Sunday, January 22, 2012
Miscellaneous 110
1) While we I agree with Newt Gingrich that that question about his ex-wife was an inappropriate one to start a Presidential debate with, his response that it was "as close to despicable as anything that he could imagine" was at least a tad over the top as well. As despicable as anything that the dude could imagine? Seriously? More despicable than child sex trafficking ? More despicable than serial killing? More despicable than dealing drugs to kids? More despicable than terrorism? More despicable than ethnic cleansing?....More despicable than genocide? Methinks here, folks, that Mr. Gingrich protested a bit too much and was mugging for the audience.............2) Under my tax proposal (a 40% top tax rate of everything over $400,000 a year, a doing away of the special consideration for capital gains, and a reduction pertaining to the cap on mortgage interest deduction from 1 million to $500,000), a person making 10 million dollars a year living in Allegany County New York, with a million dollar home in that jurisdiction, and a second million dollar home in Marblehead Neck, MA, would probably pay about half of that money back to the government; state, local, and federal. That, in my opinion, is fair. I certainly don't think that the government should get significantly more than half. That much I do know.............3) I'm not a major fan of Fox News (Sean Hannity and Fox and Friends, especially). But at least they put forth a quasi credible showing the other night (their primary coverage, I'm saying). The had Bret Baier and Megyn Kelly as hosts (no, not perfect, but certainly far less biased than Rachel Maddow) and, while, yes, there was the obligatory stooge siting (Karl Rove, for example) throughout the evening, the overall presentation (which included quite solid reporting by Ed Henry, Carl Cameron, and the recently acquired John Roberts) was far less ideological than that which MSNBC put on the air. Hopefully, they can continue to deliver coverage like this and, yes, maybe get a little credit for it, too.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
Will, why are you always so hung up on the 15% capital gains tax?
Personally I think it should be zero...along with the death tax.
Was'nt the money initally used by investors already taxed when they made it?If thats so is'nt capital gains a piggyback tax?
Perhaps we should do away with the sales tax too? This money was already taxed when I earned it, why do I have to pay again when I spend it?
Now you're talking WD,finally making sense.
I agree with you 100%...we are on the same page on this one.
A perfect example how both left and right can agree on something positive.Thanks WD.
Will: Newt's over-the-top hyperbole lacks any sense of scale, or sense at all.
It's similar to former TV host Keith Olbermann head calling Bill O'Reilly "the worst person in the world" (bypassing, the Al Qaeda sheikhs, Kim Jong Il, the dictator of the Sudan and many others) all out of spite because O'Reilly does better in the ratings.
Rusty: Now you're talking WD,finally making sense.
I was kidding, as I'm sure Rusty knows. He often feigns ignorance. My point was that money is frequently taxed multiple times. If you're going to get rid of any double taxations why not one that helps the poor and middle class? Nope. The Conservative is only interested in helping the wealthy.
I say we should tax capital gains at a higher rate then regular income. Although only after a certain threshold is reached... I don't want to hurt seniors who depend on investments to fund their retirements.
...................
btw, Will, shouldn't this post be titled "Muscellaneous 1"? You haven't had any other "Muscellaneous" posts, so I don't kow how you can go from zero directly to 110. Also, from the title I expected this post to be about bodybuilding or something similar.
dmarks: It's similar to former TV host Keith Olbermann head calling Bill O'Reilly "the worst person in the world" ...bypassing, the Al Qaeda sheikhs... all out of spite because O'Reilly does better in the ratings.
It's intentional hyperbole. But I'm sure Olbermann (who isn't a "former TV host") doesn't care if some humor-challenged individuals (who are only looking for excuses to criticize him) don't get the joke.
I know I sure as hell don't. These people are just making themselves look stupid, IMO. Especially when they claim that it's because of jealously or spite over ratings.
WD said: "t's intentional hyperbole. But I'm sure Olbermann (who isn't a "former TV host") doesn't care if some humor-challenged individuals (who are only looking for excuses to criticize him) don't get the joke."
It wasn't a joke. It was just a lame accusation which revealed not Olbermann's sense of humor, but his tendency to come across as extremely arrogant.
As for "former TV host", I stand by it. He went from prime time on a major network into something so obscure that most people haven't heard of it. The equivalent of public-access cable. He's a failure.
Russ, it's part of my overall plan that also includes a complete phasing out of corporate taxes (the mere thought of which causes wd's head to explode). It's a trade-off, in other words.............wd, how can it (the sales tax) be a form of double taxation when the poor don't pay any income taxes (and frequently MAKE money off of the tax code via the Earned Income Tax Credit)? Methinks that your violin is a little off kilter on this one.............dmarks, yes, Mr. Olbermann claimed that this worst persons schtik of his was a joke. But, I don't know, I think that I might have to agree with you that the bile in his voice often indicated otherwise.
