Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats

That is an interesting way to coin it, Espy. I would say 'The rich have a duty to put more money into a system which almost guarantees they stay wealthy than the poor'.

1.3 Trillion in cuts in 10 years?!? :rolleyes: Good luck with that.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
That is an interesting way to coin it, Espy. I would say 'The rich have a duty to put more money into a system which almost guarantees they stay wealthy than the poor'.

1.3 Trillion in cuts in 10 years?!? :rolleyes: Good luck with that.
Not even real cuts, just "not as big budget increases as you thought."
 
That is an interesting way to coin it, Espy. I would say 'The rich have a duty to put more money into a system which almost guarantees they stay wealthy than the poor'.
Well that certainly sounds better but it ends up equaling the same idea. But to take you at your words, why do they have that duty? What compels that duty?
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Furthermore I find that statement fallacious. Never has an economic system allowed for more income mobility than the one we've had here in the US. There have been more new millionaires in the last few decades than one can shake a stick at. The "rich get richer and the poor stay poor" is the mantra of the incompetent. I think a more apropos platitude would be "Take away a rich man's wealth and he'll have made it back in 10 years... give a poor man millions, and he'll be broke again in 2." In america, poverty (and that's really just comparative poverty... there is very little actual true poverty in the US) is practically evidence of mental disorder.
 

Not since the 1920's has the income disparity been so bad.

Honestly, that wasn't even what I was getting at. But thanks Gas for bringing up something which is important. Nowhere did I say that people can't get wealthy. I said the wealthy who started wealthy often stay wealthy in our system.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
I said the wealthy who started wealthy often stay wealthy in our system.
That's a rather ambiguous statement which begs a disturbing question - how often is "often?" And does that mean that nobody should be allowed to "start" wealthy? Just because a person inherits money, that doesn't mean he will keep it, nor does it mean he won't get even richer - it depends on the person and the choices they make over their life - just like everyone else.

And furthermore, that money has already been taxed before - most likely at the highest income bracket. When it was earned.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Gasbandit said:
And furthermore, that money has already been taxed before - most likely at the highest income bracket. When it was earned.
Which isn't entirely true for tax savvy individuals.
THAT is entirely a creation of the 9 billion ton spaghettified rats nest that is our tax code. The more time, or money that it takes to buy someone else's time, you have, the more loopholes and other methods you can find to shelter your money. You want to put an end to that? Fairtax, beyotch. No deductions. No shelters. No bullshit, and it's inherently progressive.
 
I have no problem with that, Gas. I don't think it would happen, though. I am entirely for simplicity in all things.

Do keep in mind that an entire job market would dry up overnight with that plan.

And why 19%? Why not just make it 20%?
 

GasBandit

Staff member
I have no problem with that, Gas. I don't think it would happen, though. I am entirely for simplicity in all things.
I have a feeling we'll be rebuilding things from scratch withing the next few decades, so it's something to keep in mind.

And why 19%? Why not just make it 20%?
Because 19% is on the high side of reasonable expectations. From the article:

Most economists talk about a debt-to-GDP ratio of 60 percent as a trigger point that makes investors very nervous about a country's ability to pay its obligations. The debt to GDP ratio was 63 percent this year and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects it will be 87 percent in 2020. Just three years ago, it was 36.5 percent. Not good signs.

So, what would it take to bring federal spending into line with plausible levels of revenue?


The CBO, the non-partisan agency charged with estimating the effects of legislation on government costs, has produced a long-term budget outlook in which Bush-era tax rates remain unchanged. Their conclusion is that over the next decade, "government revenues would remain at about 19 percent of GDP, near their historical averages." That's actually a bit higher than the historical average, but is within the bounds of reason.


A balanced budget in 2020 based on 19 percent of GDP would mean $1.3 trillion in cuts over the next decade, or about $129 billion annually out of ever-increasing budgets averaging around $4.1 trillion. Note that these are not even absolute cuts, but trims from expected increases in spending.

So, if we want to fudge the number for roundness, really we should fudge lower, not higher.
 
Wait, Krisken, you are for a fairtax now? What happened to the "duty* of the rich to pay more"?

*I still don't understand where this duty comes from.
 
With the "fair tax" they would be paying more than they do now. I accept that the percentage system with deductions intact is inherently flawed and allows the rich to take advantage of the tax system in place.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Wait, Krisken, you are for a fairtax now? What happened to the "duty* of the rich to pay more"?

*I still don't understand where this duty comes from.
The fairtax gives a prebate, so the poor pay less/none, the rich pay more.
 
Wait, Krisken, you are for a fairtax now? What happened to the "duty* of the rich to pay more"?

*I still don't understand where this duty comes from.
The fairtax gives a prebate, so the poor pay less/none, the rich pay more.[/QUOTE]
In the province I grew up in (Alberta), it's a flat tax with a high personal exemption. When they introduced it, it came from the statement of "NOBODY will pay more, most will pay less" And since the year or two after it was introduced, it NEVER gets mentioned to be touched, except by people OUTSIDE the province.

/shrug
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Wait, Krisken, you are for a fairtax now? What happened to the "duty* of the rich to pay more"?

