Condescension, Flaming, Politics (in that order) Here

by **dajafi** » Thu May 14, 2009 16:50:19

TenuredVulture wrote:It's an open question if this hurts Hendren's chances for the Senate.

I saw that earlier today, and was wondering if this undid whatever advantage he might have held in the race for the Vulture Vote.

by **TenuredVulture** » Thu May 14, 2009 16:51:50

dajafi wrote:
TenuredVulture wrote:It's an open question if this hurts Hendren's chances for the Senate.

I saw that earlier today, and was wondering if this undid whatever advantage he might have held in the race for the Vulture Vote.

It does. His "explanation" makes it even worse. But I don't think he's counting on the vulture vote to put him over the top.

by **dajafi** » Thu May 14, 2009 16:51:58

As for the soda tax... Paterson proposed this in NYS a few months ago and I was against it. Now that it's the feds, I'm kind of between indifferent and supportive. I'd like to think there's some justification I can point to beyond "Obama good, Paterson bad," but...

by **dajafi** » Thu May 14, 2009 16:53:11

TenuredVulture wrote:
dajafi wrote:
TenuredVulture wrote:It's an open question if this hurts Hendren's chances for the Senate.

I saw that earlier today, and was wondering if this undid whatever advantage he might have held in the race for the Vulture Vote.

It does. His "explanation" makes it even worse. But I don't think he's counting on the vulture vote to put him over the top.

C'mon, you know Andy Griffith hated those fucking Jews too...

by **TenuredVulture** » Thu May 14, 2009 16:55:28

dajafi wrote:
TenuredVulture wrote:
dajafi wrote:
TenuredVulture wrote:It's an open question if this hurts Hendren's chances for the Senate.

I saw that earlier today, and was wondering if this undid whatever advantage he might have held in the race for the Vulture Vote.

It does. His "explanation" makes it even worse. But I don't think he's counting on the vulture vote to put him over the top.

C'mon, you know Andy Griffith hated those $#@! Jews too...

That did seem to be the implication.

by **kruker** » Thu May 14, 2009 16:58:31

That Hendren statement doesn't help with my impression of Arkansas, especially after that Nate Silver speech I posted a few weeks ago.

by **Werthless** » Thu May 14, 2009 17:13:34

dajafi wrote:As for the soda tax... Paterson proposed this in NYS a few months ago and I was against it. Now that it's the feds, I'm kind of between indifferent and supportive. I'd like to think there's some justification I can point to beyond "Obama good, Paterson bad," but...

With me, it's the opposite. I'd rather some bankrupt local area do something stupid than have it be federal policy.

by **jerseyhoya** » Thu May 14, 2009 17:24:27

Democrat Joe Torsella will be dropping out of the Pennsylvania Senate race by tomorrow, according to two well-placed Democratic source, leaving Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) with no serious opposition in the Democratic primary – at least for now.

Torsella, the former head of the National Constitution Center, was seen as a formidable candidate when he entered the race in February -- and began the campaign with behind-the-scenes support from Gov. Ed Rendell (D-Pa.).

But after Specter announced he was switching parties last month, most of the Democratic establishment rallied behind the senator, making Torsella’s path to the nomination very difficult.

by **dajafi** » Thu May 14, 2009 17:29:24

Werthless wrote:
TenuredVulture wrote:Why not just end the subsidy on corn, and call it day?

That would make too much sense.
Soda is so cheap these days (at the grocery store, a 2 liter costs a buck or two) that it's hard to argue that increasing the tax a few pennies will make much difference.

I don't think opposition to this tax is one of "affordability."

Edit to add: It's funny. If all of the governments -local, state, and federal- just took 1 tax and divided up the revenue, the American people would rebel. I just don't think people realize the extent to which taxes are taken from our wallets. As it stands now, governments scheme to nickel and dime us into paying taxes in such a way that no single tax is an onerous amount. Taken collectively (excise, income, sales, property, capital gains, social security, payroll), people tolerate the level of taxation.

I'm not sure the public wouldn't prefer the simplicity, particularly considering that such a "super-tax" (now there's a name to make a focus group cry) almost certainly would be more progressive on balance than the current setup.

by **dajafi** » Thu May 14, 2009 17:31:04

Werthless wrote:
dajafi wrote:As for the soda tax... Paterson proposed this in NYS a few months ago and I was against it. Now that it's the feds, I'm kind of between indifferent and supportive. I'd like to think there's some justification I can point to beyond "Obama good, Paterson bad," but...

