There are rich people that live off of these dividends and nothing else. These people have no reason to get a tax break.
You say they don't deserve a tax break, yet you are the first one who would also means test them out of their social security payments because you would declare them "rich" and thus the government doesn't need to provide it for them even while taking their 13% contribution.
Totally hypocritical. Take the 13%, don't give them the social security payment because they are rich, then also tax the dividends that do provide them with retirement income because you declare them "rich" again.
The return on an investment is certainly not guaranteed.
With regard to house appreciation, ever hear of this little thing called, inflation? You house doesn't appreciate because it is suddenly larger or better. It appreciates because the price of everything goes up a bit every year. Unless you want to declare that you would only tax the gain proven to be beyond inflation, then you are taxing people simply for owning their home for a period of time. Housing prices have fits and starts but appreciate between 4-5% a year.
You and I have had this discussion before. You consider all investments "income." Even investments with no guaranteed rate of return are "income" to you. Likewise the fact that you don't have to give your employer money in hopes of getting some back doesn't seem to help you understand the difference between income and investment. It really isn't worth going into again. You don't understand investing and that is fine because you won't make any money from them and hence suffer from your own beliefs.
Nick
You can be a ****ing arrogant asshole moron if you like, but I consider any investment that's cashed in and provided a profit an income. Yes. And so do a lot of rich people in this country.
You say they don't deserve a tax break, yet you are the first one who would also means test them out of their social security payments because you would declare them "rich" and thus the government doesn't need to provide it for them even while taking their 13% contribution.
Totally hypocritical. Take the 13%, don't give them the social security payment because they are rich, then also tax the dividends that do provide them with retirement income because you declare them "rich" again.
Yep sounds pretty damn fair to me.
Nick
You can rant like an idiot, but I've said that I think SS should be given out on a basis of need. That's why the fund was created in the first place. You have no argument against this.
You can be a ****ing arrogant asshole moron if you like, but I consider any investment that's cashed in and provided a profit an income. Yes. And so do a lot of rich people in this country.
My goodness, try decaffinated.
Would you care to name the specific rich people, or do you just prefer to leave them as "anonymous rich people that you sort of know but would really never associate with due to their oppressive nature."
You basically consider any money that touches someone's hands income. You are just pissed because you can't prove that someone shouldn't be taxed for their house value going up with inflation.
Granddad bought that house in 1962 for $24,000. Of course the median family income was about $8,000 and minimum wage was $1.15 an hour.
Now the year in 2003 and Grandpa is going to sell the house. All that price appreciation due to inflation is INCOME. He should be taxed on it. Even though it would take the same amount of money to buy a comparable house somewhere else, he should be taxed on it because it is money that touches his hands.
Of course I know that there is "thankfully" a capital gains exception now for just that sort of scenario. (Another damn tax cut/loophole for the "rich") However the fact that you believe that a taxable scenario shows just how twisted your definition of income becomes just to give your precious government more of other people's money.
You know what? Inflation effects a paycheck too. That doesn't effect the taxes though. Why should it for an investment?
Does my savings account get special treatment because of inflation? No. Why should someone else's investment?
Actually it does affect the taxes. They periodically adjust the tax tables to reflect this inflation. Otherwise we would all be in the 35% bracket because we would all be filthy rich by 1962 standards. They even have a term for it, bracket creep.
As for your savings account if you consider that an "investment" I really feel badly for you. Savings accounts are not investment accounts. They are holding accounts. Most investments accounts do not allow you to keep your money in liquid form and do not allow you to withdraw it whenever you feel like it. That is why savings accounts have literally a negative yield. Bonds, t-bills, etc give real yields, but you must give up liquidity. On a savings account you are taxed on the interest gained even though most of the time you lost purchasing power because of inflation.
So suppose you earned a whole 2.5% on your $1000 of savings. A year later you have $1025. Meanwhile inflation went up 4% which means you now need $1040 to purchase what you could have bought a year ago. Not only are you negative $15, you have to pay taxes on that $25 in interest "gains."
Aren't you glad you were taxed for getting "richer" by the day!
So your savings account doesn't get special treatment but it should since it actually makes you poorer to keep money in it.
Boy bunge, keep displaying financial thinking like this and we will all be in the poor house soon.
