White Men

[trumptman]

White Men (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nora-ephron/white-men_b_97669.html)

Here's another thing I don't like about this primary: now that there are only two Democratic candidates, it's suddenly horribly absolutely crystal-clear that this is an election about gender and race. This may have always been true, but weeks ago it wasn't so obvious -- once upon a time there were eight candidates, and although six of them withered away, their presence in the campaign managed to obscure things. Even around the time of Ohio, when there were primarily three candidates, the outlines were murky, because Edwards was still in there, picking up votes from all sectors.

It may have been true. Some of us may have started a thread several weeks ago called battle of the -isms noting how each candidate would be attempting to peddle their various victim status into a path to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

But now there are two and we're facing Pennsylvania and whom are we kidding? This is an election about whether the people of Pennsylvania hate blacks more than they hate women. And when I say people, I don't mean people, I mean white men.

Don't hold back... how do you really feel? White men voting is now synonymous with racism and sexism. Perhaps they should just be placed in interment camps where we can give them all special showers and insure there is no irony to be had next election cycle.

How ironic is this? After all this time, after all these stupid articles about how powerless white men are and how they can't even get into college because of overachieving women and affirmative action and mean lady teachers who expected them to sit still in the third grade even though they were all suffering from terminal attention deficit disorder -- after all this, they turn out (surprise!) to have all the power. (As they always did, by the way; I hope you didn't believe any of those articles.)

Oh my goodness, well perhaps we can insure they are finally powerless by just removing their ability to vote. I mean sure the rest of the world can reason that being a small swing group that can help determine which candidates who are evenly matched happen to come out ahead doesn't mean you have ALL THE POWER but apparently she cannot.

To put it bluntly, the next president will be elected by them: the outcome of Tuesday's primary will depend on whether they go for Hillary or Obama, and the outcome of the general election will depend on whether enough of them vote for McCain. A lot of them will: white men cannot be relied on, as all of us know who have spent a lifetime dating them. And McCain is a compelling candidate, particularly because of the Torture Thing. As for the Democratic hope that McCain's temper will be a problem, don't bet on it. A lot of white men have terrible tempers, and what's more, they think it's normal.

Thank goodness we aren't resorting to stereotypes to support weak reasoning... oh wait...:no::lol:

Hillary's case is not an attractive one, because what she'll essentially be saying (and has been saying, although very carefully) is that she can attract more racist white male voters than Obama can. Nonetheless, and as I said, she has a case.

So under this scenario is is possible to be a white male and not be a racist? I suppose not since it is plainly clear that white male is merely a synonym for racist.

I hope all you white males out there hurry up and march yourselves into some death camps so the next election doesn't have to deal with the irony of having your vote help determine the outcome. Move along quickly so none of us has to put up any longer with all this pandering to your racist intentions which we know you have simply because you exist.

[Jubelum]

Ooooo Ooooo stereotypes... here's a boatload (http://www.aspentimes.com/article/2008198091324) about Angry White Men.

[trumptman]

Nothing brings a glee to my eye like a trumptman thread on gender and race.

Except for Guybrush Threepwood's mom.

Well not all of us have guns and religion to help us deal with our bitterness like you racist white male Pennsylvanians.

BTW Shawn, between hanging up nooses and beating women and taking their shoes, which of the candidates happened to pander better to your racist and sexist thinking? I could presume that it would be Obama, but as the author noted, you can't be relied upon with your A.D.D. attention span. Let us know which way you exercised your power and privilege so the rest of us will know which level of oppression you exercised over the rest of us.

(BTW none of that is meant as a personal attack, it is just some tongue in cheek fun with the language of the author from HP):D;)

[hardeeharhar]

Wait.

Doesn't this make McCain the candidate for the white male victim?


I find it hillarious that Nick is debating with someone who thought that Edwards was a contender in Ohio...

[Jubelum]

BTW Shawn, between hanging up nooses and beating women and taking their shoes, which of the candidates happened to pander better to your racist and sexist thinking?

:lol:

[trumptman]

Wait.

Doesn't this make McCain the candidate for the white male victim?


I find it hillarious that Nick is debating with someone who thought that Edwards was a contender in Ohio...

You would think but those white men are so sneaky and tricky. I mean they keep doing sneaky things like....voting, or listening, evaluating the information and possibly changing their mind. They have all the power but can't be trusted to be consistent with how they exercise it. Exit poll analysis has shown that Hillary and Obama keep pretty much the same groups from primary to primary vote except for those darn white men who keep flip-flopping back and forth.

Wait... I just thought of something. McCain is being portrayed as angry and unstable, clearly in an attempt to appeal to white male voters. Wright was portrayed as angry and unstable and clearly this is.... yes a CODED attempt to appeal to white male voters. People note that the poll numbers didn't shift... that is because it was CODE. It didn't drive them away from Obama, it drove them TOWARD Obama.

At least that might be the case for this week. Next week, who knows. Those white males only speak in code because with their terrible attention spans they don't understand proper English anyway. Soon the educated types, (elites is the slang those white males use for them) will realize this and give their coded speech a proper designation, probably malebonics or something like that.

