Asks Glenn Beck, a Mormon, speaking to Evangelical Christians, reported in the NYT.
During his special program, Mr. Beck took questions from mostly evangelical Christian listeners, colorfully debunking misperceptions about Mormonism. The “magic underwear” was compared to a skullcap, and Mr. Beck insisted that polygamy was seen as a “perversion” in the modern church.
“It’s not weird to be a Mormon,” he assured his listeners at the end of the program, “and it’s not weird to be president if you’re Mormon.”
It's fascinating — isn't it? — how little anti-Mormon material has been spread about in this election. The only notable person who seems to be going there is
Andrew Sullivan:
Andrew Sullivan recently posted YouTube footage of LDS temple ceremonies in an effort to turn Romney’s Mormonism into an argument against his candidacy.
The video posted by Sullivan was shot surreptitiously inside LDS temples by a former Mormon who wanted to use the publicity connected with the Romney campaign to embarrass the LDS community. (The video creator enhanced the footage with his own monologue — wearing a gorilla mask — and spooky "Carmina Burana" soundtrack.)...
I think most Americans have a deep sensibility respecting religion and don't care to look into details about any given sect that could be exploited to make outsiders see it as bizarre. Sullivan, like Joe Biden, is a Catholic. You could make an equivalent YouTube video holding Catholics up to derision and contempt. That's generally not how we behave in America. I wonder who is more susceptible to this anti-Mormon material: the middle Americans who are aggregated under the "Evangelical Christians" label, who listen to Glenn Beck, or the affluent, educated coastal Americans who read Andrew Sullivan and the New York Times? Whichever, the notable fact is that there has been very little effort to stimulate anti-Mormon sentiment, and that's an excellent thing about America.
Posts
615 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 615 Newer› Newest»@Ritmo:@Ritmo:rewarding privilege for its own sake led to the two biggest economic disasters of the last 100 years, DON'T DO IT AGAIN!
So you are voting for Obama, who signed the Bush tax cuts into law--who DID IT AGAIN!!ELEVENTY!!
You are aware that you are speaking of President Obama, who signed them into law, and is the only candidate in the race who has done so.
Just because Gaby's too hurt to address the only person on this thread who can destroy his political arguments, doesn't mean I won't address them.
Inga's aware that timing matters in politics. She is not as dumb as Gaby would hope, to believe that timing doesn't matter, or that agreeing to less than ideal choices for political practicality matters.
No, she's not so pure as to think that cleansing her bowels will obviate the need to defecate ever again.
But Gaby just might... ;-)
@Inga: The people you support supported the "Bush tax cuts", which are now the Obama tax cuts.
On December 15, the Senate passed the compromise package with an 81–19 vote, with large majorities of both Democrats and Republicans supporting it.[32] Near midnight of December 16, the House passed it 277–148, with it getting only a modest majority among Democrats and a large majority among Republicans (of the 148 votes against the bill in the House, 112 were cast by Democrats and only 36 by Republicans).[6][33] Before that, an amendment put forward by Democratic Representative Earl Pomeroy and the progressives among the Democratic caucus to raise the estate tax – the ultimate sticking point of the deal for them and the cause of a minor revolt among those against it – had failed on a 194–233 vote.[6][27][34] The Washington Post called the approved deal "the most significant tax bill in nearly a decade".[33]
Obama signed the bill into law on December 17, 2010.[3] Much of the Democratic Congressional leadership was absent from the signing ceremony, indicating their ongoing unhappiness with the law.
"Sullivan, like Biden, is a Catholic."
Sorta' like the Kennedys are Catholic.
Sort of like Henry the VIII was Catholic.
Ritmo:rewarding privilege for its own sake led to the two biggest economic disasters of the last 100 years, DON'T DO IT AGAIN!
So you are voting for Obama, who signed the Bush tax cuts into law--who DID IT AGAIN!!ELEVENTY!!
Inga wrote:
But they will do it again, gladly, proudly, blindly.
Inga, Clinton deregulated the Banks. Clinton started the ball rolling to demand that banks loosen credit requirements and give loans to minorities who previously couldn't afford said houses. And I bet you voted for Clinton.
Apparently you are not famiiar with his policies - this came up again in the whole Iraq debate by the way. Democrats incapable of doing a simple google search to see what the administration right before Bush took office said about Iraq. Do you realize how STUPID this makes you?
I could totally understand if Clinton did things 20 years ago and thus people who weren't around at the time couldn't describe the policies. But Clinton's administration was the administration RIGHT before Bush's.
And yet democrats are still carping about "deregulation" as if they aren't aware that Clinton was the president when the banks got deregulated.
And you're going to accuse repulicans of following people blindly? Wow!
Gaby is so politically naive as to think that he can convince Inga to believe that Obama is the candidate to reward the arbitrary economic privileges of the richest Americans at the expense of the middle class!
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!
Let's review those words again:
"the two biggest economic disasters of the last 100 years"
If Ritmo really believed that, he could never vote for anyone who signed those policies into law.
So he does not believe that, he's simply lying, because he is a hack an a troll and does not believe in anything except voting for Ds.
Auto-Reposting the same comment over and over again is surely a sign of maturity, intellectual honesty and an aversion to hackery.
So says the Gaby. What a cry-baby.
"But we're not out of crisis. I never thought it would be possible that we'd have hit a economic holding pattern in 2009 and we'd still be there in 2012."
I'm not surprised we're still in the doldrums. Do you recall those who've said we'll never really recover because the 2008 crash was so severe? I think we'll have a recovery of sorts, but our big time was post-WWII until the Seventies when we were on top in science and manufacturing, helping to rebuild Europe and Japan. Things are spreading out now; more tech for China and others. If all goes well, one of these centuries things will settle down into a world-wide mild-mannered capitalism with a chicken in every pot.
The Daily News endorsing Romney is like Kim Kardashian winning a spelling bee.
Ritmo, I do recall you were lecturing everyone here about the lives of black folks with great understanding and long experience.
I confess, much like a connoisseur of Putumayo world music who's popped six cd's in the player and hit random play, I've been laying back and awaiting your next nugget of wisdom.
Thank you for sharing your deep learning on the LDS church!
It's been a while, buddy, but here's a link for Hall & Oates "Out Of Touch"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_8KR-n2fBQ
Sadly, this hit single from their 1984 Big Bag Boom album was their last number 1 hit on the billboards.
@furious_a: Ritmo and especially Inga, remind me of Dr. Major Frank Burns and Major Margaret "Hot Lips" Houlihan, RN, in M*A*S*H. They will go to any lengths to befoul the men and women of the unit but in the end they always have each other. It's nice and karmic in a way. I enjoy it.
Ritmo, when I read that from Gabriel, I at first thought he lost his mind, then it dawned on me he was serious.
@Ritmo:Ritmo:rewarding privilege for its own sake led to the two biggest economic disasters of the last 100 years, DON'T DO IT AGAIN!
So you are voting for Obama, who signed the Bush tax cuts into law--who DID IT AGAIN!!ELEVENTY!! what led to the the two biggest economic disasters of the last 100 years. Res ipsa loquitur.
If Ritmo really believed that, he could never vote for anyone who signed those policies into law.
You are an absolutely blinded moron. I never said that Obama was in favor of deregulating. Nor that he took the initiative to deregulate. That is certainly a more important burden on economic progress than the tax rates - which should be addressed both as a matter of fairness and for the sake of a stable economy, but for which there is both less agreement, political consensus and urgency at the moment.
Get a fucking grip. You sound like an autistic Rottweiler.
chrisnavin.com said...
Ritmo, I do recall you were lecturing everyone here about the lives of black folks with great understanding and long experience.
Years ago, Ritmo (as MUL) used to openly wish for the day when "brown people" (his words) would finally take over.
I at first thought he lost his mind, then it dawned on me he was serious.
These scenarios are not mutually exclusive. Look at how he runs his (wasted) mind in circles with the latest series of auto-reposts.
Wow.
@Inga: The party you supported voted for the "Bush tax cuts", and President Obama signed them into law. It's a matter of public record. If you choose to be ignorant of that, that's fine, but you can't expect everyone else to join you in your selective amnesia.
Years ago, Ritmo (as MUL) used to openly wish for the day when "brown people" (his words) would finally take over.
I'm really getting tired of your lies. Find the link to this or prepare to take the unleashed wrath of Black Dynamite.