I fully agree with you on corporate tax at zero.
Any one who thinks raising corporate taxes will help the economy is an idiot.They should check out the corporate rate in Singapore and then look at their unemployment and poverty rates,along with their personal tax rates.
I would especially like to see it for manufacturing. If we lowered the corporate rate to zero, that along with the high corporate rates in places like Sri Lanka and the increasing costs of transportation, I really think that we could get manufacturers to come here.
Will: You corporatist you. Lowering the taxes would mean more corporations coming here, wouldn't it?
To the supposed "anti-corporatist", this is a bad thing, and flies in the face of the goal of expelling/eliminating corporations from the US economic environment.
I would personally like to see a Nissan plant or three here in CT. Unfortunately, our taxes may be a little too steep for that to happen.
Will: I really think that we could get manufacturers to come here.
Not yet. More union busting and "Right to Work for Less" laws are needed first. Do those things, plus get rid of the minimum wage, OSHA, and the EPA... and that would probably do the trick.
Of course the working poor would be living in shanty towns and dying young from all the pollution and workplace hazards... but the wealthy and corporations would LOVE it... and isn't that what really matters?
Or, we could use tariffs. But then we wouldn't be able to shaft workers by paying them that "fair" wage dmarks so desires.
A clueless dmarks said: [Keith Olbermann's "worst person in the world"] wasn't a joke.
Regarding the "worst person in the world" segment, Keith Olbermann says, "They aren't really the worst persons in the world, of course... The epithet tracks directly to [among others] George Carlin... who startled me decades ago by the simple but irrefutable argument -- the astonishing observation hidden inside the safety of a joke -- that by the process of ranking, there truly had to be, somewhere, the worst doctor in the world. More terrifying still, he noted, "Somebody has an appointment to see him tomorrow!"...
Obviously you don't get it, but that doesn't make it not a joke. Anyway, I've already written a post on this topic, in which I address the various criticisms the Keith-haters never get tired of (including the criticism over the "worst person" segment). Anyone interested can view my post here.
Also, Keith Olbermann still does the "worst person" segment every night, so I don't know why you say it "wasn't" (past tense) a joke. Are you saying the title wasn't a joke, but now it is? Either way you're wrong.
btw, here is an article I found that Will might be interested in (it could make his head explode)...
Is Keith Olbermann the Next Edward R. Murrow?. The author's conclusion is YES. (source: AlterNet).
A clueless dmarks said: As for "former TV host", I stand by it. [Keith Olbermann is] a failure.
Yea, he failed so hard he got a huge raise and promotion when he went to Current. I think dmarks would like to fail as badly as Olbermann.
Obviously he's just jealous.
IMO, Keith Olbermann is one of the best persons in the world.
What are you trying to do here, wd, set a world record for the largest number of red herrings? I didn't say a thing about getting rid of the minimum wage or OSHA (not that I wouldn't be opposed to streamlining it, mind you - the assholes cost my mother over a thousand dollars over some pittly ass and meaningless regulation). I really think that you're starting to lose it here.
WD said: "Also, Keith Olbermann still does the "worst person" segment every night, so I don't know why you say it "wasn't" (past tense) a joke."
Because he's doing it in the TV equivalent of a lock closet in an abandoned house. Which doesn't count for much. Of course,
"Not yet. More union busting and "Right to Work for Less" laws are needed first."
You mean right to work for more. That is what happens if workers (yes, workers. Not corporations or unions) are given the choice and suddenly they have hundreds or thousands more to spend on their own families.
"Do those things, plus get rid of the minimum wage, OSHA, and the EPA..."
I strongly disagree with getting rid of the EPA and OSHA. However, the minimum wage must go, as it costs thousands of people their jobs.
dmarks: You mean right to work for more.
No, "right to work" laws lead to lower wages. The AFL-CIO website points out that, "right to work laws lower wages for everyone. The average worker in a right to work state makes about $5,333 a year less than workers in other states ($35,500 compared with $30,167).
dmarks: the minimum wage must go, as it costs thousands of people their jobs.
Actually it does just the opposite. According to the website 9Finance, "the minimum wage can also increase employment levels. Keynesian economics states that the minimum wage could generate a multiplier effect on consumption, as the lowest paid... tend to have a higher marginal propensity to consume. This can lead to increased employment levels due to higher derived demand for labor".
Post a Comment