*I still don't understand where this duty comes from.
The fairtax gives a prebate, so the poor pay less/none, the rich pay more.[/QUOTE]
In the province I grew up in (Alberta), it's a flat tax with a high personal exemption. When they introduced it, it came from the statement of "NOBODY will pay more, most will pay less" And since the year or two after it was introduced, it NEVER gets mentioned to be touched, except by people OUTSIDE the province.

/shrug[/QUOTE]

And out of curiosity, how did the province fare for revenue? The FairTax is a little bit different in that it's not a flat income tax, it's a national sales tax. So you can't really find an "exemption," so what the government does is send out prebate checks equal to the calculated sales tax on the necessities to maintain a minimum standard of living.
 
Nevermind, read your statement more clearly.

I still think it should be on income, not spending. I'm just not seeing how sending people money before they buy stuff is a better way to do things. It would be as big a clusterfuck as we have now.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Ron Paul on Wikileaks -






Cut taxes, revenue increases.

Class Warriors Got What They Wished For.

The Crisis of the American Intellectual.

If you want to see how Washington really works, read this story about how Harry Reid helped secure $450 million in stimulus money for a Chinese company to operate a wind farm in Texas and its turbines would be built in China.

And now for the Top 10 Economic Myths of 2010 .

With Republicans capturing the majority in the House, growing their numbers in the Senate, and expanding control to 29 state houses, the time is right to reprise experiments in federalism.

Obama's approval rating has dropped to an all-time low ... among self-described liberals.

Now here is something that Harry Reid and I can agree on.

The Democrats in the Senate have put aside the DREAM Act ... for now.

Has Wikileaks uncovered evidence that vindicates George W. Bush?

You know these full body scanners at the airport? Congress's own auditing agency says it "remains unclear" that they can actually do the primary job they are intended to do.

Another unintended consequence of ObamaCare .

It'd be nice if the president of our country could get some facts right about the history of the country he is leading.

Alabama Store Owner’s Sign Reminds That BBQ Restaurants Are “Safest” Because Of Lack Of Muslims.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
The tax compromise passed a procedural vote in the Senate and will see a final vote sometime today. Then it goes to the House where the real fun begins.

A CNSNews flashback .. when asked where in the Constitution Congress can force someone to buy health insurance, Nancy Pelosi says: "Are you serious?"

Union pensions destroy another private company ...

If the elections were held today, Barack Obama would not win. But which GOP candidate would he lose to?

At least six of every 10 Americans support the tax deal between President Obama and congressional Republicans, according to newly released polls.

With healthcare reform in the news, looks like Massachusetts is looking for ways rein in costs after mandating healthcare coverage for all citizens.

The Congressional Budget Office takes a look at the economic impact of waiting too long to resolve our long-term budget imbalance.

Here's a scary question: What happens when the jobless give up?

After 100 years, a quasi-government agency is moving its agency out of San Francisco because it is "just too expensive - and its workforce too dumb."
 
If the elections were held today, Barack Obama would not win. But which GOP candidate would he lose to?
Umm... unless I'm reading that article wrong, it actually looks like Obama WOULD win against those candidates, with the only person having the potential to beat him in any of the areas being Romney (who is favored by independents). The article only proves what everyone's been saying for the past few months: Obama's not a great candidate anymore, but he's still better than anyone the Republicans could field right now.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
If the elections were held today, Barack Obama would not win. But which GOP candidate would he lose to?
Umm... unless I'm reading that article wrong, it actually looks like Obama WOULD win against those candidates, with the only person having the potential to beat him in any of the areas being Romney (who is favored by independents). The article only proves what everyone's been saying for the past few months: Obama's not a great candidate anymore, but he's still better than anyone the Republicans could field right now.[/QUOTE]

The numbers they rattle off are a bit confusing, but basically what they're saying is the contest comes down to independents, and more independents poll favorably for romney than obama.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Here we go again. We can call this the Democrats' last effort to tell us to perform a physical impossibility. This is one of the many reasons why we voted these suckers out of office ... we have a $1.27 trillion "omnibus" appropriations bill, packed to the gills with more spending and more earmarks. Oh and the darn thing is 2,000 pages long. Must be another one of those bills that we have to pass in order to find out what is in it. Unless you are chief doughboy Robert Gibbs, who believes that Congress is going to be pouring over all 2,000 pages, just like they did ObamaCare .. a remark which was met with laughter in the press gallery. So when reading the legislation, what might they find? This, for example, in one Senate version of the bill:

$80 million in grants to states and Indian tribes to preserve Pacific salmon
$13 million in clean water grants for rural and Alaskan native villages
$4 million for the Kentucky National Guard's marijuana eradication efforts
$8 million to help maintain the B-1 bomber fleet in his state

Now Tom Coburn and Jim DeMint are insisting that the bill be read in its entirety by the clerk on the Senate floor before a vote is held.

This is nothing short but a complete abuse of the taxpayers. This is politicians showing us who's really the boss. This is the Democrats getting in their last big kick in the voter's rear end before they lose control of the House.

Harry Reid threatens that there may have to be a post-Christmas session of Congress in order to finish all business before the New Year.