@Ritmo:rewarding privilege for its own sake led to the two biggest economic disasters of the last 100 years, DON'T DO IT AGAIN!
So you are voting for Obama, who signed the Bush tax cuts into law--who DID IT AGAIN!!ELEVENTY!! what led to the two biggest economic disasters of the last 100 years. Res ipsa loquitur.
@Inga: The party you supported voted for the "Bush tax cuts", and President Obama signed them into law. It's a matter of public record. If you choose to be ignorant of that, that's fine, but you can't expect everyone else to join you in your selective amnesia.
Because they wanted, no, pushed for them?
Gaby doesn't understand the difference between voting for something because your party is being blackmailed in order for them to support any other sensible legislation and voting for it because you have an ideological hard-on for it.
What tyranny died and released him from their gulags?
You made a stupid statement that reveals your base assumptions Ritmo. Don't flake out because I noticed.
Privilege gives people benefits, but it is not rewarded "for it's own sake", as though no one born to a good family who teaches good values is rewarded for the work they do just because they learned, as a child, to show up for work and not steal things.
This is a "you didn't build that" argument. Someone with good study habits taught by their parents "didn't build that". Someone who can conceptualize success as a result of hard work because they watched their parents "didn't build that." Someone who got a good education at an excellent school without ending up in debt "didn't build that." Someone lucky enough to be wealthy starting out "didn't build that." Someone lucky enough to have two parents in the home "didn't build that."
Ritmo warns: I'm really getting tired of your lies. Find the link to this or prepare to take the unleashed wrath of Black Dynamite.
I'll be back...
@Ritmo:rewarding privilege for its own sake led to the two biggest economic disasters of the last 100 years, DON'T DO IT AGAIN!
So you are voting for Obama, who signed the Bush tax cuts into law--who DID IT AGAIN!!ELEVENTY!! what led to the two biggest economic disasters of the last 100 years. Res ipsa loquitur.
Gaby's programming has reached a glitch in the microprocessing unit that distinguishes between:
1. Voting on something ideologically versus for the sake of practicality,
2. Understanding the difference between tax rates and regulation.
We do hope that IT gets around to him soon. His malfunctioning meltdown is starting to create a fire hazard.
Yes, Gabriel and Obama lost much of his base because of it. He was caught inbetween a rock and a a hard place and did what he felt he had to for the good of the country at the time.
He will not sacrifice the middle class to further enrich the one percent.
It is indeed wonderful to see all the theological arguments here--I was as first time voter in 1960 when John F Kennedy talked about how it was possible to separate his faith from his role as a politician. And yet here we are doing it all over again with slobbering idiots mouthing the same slurs the JFK faced. These people have learned nothing and forget nothing.
Privilege gives people benefits, but it is not rewarded "for it's own sake", as though no one born to a good family who teaches good values is rewarded for the work they do just because they learned, as a child, to show up for work and not steal things.
Good, then they don't need to be rewarded with tax breaks by the government. The privilege they were born into is its own reward, and requires no official recognition or sanction from government. I'm glad we agree, Scarlett.
@Inga:He will not sacrifice the middle class to further enrich the one percent.
He already did it. He can't undo it without a time machine. You want us to vote for a guy who did it against a guy who didn't.
And it is interesting that you think lowering taxes is "further enriching" the people you don't confiscate from, as though everyone by right belongs to the State and what the State lets us keep is a gift.
Or rather, gift. Not reward.
Republicans seem to have a difficult time telling the difference between these things, nowadays.
And it is interesting that you think lowering taxes is "further enriching" the people you don't confiscate from, as though everyone by right belongs to the State and what the State lets us keep is a gift.
Oh, right. Like we've never heard this ideological, non-mathematically equitable argument before.
Quick! Take cover before he starts hitting himself again! He's pummeling his face with both hands now!!!
You know who is self-made, Ritmo? Who started from nothing and made her own future? Sarah Palin.
Even Obama comes from a privileged background and a series of "Ivy" colleges and connections. Same with his wife. Most of America can only wish to be from as privileged a situation as Barack and Obama.
But take someone like Palin or some billionaire who came to America with the clothes on his back and it's nothing but scorn, isn't it. Are liberals now going to try to pretend to favor a meritocracy?
You're a joke.
@Ritmo:rewarding privilege for its own sake led to the two biggest economic disasters of the last 100 years, DON'T DO IT AGAIN!
So you are voting for Obama, who signed the Bush tax cuts into law--who DID IT AGAIN!!ELEVENTY!! what led to the two biggest economic disasters of the last 100 years. Res ipsa loquitur.
cubanbob said...
As a practical matter is Mormonism any crazier than Marxism
===============
Yes, most religions are crazier than any secular political philosophy can ever be.
Marxism contains core truths. Hence it's persistance and even gaining consensus agreement in most democratic systems on certain reforms that were needed after Das Kapital.
The need for workers to organize, the morphing of Marxism to certain socialist creeds. Recognition that class struggle does exist. Etc, etc.
So Das Kapital is very influential, very right in certain areas - but no more deserves "Sacred Parchment done by Infallible Writers" status than the Koran or US Constitution deserves blind veneration.
Christian believe in a book of Jewish fairy tales that Jews themselves half buy into.
The craziness of Right to Lifers and evolution-denying Fundies and Mormons and the planet Kolub is just the cherry on top of the nuttiness for those religious factions.
And the Islamoids and their Sacred Parchment are even crazier.
And I would shudder to try and find any rational roots to Hinduism.
And it is interesting that you think lowering taxes is "further enriching" the people you don't confiscate from, as though everyone by right belongs to the State and what the State lets us keep is a gift.
Well, that IS how Romney/Ryan want us to look at how their tax plan would treat the 47%... Oh, wait...
"Good, then they don't need to be rewarded with tax breaks by the government. The privilege they were born into is its own reward, and requires no official recognition or sanction from government. I'm glad we agree, Scarlett."
And now you're a flat-tax advocate where we treat every single citizen equally no matter how much they make and everyone has a "buy-in" and no one is punished for success?
I'm glad we agree.
You know who is self-made, Ritmo? Who started from nothing and made her own future? Sarah Palin.
In GOVERNMENT! I thought that wasn't the way to do it... Well, maybe when you're from the state that takes the most from the federal government...
Even Obama comes from a privileged background and a series of "Ivy" colleges and connections. Same with his wife. Most of America can only wish to be from as privileged a situation as Barack and Obama.
Which "privileged background" and "connections" allowed Obama to be admitted to an elite school? He does seem to have the intelligence that Palin (and Paul Ryan) lack...
But take someone like Palin or some billionaire who came to America with the clothes on his back and it's nothing but scorn, isn't it.
Billionaires like who? George Soros? Oh, now I see what you're getting at...
Are liberals now going to try to pretend to favor a meritocracy?
Sure, as long as you make for equal opportunity.
Which Democrats will do. Republicans are spiritually opposed to it.
And now you're a flat-tax advocate where we treat every single citizen equally no matter how much they make and everyone has a "buy-in" and no one is punished for success?
Wait, are you saying that you'd prefer to tax Mitt Romney's secretary at the same 12% rate that HE pays?
Ok, that agreement sounds good.
@Ritmo:rewarding privilege for its own sake led to the two biggest economic disasters of the last 100 years, DON'T DO IT AGAIN!
So you are voting for Obama, who signed the Bush tax cuts into law--who DID IT AGAIN!!ELEVENTY!! what led to the two biggest economic disasters of the last 100 years. Res ipsa loquitur.
Gaby - when autistic guys like yourself hit yourself in the face over and over again, does that form of assault have to be merely physical in nature? WHat if you raped yourself?
I ask because this Todd Akin guy just told me about someone named Mourdock and they're trying to figure out if you'd be responsible for carrying that fetus to term.
@Ritmo:rewarding privilege for its own sake led to the two biggest economic disasters of the last 100 years, DON'T DO IT AGAIN!
So you are voting for Obama, who signed the Bush tax cuts into law--who DID IT AGAIN!!ELEVENTY!! what led to the two biggest economic disasters of the last 100 years. Res ipsa loquitur.
So you are voting for Obama, who signed the Bush tax cuts into law--who DID IT AGAIN!!ELEVENTY!! what led to the two biggest economic disasters of the last 100 years. Res ipsa loquitur.
