Thursday, July 26, 2012
On the Chuckmeister
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Look, I understand that this dude can be a dweeb at times. But whenever a person (regardless of party affiliation) says something that's either reasonable or conciliatory, I try to give the individual credit for it. Mr. Schumer says that, yes, the top tax rates should go back to 39.6% but, no, the threshold for doing so shouldn't be $250,000 but rather a million. That to me sounds reasonable. a) It raise a fair amount of revenue (40-50 billion a year) and b) it isn't likely to hurt the recovery. Pair this with some discretionary spending cuts and some entitlement reform and the markets will respond quite well, I believe. Hey, maybe Schumer and Lugar (prior to him being bounced) can get together with some of the other centrists and get something done before the election.......You're laughing.
Fiscally Conservative, Socially tolerant, Anti-War
Blog Archive
-
▼
2012
(710)
-
▼
July
(64)
- Hottest Olympian Ever?
- Note to Congresswoman Bachmann
- On Massachusetts Governor, Deval Patrick, Also Def...
- How it All "Works", Apparently
- I Would Say Not a Single Person Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha
- Bodacious and a Wee-Bit Premature
- THIS Came Out of Opie????
- Actually, Mr. Obama
- On President Obama's Recent Upping of Military Aid...
- On Governor Romney's Recent Trip to Israel
- Moral Question
- On These Two Fellas
- Miscellaneous 132
- Miscellaneous 131
- On Cory Booker
- On "Gone With the Wind"
- Between Two Legends
- On This Piece of Shit
- On the Chuckmeister
- Miscellaneous 130
- Better Than or Worse Than Their Father
- I Thought that we Already Bailed Out G.M.
- On John Malkovich and Willem DaFoe
- Dennis Miller on Former Florida Congressman, Alan ...
- Katherine Eban's Theory, I Gather
- On Voting Democratic
- Swab the Deck - And Start With THIS Guy
- On the Movie, "Speed 2"
- Miscellaneoue 129
- Note to "Team Romney"
- Interesting Fact
- President Obama on the Passing of the Family Smoki...
- The Face of Another Decent, Fair, and Well-Respect...
- The Face of a Decent, Fair, and Well-Respected Pol...
- A National Disgrace 3
- Exotic Beauty Showdown
- The Complete, Unabridged List of People Who Think ...
- Miscellaneous 128
- Senator Barack Obama - February 10, 2007
- To Whom it May Concern
- Well, Somebody's Peddling
- This is Me - Any Questions?
- QUITE
- On Whether Abortion is Murder
- Miscellaneous 127
- Tactically Wrong
- Politics (As Practised by the Modern-Day Partisan ...
- Jason Terry to the Celtics
- Clinton, But it's Close
- On Judge Jeanine Pirro and Face-Lifts
- Uh, Try Nobody 3
- Uh, Try Nobody 2
- Dennis Miller on the Difference Between Clinton an...
- Note to Michelle Malkin
- The Greatest List of All Time (Courtesy of Jack Ke...
- Female Fight-Club - The Participants
- Clinton Would Win by a Kilometer and Then Some
- And these Two Individuals are Considered in the Sa...
- ATF Supervisor, David Voth, April 13 2010
- Per the L.A. Times, August 11, 2011 - http://artic...
- On those Kissing Scenes Between a 52 Year-Old Clar...
- And Eban Interviewed a Retired IRS Agent....Why Ex...
- ATF Supervisor, David Voth, April 2 2010
- Hm, Let's See, Who Do I Trust Here,
-
▼
July
(64)
26 comments:
Chuckie may be centrist on the tax thing, but a real overall centrist he ain't.
But yeah, his proposal is not at all unreasonably.
Its often said the most dangerous place in DC is to get between Upchuck and a TV camera.
Why raise taxes at all? It's not like the economy is roaring along. It's not like the revenue raised would be significant. Why do Democrats always want to raise taxes?
Yeah, Les, as I was writing that I was thinking of putting a qualifier on that Schumer as a centrist line and Rusty's point about the Senator and publicity is obviously valid, too.............HR, I don't really consider myself all that big of a tax raiser fellow. But as part of an overall deficit reduction package, I just don't think that it's wise to take revenues off the table completely. Perhaps we simply have a gentlemen's disagreement on this one.
An icrease in
the tax rate back to the Clinton levels is someting I could live with and I agree with Chuckie the level should be one mil.Now,lets drop the other shoe.....Will,you know the current democratic party wants no part of spending cuts and wont touch the third rail of SS or Medicare.And we cannot continue having more americans getting approved for disability benefits each month then are finding jobs.We cannot continue to have half the population paying zero....not one dollar of federal income tax.We cannot have a third of the population receiving food stamps.
Yea...we do need more revenue,but if the unemployment rate was down to 5% you'd have more...much more.I'd be willing to absorb a tax hike,but I'd want 10 to 1 in spending cuts.
Russ, the Gang of 6 came up with a pretty decent proposal, I think. I mean, I'm not sure what the exact ratio was but there was some definite budget cutting in it....I guess that Mr. Obama filed it along with Simpson-Bowles and the 2 of them are collecting dust.
