the clear yet. How strong or weak economic recovery has progressed may all boil down to whether one views the glass as half empty or half full."
You are obviously happy about your choice of party and President, I remain dubious.
Some things are better for being propped up, some are not. A major question I have is just how long can we continue to prop these things up before it crashes again? (and) Will the economy become strong enough soon enough? Or do we see never ending growth of borrowing to support a continually anemic economic condition? Put simply when does it ROI. (I know, you say it is now).
http://www.politifact.com/ohio/article/2012/feb/14/john-boehner-and-state-economy/
"So there clearly are signs of improvement out there some areas with clear trends to the good. But, there also are rough spots that show the economy isn’t in the clear yet. How strong or weak economic recovery has progressed may all boil down to whether one views the glass as half empty or half full."
Well, that was a backhanded compliment BTDT. I can let it slide.
There is one very important part of the economic theory not being followed. We have the spending down pat, no trouble there.
Keynes also made a point that government needs to act in reverse of economic condition. During good times act to slow the boom by raising taxes and cutting spending. Both were done in the Clinton and Bush Sr. days. I would add that government needs to hold on to a good portion of any "surplus" and not spend it at all because this is what is done during bad times (By human nature) stopping the flow, it should be used by government during good times to slow it. Doing these things has the effect of lengthening the good times and smoothing the boom. This is why raising taxes now remains a bad idea. The economy has to show it is recovered to a point that a boom could begin again.
I do not see that happening for quite a few years out yet.
Right now government needs to provide a very stable, predictable tax structure. This is the stage we are at currently. We need a budget and we need it now. These stop-gap measures are what I see preventing us taking risk.
There is one very important part of the economic theory not being followed. We have the spending down pat, no trouble there.
Keynes also made a point that government needs to act in reverse of economic condition. During good times act to slow the boom by raising taxes and cutting spending. Both were done in the Clinton and Bush Sr. days. I would add that government needs to hold on to a good portion of any "surplus" and not spend it at all because this is what is done during bad times (By human nature) stopping the flow, it should be used by government during good times to slow it. Doing these things has the effect of lengthening the good times and smoothing the boom. This is why raising taxes now remains a bad idea. The economy has to show it is recovered to a point that a boom could begin again.
I do not see that happening for quite a few years out yet.
Right now government needs to provide a very stable, predictable tax structure. This is the stage we are at currently. We need a budget and we need it now. These stop-gap measures are what I see preventing us taking risk.
A side benefit of government not spending some of that "surplus" money and saving it would be an offset to borrowing for the spending needed in a downtime.
xfmrhsd:
Two very quick things before I go:
1. Yes spending less during good time CAN be a good thing, but you must keep in mind that there is monetary policy, then there is the need to maintain the things that make a country a country, which cannot be cut simply become most of the people in the country are doing well;
2. Republicans will not permit the government to operate on a "surplus" as they will claim that this simply means taxes/revenues are too high, as bush did when he claimed we needed to cut taxes and "give the people back their money"; it just won't fly politically even though it would be a reasonable idea.
Two very quick things before I go:
1. Yes spending less during good time CAN be a good thing, but you must keep in mind that there is monetary policy, then there is the need to maintain the things that make a country a country, which cannot be cut simply become most of the people in the country are doing well;
2. Republicans will not permit the government to operate on a "surplus" as they will claim that this simply means taxes/revenues are too high, as bush did when he claimed we needed to cut taxes and "give the people back their money"; it just won't fly politically even though it would be a reasonable idea.
Republicans say give the money back and Democrats say spend it all now.
Both are reasons to shrink the government.
Both are reasons to shrink the government.
It is inherently unreasonable to parrot the old "lets shrink government" when everything is growing including the population.
Its simply a nonsensical bumper sticker that people, who don't or can't think much, are willing to repeat (after being manipulated by those who benefit by that nonsense of course)
I mean, just as a single small example; this country has no laws today regulating internet gambling, but the country will benefit (economically at least) by having regulated internet gambling. "Small government types" who insist that "we need to make government smaller" might insist that even the regulations which would promote internet gambling are "big government" and therefore unnecessary.
This is merely one of the nonsensical things that the far, far, far, right wing continues to parrot, even when the mantra they chant is...counterproductive.
Its simply a nonsensical bumper sticker that people, who don't or can't think much, are willing to repeat (after being manipulated by those who benefit by that nonsense of course)
I mean, just as a single small example; this country has no laws today regulating internet gambling, but the country will benefit (economically at least) by having regulated internet gambling. "Small government types" who insist that "we need to make government smaller" might insist that even the regulations which would promote internet gambling are "big government" and therefore unnecessary.