[@_@ Artman]

OMG! Angry White Priest! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0wvQMqSzTM)

Angry White Men everywhere! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=du-OnWEXdig)

Run! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8SZvWzP58s)

[@_@ Artman]

My nephew (mid thirties) fits the angry white guy to a tee. Though he loves this country, family and friends, he hates everything else. Especially liberals. He listens to talk radio (Limbaugh for years, Beck and Hannity too), despises most every other form of media. He will vote for McCain out of spite.

Ironically, he went with my sister to her school to hear Bill Clinton speak, both of them despise the Clintons. But he got to greet and shake hands with him.

Another thing is he hasn't had a girlfriend in over a decade. Spurned once and believes that's the make of a woman.

Meanwhile I'm getting smacked in the back of the head by mine, so you "angry men" (her words, not mine) can continue batting the hot air of trumptman's (and Ephron's) post. I'm going to cuddle and be mister nice guy now.

[addabox]

Ooooo Ooooo stereotypes... here's a boatload (http://www.aspentimes.com/article/2008198091324) about Angry White Men.

I see your cultural posturing and raise you class and economics. (http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB120873309012529689-lMyQjAxMDI4MDI4MTcyMzEzWj.html)

It is by this familiar maneuver that the people who have designed and supported the policies that have brought the class divide back to America – the people who have actually, really transformed our society from an egalitarian into an elitist one – perfume themselves with the essence of honest toil, like a cologne distilled from the sweat of laid-off workers. Likewise do their retainers in the wider world – the conservative politicians and the pundits who lovingly curate all this phony authenticity – become jes' folks, the most populist fellows of them all.

[groverat]

Some of us may have started a thread several weeks ago called battle of the -isms noting how each candidate would be attempting to peddle their various victim status into a path to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

How does a blog post by Nora Ephron indicate that Barack Obama is attempting to peddle his victim status into a path to the White House?

[Hassan i Sabbah]

All I know is that if either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama were to be elected President it would be a major victory for Americans over racism and sexism and cause for celebration. The original poster isn't really concerned with this because his agenda is very 'subtle' and specific.

[addabox]

So, wait, Nora Ephron is building death camps? Does King Features know about this?

[trumptman]

I read the article.

Nora Ephron is dreaming (or not very informed of this year's democratic primary politics) if she thinks a Hillary win in PA changes the dynamics of the race. A Hillary win in PA was expected since this thing began. Even a huge win doesn't change anything. She has to win *every* remaining state *big* to gain the pledged delegate lead. And Hillary's saying she's fighting on to the convention no matter what happens, so...

You are right that a Hillary won won't change the dynamics of the race. However the one dynamic that she is preaching about to super delegates certainly won't have changed either and that is that Obama cannot win the big states. Obama cannot beat her despite huge money advantages, outspending her in the state, and lastly that in every instance where he should have been able to put her away and seal the deal, he has been unable to do so.

My nephew (mid thirties) fits the angry white guy to a tee. Though he loves this country, family and friends, he hates everything else. Especially liberals. He listens to talk radio (Limbaugh for years, Beck and Hannity too), despises most every other form of media. He will vote for McCain out of spite.

Ironically, he went with my sister to her school to hear Bill Clinton speak, both of them despise the Clintons. But he got to greet and shake hands with him.

Another thing is he hasn't had a girlfriend in over a decade. Spurned once and believes that's the make of a woman.

Meanwhile I'm getting smacked in the back of the head by mine, so you "angry men" (her words, not mine) can continue batting the hot air of trumptman's (and Ephron's) post. I'm going to cuddle and be mister nice guy now.

Well I of course can name the anecdotal reverse but what really is the point besides getting in some sort of jab associated with the caricature you constructed regarding your nephew?

:lol:

The underaged ones don't count Shawn.

I see your cultural posturing and raise you class and economics. (http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB120873309012529689-lMyQjAxMDI4MDI4MTcyMzEzWj.html)

Well I raise you a rebuttal that yet again shows the Thomas premise to be flawed. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/17/opinion/17bartels.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)

Be careful reading it though because unlike the Kansas book it deals with reality and numbers instead of pondering lucid dreaming.

How does a blog post by Nora Ephron indicate that Barack Obama is attempting to peddle his victim status into a path to the White House?

I quoted the relevant section of the post. If you take issue with it then you can quote it and make an assertion about why it is wrong.

All I know is that if either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama were to be elected President it would be a major victory for Americans over racism and sexism and cause for celebration. The original poster isn't really concerned with this because his agenda is very 'subtle' and specific.

Oh yes... let's play kill the messenger because... well thought is bad apparently. There isn't a way to excuse the fact that the Huffington Post publishes such authors and their claims so let's suggest that the person pointing at it is very much a bad person and so the article he pointed at can't really exist.

Nice logical fallacy.

So, wait, Nora Ephron is building death camps? Does King Features know about this?

No silly, they are for next election or possibly the one after that when we all get tired of having in office whoever those silly racist and sexist white men in Pennsylvania hate less. When we can no longer stand the irony of it or simply get sick of dealing with the consequences, we can simply kill them. That is the only certain way to stop from voting of course.

[Jubelum]

.....

