Suggestion from Bill Bradley (courtesy the Wall Street Journal) for a compromise plan to overhaul the tax code: eliminate the loopholes everyone agrees on as unhelpful, giving the Democrats revenue with which to pay down the deficit; then set up a formula rewarding Republicans down the line with tax cuts as per capita income increases by agreed-upon percentages. He says this will give everybody a reason to buy in to the deal.
What say you, thread?
Dumb as fucking hell to agree to more fucking tax cuts at all, because the ones the GOP push for are the ones that hurt revenue the most and help the economy the least.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Suggestion from Bill Bradley (courtesy the Wall Street Journal) for a compromise plan to overhaul the tax code: eliminate the loopholes everyone agrees on as unhelpful, giving the Democrats revenue with which to pay down the deficit; then set up a formula rewarding Republicans down the line with tax cuts as per capita income increases by agreed-upon percentages. He says this will give everybody a reason to buy in to the deal.
What say you, thread?
With this congress? A proposal like that, coming from the Dems, would get thrown out before it was even mentioned, then dragged through the mud, only to be gloriously reanimated in pretty much the same form a couple of weeks later by Team Chucklefuck because you see Obama is never serious about cuts, ever, and he has to be taught a lesson by real Americans.
Alright and in this next scene all the animals have AIDS.
I got a little excited when I saw your ship.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Suggestion from Bill Bradley (courtesy the Wall Street Journal) for a compromise plan to overhaul the tax code: eliminate the loopholes everyone agrees on as unhelpful, giving the Democrats revenue with which to pay down the deficit; then set up a formula rewarding Republicans down the line with tax cuts as per capita income increases by agreed-upon percentages. He says this will give everybody a reason to buy in to the deal.
What say you, thread?
I would love to know what "Loopholes" everyone agrees are unhelpful. To raise significant money, you need to go after one or more of (1) the home mortgage interest deduction, (2) the exclusion of employer provided medical insurance from coverage or (3) the charitable donation deduction. Have fun with any of those. . .
BOTP'd
Also, just to say it, if you do (1) you cause the housing market to collapse again, and plunge us right back into recession. (2) would break the most fundamental promise Obama made during the ACA negotiations. (3) is great policy, but there is literally no way that we will see either party confront organized religion head on. So in the end, a promise to end loopholes is really just a promise to collect an insignificant additional amount of taxes from specific groups that don't have enough clout to lobby effectively. There is no way to fix the economy or pay down the debt on that kind of money.
Suggestion from Bill Bradley (courtesy the Wall Street Journal) for a compromise plan to overhaul the tax code: eliminate the loopholes everyone agrees on as unhelpful, giving the Democrats revenue with which to pay down the deficit; then set up a formula rewarding Republicans down the line with tax cuts as per capita income increases by agreed-upon percentages. He says this will give everybody a reason to buy in to the deal.
What say you, thread?
As soon as a Democrat proposes eliminating tax loopholes, the Republicans will suddenly decide they love those loopholes and how dare you attack small business!!!
Suggestion from Bill Bradley (courtesy the Wall Street Journal) for a compromise plan to overhaul the tax code: eliminate the loopholes everyone agrees on as unhelpful, giving the Democrats revenue with which to pay down the deficit; then set up a formula rewarding Republicans down the line with tax cuts as per capita income increases by agreed-upon percentages. He says this will give everybody a reason to buy in to the deal.
What say you, thread?
I would love to know what "Loopholes" everyone agrees are unhelpful. To raise significant money, you need to go after one or more of the home mortgage interest deduction, the exclusion of employer provided medical insurance from coverage or the charitable donation deduction. Have fun with any of those. . .
I'd argue for killing the charitable donation exemption or at least seriously rewriting it. So many ultra wealthy people and corporations runs tons of cash into bullshit charities that do nothing to avoid taxes.
And it was a big part of the failed Romney tax plan, fuck sake the GOP lost 2012 it doesn't mean we put their fucking awful plans in place.
When Paul Ryan submitted his budget two weeks ago, it was verbatim his budget platform that lost the election.
I continue to be legitimately shocked that the GOP has seemingly not only learned anything from the 2012 massacre, but seems to think that continuing to press those losing issues will work.