So you and the rest of Team Autism are voting for Romney, who will not only decrease the rates at the top to an even greater degree, but will raise them on everyone else.
You really are the dumbest of the dumb.
@Ritmo:rewarding privilege for its own sake led to the two biggest economic disasters of the last 100 years, DON'T DO IT AGAIN!
So you are voting for Obama, who signed the Bush tax cuts into law--who DID IT AGAIN!!ELEVENTY!! what led to the two biggest economic disasters of the last 100 years. Res ipsa loquitur.
Ritmo uses autism as a slur. He is the pompous fuck in the medicine business .
They are fascinated with things that go round and round and round, repeatedly.
Break out of the same failures that got us to this fiscal fiasco, but no I don't don't think they will.
Ritmo uses autism as a slur. He is the pompous fuck in the medicine business .
So you and the rest of Team Autism are voting for Romney, who will not only decrease the rates at the top to an even greater degree, but will raise them on everyone else.
As a gesture of goodwill to my autistic friend, I will engage in the same repetitive response format as he does.
However, mine has the virtue of not only being coherent, but of providing the answer necessary for breaking his meltdown (assuming that his repetition of multiplication tables and prime numbers doesn't provide away of soothing his erupting mind first).
So Michael also repeats the same post over and over again. Maybe he's got problems with repetitive behavior, too?
They are like dogs chasing their own tails.
Dogs are more intelligent, though.
Ritmo is the sanctimonious turd that lectures on values and integrity. He is in the "healing" business. He uses the word "autism" as a slur. Ritmo is more vile than he appears.
I like autistic people.
I just wouldn't put them in charge of directing social policy.
Would you?
I need to look into buying a Keyboard Concession hopefully in the neighborhood of one or two posters up-thread.
Being a Mormon doesn't creep me out, but being loud and obnoxious kind'a does.
That was the subject, wasn't it?
@Inga:Break out of the same failures that got us to this fiscal fiasco, but no I don't don't think they will.
By this you mean the Democrats, including the President, who passed and signed the legislation.
Ritmo, you cowardly turd, use the word "autism" as a slur and then you slink away. I thought you were in the healing business, a big hearted better than the rest of us caring quasi medico. You are scum.
Gabe, BREAKOUT! Follow me to the escape route, don't be frightened.
Hey there, Mikey! Once autism can be "healed", then I will be happy to see autistic people in charge of directing social policy.
Until then, I stand behind the completely uncontroversial idea that relegates social policy to those socially perceptive enough to do those jobs well.
I take it this doesn't bode well for you and the other narcissists. Oh well, even narcissism is a "disease". As is psychopathy. Doesn't mean they can petition the doctor to allow them to play nicely in environments that the physician knows would create an unacceptable risk to the lives and well-being of others.
Get over yourself, psychopath. We're finally on to your kind.
@Inga: You can continue to ignore inconvenient facts about the candidates you support if you like. You can join Ritmo in feces flinging if you like.
I am responding to Ritmo in the way I have been because any other response is pointless. I spent a lot of time over the last few years trying to engage him constructively, to get him to argue for something he actually means. He has nothing to say that he believes in. I just found the most distilled essence of this I could, and I repost it when he directs a comment to me. I said he would get no other answer from me again, and meant it.
So I've given up and am just treating him like the troll he is.
Ritmo. Fuck off freak.
@Ritmo:rewarding privilege for its own sake led to the two biggest economic disasters of the last 100 years, DON'T DO IT AGAIN!
So you are voting for Obama, who signed the Bush tax cuts into law--who DID IT AGAIN!!ELEVENTY!! what led to the two biggest economic disasters of the last 100 years. Res ipsa loquitur.
Yes, Gabe. Follow Inga. She will be nice (usually). She even has candy to eat and puzzles to play with.
Yet more rats deserting a sinkng ship.(metaphoricall, not actually applying a perjorative to this paper).
Wisonsin paper previously endorsing Obama is now endorsing Romney.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/11/04/wisconsin-state-journal-flips-for-romney/
@Inga: You can continue to ignore inconvenient facts about the candidates you support if you like. You can join Ritmo in feces flinging if you like.
More repetitive language.
Gabe does not have the social perception to understand the difference between voting something that you're ideologically disposed to and something that you have no other choice but to vote for, in order to keep crucial legislation alive.
He is a troll in the lives of the socially responsible.
دردشة ومنتديات عراقنا said...
Inga...shut it.
Gabriel, perhaps his principles don't comport to your own and you can't identify with him. Doesn't mean that it's right to dismiss the sincerity of a commenter when he /she expresses their views honestly.
Also, the black-and-white thinking he exhibits is a hallmark of what Mikey says it is wrong to mention.
In answer to the question in the post title: No.
@Michael: I do agree that it is unseemly, especially for those in the healing professions, to use "autism" as a playyard taunt, but people without principles can be found in all walks of life and cannot be shamed about it.
It's the Inga and Ritmo show
They'll be here all night for all your inanity needs.
Gosh - the sanscrit guy thinks this argument is second rate.
Gabriel, perhaps his principles don't comport to your own and you can't identify with him. Doesn't mean that it's right to dismiss the sincerity of a commenter when he /she expresses their views honestly.
But what if the person you are addressing can only interpret things literally and according to the strange rules and rituals that make sense to HIM, in his own mind?
Look at his own latest response. He seems more concerned with his own personal sense of hurt than with understanding that his inability to understand things from another's standpoint might cause pain or problems for them.
It is not an excuse.
Shorter Gabe and Mike:
Empathy and compassion for people who lack those things is VERY IMPORTANT!
Ritmo you didn't "mention" autism you used it as a slur. Repeatedly. Freak.
@Inga:Doesn't mean that it's right to dismiss the sincerity of a commenter when he /she expresses their views honestly.
I have a lot of experience with Ritmo that you do not have.
He makes fun of my support for climate science, for example, because he does not actually care about it, and I actually do. I've had a whole thread full of people calling me names over it, people I agree with on other things. It's not fun, but because I care about it I seek to persuade others.
This is not Ritmo's attitude, he prefers to wind people up to get them to react emotionally in ways that amuse him. When he shows up and abuses people for disagreeing with him, he does not care about the damage he is doing to the cause he claims to support, because people who disagree with him are not people whose opinions matter to him. He wants to antagonize them, not convert them. If he cared about the the things he claims to care about, he would try to persuade rather than antagonize.
Oh I'm sorry... We were talking about how tax cuts for people who aren't successful is a bad thing, but that empathy and compassion should just be given away without a second thought to those people who never show them to anyone else?
Strange. I'm not seeing the consistency there.
Ritmo
Like grasshoppa there is much that you do not see.
He makes fun of my support for climate science, for example, because he does not actually care about it, and I actually do. I've had a whole thread full of people calling me names over it, people I agree with on other things. It's not fun, but because I care about it I seek to persuade others.
Inga, I am now beyond convinced that Gabe has a problem interpreting what people say. I have never once "made fun of his support for climate science". How does this make sense to any single soul who's actually heard what I have to say about the subject?
It doesn't. Gabe is having a perceptual issue here.
I'm very pleased that Ritmo has such a distinctive icon. Makes it so easy to scroll by.
His faux intellectualism became boring and insipid long, long ago. Not an original thought in his head; just the silly stylings of a half-stoned college freshman poseur.
Though it's nice to see Inga latched onto his dick like lamprey. Now, that's entertainment! Go, Inga, go! Typical of her oh-so-original thinking.
This is not Ritmo's attitude, he prefers to wind people up to get them to react emotionally in ways that amuse him. When he shows up and abuses people for disagreeing with him, he does not care about the damage he is doing to the cause he claims to support, because people who disagree with him are not people whose opinions matter to him. He wants to antagonize them, not convert them. If he cared about the the things he claims to care about, he would try to persuade rather than antagonize.
Gabe, quick social lesson here. Just how many people who comment at Althouse do you think you've convinced of the strengths of your views on climate science?
Other than myself, of course. But I already agreed with them.
Some people you just won't convince. I apologize if you think I'm somehow getting in the way of your evangelism efforts unto the conservatives, but there are far, far greater obstacles getting in the way of their listening to you than me.
Just believe me on this one.
Chef Mojo, that's actually quite funny.