As for your savings account if you consider that an "investment" I really feel badly for you. Savings accounts are not investment accounts. So suppose you earned a whole 2.5% on your $1000 of savings. A year later you have $1025. Meanwhile inflation went up 4% which means you now need $1040 to purchase what you could have bought a year ago. Not only are you negative $15, you have to pay taxes on that $25 in interest "gains."
Thank you for admitting that the tax cuts are not equitable or fair. That you're not interested in getting rid of the effects of inflation on investments, but cutting taxes on the rich. That's a crap position and I hope it doesn't serve you well.
Boy bunge, keep displaying financial thinking like this and we will all be in the poor house soon.
If you'd quit being a smug arrogant arse you'd realize this isn't about me or you. I know you have a difficult time with that, but try. This is about taxes. It's not about where or how I invest, or how you invest, we're discussing the taxation of dividends. It's not balanced or fair to revoke this tax while leaving an identical tax in place on other investments.
You're dishonest and disingenuous. Great. You're just what America needs to keep moving forward!
you can get one day temporary premium access by just watching the flash ad.
DEAN and FRANKEN discussed in one article.
"Nothing is so gratifying to a movie audience as the moment when a sorely abused hero (man, woman or animal) finally feels his strength and gives his tormentors what they richly deserve. From "High Noon" to "Rocky" to "Seabiscuit," America loves to see a comeback, a righting of wrongs, a bully brought to his knees. Which is why, I think, Al Franken and Howard Dean are the men of the hour. For years, we have suffered while right-wing bullies hijacked American politics and media -- persecuting a president for a consensual sex act; stealing the 2000 election; trashing the country's economy, environment and constitutional safeguards; handing the government over to the highest corporate bidders; deceiving the public into a bloody quagmire; and then brazenly smearing anyone who dared to criticize this orgy of dreadful leadership as un-American. "
Thank you for admitting that the tax cuts are not equitable or fair. That you're not interested in getting rid of the effects of inflation on investments, but cutting taxes on the rich. That's a crap position and I hope it doesn't serve you well.
That is the strangest conclusion yet drawn...(hand bunge medal with ribbon)
I explain how inflation can lower your purchasing potential even with interest added and that becomes as admission that tax cuts are not fair.... yeah, well whatever floats your boat as they say.
As I stated since inflation can diminish your purchasing power, things that rise with inflation should not be taxed as gains since all they are still worth the same in relative dollars.
If you'd quit being a smug arrogant arse you'd realize this isn't about me or you. I know you have a difficult time with that, but try. This is about taxes. It's not about where or how I invest, or how you invest, we're discussing the taxation of dividends. It's not balanced or fair to revoke this tax while leaving an identical tax in place on other investments.
You're dishonest and disingenuous. Great. You're just what America needs to keep moving forward!
First it wasn't revoked, it was lowered. Second it is a tax on top of another tax. How is it fair to be taxed a third time?
You are welcome to mention how there are "identical" taxes on other investments. I would love to see your links or even tax advice about how dividends are now a tax shelter.
Please feel free to explain how dividends are treated better than other investments.
Likewise don't claim it isn't about "us" and the say I'm a liar in two different ways and "just what America..." blah, blah, blah. You want personal attacks, and to bring up YOUR savings account but not my explanation.
As I said, try decaffinated.
You are taxed when you earn the income to buy the stocks, you are taxed on the gains made during the sell of them, you are taxed on the dividend paid on them.
Somehow this is "Bush putting the screws to the poor" when you are only taxed three different ways on an investment.
You actually uttered the word fair describing that scenario....amazing....
You are taxed when you earn the income to buy the stocks, you are taxed on the gains made during the sell of them, you are taxed on the dividend paid on them.
Somehow this is "Bush putting the screws to the poor" when you are only taxed three different ways on an investment.
Here's my point. You're not taxed 'three different ways' on an investment. In your scenario, only the profit of an investment is taxed. That's fair. It's new income for you. A stock will get you income in two ways. One, a dividend and two, through a sale. In either case you're taxed on the profit you make.
You can argue that tax on any profit is wrong. That includes income. But as long as we tax income, we should tax any profit.
"Most liberals are overjoyed about Al Franken and Howard Dean. After all, both men are finally succeeding where the Democratic Party has failed for years: landing some punches on George W. and his right-wing spear-throwers.