This is merely one of the nonsensical things that the far, far, far, right wing continues to parrot, even when the mantra they chant is...counterproductive.
That all depends on your point of view Jerry.
See there, folks? Even xfm can't bring himself to admit the economy is improving. This is a real hoot. Not one of you even knows that John Boehner, himself, has admitted the economy is improving ("slowly"). But you can't bring yourselves to actually say it. Don't you think that says something about you and Sherman (and nothing heard from Deep)?
See there, folks? Even xfm can't bring himself to admit the economy is improving. This is a real hoot. Not one of you even knows that John Boehner, himself, has admitted the economy is improving ("slowly"). But you can't bring yourselves to actually say it. Don't you think that says something about you and Sherman (and nothing heard from Deep)?
BTDT, please. Right now all regulations and laws seek to PREVENT internet gambling. It will actually take a decrease in regulation and romoval of law to allow for a structured internet gambling business to develope and be taxed. Please dont say we are ADDING regulations to make an outlawed business regulated. Sad.
Go back and read my post again Jerry, I say some things are better some are not. Its you that say all are better and Politifact calls it out as some good some not. That places me in good company and you a blind fool.
xfmrhsd:
See now this is an example of the nonsense that some people on the far, far, far right say.
Right now there is no "law" other than the Wire Act which even purports to cover internet gaming. However, since the advent of internet gaming, the policy of the United States, and its Justice Dept. has been to interpret that law in a way to prohibit internet gaming.
Now, the Justice Department has "re-interpreted" the act to permit internet gaming, but because most states have laws which prohibit gaming and in particular internet gambling, the states must, if they are to permit gaming, adopt NEW laws (and the regulatory scheme which will permit those laws to be carried out).
You understand that right? I mean, no state today is going to permit internet gaming within their jurisdictions without ANY regulation. Regulations are laws, and since in order to have internet gaming new laws are required, in order to have more business; i.e. internet gaming, more laws are required.
I mean, you live (presumably) in a state that had no gaming at one time, UNTIL the legislature passed a law allowing it. Only AFTER the regulations were in place to regulate the industry was gaming permitted, and therefore, without new laws, there can be no "new" business.
You get that right?
See now this is an example of the nonsense that some people on the far, far, far right say.
Right now there is no "law" other than the Wire Act which even purports to cover internet gaming. However, since the advent of internet gaming, the policy of the United States, and its Justice Dept. has been to interpret that law in a way to prohibit internet gaming.
Now, the Justice Department has "re-interpreted" the act to permit internet gaming, but because most states have laws which prohibit gaming and in particular internet gambling, the states must, if they are to permit gaming, adopt NEW laws (and the regulatory scheme which will permit those laws to be carried out).
You understand that right? I mean, no state today is going to permit internet gaming within their jurisdictions without ANY regulation. Regulations are laws, and since in order to have internet gaming new laws are required, in order to have more business; i.e. internet gaming, more laws are required.
I mean, you live (presumably) in a state that had no gaming at one time, UNTIL the legislature passed a law allowing it. Only AFTER the regulations were in place to regulate the industry was gaming permitted, and therefore, without new laws, there can be no "new" business.
You get that right?
If there are no laws preventing it then anyone can open a business in it. Simple all they have to do is make sure they pay sthe appripriate taxes. But in this case the USA outlawed internet gaming in 2006 this makes it possible for NV to operate internet gaming only if NV can provably prevent customers from outside nevada accessing the site. The law is Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006
Just beacuse there is no law preventing a business does not mean that business is prevented until law allowing it to operate is written. If it is not expressly forbidden then nothing prevents it taking place. You get that don't you?
Just beacuse there is no law preventing a business does not mean that business is prevented until law allowing it to operate is written. If it is not expressly forbidden then nothing prevents it taking place. You get that don't you?
xfmrhsd:
No legal internet gaming can take place in Nevada (or anywhere else in this country) today until appropriate regulations are in place.
That means that until more laws are in place, there can be no internet gaming.
The "limited government" types by decrying all kinds of regulations/laws, would be standing in the way of more business.
You get that right?
No legal internet gaming can take place in Nevada (or anywhere else in this country) today until appropriate regulations are in place.
That means that until more laws are in place, there can be no internet gaming.
The "limited government" types by decrying all kinds of regulations/laws, would be standing in the way of more business.
You get that right?
You get that if no law is currently restricting a new business there is nothing to prevent it from operating, right? How about that Dotty's business model? That was a fun read for a while.
You are wrong about the internet gaming in NV if it proves it can be restricted to customers within state lines, it is all set to go right now. Previously the state of NV outlawed internet gambling fully. It actualy took a law overiding one to make it legal here. Reduction in regulation baby! Here it is BTDT, happy reading. From what is probably one of your favorite publications no less,
vegasinc.com/news/2011/dec/22/nevada-gaming-commissioin-approves-rules-internet-/
See that? the USA outlawed it but cannot prevent it within state lines. Darn that constitution thingy, what is it? The tenth?