[Jubelum]

I see your cultural posturing and raise you class and economics. (http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB120873309012529689-lMyQjAxMDI4MDI4MTcyMzEzWj.html)

But suppose we read on, and we find the news item about the hedge fund managers who made $2 billion and $3 billion last year, or the story about the vaporizing of our home equity. Suppose we become a little . . . bitter about this. What do our pundits and politicians tell us then?


It does not surprise me that liberals are bitter about other people succeeding. It's the lifeblood of their ideology. Same thing with oil execs and oil shareholders. Class warfare does not get any clearer than this. Hedge funds? How dare they be smart enough to see the unsustainable giving away of free money to unqualified people as a bad thing. Jerks. Time to take their profits for "the common good," eh, Hillary?

That there is no place for such sentiment in the Party of the People. That "bitterness" is an ugly and inadmissible emotion. That "divisiveness" is a thing to be shunned at all costs.

You're right... you have to resist the urge to break the crayons of the kid that has more crayons than you do. You have not gained any more crayons for yourself by breaking his.

Conservatism, on the other hand, has no problem with bitterness; as the champion strategist Howard Phillips said almost three decades ago, the movement's job is to "organize discontent." And organize they have. They have welcomed it, they have flattered it, they have invited it in with millions of treason-screaming direct-mail letters, they have given it a nice warm home on angry radio shows situated up and down the AM dial. There is not only bitterness out there; there is a bitterness industry.

Yes, it is a bitterness. A bitterness completely UNLIKE the bitterness that Obama was referring to. Obama was saying that people are bitter because they feel that government is not doing enough for them.

Many of us are bitter because we feel the government is doing too much to us. We're bitter about excess spending. We're bitter about a party that has seemingly abandoned our principles. Some of us are bitter about a war which should be over by now. We're bitter about constant punishing of achievement by elites like Kennedy, Clinton, and Obama. We're bitter because we listen to an endless parade of liberals who claim we are not paying enough in taxes. We're bitter because the same people that make excuses for criminals are hell-bent on taking guns from law abiding people. We're bitter because our nation can't afford wide open borders, and we're called racists (by people like Obama) if we ask for the borders to be maintained. Bitter? You bet.

It's a culture war, and war creates bitterness.

:smokey:

[Jubelum]

He will vote for McCain out of spite.

That's just about all that a principled conservative can do with McCain. And some of us are wondering if we can even do that. Our next president will be a Democrat, no matter which of the three gets elected. ;)

Ironically, he went with my sister to her school to hear Bill Clinton speak, both of them despise the Clintons. But he got to greet and shake hands with him.

Shake hands? How long ago? He's been exposed... possible that we can prevent a full-blown infection. Has he shown any tendencies toward much younger female coworkers or defining "is"?

Another thing is he hasn't had a girlfriend in over a decade. Spurned once and believes
that's the make of a woman.

It is the make of a woman. Just that marriage leads to a bit less, and more scheduled, spurning.

I'm going to cuddle and be mister nice guy now.
You're rarely anything but Mr. Nice Guy, Artman... ;)

[@_@ Artman]

Well I of course can name the anecdotal reverse but what really is the point besides getting in some sort of jab associated with the caricature you constructed regarding your nephew?

As far as politics he's way, way off the deep end in my opinion. But underneath I see a man who is very patriotic (he's traveled by car from one end of the USA to the other, three times) and very steadfast in his views. But I believe the culmination of his anger comes from the messengers he follows and listens to. But I see more and more apathy towards their message and the conservative party. Bush did not help in that matter. I see someone who has the feeling of being betrayed and seeks another direction to take. He'll have to do that on his own. I love the guy, but he has to decide that himself.

He needs to get laid too.

[@_@ Artman]

That's just about all that a principled conservative can do with McCain. And some of us are wondering if we can even do that. Our next president will be a Democrat, no matter which of the three gets elected. ;)

He was for Mitt Romney, but we saw how that turned out. After that he said that he'd screw the elections this time, but I think he knows that whatever party you stand for, the choice has to make a difference this time.

Shake hands? How long ago? He's been exposed... possible that we can prevent a full-blown infection. Has he shown any tendencies toward much younger female coworkers or defining "is"?

In the past twenty years he has seen or shaken hands with four presidents and Clinton on Sunday(?) was the closest he's ever got. If only the Secret Service knew...;)

It is the make of a woman. Just that marriage leads to a bit less, and more scheduled, spurning.

He was cheated on, bad. Long story... As far as the female thing, I tried, believe me I tried with double dating to blind dates. All ended in disaster. He's not a city guy either...are there whorehouses in the suburbs? :err:

You're rarely anything but Mr. Nice Guy, Artman... ;)

Having some female companionship helps loads, I'd recommend it to all the angry men (http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?t=86156) out there. ;):smokey:

[Northgate]

It does not surprise me that liberals are bitter about other people succeeding. It's the lifeblood of their ideology. Same thing with oil execs and oil shareholders. Class warfare does not get any clearer than this.

This is what conservatives called intelligent political discourse in this country. I'd tell you to kiss my ass but the mods don't like that sort of thing.

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Nothing brings a glee to my eye like a trumptman thread on gender and race.