Franken's book, Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, is the best-selling book in the country -- and it's making conservatives apoplectic. Howard Dean has brought more passion to the Democratic primary than all of his opponents combined. So it's no surprise that liberals are buying Franken's book and driving up Dean's poll numbers. After years of feeling cheated and attacked, liberals are mad as hell and don't want to take it anymore. There is, however, one significant exception: the liberal punditocracy.
It's next to impossible to find a lefty columnist or talking head from inside the Beltway who's said nice things about the two Democratic firebrands. Instead, they fret that Dean has a "temper." (The New Republic recently ran a cover of Dean which made him look like Hitler circa 1939 -- all it lacked was for someone to pencil in a little mustache on his upper lip.)
The pundits snort that Franken is resorting to the same tactics nasty conservatives use. As Howard Kurtz put it in his Washington Post Web column, "Franken is trying to do for the left what Ann Coulter and Bernard Goldberg... have done for the right: Demonize the other side."
Well, no, actually, he isn't. He's trying to correct the other side. There's a big difference. And saying that everyone involved in this debate is morally equivalent is just sloppy thinking dressed up as "objectivity."
Liberal Media... MY ASS.
by the way... Joe Conason's book is GREAT. And relentless. He doesn't demonize republicans... just counters every argument the right makes about Liberals extremely well. I'm a about 30 pages in... he's just getting warmed up!
I didn't say I only dealt in complex thought. I said you were taking complex ideas and intentionally mischaracterizing them while pointing them at loaded terms. So unions seeking one living wage per family becomes, oh so you hate women.
I know that is a simplified version of it. It is done intentionally, for you.
Nick
You know what you said and so does everyone else here.
I know you're one of those guys who is always working with complex solutions and miss the broad side of the barn. Then when you run out of ideas you insult the other party in an attempt at intimidation.
As for Bush all you have to do is look at the end result of his product ( what he's done for the last four years ).
Guess what? We owe as a country more than any time in history. This is after we were working with a surplus.
We went to war for reasons that didn't exist. In a time of economic strife.
We're still there and are still paying for it.
SDW believes that if we improve just a little ( because it isn't going to be a bull market by election time ) that Bush will win. I think people will still be unhappy with his performance. I think they are smarter than that. We've just had the longest employment slump since WWII. I think there is every chance we'll go right back down after the election ( unless someone gets in there that starts paying for our bills instead of barrowing his way out of it).
Bush is clueless. A lot of people realize that.
He barely got into office last time on a fluke. He didn't win the popular vote. He won because he went up against a milktoast candidate ( like himself ) that was connected to Clinton.
you can get one day temporary premium access by just watching the flash ad.
DEAN and FRANKEN discussed in one article.
"Nothing is so gratifying to a movie audience as the moment when a sorely abused hero (man, woman or animal) finally feels his strength and gives his tormentors what they richly deserve. From "High Noon" to "Rocky" to "Seabiscuit," America loves to see a comeback, a righting of wrongs, a bully brought to his knees. Which is why, I think, Al Franken and Howard Dean are the men of the hour. For years, we have suffered while right-wing bullies hijacked American politics and media -- persecuting a president for a consensual sex act; stealing the 2000 election; trashing the country's economy, environment and constitutional safeguards; handing the government over to the highest corporate bidders; deceiving the public into a bloody quagmire; and then brazenly smearing anyone who dared to criticize this orgy of dreadful leadership as un-American. "
Right on, brother! I love that I can count on you to supply all these great links. Thank you.
FIGHT THE HYPOCRICY! TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK!
To anyone who thinks I'm being over-zealous. F*ck off!
You know what you said and so does everyone else here.
I know you're one of those guys who is always working with complex solutions and miss the broad side of the barn. Then when you run out of ideas you insult the other party in an attempt at intimidation.
As for Bush all you have to do is look at the end result of his product ( what he's done for the last four years ).
Guess what? We owe as a country more than any time in history. This is after we were working with a surplus.
The surplus didn't exist for Clinton's entire first term. I suppose you will give Bush the same luxury.
As for the whole complex solutions thing, you have proven that you are unwilling to forgo strawman attempts to change what I have said. So whatever... people will understand it even if you don't.
Clinton was handed a recovering economy and the start of the internet spending boom. Bush was handed a recession, 9/11 and the mess made from years of non-policy from Clinton regarding terrorism.