It's like hearing before the rematch, the coach of the team that lost 50-14 telling the reporter that his gameplan hasn't changed.
It feels like their corrective action going into the next election can be summed up as "Don't be running against Barack Obama when he is actually running for something."
Nah, their plan is "get Obama to enact our stupid ass unpopular policies, then run against them." Given the President's love of Grand Bargains, this is not a stupid plan.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
It feels like their corrective action going into the next election can be summed up as "Don't be running against Barack Obama when he is actually running for something."
Sadly, this might work in the midterms.
My hope is that low turnout won't give the GOP another suite of victories, but ugh...it's hard to get people animated and out for mid term elections.
Suggestion from Bill Bradley (courtesy the Wall Street Journal) for a compromise plan to overhaul the tax code: eliminate the loopholes everyone agrees on as unhelpful, giving the Democrats revenue with which to pay down the deficit; then set up a formula rewarding Republicans down the line with tax cuts as per capita income increases by agreed-upon percentages. He says this will give everybody a reason to buy in to the deal.
What say you, thread?
I would love to know what "Loopholes" everyone agrees are unhelpful. To raise significant money, you need to go after one or more of the home mortgage interest deduction, the exclusion of employer provided medical insurance from coverage or the charitable donation deduction. Have fun with any of those. . .
I'd argue for killing the charitable donation exemption or at least seriously rewriting it. So many ultra wealthy people and corporations runs tons of cash into bullshit charities that do nothing to avoid taxes.
Like Mitt Romney's little scam on the side with the Mormon church. Though that was a piddly sum of money compared to what he supposedly has hidden off-shore.
Obama does a bracket on ESPN for five minutes, republicans who are probably on a congressional break complain he isn't doing their job. SOMEONE IN THE MEDIA BOTHER TO COVER THAT PLEASE!
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Eh, just as OT as half the posts already in the thread.
Speaking of Barry O, apparently the PotUS limo broke down in Israel because some fool put in the wrong gas or something. I'm sure tomorrow's Fox & Friends Outrage will be about the millions of dollars we spend flying the president's car around.
MetalMagus on
0
Options
AbsalonLands of Always WinterRegistered Userregular
Says Twitter: Senate passes bill to fund government through Sept. 30, prevent shutdown at end of month.
Eh, just as OT as half the posts already in the thread.
Speaking of Barry O, apparently the PotUS limo broke down in Israel because some fool put in the wrong gas or something. I'm sure tomorrow's Fox & Friends Outrage will be about the millions of dollars we spend flying the president's car around.
Obviously Obama's car doesn't run off gas of the holy land because he is a Muslim.
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
Nah it won't because its unconstitutional, and the GOP likes the bullshit swagger it creates all the while knowing they are still getting paid by lobbyists corporations and when the courts strike it down, the us tax payer directly.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Says Twitter: Senate passes bill to fund government through Sept. 30, prevent shutdown at end of month.
This should mean that they're not getting paid. Since they have to pass a budget by law or their pay gets cut.
How much you want to bet we get a clean repeal of that while sequestration keeps on going strong?
I thought that pay cut thing was unconstitutional since that specifies congress can only change the pay for future congresses not their own
I didn't see where it went to court, but maybe.
It hasn't gone to court, but its clearly unconstitutional. In a way its an example of all the gop's bullshit. Something clearly against the rules and they do it anyway because fuck you.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
I'd be happy to propose a budget deal which would cut taxes for the rich based on 'performance related scales'
So, we'd set up some kind of metric which measures a few things
i) Mean income of top 0.1 %/ Median Income
ii) Unemployment
Current taxes are X. As either of these numbers decreases then taxes go down on incomes above $250K. If they go up, then taxes rise. If you drive down unemployment but do so by hiring people at low wages, then taxes stay the same. If you drive up the median income by firing people and making the remainder work harder, then taxes stay the same.
Oh, and MSNBC has an article on how the Sequestration is going to hamper efforts to track city-killing-asteroids. Honestly, this is leaps better than focusing on White House tours getting cancelled and the Blue Angels taking a hit from it.
Depressingly, which do you think the public cares more about?