Except for Guybrush Threepwood's mom.

WTF?

I have yet to endeavor in PO warfare. My knives are useless in this forum.

But I do read everything you bastards write...

[BRussell]

Honestly, I prefer Guybrush's sister.

This thread is now about Guybrush Threepwood's female relatives.

[Jubelum]

This is what conservatives called intelligent political discourse in this country. I'd tell you to kiss my ass but the mods don't like that sort of thing.

How else do you explain the liberals in this country falling over each other to get to a mic for the "windfall profits taxes" and "reigning in CEO pay" and the stalwart "tax the rich more!" that is the bread and butter of the platform? I'm sorry, but it is an ideology that often sees someone succeeding and believes that success only happens when others are hurt. So they set about dealing the punishment. Inherent is the belief that no one can get anything without screwing someone else. That zero-sum-game that is constantly trotted out as an economic model. Those rich people deserve the bullseye that you guys keep pinned on their chests...

[Flounder]

See Northgate? Why don't you just admit that all liberals hate the success of others, and want to punish them for it? I mean, what else can you do in the face of such an air-tight argument?

[@_@ Artman]

http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/board.jpg

...

http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/02/1168702253-11674885811774361.jpg

[Jubelum]

See Northgate? Why don't you just admit that all liberals hate the success of others, and want to punish them for it? I mean, what else can you do in the face of such an air-tight argument?

What do you have to refute the specifics I cited? Show me some reasoning behind the "windfall profits tax." Go ahead.

The fact is that YES, there are liberals who hate the success of others. Almost categorically... with pathetic arguments that usually begin with "It's not fair that" and end with something along the lines of "that's why the government should..."

You can't run from the truth that any industry that makes "too much money" or is "too profitable" is right in the middle of the liberal crosshairs.

[hardeeharhar]

What do you have to refute the specifics I cited? Show me some reasoning behind the "windfall profits tax." Go ahead.

The fact is that YES, there are liberals who hate the success of others. Almost categorically... with pathetic arguments that usually begin with "It's not fair that" and end with something along the lines of "that's why the government should..."

You can't run from the truth that any industry that makes "too much money" or is "too profitable" is right in the middle of the liberal crosshairs.
Windfall profits are exactly identical to loan sharks in the character of the transactions involved.

The profits being made are made at the expense of people having the means or ability to understand fair pricing of goods. In the absence of full knowledge, the free market produces such outcomes -- people pay more for goods than they are worth, far more it seems.

In addition, windfall profits ONLY appear in industries that are heavily subsidized by the federal government. Why is that? Do these corporations deserve protection of the sort the government provides if they are so self-profitable?

[Jubelum]

Windfall profits are exactly identical to loan sharks in the character of the transactions involved.

:lol: Sure. Tell me more about that analogy...

The profits being made are made at the expense of people having the means or ability to understand fair pricing of goods. In the absence of full knowledge, the free market produces such outcomes -- people pay more for goods than they are worth, far more it seems.

This is fundamentally wrong. If you are Exxon, and you bought mineral rights 20 years ago, and the investment has paid off in today's market, that has nothing to do with "people having the means or ability to understand fair pricing of goods." It's the market. The market determines the fair price, based on demand and other market forces. Again, when someone makes a good investment, here comes the left with the "windfall profits tax" or as we little people have come to know it, the "capital gains tax"... (which Obama and Clinton both want to raise by 10 points or so).

Funny... I don't remember one of these people lifting a finger here in Texas in 1986-87 when oil was $11 a barrel. I guess there was no money to be had then, though, and money is what it is all about.

In addition, windfall profits ONLY appear in industries that are heavily subsidized by the federal government. Why is that? Do these corporations deserve protection of the sort the government provides if they are so self-profitable?

I'm all for ending many kinds of subsidies... including corn/ethanol AND oil company subsidies. Don't forget, in your concern about those evil oil companies, that their product produces 4-5 times the profit to the federal government than it does to the evil corporation. If those oil companies do not have profit to drill ($1,000,000 per well, regardless of outcome) and explore, the government is going to need to figure out where it is going to find the billions in receipts it gets taxing the oil companies' product and profits. And you're going to need to buy a bicycle. ;)

[Flounder]

What do you have to refute the specifics I cited?

Because it's beneath all of us?

[Jubelum]

Because it's beneath all of us?

I don't think that's it. At all. ;) It's because there is no legitimate, alternate reason for these types of policies. The "windfall profits tax"... I'm all ears.

[Guybrush Threepwood]

When I graduate to 1,000 posts...I'm coming in here and unleashing full fury.

[vinea]

What do you have to refute the specifics I cited? Show me some reasoning behind the "windfall profits tax." Go ahead.


The reasoning is that under normal pricing the percentage based cost of oil refining worked out more or less even to what it would be based on a fixed cost of oil refining + profit.

However, when the cost of oil shoots up but the cost of production lags greatly you suddenly end up with huge profits.

Eh. They made a bunch of money from folks as a captive audience. I don't care so much as to whether there is a windfall tax as much as what it's used for. Development of real alternative energy sources or paying down the debt are both fine in my book.