Speaking of Andrew Sullivan - has anyone ever seen him and Cedarford in the same place at the same time, outside of a glory hole that is? They both get the willies over Jews, Israel, Palin, vaginas. Does the gay antisemitism have something to do with circumcision?
"Wait, are you saying that you'd prefer to tax Mitt Romney's secretary at the same 12% rate that HE pays?"
Yes.
But your side would never go for a flat tax. NOT EVER. Because 14% or whatever the usual amount suggested is far less than the tax rate for the rich. It's a huge tax cut for the wealthy. And it requires poor people, those in the 47 who pay no income taxes at all, to pay income taxes.
This silly lie that conservatives or capitalists want *special* low rates for the rich requires defining, first, a "fair share" that punishes wealthy people who ought to pay *more*. It's not a mystery. Obama isn't coy about simply saying so.
Which is why your pretending that wanting something "fair" is different from what conservatives want works for you.
Do you ever argue something that's NOT a straw man?
The Daily News endorsing Romney is like Andrew Sullivan endorsing vaginas.
Of course the only way to endorse a vagina is to sign it on the back.
That can be tricky.
But your side would never go for a flat tax. NOT EVER. Because...
Because they believe that the balancing of budgets should require something called... MATH??!?!!
Oh wait, I'm talking to the "tax cuts pay for themselves" contingent. Which they never have.
11/7 just may be one of the biggest benders in US history. It's gonna be interesting.
Gabriel, sadly these conservatives here won't accept any climate science that doesn't fit into their world view, because ya know, gas for the big vehicle comes first. Just pretend nothing is happening, despite the two storms of a century within two years of each other, each one on the N.east coast.
--Just pretend nothing is happening, despite the two storms of a century within two years of each one on the east coast.--
Or going back to the patterns of the 50s like someone predicted 4-5 years ago.
Just depends on who one reads.
Wow, Inga, I didn't realize Canada was harder to get into than the US after WWII. That's interesting.
Seeing Red, Canada was actually easier to get into, but we had family here in Milwaukee who were sponsoring us. So what's your point?
"Doesn't mean that it's right to dismiss the sincerity of a commenter when he /she expresses their views honestly."
Thing is, Ritmo almost never expresses his views, either honestly or dishonestly. Who could possibly have a clue about what Ritmo thinks ought to happen or how it ought to work? I certainly don't.
It's all misrepresenting the other side's views with him and then picking at some element of someone else's opinions but never *offering* anything.
In any of my exchange with Ritmo just now, at any point, did he say what taxes ought to be? No. It was all about trying to catch me out in something while arguing with the assumption that an accepted tenet of conservative economic ideas is simply awarding the privileged for no reason whatsoever. But if it's a class war, then I suppose that makes sense.
And who was it brought up past, abandoned, rules concerning race in the Mormon church. If it's a race war, then I suppose that makes sense.
Never mind that most people are not interested in a class war and reject it outright. Rejecting the class war is wanting to reward privilege simply for the sake of it.
And rejecting race war? We know what that is, right?
What does Ritmo think, *honestly*, about anything? No one knows.
And right on time... more random feces flinging.
Hows that demon possession thing rate as "honest" expression of views, Inga?
The choice your parents made. They could have come in the back door and chose not to, made their familiy's lives easier.
It's interesting.
Synova, you probably know my opinion on the Religious Right and the influence they have had over the Republican Party....
What does Ritmo think, *honestly*, about anything? No one knows.
Lol. So says a supporter of ROMNEY.
Anyway, it's easy to get an idea of what I think. Just ask me.
But I can't vouch for whether you or anyone would understand what I think. I have no control over whether my thoughts are simple enough for others to understand them.
As for tax rates, I think they should be progressive and, if they account for a majority of one's yearly income, aligned with the rates for income even if they derive from capital gains.
I could change my mind, or develop further nuance or detail in there. But in general my stance as outlined above accords with traditional principles, the need for revenue and avoiding deficits as high as Bush and his recession gave us, and an acknowledgment that the current rates are contributing to a deterioration of infrastructure and lowered opportunity.
Romey doesn't care about any of that, though. But feel free to let him wiggle into as flexible a political stance as you feel is necessary for the more important objective: WINNING!
Ok, I also realized after the fact that bringing up the demonic possession thing was probably not the nicest thing to do (I was just reading it in another tab). If you prefer, I'll remove the comment.
Sorry.
Seeing Red, my parents didn't have to wait that much longer to come to America, I know where you are going with this now. No it's not comparable.
@Inga:Gabriel, sadly these conservatives here won't accept any climate science that doesn't fit into their world view, because ya know, gas for the big vehicle comes first. Just pretend nothing is happening, despite the two storms of a century within two years of each other, each one on the N.east coast.
And you're doing it too--you've decided in advance that you do not respect the people here enough to try to convince them of something that you think is terribly important. In that case, why bother to come here?
I wish I could agree with you that two storms prove everything about climate science, but since I know a great deal about it, I have to tell you that they do not, by themselves, provide the evidence you are looking for, and that virtually every climate scientist will agree with me on that. I tell you this because scientific integrity demands that I must, even though people who disagree with me will seize on that statement and use it to spread further distortions, even though you are on "my side", so to speak, nonetheless you are wrong about that and I am obligated to tell you so.
This is because I honestly care about this issue and I want to represent it fairly and honestly, even when it's inconvenient. YMMV.
I said: But your side would never go for a flat tax. NOT EVER. Because...
Ritmo: "Because they believe that the balancing of budgets should require something called... MATH??!?!!
Oh wait, I'm talking to the "tax cuts pay for themselves" contingent. Which they never have."
See?
One moment pretending that everyone should pay the same tax rate; Romney should pay the same income tax rate as his secretary and his secretary should pay the same rate as Romney.
And surprise! It was a lie. There was no "but it has to be this percent in order to have enough revenue", just that everyone paying the same rate violates "math." So the idea of people of different levels of wealth paying the *same* rate was only meant to catch me out, and not any sort of honest expression of Ritmo's opinion.
Crowing something about "glad to know you agree with my, Scarlet" was "glad to know you agree with something I don't for a moment believe but I'm going to pretend I got a hit in."
...British sources on the ground in Benghazi said they are extremely frustrated by the attack and are still wondering why they weren’t called for help. “We have more people on the ground here than the Americans and I just don’t know why we didn’t get the call?” one said.
Both American and British sources said, at the very least, the security situation on the ground and the lack of proper response were the result of “complete incompetence.” The covert team that came in from Tripoli was held up at the Benghazi airport for more than three hours by Libyan officials. Sources said the team notified officials in Washington that they were being delayed within 30 minutes of their arrival.....
And you're doing it too--you've decided in advance that you do not respect the people here enough to try to convince them of something that you think is terribly important.
Where the heck does this "in advance" thing come from? She probably decided, like I did, that no amount of arguing would convince them based on experience.
In that case, why bother to come here?
Some people believe it is important to tell the truth as you see it regardless of whether you are confident that others will listen.
Gabriel, I do appreciate your honesty and your superior knowledge on the subject of climate change, I wish your fellow conservatives gave you more credit on knowing of what you speak.
One moment pretending that everyone should pay the same tax rate; Romney should pay the same income tax rate as his secretary and his secretary should pay the same rate as Romney.
And surprise! It was a lie. There was no "but it has to be this percent in order to have enough revenue", just that everyone paying the same rate violates "math." So the idea of people of different levels of wealth paying the *same* rate was only meant to catch me out, and not any sort of honest expression of Ritmo's opinion.
Crowing something about "glad to know you agree with my, Scarlet" was "glad to know you agree with something I don't for a moment believe but I'm going to pretend I got a hit in."
Because you're not interested in reality. If a flat tax was a way to do anything other than to give patronage to the rich while blowing up enough debt to argue for unnecessary spending cuts later, I'd entertain it. But it's not empirically possible. It's never worked, and because you've bought into THOSE lies -- intractably so, I might add -- it is necessary to use counterfactual logic to show you all the possible political scenarios and compromises that WOULD STILL LEAD YOU to the SAME IRRESPONSIBLE POSITION YOU'VE LEFT US IN SINCE 2008!
Gabriel, I think that most of the people who argue with you about climate science respect you for your integrity.
I have to admit that I have a hard time getting around the irony involved when people claiming to be on the side of Science cite a storm like Sandy as proof of climate change when it's every bit as unscientific as any claim by a denier.