They'll care about it when an asteroid hits their city.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Anne Coulter has a great screed nailed upon her pillar of human bones and orphans' blood:
It's adorable. It really is. And it makes a kind of refracted-through-a-broken-prism kind of sense. Her message to the GOP is to stop running such shitty candidates. She mentions people like Todd Akin, Dick Mourdock, Linda McMahon, and Tim Scott as the kinds of pariahs the party needs to leave hanging in the sun for the crows. Which is great, because I think you'll find most progressives agree with Ms. Coulter on this issue: These candidate do indeed suck!
The problem for Anne here is that she thinks these candidates suck because they're unelectable, while everyone else thinks these candidates are unqualified. It's a hairline difference, but an important distinction, because Coulter doesn't actually seem to disagree with these candidates on any particular issue (or at least, she doesn't take any time in her scrawlings to delineate, though she may be anti-pro-rape), she just thinks they're shitty at running for office.
And this is the microcosm of the entire GOP right now. There's tacit acceptance that they're doing SOMETHING wrong, and that they're running some real loser candidates, but no one can agree on what exactly is wrong or if they actually think those loser candidates are off-message. No one in the GOP seems to be mad that Todd Akin shit out of his mouth on national TV about a subject he has no information on despite a strong opposition of it (a typical conservative trait), they're just mad that it was so public and that people like Mitt Romney had to stand by him because *partisanship*.
So what is Coulter even saying? Does she want candidates who hold different beliefs than people like Mourdock and Akin? Or does she just want them to be more PR savvy? It seems mostly like the latter, which will continue to be more difficult in this age of transparency and constant news cycles. Because people will eventually ask questions, and I don't think the GOP is ready for that yet, which is likely a problem of their being generally old obstructionist geezers. In short, it seems like a bad tack to take, and not just a little like putting their head in the sand; more accurately, it seems like Coulter is hoping her GOP cohorts running for office can find somewhere to bury their own heads until the election is over. Because even though Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan showed its fallibility the first time around the block with it, this is the GOP's new plan: Shut The Fuck Up.
What's your stance on abortion, Senator? Shut the fuck up.
And how do you feel about gay rights? Shut the fuck up.
Increasing corporate and capital gains taxes? Shut it all right the fuck up.
Civil infrastructure? The. Fuck. Up.
The trick, see, is not to change the message, even if the public doesn't want to hear it and our own party members can't hold to it. The trick is to give the opposition nothing to attack you on other than being completely witholding of all positions and platforms.
Adorably, she goes on in the article to point to the Democrats and MSNBC as to how to properly abandon "bad" candidates, saying that the Dems basically stick their losing candidates on an ice floe out to sea, citing John Edwards and Howard Dean as her proof of theory. Well, I'd argue that John Edwards' status as a persona non grata in the Democrat media sphere probably has a lot more to do with being a two-time loser with limited political experience who cheated on his dying wife while stealing campaign contributions than it does the Democratic Party's vigilant removal of persons unable to win elections. Because you know who is really big in the Democratic Party lately? Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden, both losers of elected office campaigns. And that John Kerry fellow? He's doing okay, I hear. Much like that Krystal Ball woman.
Funnily enough, a broken clock is right twice a day, so I guess Anne Coulter had one coming. But I have to wonder, if all these people are doing it wrong, your Akins and Mourdocks, your Tim Scotts and Linda McMahons and Christine O'Donnells, your Karl Roves and John McCains and Sarah Palins . . . if these are the ones "damaging the brand," what does that say about the brand? Better yet, who else ya got?
Dems aren't quite as hard on their losers like the GOP are. Had Edwards not been an adulterer it wouldn't be impossible for his political career to rebound in the party, as a political candidate or staff member for political heavyweights/Democratic administrations. Coulter's weird picking Dean for an example. He might not have won the Dem presidential primary but he was a major component in the campaign that put Obama in the White House.
Harry Dresden on
+1
Options
SerukoFerocious Kittenof The Farthest NorthRegistered Userregular
The budget is the next thing on the docket for the Senate. They have weeks until that imaginary deadline hits anyway, don't they?
Edit: Further, the funding CR is for the current fiscal year. The Budget is for next fiscal year, starting in October I think.
CR dead line is the 27th of March and the period is 28 March - Oct 1st I believe
this is the first deadline that is not imaginary.
The CR is what happens absent a budget ("we will continue to spend money as per our previous commitment")
without a budget and without a CR I'm pretty sure the federal government doesn't have much authority to spend money.