The fact is that YES, there are liberals who hate the success of others. Almost categorically... with pathetic arguments that usually begin with "It's not fair that" and end with something along the lines of "that's why the government should..."

You can't run from the truth that any industry that makes "too much money" or is "too profitable" is right in the middle of the liberal crosshairs.

Some industries set themselves up to be villians. When the cost of oil goes up the people start to suffer. To be posting record profits while people are having trouble making ends meet is a good way to end up in ANY politician's cross hairs.

Nobody cares when you make record profits in good years when everyone is prosperous. It's not like they weren't making excellent money then.

Personally, I can go along with Warren Buffett on taxes. Frankly, most of the conservative folks whining about taxing the rich aren't rich or ever likely to be rich.

"Buffett says three of his close friends have taken him up on the challenge and they all came up with the same results: Ordinary folks are suffering under tax rates nearly twice as high as what billionaires pay."

http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/Story?id=3869458&page=1

[BRussell]

How else do you explain the liberals in this country falling over each other to get to a mic for the "windfall profits taxes" and "reigning in CEO pay" and the stalwart "tax the rich more!" that is the bread and butter of the platform? I'm sorry, but it is an ideology that often sees someone succeeding and believes that success only happens when others are hurt. So they set about dealing the punishment. Inherent is the belief that no one can get anything without screwing someone else. That zero-sum-game that is constantly trotted out as an economic model. Those rich people deserve the bullseye that you guys keep pinned on their chests...

I'd explain it like this:

1) The fundamental economic fact of the US is that the wealthy have gotten far, far wealthier and the middle and poor have remained virtually stagnant. This has occurred to a degree that most neutral economists would find to be unhealthy.

2) Republicans have enacted policies that favor those individuals who have done so well already - lowering the capital gains tax rate, which heavily favors the wealthy, cutting marginal income tax rates despite deficits, cutting the inheritance tax, etc.

3) Democrats believe that class warfare is implementing the above policies. Republicans believe that wanting to reverse those policies and put them back to where they were just a few years ago is class warfare.

[Jubelum]

Frankly, most of the conservative folks whining about taxing the rich aren't rich or ever likely to be rich.


Of course not, with inheritance taxes, capital gains, etc. These things reduce the chances of the middle class being able to build wealth. Just ask me. You can make as much as the government thinks is "enough" and then, as soon as you reach a place where you *might* have some enduring wealth... Blammo... marginal and cap gains taxes make sure you don't experience too much class mobility.

[Jubelum]

1) The fundamental economic fact of the US is that the wealthy have gotten far, far wealthier and the middle and poor have remained virtually stagnant. This has occurred to a degree that most neutral economists would find to be unhealthy.


So the solution is to raise taxes on (many lower and middle class) people who are investing and working harder to better their quality of life. Right.

Republicans have enacted policies that favor those individuals who have done so well already - lowering the capital gains tax rate, which heavily favors the wealthy, cutting marginal income tax rates despite deficits, cutting the inheritance tax, etc.

Nope. I wouldn't say I've "done so well." You guys act like those tax cuts only went to "rich" people. I'm here to tell you different. My middle class family benefitted from Republican tax policy. Cutting capital gains helped me put money back for my children's future. Cutting marginal tax rates helped me expand my business. Cutting the inheritance tax simply removed the double taxation of already-taxed assets.

Democrats believe that class warfare is implementing the above policies. Republicans believe that wanting to reverse those policies and put them back to where they were just a few years ago is class warfare.

I'll post again for the umpteenth time... that "Republican tax cut" meant about $2000 to my MIDDLE CLASS family. The problem is with where the line is set with "wealthy." Repealing these "tax cuts for the (so-called) rich" will certainly hurt middle class people.

[hardeeharhar]

And you're going to need to buy a bicycle. ;)

Oh. Well I don't know why I would need to buy another one, but since you think you know so much about me, answer a couple of questions:

How many years have I not owned a car?

How many years have I been commuting using a bike?

Hint: I have spent half of my adult life without a car.

It isn't the nature of the corporation that is at odds here, Jub. It is that they are profiting immensely on the commons with subsidies out the yin-yang. The same can be said for the factory farms...

[BRussell]

Jubelum, yes, Republicans cut taxes on the lower and middle incomes as well. I did not say they didn't, and I have no problem with tax cuts for lower and middle-classes, as long as they're accompanied by spending cuts (which they of course did not do). What I said was that Republicans enacted policies that favor the wealthy, which they also did (again without making up for them with spending cuts). And overall, the benefits of the tax policy went overwhelmingly to the wealthy (and were not balanced with spending cuts). I call policies that overwhelmingly favor one class over another "class warfare," and I don't call opposing those policies "class warfare."

Also, the capital gains tax cuts did not help you put money back for your children's future. You don't pay capital gains taxes unless you sell shares, which you haven't done if they're for your children's future. You also didn't pay ay inheritance taxes unless 1) you're extremely wealthy and 2) you died.

[BRussell]

Is that true?

From my understanding of § 1221 (a), which admittedly, I've only known about since, oh, yesterday, "capital asset" is a fairly broad definition that applies to all property (with notable exceptions like property used in a trade or business under § 162). Right, sell shares or sell something else that you've made a capital gain on. I was just addressing Jubelum's statement that he put money away for his children, and you don't pay capital gains on money that you've put away into an account unless you make a capital gain on it and you sell it (and it's not in some tax-sheltered account).