You are welcome to see exactly how many years the government has run a surplus in the last say...oh 50 years. Bush is doing nothing new, and even then I have stated that I disagreed with his lack of spending cuts.
Funny enough, chu links to an article that discusses why Bush can't get elected and it mentions a book, The Two Income Trap, which shows that two incomes isn't really two incomes once you add additional wardrobe, car payments, eating out, etc.
Their solution, school vouchers, hardly a Democratic priority even though it is associated with the why Bush can't get elected article.
And no, they aren't advocating the repression of women, nor am I.
Quote:
We went to war for reasons that didn't exist. In a time of economic strife.
We're still there and are still paying for it.
Dean will have to explain in a credible manner why almost the entire Democratic voted for that war as well, how he would have handled AL Queda, Iraq, Iran, and North Korea differently without any of it sounding like Monday morning quarterbacking or following a course of action that sounds to similar to Bush. If he is able to do this and have it sound credible to the majority of the electorate then he will have a chance and it will be an issue.
However anything less than that and it won't get him a vote because people would rather a leader overreact to planes flying into buildings than do nothing.
The only thing more compelling than the overreaction is of course the perfect course of action which Dean will have to convince he would have taken from the get go and not just in hindsight.
Quote:
SDW believes that if we improve just a little ( because it isn't going to be a bull market by election time ) that Bush will win. I think people will still be unhappy with his performance. I think they are smarter than that. We've just had the longest employment slump since WWII. I think there is every chance we'll go right back down after the election ( unless someone gets in there that starts paying for our bills instead of barrowing his way out of it).
Well SDW is welcome to believe what he wants and so are you. Unemployment is a lagging indicated and we do have economic growth. How much growth and how low or high the unemployment will be are unknown. Since Bush had literally record low unemployment when he entered office, it will be hard to know if he is toast for 6% unemployment. Likewise it could play out differently because unemployment seems higher along the coastal regions while it is as low as 3% in the interior states.
I personally don't think ol'George will get the door just because we don't have articles about 23 year old internet millionaires anymore. I think some families might be going from that two income crunch to one and realizing they like it better than a two person rat race. I think some boomers are retiring. There are lots of variables and I suppose we will all see who is right in 2004.
Quote:
Bush is clueless. A lot of people realize that.
He barely got into office last time on a fluke. He didn't win the popular vote. He won because he went up against a milktoast candidate ( like himself ) that was connected to Clinton.
Bush is going down.
Get used to it.
That is your view, let me tell you mine. The Democrats couldn't get Gore elected with 5.5% unemployment, a record stockmarket, a budget surplus, and little wrong in the world (meaning no terrorist attacks on our homeland)
So basically even when all was well (by your definitions) even if they could claim credit for it all, they still couldn't get him elected.
So to defeat Bush they have to prove that peace was going to continue on (even with Somalia, Iraq, the Twin Tower van bombing occuring during Clinton as well) that the stock market was going to keep going up, (what goes up must never come down) that unemployment and the economy were going to continue on record runs. (even though all economies have periodic downturns)
Then they also have to convince those that don't believe in fairy tales that when those things didn't continue as they did, that their solutions would be better than Bush.
I'm not saying is impossible. It is entirely possible. I just don't see that sort of thing coming from Dean or any other Democratic candidate. Perot pulled it off some but I don't see how anyone else could.
I myself argued in a thread some of the issues that could put Dean over Bush. Fair trade is considered pro-union. Immigration reforms could be considered an inexpensive way of protecting national security. School choice could free families from having to buy an expensive house to get a better school since they have no other choice.
If you had Dean adopt these measures, some of which are very third party, others which are actually very traditionally Democratic (fair trade for example) he could have a shot.
However until then, he is just a more rousing, better spoken critic of Bush. However being a critic won't get you elected. Proving you are not beholden to special interests, have a better plan and would better leader would.
Comments
Originally posted by bunge
There are rich people that live off of these dividends and nothing else. These people have no reason to get a tax break.
You say they don't deserve a tax break, yet you are the first one who would also means test them out of their social security payments because you would declare them "rich" and thus the government doesn't need to provide it for them even while taking their 13% contribution.
Totally hypocritical. Take the 13%, don't give them the social security payment because they are rich, then also tax the dividends that do provide them with retirement income because you declare them "rich" again.