You are wrong about the internet gaming in NV if it proves it can be restricted to customers within state lines, it is all set to go right now. Previously the state of NV outlawed internet gambling fully. It actualy took a law overiding one to make it legal here. Reduction in regulation baby! Here it is BTDT, happy reading. From what is probably one of your favorite publications no less,
vegasinc.com/news/2011/dec/22/nevada-gaming-commissioin-approves-rules-internet-/
See that? the USA outlawed it but cannot prevent it within state lines. Darn that constitution thingy, what is it? The tenth?
xfmrhsd:
I wonder if you realize what it was that you read?
See, I'll quote the article here and point out to you what you missed:
"The Nevada Gaming Commission approved the nation’s first regulations for Internet poker play today, opening the door to the licensing of companies to offer online play within the state."
What this says is that WITHOUT NEW regulations, no internet gaming in Nevada would be legal. You get that right?
Take a look at those regulations some time, you'll see that there are pages, and pages, of new laws that HAD to be enacted BEFORE a single citizen could legally play on line in this state (and of course that goes for every other state in the country that decides to permit internet gaming)
This is a good thing, because these regulations are permitting new businesses that would not exist BUT FOR the new regulations; you get that right?
I wonder if you realize what it was that you read?
See, I'll quote the article here and point out to you what you missed:
"The Nevada Gaming Commission approved the nation’s first regulations for Internet poker play today, opening the door to the licensing of companies to offer online play within the state."
What this says is that WITHOUT NEW regulations, no internet gaming in Nevada would be legal. You get that right?
Take a look at those regulations some time, you'll see that there are pages, and pages, of new laws that HAD to be enacted BEFORE a single citizen could legally play on line in this state (and of course that goes for every other state in the country that decides to permit internet gaming)
This is a good thing, because these regulations are permitting new businesses that would not exist BUT FOR the new regulations; you get that right?
You still refuse to see it. Nevada wrote that law in order to reduce the regluation from Nevadas earlier law preventing internet gambling in any form. The new law is a reduction in regulation not an addition to regulation.
A new law that overrides old law and lowers barriers the old law held firm is a lowering of regulation.
You continue to spin that a new law means new regulation.
I dont care about how the regulation is removed it only matters it has been removed.
A new law that overrides old law and lowers barriers the old law held firm is a lowering of regulation.
You continue to spin that a new law means new regulation.
I dont care about how the regulation is removed it only matters it has been removed.
Look, prior to 2006 Nevada outlawed internet gambling within the states borders. After they passed the new law in 2006 allowing internet gambling within the states borders we in effect have a new law that takes precedence over the old one. The effect of the new law is to lessen the regulation of the old law disallowing internet gambling to now allow internet gambling.
I say this is a reduction in regulation because internet gambling is no longer disallowed.
You say its an increase in regulation allowing internet gambling because it takes a new law to allow it.
Fact remains the regulation has been lowered because internet gambling is now allowed in the state of Nevada where regulation prior totally disallowed it.
Look at this from 2010:
tinyurl.com/874qkrx
First the law said its illegal then a new law says its legal, there is no other way to define it than a lowering of regulation. Even as they write or amend regulation to govern a business's operation.
I say this is a reduction in regulation because internet gambling is no longer disallowed.
You say its an increase in regulation allowing internet gambling because it takes a new law to allow it.
Fact remains the regulation has been lowered because internet gambling is now allowed in the state of Nevada where regulation prior totally disallowed it.
Look at this from 2010:
tinyurl.com/874qkrx
First the law said its illegal then a new law says its legal, there is no other way to define it than a lowering of regulation. Even as they write or amend regulation to govern a business's operation.
Blocked
xfmrhsd:
It is apparent that you don't know the difference between regulations and laws.
Although both regulations and laws are "rules", laws are enacted by legislatures, and regulations are typically enacted by the regulatory bodies charged with ensuring that the laws are followed.
When you say that Nevada had a "law" which prohibited internet gaming, you are correct. But you ignore the fact that there were no regulations needed at that time to ensure that the law was followed; the attorney general and the police were charged with the responsibility to prosecute violators of that law.
However, when the "law" was changed, to permit internet gaming, new regulations were needed. These regulations, "new laws" were passed, and until they were passed, NO internet gaming would be permitted.
Years ago when Nevada's legislature adopted a law which permitting gaming they created the Nevada Gaming Commission to carry out that law. The Gaming Commission then adopted regulations which furthered that legislation. Without the "new" "laws" (regulations" the "law" allowing gaming, would not have allowed anyone to gamble or offer gambling in the state.