Will: I can go with your compromise, too. Because your goals are sound. You aren't using it as a stepping stone to destroy "plutocrats" (i.e. anyone who is a more effective worker than you) or any other bad reasons.
Will clearly does not understand how negotiating works... this might explain (in part, at least) his hatred for unions. He, like dmarks, sides with employers who offer salaries and say, "take it or leave it". This is because he knows the employess have to "take it" or starve (which puts the employer in the position of power and allows them to get away with paying less than the real value of the labor).
I'm in the camp that is hoping for no agreements before the election, as such an agreement would most certainly involve the Democrats caving and zero tax increases being part of any deficit reduction package. We will have more leverage next year after the bush tax cuts expire.
And plutocrats should be "destroyed" (which is highly unlikely... in reality the most we could hope for is for their influence to be somewhat reduced). They wish to purchase our elected officials and that should not be tolerated. Destroy (or reign in) the plutocrats or watch our democracy be destroyed. dmarks makes it clear which he prefers.
You'll always be subservient to us WD,its your station in life...I think you realize that....just accept it and move on.Oh,while your up get me a glass of ice water,with a slice of lemon in it.
WD said: "He, like dmarks, sides with employers who offer salaries and say, "take it or leave it". "
Exactly. And I side with workers NO LESS when they offer what they will take, and also say "take it or leave it". The meeting point between them is the fair wage they decide. No matter what ignorant and arrogant outsiders think.If you can even call that "Thinking"
"This is because he knows the employess have to "take it" or starve"
That is stupid of you to say, because:
1) There is a large food stamp program, which i support.
2) You seem to hold the very idea of work in contempt. Like it is terrible for someone to at least make an effort.
"which puts the employer in the position of power..."
Bullsh*t. The employer has absolutely no power at all unless they offer wages workers like. That pretty much means they are powerless.
"and allows them to get away with paying less than the real value of the labor"
They can't possible get away with this. If they did' they'd quickly lose all their workers.
"...and zero tax increases being part of any deficit reduction package."
Then I sure hope for that.
"And plutocrats should be "destroyed""
Destroy them? You think like a comic-book superhero, o dweller in Mom's basement.
Do you really want people "destroyed" without any evidence of wrongdoing just because they are good at what they do and earn money for it?
"Destroy (or reign in) the plutocrats or watch our democracy be destroyed. dmarks makes it clear which he prefers."
Yes. I prefer democracy, the due process of law, and Constitutional rights.
In contrast, you prefer fascism (ruling elites showing who is boss, "destroying" innocent people who have done no wrong, and stripping people of rock-solid Constitutional rights due to your ignorance, contempt for America and its people, contempt for the Constitution, and contempt for basic human rights.
Yes, I am proud of what I prefer.
It's completely mind boggling that dmarks is proud to be a fascist (although he lies and says the fascism he supports is really democracy).
"Powerless employers"? Right. I'm sure the food stamp office will help out workers who tell them they were offered a job but had to turn it down because the pay wasn't high enough. Further proof that dmarks' lives in a world of complete make-believe.
I've never said anything to suggest that I
hold the very idea of work in contempt", or that it is "terrible for someone to at least make an effort". These are ideas that exist in your imagination only... I reject them.
"It's completely mind boggling that dmarks is proud to be a fascist"
Actually, I am strongly opposed to fascism. That is why we have these arguments, since you strongly favor the government having abusive centralizing powers, even tightly controlling political expression.
I oppose all that.
"Powerless employers"? Right."
Yes. Their factories and stores and offices would be entirely empty if they did not offer fair wages to workers.
"Further proof that dmarks' lives in a world of complete make-believe."
I live in the real world.
You are strongly in favor of fascism, which is why you support granting rich people greater rights than the rest of us. If they can pay for lots of ads to unfairly influence our political process (i.e. buy our elections)... dmarks says "fascism yes".
And high unemployment forces down wages. People do not turn down jobs due to low pay. There aren't enough jobs to go around, if you haven't noticed. Are you not aware that we are in the middle of a recession? Where the hell have you been... certainly NOT here in the real world.
I've been in 2 unions, wd, and I know how they operate. They coddle their buddies and cut loose the younger and quite frequently more effective workers. They suck and the public ones are a humongous drain on the tax-payers............And nobody has to starve, wd. A person can get a second job. They can take night classes. They can apply for food stamps (there are benefits up the ying yang for poor people). They can get a room-mate. They can quit smoking. My God, are you hysterical.............And plutocrats should be destroyed? Doctors, lawyers, engineers, architects, administrators, entrepreneurs?
Will said: "And plutocrats should be destroyed? Doctors, lawyers, engineers, architects, administrators, entrepreneurs?"
WD's whiny jealous and hateful rhetoric against productive people with valuable skills is how things like this usually start out.
Socialism in its purest form.
Socialism is when the workers decide they should benefit from the fruits of their labors instead of the parasites at the top. It has nothing to do with the page that you linked to.