Yep sounds pretty damn fair to me.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
So be sick.
The return on an investment is certainly not guaranteed.
With regard to house appreciation, ever hear of this little thing called, inflation? You house doesn't appreciate because it is suddenly larger or better. It appreciates because the price of everything goes up a bit every year. Unless you want to declare that you would only tax the gain proven to be beyond inflation, then you are taxing people simply for owning their home for a period of time. Housing prices have fits and starts but appreciate between 4-5% a year.
You and I have had this discussion before. You consider all investments "income." Even investments with no guaranteed rate of return are "income" to you. Likewise the fact that you don't have to give your employer money in hopes of getting some back doesn't seem to help you understand the difference between income and investment. It really isn't worth going into again. You don't understand investing and that is fine because you won't make any money from them and hence suffer from your own beliefs.
Nick
You can be a ****ing arrogant asshole moron if you like, but I consider any investment that's cashed in and provided a profit an income. Yes. And so do a lot of rich people in this country.
Originally posted by trumptman
You say they don't deserve a tax break, yet you are the first one who would also means test them out of their social security payments because you would declare them "rich" and thus the government doesn't need to provide it for them even while taking their 13% contribution.
Totally hypocritical. Take the 13%, don't give them the social security payment because they are rich, then also tax the dividends that do provide them with retirement income because you declare them "rich" again.
Yep sounds pretty damn fair to me.
Nick
You can rant like an idiot, but I've said that I think SS should be given out on a basis of need. That's why the fund was created in the first place. You have no argument against this.
Originally posted by bunge
You can be a ****ing arrogant asshole moron if you like, but I consider any investment that's cashed in and provided a profit an income. Yes. And so do a lot of rich people in this country.
My goodness, try decaffinated.
Would you care to name the specific rich people, or do you just prefer to leave them as "anonymous rich people that you sort of know but would really never associate with due to their oppressive nature."
You basically consider any money that touches someone's hands income. You are just pissed because you can't prove that someone shouldn't be taxed for their house value going up with inflation.
Granddad bought that house in 1962 for $24,000. Of course the median family income was about $8,000 and minimum wage was $1.15 an hour.
Now the year in 2003 and Grandpa is going to sell the house. All that price appreciation due to inflation is INCOME. He should be taxed on it. Even though it would take the same amount of money to buy a comparable house somewhere else, he should be taxed on it because it is money that touches his hands.
Of course I know that there is "thankfully" a capital gains exception now for just that sort of scenario. (Another damn tax cut/loophole for the "rich") However the fact that you believe that a taxable scenario shows just how twisted your definition of income becomes just to give your precious government more of other people's money.
Nick
Does my savings account get special treatment because of inflation? No. Why should someone else's investment?
Originally posted by bunge
You know what? Inflation effects a paycheck too. That doesn't effect the taxes though. Why should it for an investment?
Does my savings account get special treatment because of inflation? No. Why should someone else's investment?
Actually it does affect the taxes. They periodically adjust the tax tables to reflect this inflation. Otherwise we would all be in the 35% bracket because we would all be filthy rich by 1962 standards. They even have a term for it, bracket creep.
As for your savings account if you consider that an "investment" I really feel badly for you. Savings accounts are not investment accounts. They are holding accounts. Most investments accounts do not allow you to keep your money in liquid form and do not allow you to withdraw it whenever you feel like it. That is why savings accounts have literally a negative yield. Bonds, t-bills, etc give real yields, but you must give up liquidity. On a savings account you are taxed on the interest gained even though most of the time you lost purchasing power because of inflation.
So suppose you earned a whole 2.5% on your $1000 of savings. A year later you have $1025. Meanwhile inflation went up 4% which means you now need $1040 to purchase what you could have bought a year ago. Not only are you negative $15, you have to pay taxes on that $25 in interest "gains."
Aren't you glad you were taxed for getting "richer" by the day!
So your savings account doesn't get special treatment but it should since it actually makes you poorer to keep money in it.
Boy bunge, keep displaying financial thinking like this and we will all be in the poor house soon.