So I appreciate that a great deal.
@Synova: As far as math goes, no amount of revenue will ever keep up with spending at the current rates of increase. One side of this debate pretends that revenue is the only tool we have to combat deficits and that revenue is something that is axiomatic, that you can increase it merely by raising taxes. Which not only experience refutes, but also the Mean Value Theorem of calculus.
Republicans talk about cutting spending and so far I have yet to see a year in which they have actually done it, in my lifetime. Democrats, however, have been hyperventilating about even very modest proposals such as Ryan's.
Federal spending per person is 25% higher than it was in 2000, in constant 2012 dollars--the Ryan plan doesn't go anywhere near those levels, when Clinton was in office and we has some sort of Golden Age. Of the two parties, one sometimes pretends to care and the other doesn't even pretend. It's not the best choice, but there is some difference at least.
Gabriel, I wonder why I bother coming here too. Yes, it's true I'm not trying to convince anyone I am right, I guess I stubbornly cling to "refudiation".
And then there's George Lucas and his $4-5 billion hypocrisy.....
All that tax money he avoided paying, all those poor people who will go without because he refused to pay his fair share.
Like Buffet & Gates.
@Inga: I wish your fellow conservatives
You're doing it again. I am not a conservative just because I disagree with you on some things, and agree with most people here on some things.
Lots of people here who argued with me on climate science said I was obviously a progressive. It's tribalism. It's the default human mental state. All that matter in our civilization has come from rejecting it and trying to find a better way. Science is an attempt, a flawed one carried out by imperfect humans (as though there could be any other sort). I do not like seeing it perverted to the service of tribalism.
Democrats, however, have been hyperventilating about even very modest proposals such as Ryan's.
While Ryan hyperventilates about Obama cutting Medicare enough to make it viable, while saving money - because that takes away the argument for his threat to VOUCHERIZE it.
I'm sorry man. There are political realities to what the Republicans are doing. Do you think that they are somehow pure as the driven snow and never play games?
Inga sucked up to the scientist. "Gabriel, sadly these conservatives here won't accept any climate science that doesn't fit into their world view, because ya know, gas for the big vehicle comes first. Just pretend nothing is happening, despite the two storms of a century within two years of each other, each one on the N.east coast."
And the scientist replied.
Gabriel, you do have a point on tribalism, but it's human nature, isn't it?
ALso, why do they insist that no spending cuts come from defense, and even propose to increase it relative to now and even what the Pentagon requests?
Democrats, OTOH, decreased the spending of Medicare and Republicans cried foul. Why? Because it gives Democrats credibility to show that they can cut the programs that people expect them to favor (while retaining and strengthening them) and the Republicans care about undercutting their opponents' credibility more than they do about providing some of their own.
@Inga:I stubbornly cling to "refudiation".
A shibboleth! I am delighted by that word and its history, and repelled by the tribalism it represents.
Remember Rwanda? Hutus vs Tutsis. Same people, same language, same religion--the difference was on the ID card.
If you like being the sort of person who does comes here just to fight with everyone, well, better to do so with your eyes open, I think.
At what point in History, Ritmo, has a flat tax not worked? They had something like that somewhere and had to change it to a progressive tax to stave off disaster?
Sales taxes are the same for everyone and I don't notice that fact destroying society.
Gabriel,
You do realize your attempting to engage in a rational discussion with an intellectually dishonest lunatic and a lifelong welfare queen who's dumber than a box of rocks, don't you? Seriously dude, what's the point?
Gabriel Hanna. And the Hutus slaughtered people wearing glasses because glasses suggest that people could read. And every sentient person who could read knew what was going on long before the people loving Democrats discovered, too late , that the Tutsis were being eliminated.
If you like being the sort of person who does comes here just to fight with everyone, well, better to do so with your eyes open, I think.
Oh, for crying out loud! It was humor, Gabriel!
You do understand how humor works, don't you?
@Inga:but it's human nature, isn't it?
Dogs are wolves, aren't they? Civilization has changed their nature, hasn't it?
We're plains apes, it's amazing we've come as far as we have. I'm not arguing for us to be creatures of Pure Reason, that would be a lot worse than being apes. But there are some things in our heritage that worked for us once, but only can take us so far. Tribalism is one of those things. We can't live this way anymore unless we want to go back to what we were.
Inga said... "Gabriel, I wonder why I bother coming here too. Yes, it's true I'm not trying to convince anyone I am right, I guess I stubbornly cling to "refudiation".
It's a bad habit, like smoking. Makes you feel bad and you wonder why you waste time and resources on it--but then you relapse.
Michael, don't you have to go count some silver coins and put into neat stacks, whilst rubbing your hands together and smacking your lips, saying "oh my pretties!"
Yup Leslyn, you got it !
At what point in History, Ritmo, has a flat tax not worked?
Since you're the one advocating it, it's incumbent upon you to show me the example of where it has worked. Unless you just like risky schemes and scams for the heck of it.
Sales taxes are the same for everyone and I don't notice that fact destroying society.
They are not being used as the sole source of financing.
But good on you for confusing the destruction of "society" with the destruction of a budget. That was interesting.
Inga. No. I enjoy watching pompous fools beclown themselves. And you seem to have employed some stereotypical anti semetic phrases. Did you mean to or are you so dumb as not to know what those phrases are?
@Broomhandle:Gabriel,
You do realize your attempting to engage in a rational discussion with an intellectually dishonest lunatic and a lifelong welfare queen who's dumber than a box of rocks, don't you? Seriously dude, what's the point?
Strictly speaking I am engaging with only one of those people. Directly, I should say, as I've been passively-aggressively saying things to Ritmo without addressing him, which is not terrifically noble I admit.
You can't reason people out of what they weren't reasoned into, is perhaps a nicer version of what you were trying to say. Perhaps not. Inga may well choose not to listen to me. That is fine, and her choice. But she is not the only party to the discussion. There are people who perhaps are following who are making up their minds about things. I try to write with them in mind.
Broomhandle, " lifelong welfare queen"? I worked my ass off as a nurse and earned a wage for it for over 30 years you fucking idiot.
Nope, I am not being antsemitic at all, unless you believe all greedy selfish bastards are Jews, I don't.
I note the irony of Hannah thinking there is something of which Inga needs greater convincing than anyone else who follows along here.
She is not the one denying global warming.
Inga. And on what evidence do you suppose I am either greedy or selfish other than I am engaged in finance? I financed a hispital a couple of months ago, by the way. Where do you think the money comes from?
And Gabriel, if you want to talk to Ritmo, don't do it through me, I'm not your puppet.
@Broomhandle: And you see Inga's reaction, which was perfectly understandable and predictable. Insofar as she was listening to anything I said, she is now a little less likely to, because I am associated with some of your views.
It's not rational for people to reject arguments because they don't like the people who accept them, it's tribal thinking, and I'm certainly not immune to it either--but you have to account for the possibility if you care about the cause you argue for.
@Inga:And Gabriel, if you want to talk to Ritmo, don't do it through me, I'm not your puppet.
You're quite right to say so, but I was not thinking of you that way. I did it in only (I think) one post directed toward you, and a few others directed toward Synova and other people. I didn't intend disrespect, but it was not respectful.
Tribalism is one of those things that can be expressed either negatively or positively, isn't it?
Like "assertive" and "aggressive" or any number of other descriptive terms, "confident" and "arrogant", "shy" and "humble", or "patriotic" and "jingoistic", or "loyal" and "toadeating."
Well, me? I'm an assertive, confident, humble, and loyal patriot.
When I was in high school so very long ago they were trying to tell us it was wrong to be in a clique. Even at the time I understood that people would have a circle of friends and pretty much not deal with anyone else. I'm not all that social so my friend-group was smaller than someone who who was highly social would have, but there would have to be a limit to how many different individuals could share meaningful loyalties, trust, secrets, and obligation.
We're social. We have family groups, friend groups and "tribes". Eliminating those things means eliminating the social aspect of our species. Dogs bond to human families because they are pack animals. They are happiest when they have someone in the alpha role. They are still wolves.
People are happiest in tribes. That doesn't mean there has to be warfare over resources. But it's not the tribalism that is the problem.
Ritmo,
Just as I predicted.
Half a day later, you're still here and becoming more abusive and vicious with each post.
Wasn't a difficult prediction to make.