[Jubelum]

Jubelum, yes, Republicans cut taxes on the lower and middle incomes as well. I did not say they didn't, and I have no problem with tax cuts for lower and middle-classes, as long as they're accompanied by spending cuts (which they of course did not do).

Well, at least we agree on spending cuts to match tax cuts.

I call policies that overwhelmingly favor one class over another "class warfare," and I don't call opposing those policies "class warfare."

Well, then... you and I have a semantic or definitional problem. Class warfare is the usual rhetoric used by those pandering to middle and lower classes, to claim that by hurting the rich, you are automatically helping the poor. It's the ethic that asks people to look at those who have more, by whatever means, than they do and ask for their vote based on the articulated willingness to "correct" the system. This is the class warfare that the left practices. How exactly do you see it the other way... that the rich are waging war on the poor? To what end would that be productive? As the French Revolution demonstrated, that kind of class warfare is not at all good for a group trying to maintain hegemony.

Also, the capital gains tax cuts did not help you put money back for your children's future. You don't pay capital gains taxes unless you sell shares, which you haven't done if they're for your children's future.

You're wrong. My investment was not stock... it was my interest in a real estate venture and based on my timeline, real estate is not the place for a nest egg in my situation. Why, I might ask, does this matter WRT the larger issue?

You also didn't pay ay inheritance taxes unless 1) you're extremely wealthy and 2) you died.

What I received in inheritance was taxed, BR. That was money that had already been taxed twice... once at the income level, a second time when it was reinvested (cap gains) and a THIRD time when it was transferred to me. What is the rationale for the estate tax other than B) the government seeing big piles of money that are moving and "deserving" yet another piece and B) to prevent families from accumulating and passing on wealth to their children?

[Jubelum]

Oh. Well I don't know why I would need to buy another one, but since you think you know so much about me, answer a couple of questions:

How many years have I not owned a car?

How many years have I been commuting using a bike?

Hint: I have spent half of my adult life without a car.


I guess if I cared, I would have known that. But I don't. (and I'll add another one of these --> ;) little guys)

It isn't the nature of the corporation that is at odds here, Jub. It is that they are profiting immensely on the commons with subsidies out the yin-yang. The same can be said for the factory farms...

I've already addressed that. The subsidies for quite a few things need to end.

[@_@ Artman]

This guy should run for Prez (http://prwallstreet.com/article.cfm?articleID=18786)..oh wait. :)

[hardeeharhar]

What I received in inheritance was taxed, BR. That was money that had already been taxed twice... once at the income level, a second time when it was reinvested (cap gains) and a THIRD time when it was transferred to me. What is the rationale for the estate tax other than B) the government seeing big piles of money that are moving and "deserving" yet another piece and B) to prevent families from accumulating and passing on wealth to their children?

Simply put, the government taxes any exchange of economic goods.

[Jubelum]

Well, without it, the Paris Hiltons of the world would never pay taxes.


Um ... we STILL have an income tax for Paris to pay. And she's got more than a little. All these evil rich folks do. But that taxing of income does not seem to be sufficient. :\

If nothing else, we need a special tax for Lohan, Hilton, and Spears. Just on principle.

[BRussell]

Well, at least we agree on spending cuts to match tax cuts.

Well, then... you and I have a semantic or definitional problem. Class warfare is the usual rhetoric used by those pandering to middle and lower classes, to claim that by hurting the rich, you are automatically helping the poor. It's the ethic that asks people to look at those who have more, by whatever means, than they do and ask for their vote based on the articulated willingness to "correct" the system. This is the class warfare that the left practices. How exactly do you see it the other way... that the rich are waging war on the poor? To what end would that be productive? As the French Revolution demonstrated, that kind of class warfare is not at all good for a group trying to maintain hegemony. Right, conservatives see class warfare as just rhetoric. Here's how I see it: Class warfare is enacting policies that favor one class over another. Conservatives say it's class warfare when liberals oppose those policies with big scary rhetoric.

You're wrong. My investment was not stock... it was my interest in a real estate venture and based on my timeline, real estate is not the place for a nest egg in my situation. Why, I might ask, does this matter WRT the larger issue? OK.

It matters because the vast, vast majority of capital gains taxes are paid by wealthier people. As Warren Buffet says, it doesn't make sense that his tax rate is half his secretary's.

What I received in inheritance was taxed, BR. That was money that had already been taxed twice... once at the income level, a second time when it was reinvested (cap gains) and a THIRD time when it was transferred to me. What is the rationale for the estate tax other than B) the government seeing big piles of money that are moving and "deserving" yet another piece and B) to prevent families from accumulating and passing on wealth to their children? The rationale for taxes is to pay for government. The estate tax only applies to estates worth over 2 millions bucks. If you want to get rid of an estate tax that only applies to millionaires, then you tell me what tax on non-millionaires you're going to raise to make up the difference.