Nick
The economist magazine seems to have a different view than Karl Rove.
http://www.economist.com/World/na/di...ory_id=2021001
Originally posted by trumptman
As for your savings account if you consider that an "investment" I really feel badly for you. Savings accounts are not investment accounts. So suppose you earned a whole 2.5% on your $1000 of savings. A year later you have $1025. Meanwhile inflation went up 4% which means you now need $1040 to purchase what you could have bought a year ago. Not only are you negative $15, you have to pay taxes on that $25 in interest "gains."
Thank you for admitting that the tax cuts are not equitable or fair. That you're not interested in getting rid of the effects of inflation on investments, but cutting taxes on the rich. That's a crap position and I hope it doesn't serve you well.
Originally posted by trumptman
Boy bunge, keep displaying financial thinking like this and we will all be in the poor house soon.
If you'd quit being a smug arrogant arse you'd realize this isn't about me or you. I know you have a difficult time with that, but try. This is about taxes. It's not about where or how I invest, or how you invest, we're discussing the taxation of dividends. It's not balanced or fair to revoke this tax while leaving an identical tax in place on other investments.
You're dishonest and disingenuous. Great. You're just what America needs to keep moving forward!
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature...ean/index.html
you can get one day temporary premium access by just watching the flash ad.
DEAN and FRANKEN discussed in one article.
"Nothing is so gratifying to a movie audience as the moment when a sorely abused hero (man, woman or animal) finally feels his strength and gives his tormentors what they richly deserve. From "High Noon" to "Rocky" to "Seabiscuit," America loves to see a comeback, a righting of wrongs, a bully brought to his knees. Which is why, I think, Al Franken and Howard Dean are the men of the hour. For years, we have suffered while right-wing bullies hijacked American politics and media -- persecuting a president for a consensual sex act; stealing the 2000 election; trashing the country's economy, environment and constitutional safeguards; handing the government over to the highest corporate bidders; deceiving the public into a bloody quagmire; and then brazenly smearing anyone who dared to criticize this orgy of dreadful leadership as un-American. "
Originally posted by bunge
Thank you for admitting that the tax cuts are not equitable or fair. That you're not interested in getting rid of the effects of inflation on investments, but cutting taxes on the rich. That's a crap position and I hope it doesn't serve you well.
That is the strangest conclusion yet drawn...(hand bunge medal with ribbon)
I explain how inflation can lower your purchasing potential even with interest added and that becomes as admission that tax cuts are not fair.... yeah, well whatever floats your boat as they say.
As I stated since inflation can diminish your purchasing power, things that rise with inflation should not be taxed as gains since all they are still worth the same in relative dollars.
Nick
Originally posted by bunge
If you'd quit being a smug arrogant arse you'd realize this isn't about me or you. I know you have a difficult time with that, but try. This is about taxes. It's not about where or how I invest, or how you invest, we're discussing the taxation of dividends. It's not balanced or fair to revoke this tax while leaving an identical tax in place on other investments.
You're dishonest and disingenuous. Great. You're just what America needs to keep moving forward!
First it wasn't revoked, it was lowered. Second it is a tax on top of another tax. How is it fair to be taxed a third time?
You are welcome to mention how there are "identical" taxes on other investments. I would love to see your links or even tax advice about how dividends are now a tax shelter.
Please feel free to explain how dividends are treated better than other investments.
Likewise don't claim it isn't about "us" and the say I'm a liar in two different ways and "just what America..." blah, blah, blah. You want personal attacks, and to bring up YOUR savings account but not my explanation.
As I said, try decaffinated.
You are taxed when you earn the income to buy the stocks, you are taxed on the gains made during the sell of them, you are taxed on the dividend paid on them.
Somehow this is "Bush putting the screws to the poor" when you are only taxed three different ways on an investment.
You actually uttered the word fair describing that scenario....amazing....
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
(hand bunge medal with ribbon)
Originally posted by trumptman
You are taxed when you earn the income to buy the stocks, you are taxed on the gains made during the sell of them, you are taxed on the dividend paid on them.
Somehow this is "Bush putting the screws to the poor" when you are only taxed three different ways on an investment.
Here's my point. You're not taxed 'three different ways' on an investment. In your scenario, only the profit of an investment is taxed. That's fair. It's new income for you. A stock will get you income in two ways. One, a dividend and two, through a sale. In either case you're taxed on the profit you make.
You can argue that tax on any profit is wrong. That includes income. But as long as we tax income, we should tax any profit.