That page is what happens when "informed" citizens "vote their interest"... this is the kind of thing dmarks says he trusts and stands with the people on.
Socialists don't want to kill anyone, they want to stop the killing that people like you support... the wealthy worshipers who seek to use divisive language like "productive people" to divide us into two classes. The "productive people" at the top, and everyone else at the bottom.
These "productive people", would, of course, have more rights than the rest of us... because "rights" would be transformed into another commodity. You don't get them if you can't afford them.
I have NEVER used whiny jealous and hateful rhetoric. Not once. dmarks and Will use it constantly when they whine about unions and losers who "beg for handouts". They whine at the mere suggestion that the wealthy elites pay fair wages to their workers instead of further enriching themselves.
It's disgusting... and incredibly dangerous to democracy. Their hateful rhetoric against those they view as "losers" leads to ideas like those held by Conservative columnist Matthew Vadum, who says registering people to vote is like "handing out burglary tools to criminals". The next logical step is to take away the right to vote from poor people.
Under the fascism that Will and dmarks long for only the "productive people" would be allowed to vote.
WD said "Socialism is when the workers decide they should benefit from the fruits of their labors instead of the parasites at the top. It has nothing to do with the page that you linked to."
Nothing can be further from the truth. In socialism, the state decides, not the workers.
What you describe is closer to capitalism. Pretty close, anyway. In capitalism, workers enjoy the fruits of their labor. Only in capitalism does this happen. The only time the parasites come into play is in the form of taxation (the people at the top taking the fruits of the workers' labor at gunpoint, primarily for their own benefit).
"Socialists don't want to kill anyone"
Whether or not they want to, they are the cause of more deaths than anyone else since the founding of the movement. They love to kill people.
"the wealthy worshipers who seek to use divisive language like "productive people""
There is nothing divisive about speaking honestly and respectfully about those who actually do something.
"The "productive people" at the top, and everyone else at the bottom."
In capitalism, the productive people are found at the top and bottom (in terms of earnings). The "everyone else" (non-productive) are found in the halls of power (government)
"These "productive people", would, of course, have more rights than the rest of us."
Not at all. I have made clear many times and with examples how I support the basic human rights of the Bill of Rights for everyone.... while you flat-out lie about the content of the Constitution and declare this group or that group of people to be without rights.
"I have NEVER used whiny jealous and hateful rhetoric."
When haven't you?
"Not once. dmarks and Will use it constantly when they whine about unions and losers who "beg for handouts".
Productive people earn their wages and raises. The lazy greedy whiners support unions instead.
"They whine at the mere suggestion that the wealthy elites pay fair wages to their workers instead of further enriching themselves."
Paying fair wages is the only thing I advocate. Using a real definition of fairness in which those involve decide what is fair, not arrogant ignorant a**holes who have no idea what is going on and force what is fair to them personally on others.
"It's disgusting... and incredibly dangerous to democracy."
This has nothing to do with democracy, at all. We are talking about the private affairs of the people, not government.
"Their hateful rhetoric against those they view as "losers"
Forgive me for using accurate terms like "loser" to describe the pathetic scumbags who oppose honestly earning wages.
"Under the fascism that Will and dmarks long for only the "productive people" would be allowed to vote."
You are lying about this. i have presented the definition of fascism. Your views meet some of it, very exactly. Our views meet none of it.
But it is obvious that you don't care what things actually mean. Hence the silly recent comment where you said that presenting views is the same as collective bargaining.
We actually have a tax increase and spending cut agreement already in place, voted on and accepted by congress. Nothing more needs to be done. Let they go home.
Small business owners and entrepreneurs are parasites now. Wow. And when did I ever say that only productive people can vote? If you look into my archive you will notice that I came out strongly against the Texas voter ID law. Again, you're extrapolating moronically.
He has bashed all small business owners and entrepreneurs as 'plutocrats' before, so this should not surprise you at all.
I never bashed small business owners and entrepreneurs as 'plutocrats' or suggested they are parasites. Those are both lies.
wd, do you support Senator Schumer's compromise or not? I do.
WD: "I never bashed small business owners and entrepreneurs as 'plutocrats' or suggested they are parasites."
Actually? In a recent conversation about employers and the nature of the value of wages, you slipped in 'plutocrat' as a synonym for 'employer'. Even though it was clear we were discussing average/small business owners.
So, yes, when someone is talking about small business owners, and you call them "plutocrats", you are definitely caught doing exactly what you deny: bashing small business and entrepreneurs.
"Those are both lies"
Proven true
I'll take that as a no, wd.
Will; In his paranoid, greedy, and jealous mind, he sees all small businesspeople as "plutocrats", even to the point of wanting to have having ignorant government officials micro-manage the small business person's operations in order to force the small business owner to pay what the ignorant government official thinks is "Fair" but the emloyee and worker (the only ones whose opinions sohuld count) don't agree is fair.
He is on record so many times opposing fair pay.
If a small businessman with 50-60 employees who's making 300 grand a year is a plutocrat, then that is significantly watering down the definition, I think.
Post a Comment