Seruko on
"How are you going to play Dota if your fingers and bitten off? You can't. That's how" -> Carnarvon
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
The budget is the next thing on the docket for the Senate. They have weeks until that imaginary deadline hits anyway, don't they?
Edit: Further, the funding CR is for the current fiscal year. The Budget is for next fiscal year, starting in October I think.
CR dead line is the 27th of March and the period is 28 March - Oct 1st I believe
this is the first deadline that is not imaginary.
The CR is what happens absent a budget ("we will continue to spend money as per our previous commitment")
without a budget and without a CR I'm pretty sure the federal government doesn't have much authority to spend money.
I was referring to the "Pass a 'Budget' or we dock your pay" deadline. Which checking now is April 15, so lots of time.
Though we are all missing something, we got a CR like a week before the absolute last second! That's an improvement!
Posts
Dumb as fucking hell to agree to more fucking tax cuts at all, because the ones the GOP push for are the ones that hurt revenue the most and help the economy the least.
pleasepaypreacher.net
With this congress? A proposal like that, coming from the Dems, would get thrown out before it was even mentioned, then dragged through the mud, only to be gloriously reanimated in pretty much the same form a couple of weeks later by Team Chucklefuck because you see Obama is never serious about cuts, ever, and he has to be taught a lesson by real Americans.
I got a little excited when I saw your ship.
BOTP'd
Also, just to say it, if you do (1) you cause the housing market to collapse again, and plunge us right back into recession. (2) would break the most fundamental promise Obama made during the ACA negotiations. (3) is great policy, but there is literally no way that we will see either party confront organized religion head on. So in the end, a promise to end loopholes is really just a promise to collect an insignificant additional amount of taxes from specific groups that don't have enough clout to lobby effectively. There is no way to fix the economy or pay down the debt on that kind of money.
As soon as a Democrat proposes eliminating tax loopholes, the Republicans will suddenly decide they love those loopholes and how dare you attack small business!!!
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
pleasepaypreacher.net
I'd argue for killing the charitable donation exemption or at least seriously rewriting it. So many ultra wealthy people and corporations runs tons of cash into bullshit charities that do nothing to avoid taxes.
You're not watching enough CNN
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
Alternative snarky answer.
Yeah neither is the majority of america.
pleasepaypreacher.net
When Paul Ryan submitted his budget two weeks ago, it was verbatim his budget platform that lost the election.
I continue to be legitimately shocked that the GOP has seemingly not only learned anything from the 2012 massacre, but seems to think that continuing to press those losing issues will work.
It's like hearing before the rematch, the coach of the team that lost 50-14 telling the reporter that his gameplan hasn't changed.
Texas A&M fans should find this analogy fitting.
Sadly, this might work in the midterms.
My hope is that low turnout won't give the GOP another suite of victories, but ugh...it's hard to get people animated and out for mid term elections.
Like Mitt Romney's little scam on the side with the Mormon church. Though that was a piddly sum of money compared to what he supposedly has hidden off-shore.
pleasepaypreacher.net
*flees*
Eh, just as OT as half the posts already in the thread.
Speaking of Barry O, apparently the PotUS limo broke down in Israel because some fool put in the wrong gas or something. I'm sure tomorrow's Fox & Friends Outrage will be about the millions of dollars we spend flying the president's car around.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Obviously Obama's car doesn't run off gas of the holy land because he is a Muslim.
pleasepaypreacher.net
This should mean that they're not getting paid. Since they have to pass a budget by law or their pay gets cut.
How much you want to bet we get a clean repeal of that while sequestration keeps on going strong?
pleasepaypreacher.net
I thought that pay cut thing was unconstitutional since that specifies congress can only change the pay for future congresses not their own
I didn't see where it went to court, but maybe.
It hasn't gone to court, but its clearly unconstitutional. In a way its an example of all the gop's bullshit. Something clearly against the rules and they do it anyway because fuck you.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Edit: Further, the funding CR is for the current fiscal year. The Budget is for next fiscal year, starting in October I think.
That's what you get for swapping Town Cars with Caddies.