With me, it's the opposite. I'd rather some bankrupt local area do something stupid than have it be federal policy.

Why would a soda tax be "something stupid?" It seems less painful than most of the alternatives, and might even contribute to a drop in the diabetes rate and resultant public health expenditures.

by **CrashburnAlley** » Thu May 14, 2009 17:32:15

I don't feel like going back and quoting a relevant post but since I saw it discussed -- I love the soda tax idea. I don't know how you could be against it, unless you are flatly against all taxes. Wonder what Ron Paul has to say about it?

Or Stephen Colbert.

Lots of people buy soda, so there isn't a burden on any one selected group of people, and it's a quick and easy way to raise more funds. :idea:

by **jerseyhoya** » Thu May 14, 2009 17:33:15

Why target soda?

by **Harpua** » Thu May 14, 2009 17:34:47

So, if the soda tax actually happens, will we see parties of people tossing cases of Pepsi into bodies of water? Or just the bad, rip-off soda, like Dr Thunder?

by **dajafi** » Thu May 14, 2009 17:38:05

jerseyhoya wrote:Why target soda?

It's a non-essential good, and sort of a win-win (as with "sin taxes" in general): if people keep buying it, you've got a revenue stream, and if there's behavior change as a result of the (very small) price increase, you probably see better public health outcomes. Diabetes and obesity-related problems among the poor are expensive too.

Colbert's point was that if it's one cent for every four ounces, a 20-oz soda at the movies goes from $3.50 to $3.54. I guess that would thrill the penny lobby, but otherwise I can't imagine it would change behavior much.

by **TenuredVulture** » Thu May 14, 2009 17:42:10

Given that it will raise little revenue, but cause a political shit storm of stupid, I'd rather the idea just go away.

Seriously, if you really want to cut the consumption of sweets, end the corn subsidy.

by **pacino** » Thu May 14, 2009 17:54:54

Werthless wrote:There is a new demarcation between those accepting the recession's realities and those resistant to it.

Call it a tale of two economies. Private-sector workers -- unionized and nonunion alike -- can largely see that without compromises they may be forced to join unemployment lines. Not so in the public sector.
...
A study in 2005 by the nonpartisan Employee Benefit Research Institute estimated that the average public-sector worker earned 46% more in salary and benefits than comparable private-sector workers. The gap has only continued to grow. For example, state and local worker pay and benefits rose 3.1% in the last year, compared to 1.9% in the private sector, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).
...
Some five million private-sector workers have lost their jobs in the last year alone, and their unemployment rate is above 9% according to the BLS. By contrast, public-sector employment has grown in virtually every month of the recession, and the jobless rate for government workers is a mere 2.8%.

The conditionssurrounding the stimulus plan also perpetuate these realities, as the wages of public health care workers were deemed untouchable by the stimulus dispensers.

So what's your point?

by **dajafi** » Thu May 14, 2009 17:56:59

TenuredVulture wrote:Given that it will raise little revenue, but cause a political $#@! storm of stupid, I'd rather the idea just go away.

Seriously, if you really want to cut the consumption of sweets, end the corn subsidy.

I'd be very happy to see that, of course. But I guess what I'm unsure about (though willing to be convinced, and I'll admit not having followed the response to the proposal beyond Colbert's bit last night) is whether your two contentions (no revenue, lots of pushback) are accurate.

by **TenuredVulture** » Thu May 14, 2009 18:02:08

dajafi wrote:
TenuredVulture wrote:Given that it will raise little revenue, but cause a political $#@! storm of stupid, I'd rather the idea just go away.

Seriously, if you really want to cut the consumption of sweets, end the corn subsidy.

I'd be very happy to see that, of course. But I guess what I'm unsure about (though willing to be convinced, and I'll admit not having followed the response to the proposal beyond Colbert's bit last night) is whether your two contentions (no revenue, lots of pushback) are accurate.

I certainly could be wrong, but I remember back when the tax on toilet paper more or less sunk the Florio administration.

by **jerseyhoya** » