The Goat Pen

Here's a gallery of some of the rioting taking place in China over Japan's recent sale of the Senkaku (or Diaoyu, depending on which country you're in) islands. If you're unfamiliar and want a quick overview:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11341139


http://imgur.com/a/Y7oIp

That's some very orderly rioting. Also, I liked this picture. The chinese ain't gonna take no shit from the japs!

heard on NPR this morning that some institute did a study that covered the past 60 year that shows that tax decreases do not lead to more jobs , or even greater spending for the wealthy.

Basically, after your 4th or 5th car, you normally stop buying them.

I've always felt that way about them too.

We have a progressive tax system in this country. Its the foundation for how we pay for the form of government we've have, and consistently electing politicians who lower taxes on the wealthiest citizens undermines the entire system.

I'm not pro tax but I am pro fiscally sound and the system is what it is, unless we intend to massively wipe out huge sections of the government and cut back on funding entitlements and the military, the progressive tax system has to be upheld and return back to at least the Clinton era, if not the Reagan era tax structures.

What I've learned about trickle down economics is that the money saved in tax cuts doesn't make it down to the moderate income people but the loss in tax revenue is deferred to the state and local level. For example, for every federal and local spending cut to schools (usually tied to a drop in tax revenues) I have to foot the bill locally in the form of levy's or added school fees. In the last decade, I have seen my local taxes increase by $900 a year in addition to $300 in newly created school fees. We see this in the form of toll roads, park fees, casinos, sin tax, penalties, quotas for tickets by police, etc. A local community where Ohio Senator Rob Portman lives has increased the number of tickets it gives 140% in the last 5 years.

Rolling back tax rates to Clinton era on the wealthy only gives you an additional $70-85 billion in revenue a year. Still won't make you fiscally sound.

I tell you what, I'll agree to Clinton tax rates if you agree to bridge the rest of the budget deficit by reduced spending. Deal?

sardis wrote:Rolling back tax rates to Clinton era on the wealthy only gives you an additional $70-85 billion in revenue a year. Still won't make you fiscally sound.

I tell you what, I'll agree to Clinton tax rates if you agree to bridge the rest of the budget deficit by reduced spending. Deal?

I'm a Ron Paul guy - you have no idea the level of reduced spending I want. But the reality is that Washington thinks a spending cut is decreasing the amount of future spending *increases* they have planned. There isn't going to enough elected officials who demand serious spending cuts to stem that tide. Fiscal solvency isn't going to happen under that premise unless we increase tax revenues.

But you disagree with Ron Paul on taxes?

no, not at all

but Ron Paul isn't getting elected. Whether I agree with him or not isn't relevant. I'm already past denial, anger, bargaining, depression - I'm now dealing with acceptance.

First and foremost priority #1 is a sound fiscal government. That isn't going to happen with us running a 1 trillion deficit. You start making people pay for the government they get as opposed to the GOP approach of increased spending with tax cuts, and they'll start getting serious about government spending.

Where I differ from Ron Paul moreso than any place is the idea of unionization in the private sector. I'm 100% for it and see it as the balance of free market greed. I would also support funding for the continued maintenance of federal parks if they could not develop a for profit model that did not include private business. Finally I disagree with him on the concept of working wage - but only because our country offers a safety net. The way I see it you can't have a free market controlling salary if the country provides you a safety net if you make choices that keep you below the poverty line.

Aaaaand, good bye Willard M. Romney. Not only have you lost the Presidency, you've lost the ability to be any influence on political or economic discourse on a national level in the future. Good job.

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/09/re ... ocrat.html

I really don't think that is that big of a deal. The people voting for Romney , like the article said, don't even realize that a good % of them are the people he is talking about. They all see the person he is describing as a mother on welfare of 12 illegitmate kids with a deadbeat dad that Nancy Pelosi wants to take money from them to support.

I agree, I don't think it changes the meter much because there is such entrenchment in this election on both sides.

Mitt Romney is incorrect in that there are those in the 47% that will vote for him because either they are delusional as to their dependency or they know that the benefits they are receiving is unsustainable, but thake them anyway. They figure as long as it is being doled out it might as well come to them. Conversely, I have liberal wealthy cients who believe tax rates should be higher, but will take advantage of every fuckin' tax loophole in the book and bitch when they feel they pay too much.

The article argues that the 47% are unfairly characterized tax welchers because they pay other taxes besides income taxes. Problem is those other taxes do not go to the federal budget. Fact is, under Clinton tax rates, the 47% paid more than they do now. In Europe even the poor pay in more then they do in US. Paul Ryan is right in that the tax base needs to be broaden whether you raise the 1% or not for the budget gap to be bridged.

didn't you give me shit yesterday about saying we needed to go back to the Clinton tax rates?

The white trash that vote will vote for Romney without fail.

I'll say this, if I was sitting in that audience after spending $50K a plate and hear the candidate concede he isn't going to get 47% of the vote, I'd be mad as hell. I suspect most of those people already thought that but to hear the candidate just spot Obama all but 4% of the vote he needs to win tells you everything you need to know about the current state of the GOP.

eCat wrote:didn't you give me shit yesterday about saying we needed to go back to the Clinton tax rates?

No, I agreed to go back to Clinton rates as long as the remainder of the deficit was bridged by reducing spending.

A noble compromise. You're obviously the Henry Clay of the Goat Pen.

Caning in the Goat Pen!

"I really don't think that is that big of a deal. The people voting for Romney , like the article said, don't even realize that a good % of them are the people he is talking about."

I think it's a huge deal. I can't recall a candidacy going off the rails to this degree since Carter's failed hostage rescue attempt, but even that wasn't really his fault. It wasn't the decision that brought him down, but the failure of the operation. Granted there were economic issues at the time, but I suspect that if the hostage rescue had been successful, Carter's chances of winning would've been close to even. But this is just sheer personal incompetency that I really don't recall seeing before. This is really borderline idiocy.

True, many of the people Romney is talking about are going to vote for him anyway, but there are plenty of folks out there who are undecided who are wondering if he's talking about them and are probably offended by such an arrogant depiction of themselves from this rich ass corporate raider who has most certainly benefited himself on a monstrous scale due to laws and loopholes and basic government practices that he likely had something to do with getting enacted, either thru lobbying or direct influence or whatever. It was just a monstrous gaffe, and then he dug the hole even deeper when he called a presser at 10 pm to try and "explain".

This is just a pure clown show at this point, to the point that I'm starting to think it's deliberate on some level, only b/c it's difficult for me to believe that somebody that has gotten as far as Romney obviously has could be this big of a fucking buffoon. David Brooks has gone so far as to compare him to Thurston Howell. You know it's not good when conservative commentators are comparing you to (arguably) the biggest buffoon on an utterly buffoonish 1960's sit-com (certainly it was between Gilligan and Mr. Howell). Just awful....