So, we'd set up some kind of metric which measures a few things
i) Mean income of top 0.1 %/ Median Income
ii) Unemployment
Current taxes are X. As either of these numbers decreases then taxes go down on incomes above $250K. If they go up, then taxes rise. If you drive down unemployment but do so by hiring people at low wages, then taxes stay the same. If you drive up the median income by firing people and making the remainder work harder, then taxes stay the same.
Oops.
pleasepaypreacher.net
They'll care about it when an asteroid hits their city.
Dear Republicans: Stop Running Candidates That Can't Win
It's adorable. It really is. And it makes a kind of refracted-through-a-broken-prism kind of sense. Her message to the GOP is to stop running such shitty candidates. She mentions people like Todd Akin, Dick Mourdock, Linda McMahon, and Tim Scott as the kinds of pariahs the party needs to leave hanging in the sun for the crows. Which is great, because I think you'll find most progressives agree with Ms. Coulter on this issue: These candidate do indeed suck!
The problem for Anne here is that she thinks these candidates suck because they're unelectable, while everyone else thinks these candidates are unqualified. It's a hairline difference, but an important distinction, because Coulter doesn't actually seem to disagree with these candidates on any particular issue (or at least, she doesn't take any time in her scrawlings to delineate, though she may be anti-pro-rape), she just thinks they're shitty at running for office.
And this is the microcosm of the entire GOP right now. There's tacit acceptance that they're doing SOMETHING wrong, and that they're running some real loser candidates, but no one can agree on what exactly is wrong or if they actually think those loser candidates are off-message. No one in the GOP seems to be mad that Todd Akin shit out of his mouth on national TV about a subject he has no information on despite a strong opposition of it (a typical conservative trait), they're just mad that it was so public and that people like Mitt Romney had to stand by him because *partisanship*.
So what is Coulter even saying? Does she want candidates who hold different beliefs than people like Mourdock and Akin? Or does she just want them to be more PR savvy? It seems mostly like the latter, which will continue to be more difficult in this age of transparency and constant news cycles. Because people will eventually ask questions, and I don't think the GOP is ready for that yet, which is likely a problem of their being generally old obstructionist geezers. In short, it seems like a bad tack to take, and not just a little like putting their head in the sand; more accurately, it seems like Coulter is hoping her GOP cohorts running for office can find somewhere to bury their own heads until the election is over. Because even though Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan showed its fallibility the first time around the block with it, this is the GOP's new plan: Shut The Fuck Up.
What's your stance on abortion, Senator?
Shut the fuck up.
And how do you feel about gay rights?
Shut the fuck up.
Increasing corporate and capital gains taxes?
Shut it all right the fuck up.
Civil infrastructure?
The. Fuck. Up.
The trick, see, is not to change the message, even if the public doesn't want to hear it and our own party members can't hold to it. The trick is to give the opposition nothing to attack you on other than being completely witholding of all positions and platforms.
Adorably, she goes on in the article to point to the Democrats and MSNBC as to how to properly abandon "bad" candidates, saying that the Dems basically stick their losing candidates on an ice floe out to sea, citing John Edwards and Howard Dean as her proof of theory. Well, I'd argue that John Edwards' status as a persona non grata in the Democrat media sphere probably has a lot more to do with being a two-time loser with limited political experience who cheated on his dying wife while stealing campaign contributions than it does the Democratic Party's vigilant removal of persons unable to win elections. Because you know who is really big in the Democratic Party lately? Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden, both losers of elected office campaigns. And that John Kerry fellow? He's doing okay, I hear. Much like that Krystal Ball woman.
Funnily enough, a broken clock is right twice a day, so I guess Anne Coulter had one coming. But I have to wonder, if all these people are doing it wrong, your Akins and Mourdocks, your Tim Scotts and Linda McMahons and Christine O'Donnells, your Karl Roves and John McCains and Sarah Palins . . . if these are the ones "damaging the brand," what does that say about the brand? Better yet, who else ya got?
this is the first deadline that is not imaginary.
The CR is what happens absent a budget ("we will continue to spend money as per our previous commitment")
without a budget and without a CR I'm pretty sure the federal government doesn't have much authority to spend money.
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
I was referring to the "Pass a 'Budget' or we dock your pay" deadline. Which checking now is April 15, so lots of time.
Though we are all missing something, we got a CR like a week before the absolute last second! That's an improvement!
pleasepaypreacher.net