You have no life. Something is seriously wrong with you, but it has nothing to do with politics.
Ritmo. You are dumb on top of vile. Integrity? Read your posts asshole.
@Synova:People are happiest in tribes. That doesn't mean there has to be warfare over resources. But it's not the tribalism that is the problem.
Tribes are not bad, and being in a tribe is not tribalism--it's like the difference between science and scientism.
It's good to have bonds with people. We're not Vulcans. But when tribal bonds work against out ability to get things done that need doing, then something is wrong.
I myself am quite tribal in the sense you mean, in that I have a very large extended family whose company I enjoy very much, even though there are some I don't even like. It's because we're family, not because we agree about things or are even nice people, necessarily. I didn't choose them at all. I have no reason for loving them other than that I belong to them. That is how it ought to be, I think.
Michael:
The other day you refused to define the meaning of integrity when it comes to the practices of the financial services industry.
Is that still your position? Do you still refuse to provide that definition?
@Synova:they were trying to tell us it was wrong to be in a clique. Even at the time I understood that people would have a circle of friends and pretty much not deal with anyone else.
I'm sure you must have read "The Inner Ring", by C. S. Lewis? I think he articulates it well, the difference between friends and a clique.
My favorite part:
The torture allotted to the Danaids in the classical underworld, that of attempting to fill sieves with water, is the symbol not of one vice, but of all vices. It is the very mark of a perverse desire that it seeks what is not to be had. The desire to be inside the invisible line illustrates this rule. As long as you are governed by that desire you will never get what you want. You are trying to peel an onion: if you succeed there will be nothing left. Until you conquer the fear of being an outsider, an outsider you will remain.
"Since you're the one advocating it, it's incumbent upon you to show me the example of where it has worked. Unless you just like risky schemes and scams for the heck of it."
No Ritmo. It's not incumbent upon me when you said:
"But [a flat tax is] not empirically possible. It's never worked,..."
The word "empirical" is an English word with a specific meaning.
I'm not required to come up with *your* empirical evidence.
If you'd meant... "It's never been tried so you have the burden of proof to explain how it works" that would be entirely different. But you claimed it was empirically impossible.
Your claim, not mine.
Also, didn't that Forbes fellow write a book or something? Maybe he was wrong, but I hardly think he was laughably inept when it came to the economy or financial or business related ideas. The argument for taxing income equally isn't an extraordinary one, in the sense that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. It's pretty darn boring nearly mainstream idea. It just doesn't happen to be how our tax system is currently set up.
Ritmo. Your question is stupid as I pointed out at the time. You dont even know what to ask. You dont even know what you are mad about.
And "integrity" is not a topic you have any status to discuss.
Evidence is a positive thing. If it exists, you have it. Absence of evidence is not proof that the imaginary, produced evidence is real, let alone that it works. If you propose to do something you show the evidence. The evidence that a progressive tax works is available. It's been borne out by about a century of real-life. When it was more progressive, economic growth was greater.
Every time the Republicans cut taxes it led to decreased economic growth.
You have no evidence for what you say; you don't even seem to know what it means. I will resist losing my patience with that sort of magical belief system masquerading as factual evidence - even the not-so-mild mannered Shouting Thomas seems to think it's bad for me.
But I won't give your bs any respect.
Even Romney knows the public stopped buying the regressive/flat tax argument. You are now arguing not just against reality, but against public perception.
I won't indulge it with even an inclination to indignation, though. Not anymore. But it is absurd and you are absurd for refusing to see that.
Since you're the one advocating it, it's incumbent upon you to show me the example of where it has worked. Unless you just like risky schemes and scams for the heck of it.
According to the Wiki, the following US states have flat-rate income taxes: Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Utah.
Also, here are a few of the 43 countries with flat taxes: Bolivia, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Romania, and Russia.
Interesting that the flat tax appears to be so popular among formerly communist countries. Maybe they just love risky schemes.
Ritmo. Your question is stupid as I pointed out at the time. You dont even know what to ask. You dont even know what you are mad about.
And "integrity" is not a topic you have any status to discuss.
More ad hominems and character assassination. Does that substitute for "argument" in your line of work, Michael?
Now, one more time, I ask you the question:
How does someone working in finance know that they are behaving with integrity? How do they define that? Which practices would or should they support or not support, to that end?
This has nothing to do with me, but I have no doubt that you will try to make it about me in order to avoid the question.
The public wants to know, Michael.
On the last episode of "Two and A Half Men" they reintroduced the character of Rose. She was a stalker who was obsessed with Charlie Harper (Charlie Sheen). She was a recurring character who was always around and manipulated Charlie so he would want to be with her. In fact one of the plot points was that she killed him after they were finally married.
Now she came on the show to hit on Walden (Ashton Kutcher) who is the new male lead. She seems plausible and since he is getting some crazy pussy ....well old Walden dives right in. But it goes south and he rejects her after she had moved into his beach house with all of her pets. She accepts it and walks away....and then shouts out "Ferrets Attack" and two of her ferrets run down the stairs and bite the shit out of poor Walden.
Just sayn'
O Ritmo wrote:
Oh I'm sorry... We were talking about how tax cuts for people who aren't successful is a bad thing, but that empathy and compassion should just be given away without a second thought to those people who never show them to anyone else?
You keep citing empathy and compassion as though we tax based on that.A good chunk of people in this country pay no taxes. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, it just is .So, to acknowledge, the tax code is already regressive and already takes into account things like people not making a lot of money. That's the level of empathy you'll get from a tax code.
And define empathy. If you're the one defining empathy,then of course, any tax rules that don't abide by your terms, is not empathetic enough. So, you might say, if rich people aren't taxed at 90% then it's not empathetic enough. Wherever you're drawing the line, is immaterial. Does that notion ever come into contact in your mind with things like MATH?
For example, even Obama has said that you shouldn't raise taxes on anyone during the middle of a recession.
His exact words were "You don't raise taxes in the a recession." If that is true, and he said it, and we are in worse than a recession, wouldn't that common sensical statement apply EVEN MORE?
So there we have empathy coming into contact with MATH and when applying common sense, coming to a conclusion that NOW MIGHT NOT BE A GOOD IDEA TO RAISE TAXES, your notions of empathy be damned.
And yet you're still talking about tax cuts as redistribution vehicles to do away with economic injustice or some such cal.
Maybe if we were in a world with a growing, vibrant economy, with 2% unemployment firing on all cyclinders it might be time to engage in the conversation, but is that the economy we are dealing with right now?
This is the exact problem with Obama (and YOU) and why so many people are so dissilusioned with him.
He's not engaging in fixing an economy the way you would when an economy is struggling. Instead he's doubling down on his ideological points, even though he already knows that now is not the time to do that.
So instead of coming up with policies that would strengthen the ability of companies to hire (i.e. lowering tax rates, easing regulations etc) he instead strengthens unions and pushes for alternative energy boondoggles, and stresses hiring more teachers.
It's like he's dealing with a completley different issue than that which the country is actually facing. Namely, strengthening the democratic party and govt. Which wont grow an economy.
You are so mired in your ideology though that you can't even get on the right page as to the actual issues this country is dealing with. And it's not strengthening unions or giving solar companies dollars. Nor is it shovel ready infrastruture projects that don't exist.
Interesting that the flat tax appears to be so popular among formerly communist countries. Maybe they just love risky schemes.
No, they just need the kind of growth and lack of oversight that countries in those sorts of dire straits require.
Assuming what you say is even true. I'm not convinced of what you sourced.
In any event, Obama says it's fine to cut gov't to 21% or whatever of GDP. THat's fine. Just propose how you want to get there on a flat tax. I doubt you'll get the numbers to work out.
Uh, Chip, your wiki source says that those "flat taxes" actually range from 3 to nearly 7%, depending upon the municipality in the state. And this doesn't count local taxes.
I think it's safe to say that MI, IL, and PA have greater infrastructure needs than do the other states.
As does this (hopefully STILL) non-third world country of ours.
Perhaps you disagree.
Some of which can be substantial (local taxes).
Again, infrastructure needs matter. Why are Republicans so intent on trying to convince us that they don't or that they shouldn't?
At least you brought a source to bear. Why did Synova find that so hard to do?
Ritmo now in full professor without a classroom blowhard mode!
Hilarious!