Here's an excellent, in-depth look at the evolution of the welfare state.

A major shortcoming of the deficit reduction plan is that it assumed that the federal government should continue doing everything it currently does.

George W. Bush wants us to stop calling the current debate over taxes "the Bush tax cuts."

Phyllis Schlafly says that the US should stop all funding for the United Nations' phony global warming scam.

And now a lesson in how to balance the budget without raising taxes.

FBI had back doors added to OpenBSD....10 years ago?
 

GasBandit

Staff member
After dozens of deaths, drop-side cribs outlawed - Yahoo! News

The Fed's have outlawed drop side cribs.

Shouldn't be up to the manufacturer to keep using cheap parts, and the parents desire to save a little money to keep these beds on the open market?
Both myself and my brother were in drop-side cribs when we were babies. This is stereotypical "for the children!!1!" legislation. 30 deaths in 10 years. That's 3 infant deaths per year. That is a very low rate. But you can hear Helen Lovejoy screeching "WON'T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!"

The fact that there HAS been "millions of recalls" as the article puts it shows that the industry has actually been very proactive about self-policing. There have been "millions of recalls" in the last 10 years pertaining to automobiles as well, and car accidents kill WAY more kids than drop side cribs. Maybe we should ban cars next?

That said, there's a valid role for government to play in outlawing obviously dangerous or harmful products to be sold. "Baby's first Dynamite" probably ought not be allowed. This drop-side crib thing, however, is just overrreaction.
 
Perhaps, but I don't think I've ever seen a drop side crib in my lifetime that WASN'T recalled eventually, usually due to some kid get hurt by it. Sure, only a classroom worth of kids died in ten years, but I'd be willing to be a lot more were injured.

What can I say? Sometimes the market won't learn on it's own. Sometimes you have to take away it's toys.
 
Remember, if the cost of a recall is projected to cost more than the lawsuits from an unsafe product and still turns a profit, it is golden!
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Sometimes the market won't learn on it's own. Sometimes you have to take away it's toys.
Unless of course, its lobbyists contribute a lot to your campaign.

Government often isn't the solution even when it should be. Ask the saccharin producers about that.
 
Ok, so markets don't work, government doesn't work. What is the big solution? It certainly isn't "Let the market regulate itself". That is just plain gullibility.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Ok, so markets don't work, government doesn't work. What is the big solution? It certainly isn't "Let the market regulate itself". That is just plain gullibility.
Especially considering we have considerable historical evidence that it doesn't work.[/QUOTE]

The answer's just a little bit more market freedom than we have now. It's not perfect, but it's the best we've got so far. As I said, this drop side crib thing is a complete overreaction.

The driving force that keeps business honest is competition. It forces prices down and quality up. I believe the government's most important job is to guarantee that competition. When one or a few ubercorps come to dominate the market as AT&T and Microsoft had done in the past, it's the most important function of government to restore a state of commercial competition.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
As we creep toward the end of the lame duck session and closer to Christmas, the Senate has managed to pass the tax compromise by a vote of 81 to 19. Michellle Malkin has a list of all of those who voted against the compromise, including five Republicans. This was pretty much expected. Now the bill moves on the House, where the vote is expected as early as today.

Harry Reid has declared the senate will continue to legislate through christmas. If you will recall, this is how ObamaCare was first passed in the Senate .. on Christmas Eve 2009.

We're #1! For all the wrong reasons ...

The IRS is auditing a record number of wealthy Americans and charities.

Where do the wealthiest people in America live? You guessed it .. right around Washington DC.

Reason Magazine warns that as cities and states boost their debts by 800 percent, a housing-like crisis looms.

If Republicans think that they are coming to Congress in January with a public mandate, they would be gravely mistaken.

McDonalds is the first to call the new child nutrition bill for what it is: food police.

Victor Davis Hanson tells us the tale of two Californias ...

A feisty segment with Ed Schultz where a Republican strategist tries to discuss the individual mandate in ObamaCare.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Well there was some procedural complications in the House yesterday. But basically, the tax compromise is good to go, and the omnibus package is DOA.

Let me remind you of what it means to be "poor" in America, according to our Census Bureau.
  • Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three bedroom house with one and a half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
  • Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
  • Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two thirds have more than two rooms per person.
  • The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
  • Nearly three quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
  • Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
  • Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
  • Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.
Americans are deeply pessimistic about the state of the country and its future, according to a series of new national polls.

Even if the Supreme Court ultimately agrees that the government cannot require individuals to carry health coverage, the Obama administration could still find a way to make ObamaCare a reality.

What's the administration's latest idea to help underwater homeowners?

Is Federal Communications Commissioner Michael Copps trying to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine through what he calls a "public value test" for broadcasters?

The Commerce Department is calling for the creation of an online "Privacy Bill of Rights" and a new federal office that would help develop those guidelines.

Whistleblower goes to jail, boss gets to play golf with Obama.

Why did a Senator call the police on 9/11 responders?
 
What, nothing on the Republicans filibustering the 9-11 first responder bill? Classy. I suppose it is only news if you can paint Democrats as the bad guys.
 
Top