So, again, I will tell you, that without the NEW "laws" known as "regulations" there can be no legal internet gaming in this state. I don't know how else to explain it but to say that internet gaming in this state REQUIRED that NEW "rules" (call them laws or regulations because effectively they are the same things for our purposes) have to be enacted.
This is nothing BUT an expansion of government and it is a good thing because that expansion PERMITS a new business to operate where before there was none.
It is apparent that you don't know the difference between regulations and laws.
Although both regulations and laws are "rules", laws are enacted by legislatures, and regulations are typically enacted by the regulatory bodies charged with ensuring that the laws are followed.
When you say that Nevada had a "law" which prohibited internet gaming, you are correct. But you ignore the fact that there were no regulations needed at that time to ensure that the law was followed; the attorney general and the police were charged with the responsibility to prosecute violators of that law.
However, when the "law" was changed, to permit internet gaming, new regulations were needed. These regulations, "new laws" were passed, and until they were passed, NO internet gaming would be permitted.
Years ago when Nevada's legislature adopted a law which permitting gaming they created the Nevada Gaming Commission to carry out that law. The Gaming Commission then adopted regulations which furthered that legislation. Without the "new" "laws" (regulations" the "law" allowing gaming, would not have allowed anyone to gamble or offer gambling in the state.
So, again, I will tell you, that without the NEW "laws" known as "regulations" there can be no legal internet gaming in this state. I don't know how else to explain it but to say that internet gaming in this state REQUIRED that NEW "rules" (call them laws or regulations because effectively they are the same things for our purposes) have to be enacted.
This is nothing BUT an expansion of government and it is a good thing because that expansion PERMITS a new business to operate where before there was none.
Enough already, long winded hair splitting. It was illegal now its not. That is lowering of restrictions now matter how you look at it.
Sorry if complicated issues require more than a bumper sticker response.
The fact is we didn't have legal internet gaming before, and in order to get it now we will REQUIRE more regulations/laws.
The fact is we didn't have legal internet gaming before, and in order to get it now we will REQUIRE more regulations/laws.
We agree to disagree. Now that is a bumper sticker.
Your entitled to your opinion, but disagreeing about facts just makes you look...well, you know.
The fact is we will require more rules to have internet gaming or legal internet gaming will not exist.
The fact is we will require more rules to have internet gaming or legal internet gaming will not exist.
I disagree with your point of view. The facts we are hair splitting remain the same. It does take more paper to make less restriction. But less restriction remains less regulation.
fooltool (btdt) is patrick with a little p.
Come on, patrick. We all know it's you!
Come on, patrick. We all know it's you!
xfmrhsd:
In order to have internet gaming in this state we need more rules. That is fact.
If you had read, and understood the article that YOU cited, and you didn't just want to argue, you would know that this is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
In fact, let me ask you so we can be clear:
Do you agree or disagree that in order to have legalized internet gaming in this state, according to the article you cited, we need MORE regulations?
In order to have internet gaming in this state we need more rules. That is fact.
If you had read, and understood the article that YOU cited, and you didn't just want to argue, you would know that this is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
In fact, let me ask you so we can be clear:
Do you agree or disagree that in order to have legalized internet gaming in this state, according to the article you cited, we need MORE regulations?
Said my bit, done.
I'll accept that as an admission; and well done you may have actually understood what you read.
That's a start; even if you spent 20 posts just arguing about something you understood because you didn't want to admit that you were wrong.
That's a start; even if you spent 20 posts just arguing about something you understood because you didn't want to admit that you were wrong.
Yep. fooltool is patrick with a small p. No one else could be so obtuse.
And I got the last post on this topic!
Sometimes its better to allow them to think they have it Athos.
I should have known better after watching BTDT and Jerry.Surdivant a few weeks back.
I should have known better after watching BTDT and Jerry.Surdivant a few weeks back.
xfmrhsd:
You might have learned that I always hold out hope that people will learn, if they are given enough opportunity.
I figure its something I can give back to the community (although I have given up on Athoughlessfool because he has amply demonstrated that he is incapable and unwilling.
You might have learned that I always hold out hope that people will learn, if they are given enough opportunity.
I figure its something I can give back to the community (although I have given up on Athoughlessfool because he has amply demonstrated that he is incapable and unwilling.
G'night, little p patrick!
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
Comments (122)
Registration Notice: The Review-Journal has implemented a new registration procedure that requires all existing and new accounts to validate and login using Facebook. Visit the Registration FAQ for more information.
Share your thoughts on this story.
Sign in or register to make a comment.
Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 24 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.