"I'm sure you must have read "The Inner Ring", by C. S. Lewis? I think he articulates it well, the difference between friends and a clique."
It might be on my bookshelf but I haven't read it.
In any case, I think that there is a difference between the two, but that sometimes people think that it's the social structure that is the cause of the problems.
In the case of the campaign against cliques in high school it wasn't about how the dynamics of a small group could become toxic, it was a campaign against the idea of having a small circle of friends instead of being a friend with everyone. And the thing of it was that there wasn't a real problem between groups at our small school. Some were slightly more exclusive than others but it was really live-and-let-live. But the professional educators were on the latest kick anyway. That was what they were supposed to be worried about, so they were.
Concentrating on the fact of social groupings isn't all that uncommon. "Imagine" if we had nothing to live or die for? No ideologies or sects or beliefs? What if we could care about humanity instead of selfishly focusing on people who belong to us? Kumbaya.
We could end jealousy by ending the institution of marriage and living with free love.
It's all over the place.
All of our problems would disappear (I'm sure you've run into this one) if only we gave up the destructive concept of property ownership.
Dogs are wolves. And we're plains apes who began our ascent by finding a usefully shaped rock and deciding to keep it for later.
There's The Great Wall of China and then there's Montana Urban Schmendrik, The Great Wall of Snot.
No, they just need the kind of growth and lack of oversight that countries in those sorts of dire straits require.
I agree completely with Ritmo. Flatter taxes are a route to higher economic growth.
And since I think the US economy is in pretty dire straits, I support Romney.
One more point: a flat tax isn't necessarily regressive; that depends on the level of the personal exemption and the treatment of deductions. Romney's proposal to limit deductions to $17,000 is actually pretty progressive, since it severely limits the mortgage deductions of the wealthy.
Uh, Chip, your wiki source says that those "flat taxes" actually range from 3 to nearly 7%, depending upon the municipality in the state.
Uh, Ritmo, municipal tax rates can be different from each other and still be flat. "Flatness" refers to the independence of the personal tax rate from the level of personal income.
Just like the various states can have different tax rates and still qualify as flat-tax states.
Seriously Ritmo.
You said "empirical" and I foolishly thought you understood what that word means. Consequently, I foolishly thought that you made a factual claim.
I've been corrected.
Total US personal income, 2011:
$12,949,905,000
12% of that: $1.6 trillion
We can't afford Obama-level spending on that, but we could afford Clinton levels of 1997 ($1.6 trillion in 2011 dollars).
I know it was all nature red in tooth and claw in those days, with freezing grannies eating dog food and all our kids ignorant on account of no teachers. But it was living.
And Ritmo empathy and compaission are all well and good, but if your empathy and compassion doesn't lead to more people getting a job then how empathetic and compassionate are you really?
Thats just lip service to your pablum, it doesn't mean you are actually being empathetic and compassionate.
W shouldn't look at the result of your proposed policies to determine how empathetic and compassionate they are, simply your intent?
Screw that, people need jobs not some faux govt or liberal empathy.
Your empathy is like Staten Island after the hurricane. No bottled water, no response, no solution.
And you're like Michael Bloomberg talking about diverting resources to help the marathon while the people in Staten Island are complaining about how govt is ignoring them.IN the case of Obama though it would be as if he DID divert the funds/
Your compassion is crap.
So I am thinking at a certain point we can just yell "Ferrets attack" and run like hell.
The flat tax and sales tax are regressive in that they reduce lower incomes to a greater degree than higher incomes because of the necessity to accessibility to essential goods.
To eliminate this effect, one must make exceptions for food and clothing (which are probably easiest), fuel and energy.
Which puts you right back into tax deductions and credits.
I agree completely with Ritmo. Flatter taxes are a route to higher economic growth.
In a third world country where virtually no wealth exists, sure. Not here.
And since I think the US economy is in pretty dire straits, I support Romney.
Disagree. We're in bad shape, but to pretend that we're coming from the situation Moldova was left in is a complete denial of reality. Unlike them, we actually have billionaires. And incredibly profitable businesses. Let's stop comparing apples to oranges.
One more point: a flat tax isn't necessarily regressive; that depends on the level of the personal exemption and the treatment of deductions. Romney's proposal to limit deductions to $17,000 is actually pretty progressive, since it severely limits the mortgage deductions of the wealthy.
Yes, but it's more regressive than the current situation. We're talking comparatively. And Romney will never say which deductions he wants to scrap, because that would entail lying to more potentially affected (afflicted?) constituencies than he can afford to divide at the moment.
We can't afford Obama-level spending on that, but we could afford Clinton levels of 1997 ($1.6 trillion in 2011 dollars).
I know it was all nature red in tooth and claw in those days, with freezing grannies eating dog food and all our kids ignorant on account of no teachers. But it was living.
By how much has our population (and our income) grown?
Basic, social questions that need to be answered before comparing more apples to even more oranges.
These things matter.
Uh, Ritmo, municipal tax rates can be different from each other and still be flat. "Flatness" refers to the independence of the personal tax rate from the level of personal income.
Just like the various states can have different tax rates and still qualify as flat-tax states.
THat's not what your wiki article said. If it's accurate, then it should be interpreted to mean that the STATE income tax adjusts depending on locality. Maybe they didn't mean that (and I just looked at some information that suggests they didn't), but that's what it says.
You said "empirical" and I foolishly thought you understood what that word means. Consequently, I foolishly thought that you made a factual claim.
Uh, the relevant discussion is proceeding between me and Chip, honey. We're using something called "numbers" and "sources". We might even actually come around to agreeing on a few things, if it goes on long enough.
BUt I can see you have different priorities. Do let us know if you're interested in joining the "numbers" and "sources" discussion, mkay?
Scrap? We have an idea which ones he wants to cap.
Chip -
Re: deductions, WaPo has this great interactive tool that gets you to see for yourself how you can get Mitt's otherwise secret math to add up.
I like it. It's fun ;-)
@Ritmo:By how much has our population (and our income) grown?
1997 $6,994,388,000 272,657,000 $1.6 trillion
2011 $12,949,905,000 311,705,000 $3.834 trillion
Our spending has increased by %140, our population has only increased by 25%.
Why didn't you bother to look it up instead of demanding I use the google for you?
Because you don't care about what's true.
@Ritmo:We're using something called "numbers" and "sources".
Who's "we", kemosabe? Why did you have to demand demand such basic information from me instead of providing it myself when I gave the result of a 12% tax rate? I've seen precious little numbers in any of your posts today. I have the same internet you do, why didn't you look them up? Because you don't care what the numbers are.
No Gabe, I do care. I care about your implication that our spending should have increased by 25%, instead of by the 0% that you implied.
I'm sure Bush's tax cuts and unfunded wars (as well as the stimulus required of his economic crash) can explain a lot of the discrepancy.
If you care about what's true you would admit that.
Thank you.
Ritmo, don't be condescending to Synova, she doesn't deserve that.
Who's "we", kemosabe?
Duh. Me and Chip.
Are you not able to read?
Seriously, man. Serious question.
You don't want to be as big an asshole as Broomhandle or Michael, or Baron Zemo, do you?
@Ritmo: It's the same fallacy you tried last time. You pretend money is not fungible and that revenue is guaranteed by tax rate.
I presume you are now in favor of a 16% flat tax rate, which you concede would gives us Clinton levels of government fundage when djusted for population.
No? Of course not. You link to an infographic instead.
Ritmo, don't be condescending to Synova, she doesn't deserve that.
I'm sorry to you (maybe even to her) if you think so, but it just doesn't seem like she was arguing in "good faith".
I would have been quicker to apologize to her in the past, but she's taken to some completely unwarranted, nasty name-calling of me as of late.
I had never called her any names up until that point. She is taking advantage of my willingness to point out and engage with the points she actually does bring to the table.
Sad. Another thread Ritmo'ed before its time.
@Ritmo:By how much has our population (and our income) grown?
Basic, social questions that need to be answered before comparing more apples to even more oranges.
These things matter.
Yeah, and I answered you, and you replied with abuse. On top of calling me autistic earlier, and insulting Synova misogynistically.
Otherwise secret math?
LOLOLOLOL
@Ritmo: It's the same fallacy you tried last time. You pretend money is not fungible and that revenue is guaranteed by tax rate.
It generally is. (If I understand you correctly).