Here's another synergistic article... Brings Franken and Dean together again.
http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/8781
"Most liberals are overjoyed about Al Franken and Howard Dean. After all, both men are finally succeeding where the Democratic Party has failed for years: landing some punches on George W. and his right-wing spear-throwers.
Franken's book, Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, is the best-selling book in the country -- and it's making conservatives apoplectic. Howard Dean has brought more passion to the Democratic primary than all of his opponents combined. So it's no surprise that liberals are buying Franken's book and driving up Dean's poll numbers. After years of feeling cheated and attacked, liberals are mad as hell and don't want to take it anymore. There is, however, one significant exception: the liberal punditocracy.
It's next to impossible to find a lefty columnist or talking head from inside the Beltway who's said nice things about the two Democratic firebrands. Instead, they fret that Dean has a "temper." (The New Republic recently ran a cover of Dean which made him look like Hitler circa 1939 -- all it lacked was for someone to pencil in a little mustache on his upper lip.)
The pundits snort that Franken is resorting to the same tactics nasty conservatives use. As Howard Kurtz put it in his Washington Post Web column, "Franken is trying to do for the left what Ann Coulter and Bernard Goldberg... have done for the right: Demonize the other side."
Well, no, actually, he isn't. He's trying to correct the other side. There's a big difference. And saying that everyone involved in this debate is morally equivalent is just sloppy thinking dressed up as "objectivity."
Liberal Media... MY ASS.
by the way... Joe Conason's book is GREAT. And relentless. He doesn't demonize republicans... just counters every argument the right makes about Liberals extremely well. I'm a about 30 pages in... he's just getting warmed up!
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...html&printer=1
Originally posted by trumptman
I didn't say I only dealt in complex thought. I said you were taking complex ideas and intentionally mischaracterizing them while pointing them at loaded terms. So unions seeking one living wage per family becomes, oh so you hate women.
I know that is a simplified version of it. It is done intentionally, for you.
Nick
You know what you said and so does everyone else here.
I know you're one of those guys who is always working with complex solutions and miss the broad side of the barn. Then when you run out of ideas you insult the other party in an attempt at intimidation.
As for Bush all you have to do is look at the end result of his product ( what he's done for the last four years ).
Guess what? We owe as a country more than any time in history. This is after we were working with a surplus.
We went to war for reasons that didn't exist. In a time of economic strife.
We're still there and are still paying for it.
SDW believes that if we improve just a little ( because it isn't going to be a bull market by election time ) that Bush will win. I think people will still be unhappy with his performance. I think they are smarter than that. We've just had the longest employment slump since WWII. I think there is every chance we'll go right back down after the election ( unless someone gets in there that starts paying for our bills instead of barrowing his way out of it).
Bush is clueless. A lot of people realize that.
He barely got into office last time on a fluke. He didn't win the popular vote. He won because he went up against a milktoast candidate ( like himself ) that was connected to Clinton.
Bush is going down.
Get used to it.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
Damn I love when topics fuse together and are addressed so well...
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature...ean/index.html
you can get one day temporary premium access by just watching the flash ad.
DEAN and FRANKEN discussed in one article.
"Nothing is so gratifying to a movie audience as the moment when a sorely abused hero (man, woman or animal) finally feels his strength and gives his tormentors what they richly deserve. From "High Noon" to "Rocky" to "Seabiscuit," America loves to see a comeback, a righting of wrongs, a bully brought to his knees. Which is why, I think, Al Franken and Howard Dean are the men of the hour. For years, we have suffered while right-wing bullies hijacked American politics and media -- persecuting a president for a consensual sex act; stealing the 2000 election; trashing the country's economy, environment and constitutional safeguards; handing the government over to the highest corporate bidders; deceiving the public into a bloody quagmire; and then brazenly smearing anyone who dared to criticize this orgy of dreadful leadership as un-American. "
Right on, brother! I love that I can count on you to supply all these great links. Thank you.
FIGHT THE HYPOCRICY! TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK!
To anyone who thinks I'm being over-zealous. F*ck off!
Originally posted by jimmac
You know what you said and so does everyone else here.
I know you're one of those guys who is always working with complex solutions and miss the broad side of the barn. Then when you run out of ideas you insult the other party in an attempt at intimidation.
As for Bush all you have to do is look at the end result of his product ( what he's done for the last four years ).