[Jubelum]

Right, conservatives see class warfare as just rhetoric.
It's populist rhetoric that gets votes. Votes lead to majorities, which lead to policy. See? Unless you don't think those that use this tactic are going to implement their campaign promises?

The rationale for taxes is to pay for government. The estate tax only applies to estates worth over 2 millions bucks. If you want to get rid of an estate tax that only applies to millionaires, then you tell me what tax on non-millionaires you're going to raise to make up the difference.

Well... that statement works, provided that we continue to have the same size government and requisite bill for government we have now, which I cannot support. :smokey:

[Northgate]

See Northgate? Why don't you just admit that all liberals hate the success of others, and want to punish them for it? I mean, what else can you do in the face of such an air-tight argument?

Well, honestly, I'm too busy working on being successful in the unholiest of lands, Hollywood. You know, that bastion of America where there are no real Americans (at least according to Jubelum). I'm too consumed with finishing post-production on my first feature film (where I actaully employed a couple dozen people, made payroll, paid our taxes, contributed a couple hundred thousand dollars into the local economy) to be distributed later this year...hoping upon hope...I'll make a few bucks in return.

Oh, wait...that doesn't fit the narrative. Being a liberal and all I guess I should be sitting at my computer typing away about how mean ol' America is being successful and how much I can't stand stomach it.

P.S - Oh, and by the way, there are ZERO federal tax incentives for the motion picture industry - one of the last truly American made exports. Most people are unaware of that. There are no subsidies. There are no bailouts and never have been. But man, if I were as passionate about growing corn or drilling for oil or selling real estate...whoa nellie! But because I work in the Hollywood industry, I'm constantly being told that I need to STFU about my political opinion even though my industry doesn't participate in Federal Corporate Welfare.

[Northgate]

Pretty cool, Northgate.

Got a friend out at USC Film School doing second-year graduate work.

Good for him. A lot of production work has returned to Los Angeles. Schwarzennegger has done a lot for helping keep productions in California (3% production sales tax). Both Hahn and Villaraigosa have also overhauled the permitting office in Los Angeles (it used to be nightmare getting permits to shoot in downtown).

[Jubelum]

You know, that bastion of America where there are no real Americans (at least according to Jubelum).

your words, not mine. :p

[Northgate]

your words, not mine. :p

You've done your fair share of California bashing in the past. And you know it.

"Kalipornia" I think is how you refer to it...

[Aries 1B]

Well, honestly, I'm too busy working on being successful in the unholiest of lands, Hollywood. You know, that bastion of America where there are no real Americans (at least according to Jubelum). I'm too consumed with finishing post-production on my first feature film (where I actaully employed a couple dozen people, made payroll, paid our taxes, contributed a couple hundred thousand dollars into the local economy) to be distributed later this year...hoping upon hope...I'll make a few bucks in return.

Oh, wait...that doesn't fit the narrative. Being a liberal and all I guess I should be sitting at my computer typing away about how mean ol' America is being successful and how much I can't stand stomach it.

P.S - Oh, and by the way, there are ZERO federal tax incentives for the motion picture industry - one of the last truly American made exports. Most people are unaware of that. There are no subsidies. There are no bailouts and never have been. But man, if I were as passionate about growing corn or drilling for oil or selling real estate...whoa nellie! But because I work in the Hollywood industry, I'm constantly being told that I need to STFU about my political opinion even though my industry doesn't participate in Federal Corporate Welfare.

NG:

WHY IN THE HELL ARE YOU POSTING IN HERE FOR?!!!! CUT!!!!!
GET BACK TO WORK!!
FOCUS!
FOCUS!
...ACTION!

Break a leg & make a bundle!

V/R,

Aries 1B

[Jubelum]

You've done your fair share of California bashing in the past. And you know it.

California bashing... that is, the state's policies... which I think would be vindicated, considering the considerable financial and social mess you are in... I know a number of great CA natives, even one or two I've hired for their outstanding skills at speaking liberalese. ;) My problem has never been with the people, rather the schmucks that end up in the ASSembly.

And yes... "Kahleepornia" - as an ode to your governor and the hundreds of millions worth of Vivid video, et al that morally soils the rest of the nation. ;) ;)

[hardeeharhar]

That would be both the simplest and fairest approach

simple... maybe... fair, no.

[vinea]

Of course not, with inheritance taxes, capital gains, etc. These things reduce the chances of the middle class being able to build wealth. Just ask me. You can make as much as the government thinks is "enough" and then, as soon as you reach a place where you *might* have some enduring wealth... Blammo... marginal and cap gains taxes make sure you don't experience too much class mobility.

Eh what? 15% cap gains doesn't seem punitive to me. Even 20% doesn't seem all that terrible.

Inheritance tax doesn't penalize the middle class or folks trying to build wealth given you need $2M in assets before you need to worry ($4M for couples). As long as congress puts that back in place I'm okay with that. 45% tax rate beyond $2M is somewhat punitive but heck, with that level of assets most folks can find mechanisms to avoid the bulk of estate tax burden.

Given that two parents can give thier adult children with 2 kids and a spouse $96K per year you can transfer a "life changing" amount of wealth in a few years. 2 years of transfers ($48K) to the grandchild alone likely pays for college if they begin at birth (if you stick the $48K in the market for 18 years or so).

Lets say you have two kids when your parents are 50 and they are already wealthy (10M in assets). Assume they live out to 70 they can transfer $960K to each member of your family of four which is under the gift tax of $1M. Of the remaining $6M or so $4M is exempt under the current rules.

Meh. I should be so lucky as to have to worry about an inheritance tax for my kids diluting family wealth.

Hell, if they can't build "enduring wealth" off of a $2M-$M head start they likely would have blown a larger inheritance anyway.

[vinea]

What I received in inheritance was taxed, BR. That was money that had already been taxed twice... once at the income level, a second time when it was reinvested (cap gains) and a THIRD time when it was transferred to me. What is the rationale for the estate tax other than B) the government seeing big piles of money that are moving and "deserving" yet another piece and B) to prevent families from accumulating and passing on wealth to their children?

Three times is unlikely. First, wealth building is difficult on income alone so the majority of the gains was likely in the market and taxed as cap gains. Also the originial money is not retaxed at cap gains, just the profit. So 1 time taxation. If you suffered from a estate tax, well, it was either poor planning or large estate or both. In either case, 2 times taxation and only on the amount that exceeded the estate tax minimums.

[Northgate]

What is this "3% production sales tax"?

If you purchase production equipment for the express purpose of using it during a film/video production in California, the sales tax is only 3%. It was designed first by Gray Davis to help stem production flight from California to Canada. It passed the Sacramento legislature and signed by Schwarzennegger shortly after he stole the governor's mansion.

[hardeeharhar]

Interesting.

So the state lowers tax rates in an effort to attract or retain businesses and their investment within the state (albeit only for a particular industry...everyone else gets to pay higher rates) and...well...it worked? Amazing.

I wonder what would happen if they lowered tax rates for other businesses or lowered other tax rates or lowered this tax rate even further? I wonder if businesses would choose to not leave California or some might choose to move to California. I wonder if that might result in more jobs for people in California.

Interesting.
Actually, see Delaware for what happens.

Basically, you get a lot of incorporated business that maintain fronts in the state of incorporation and do basically NOTHING for the local economy except occupy office space...

[Northgate]

Interesting.

So the state lowers tax rates in an effort to attract or retain businesses and their investment within the state (albeit only for a particular industry...everyone else gets to pay higher rates) and...well...it worked? Amazing.

I wonder what would happen if they lowered tax rates for other businesses or lowered other tax rates or lowered this tax rate even further? I wonder if businesses would choose to not leave California or some might choose to move to California. I wonder if that might result in more jobs for people in California.

Interesting.

Dear god we don't anyone else moving to California. It's already a big enough problem for the state.

I can't tell by your tone if you're glad to see the tax decrease for film productions or dissing it.

Film productions, particularly the big studio features, dump a TON of cash into the various local communities in Southern California. A lot of other states, particularly southern states, are trying to woo film productions by offering HUGE payroll tax breaks, free sales tax, and streamlined or waived permits. Arizona has one of the most aggressive film commission's in the union. California offers none of these advantages except the reduced sales tax. And keep in mind that sales tax does not extend to everything. Only the purchase of qualifying merchandise and hardware (it does not include services, food and catering, software, etc.).

[hardeeharhar]

Actually that's not a very good example that relates to my question of tax rates. You pay taxes (certainly sales taxes, but also income taxes) in the state you operate in, not the state you are incorporated in.

The reason many companies choose to incorporate in Delaware has to do with its legal and case law climate regarding corporations.

So the question still stands. What if this minor experiment (gift to the film industry) were expanded? Anecdotally it appears to have enticed some companies to keep production activities in California as opposed to moving them elsewhere. What other things might entice companies to stay in, expand in or move to the state? Lower property taxes? Lower income taxes? In fact we see this all the time. Municipalities lure companies to their city by offering such breaks (e.g., lower property taxes, greater zoning freedom, etc.). Does this demonstrate anything?
Um, people are always out for the cheap buck?

These strategies are always short term -- they never work in the long run for several very obvious reasons not least of which is the need to acquire funds for services provided by the government. As you approach zero taxes from one sector of the economy, there is an obvious need to increase it elsewhere unless you propose that states should eliminate services provided as they seek to attract corporations...

[hardeeharhar]

Really?

Fair:

- marked by impartiality
- free from favor toward either or any side

See also:

- equitable: dealing fairly and equally with all concerned
- impartial: treating or affecting all equally
- unbiased: free from all prejudice and favoritism

Seems to me that anything other than a single tax rate for every single person is unfair.

For example, if we setup tax rates so that anyone whose AI user name started with the letters A-L should be taxed at a rate of 50%, while anyone whose AI user name started with the letters M-Z should be taxed at a rate of 10%, that would be unfair (even though I might like it just fine).
um. It isn't fair since individuals aren't taking from the economy the same benefits afforded others. Plain and simple. If we had a 100% socially mobile society, that would be one thing, but we don't and the benefits of government regulation on the economy need to be accounted for in addressing the funding of that government. Those that benefit most should be expected to pay more proportionately than those that benefit the least as they are incurring advantages intrinsically built into the system besides hard work etc etc etc.