I presume you are now in favor of a 16% flat tax rate, which you concede would gives us Clinton levels of government fundage when djusted for population.
What would be wrong with that? I can actually separate out the revenue issue from the practicability issue.
If people from the poverty rate up until 16% could afford that, that would be great.
I don't think they can, though - so I think it makes sense to go after non-essential spending. A guy making a million can still have more than enough to eat and cover basic expenses if we raised the rates there - even by a considerable margin. His spending might suffer, but there's no indication, given record profits, that that's an even likely outcome.
These are some pretty easily observed facts - assuming you accept the fact that there are people outside of YOUR OWN income bracket and that their needs, and therefore their spending habits, might necesssarily differ from yours.
It takes putting yourself in others' shoes.
Can'[t be as secret as that Dem Budget Harry's been sitting on for 3-1/2 years.
Now that's secret. We don't have a plan, we just know we don't like yours.
Yeah, and I answered you, and you replied with abuse.
Where was the "abuse" in my 5:37 response to you?
You are being hypersensitive. There was no "abuse" in that comment.
@Ritmo: Math, let's try it.
1997 spending per person:
$1.6 trillion / 273 million people = $5860 per person
2011 flat tax rate needed to produce this per capita spending:
$5860 per person * 311 million people / total personal income=
$5860 * 311,000,000 / 12,000,000,000 = 15%.
I trust your retraction is forthcoming. I place faith in your integrity and reliance on hard cold facts and numbers.
There will be no retraction of Keynesian economics any time soon. Paying off greater debt and economic stimulus account for the necessarily greater spending in 2012 compared to 1997.
Or did you think there was "abuse" in this comment of mine? I'm merely pointing out the obvious - at least as I or many voters would see it.
@Ritmo:Where was the "abuse" in my 5:37 response to you?
"Duh. Me and Chip.
Are you not able to read?"
As for Synova:
"Uh, the relevant discussion is proceeding between me and Chip, honey. We're using something called "numbers" and "sources". We might even actually come around to agreeing on a few things, if it goes on long enough.
BUt I can see you have different priorities. Do let us know if you're interested in joining the "numbers" and "sources" discussion, mkay?"
Gabe: The reverse argument is just as easily played. Why do the Republicans think greater defense spending (but less spending on education) is needed in 2012 compared to 1997?
Don't kid yourself into thinking that the math matters to them. This is about priorities, and always has been. They have not balanced a budget since they got Reagan in there. Only a Democrat has done it between now and then.
@Ritmo:Where was the "abuse" in my 5:37 response to you?
"Duh. Me and Chip.
Are you not able to read?"
Um, that comment actually comes from my 5:39 response to you, not my 5:37 response. So it looks like you are failing to read for a second time.
Gabe, I'm going to hold you accountable for reading what I've written before taking issue with it. That is not abuse, it is honesty, and, dare I say it "good faith" (assuming you honor that request to read accurately FIRST).
@Ritmo:There will be no retraction of Keynesian economics any time soon.
Keynesian economics has the assumption that government spending has a multiplier if and only if the money would not otherwise be spent.
You have to assume that before you derive it from the harmonic series. Every dollar the government spends was either taken out in taxes, in which case there is no net benefit, or it is borrowed against future taxes, or it is magicked into existence through inflation. Keynesian economics claims only that you can ease today's recession by consuming future prosperity, but there is nothing in there that says you can do it forever. All the assumptions need to be in place, and there needs to be future prosperity to pay for what you spent.
You can't just invoke it as a magic buzzword.
Whatever it was, honest, I missed it.
I'm not likely to get flustered when someone accuses me of not supporting a claim when I wasn't the one making claims.
But apparently Ritmo was only guilty of a poor choice of words.
As for Synova, she is not a weak person. She can handle herself. And she respects the need for the discussion to proceed on an accurate, and numerical basis, I will take her responses seriously.
Maybe I didn't respond NICELY (not that it compares to the sorts of things Todd Akin or Mourdock have said), but I'm not going to assume that she needs to discuss a numerical and accurate, factually quoted conversation on a less sophisticated level than the others here are conducting it.
@Ritmo:Um, that comment actually comes from my 5:39 response to you, not my 5:37 response. So it looks like you are failing to read for a second time.
More abuse is not a very effective defense. Others will judge between you and me.
Obama and the Senate Democrats have been operating on no budget for three years. This is the antithesis of fiscal responsibility.
As for balanced budgets, the guy you want to vote for is the only one in the race who has destroyed the previous record for fiscal irresponsibility.
You say deficits are bad, but good in recession. Are we in recession, or not? If we are, then Romney's deficits would be good. If we are not, Obama's are bad. You are trying to argue out of both sides of your mouth, and not succeeding.
@Ritmo: You demanded numbers of me, and supplied none of your own. You were no better than Synova in that regard. You linked to an infographic, and I'm still waiting for your concession about the flat tax. You said, "empirically impossible", but nobody twisted your arm into making such an extreme statement.
Keynesian economics has the assumption that government spending has a multiplier if and only if the money would not otherwise be spent.
You have to assume that before you derive it from the harmonic series. Every dollar the government spends was either taken out in taxes, in which case there is no net benefit, or it is borrowed against future taxes, or it is magicked into existence through inflation. Keynesian economics claims only that you can ease today's recession by consuming future prosperity, but there is nothing in there that says you can do it forever. All the assumptions need to be in place, and there needs to be future prosperity to pay for what you spent.
You can't just invoke it as a magic buzzword.
THat's why I (and the Democrats) are doing nothing of the sort. We are doing EXACTLY what you ask. We are pointing out that with record profits, the (KEYNESIAN) tax cuts that Republicans are proposing on the richest of the rich, WILL NOT BE SPENT. They are already spending less now. It's the middle class and poor (layed off by Republican budget cuts in a recession and accounting for at least a full percentage point of the unemployed) who would be SPENDING that dough disproportionately enough to affect economic activity, not the richest of the rich.
But at least we agree. The Republicans are Keynesians. They just think that the only subjects of Keynesianism are rich capitalists. But that's NOT true.
@Ritmo:Maybe I didn't respond NICELY (not that it compares to the sorts of things Todd Akin or Mourdock have said),
WEAK sauce here. You were nicer than Hitler would have been too. Jesus H. Christ.
@Ritmo:. We are pointing out that with record profits, the (KEYNESIAN) tax cuts that Republicans are proposing on the richest of the rich, WILL NOT BE SPENT.
They will be buried in the yard? Because unless they are being buried in the yard, someone is spending that money. Don't you know what a bank does? Don't you know what a bond or a stock or an investment is? They are forms of giving your money to someone else to use until you call for it!
Others will judge between you and me.
More passive aggression.
Dude, for crying out loud, have the discussion on your own terms, and for your own benefit. Stop sniveling. If you failed to read something, take responsibility. I'm not offended at your inappropriate insertion of your ego into every corner, just pointing out that it's not doing anything more for your own argument. It's advice, at this point.
They will be buried in the yard? Because unless they are being buried in the yard, someone is spending that money. Don't you know what a bank does? Don't you know what a bond or a stock or an investment is? They are forms of giving your money to someone else to use until you call for it!
SO when do you go off of evidence and when do you decide to instead resort to folksy aphorisms? The fact is that that UNSPENT capital, whether it goes to a bank or otherwise, IS NOT HIRING PEOPLE. Unemployment is the problem in this economy (feel free to disagree, the opportunistic liar Romney doesn't even seem to), so giving more money to banks won't help. Hiring people will. And if they still won't hire, then let that money go to pay down the debt. Debt does not suddendly become a problem due to Democratic spending as opposed to Republican spending. But only the Republicans are disingenuous about caring about that issue.
"A guy making a million can still have more than enough to eat and cover basic expenses..."
If a person is going to work for food and basic expenses, why the hell would he not just DO that?
Unless he "didn't build that" and no significant labor is involved, which means *for him* making a million and making enough for food and basic expenses is exactly the same amount of effort, in which case why not keep it up, right?
To think so, the amount of labor and effort it takes to make a million and the amount of labor and effort it takes to get along on basic expenses are the same. Obviously it's not a perfect ratio and there are undoubtedly outliers, but in general terms, people who make it big work their asses off.
Do you really believe that there isn't a point at which people stop bothering to work harder?
Doesn't it matter what point that is?
Post a Comment