Guess what? We owe as a country more than any time in history. This is after we were working with a surplus.
The surplus didn't exist for Clinton's entire first term. I suppose you will give Bush the same luxury.
As for the whole complex solutions thing, you have proven that you are unwilling to forgo strawman attempts to change what I have said. So whatever... people will understand it even if you don't.
Clinton was handed a recovering economy and the start of the internet spending boom. Bush was handed a recession, 9/11 and the mess made from years of non-policy from Clinton regarding terrorism.
You are welcome to see exactly how many years the government has run a surplus in the last say...oh 50 years. Bush is doing nothing new, and even then I have stated that I disagreed with his lack of spending cuts.
Funny enough, chu links to an article that discusses why Bush can't get elected and it mentions a book, The Two Income Trap, which shows that two incomes isn't really two incomes once you add additional wardrobe, car payments, eating out, etc.
Their solution, school vouchers, hardly a Democratic priority even though it is associated with the why Bush can't get elected article.
Two Income Trap
And no, they aren't advocating the repression of women, nor am I.
We went to war for reasons that didn't exist. In a time of economic strife.
We're still there and are still paying for it.
Dean will have to explain in a credible manner why almost the entire Democratic voted for that war as well, how he would have handled AL Queda, Iraq, Iran, and North Korea differently without any of it sounding like Monday morning quarterbacking or following a course of action that sounds to similar to Bush. If he is able to do this and have it sound credible to the majority of the electorate then he will have a chance and it will be an issue.
However anything less than that and it won't get him a vote because people would rather a leader overreact to planes flying into buildings than do nothing.
The only thing more compelling than the overreaction is of course the perfect course of action which Dean will have to convince he would have taken from the get go and not just in hindsight.
SDW believes that if we improve just a little ( because it isn't going to be a bull market by election time ) that Bush will win. I think people will still be unhappy with his performance. I think they are smarter than that. We've just had the longest employment slump since WWII. I think there is every chance we'll go right back down after the election ( unless someone gets in there that starts paying for our bills instead of barrowing his way out of it).
Well SDW is welcome to believe what he wants and so are you. Unemployment is a lagging indicated and we do have economic growth. How much growth and how low or high the unemployment will be are unknown. Since Bush had literally record low unemployment when he entered office, it will be hard to know if he is toast for 6% unemployment. Likewise it could play out differently because unemployment seems higher along the coastal regions while it is as low as 3% in the interior states.
I personally don't think ol'George will get the door just because we don't have articles about 23 year old internet millionaires anymore. I think some families might be going from that two income crunch to one and realizing they like it better than a two person rat race. I think some boomers are retiring. There are lots of variables and I suppose we will all see who is right in 2004.
Bush is clueless. A lot of people realize that.
He barely got into office last time on a fluke. He didn't win the popular vote. He won because he went up against a milktoast candidate ( like himself ) that was connected to Clinton.
Bush is going down.
Get used to it.
That is your view, let me tell you mine. The Democrats couldn't get Gore elected with 5.5% unemployment, a record stockmarket, a budget surplus, and little wrong in the world (meaning no terrorist attacks on our homeland)
So basically even when all was well (by your definitions) even if they could claim credit for it all, they still couldn't get him elected.
So to defeat Bush they have to prove that peace was going to continue on (even with Somalia, Iraq, the Twin Tower van bombing occuring during Clinton as well) that the stock market was going to keep going up, (what goes up must never come down) that unemployment and the economy were going to continue on record runs. (even though all economies have periodic downturns)
Then they also have to convince those that don't believe in fairy tales that when those things didn't continue as they did, that their solutions would be better than Bush.
I'm not saying is impossible. It is entirely possible. I just don't see that sort of thing coming from Dean or any other Democratic candidate. Perot pulled it off some but I don't see how anyone else could.
I myself argued in a thread some of the issues that could put Dean over Bush. Fair trade is considered pro-union. Immigration reforms could be considered an inexpensive way of protecting national security. School choice could free families from having to buy an expensive house to get a better school since they have no other choice.
If you had Dean adopt these measures, some of which are very third party, others which are actually very traditionally Democratic (fair trade for example) he could have a shot.
However until then, he is just a more rousing, better spoken critic of Bush. However being a critic won't get you elected. Proving you are not beholden to special interests, have a better plan and would better leader would.
Nick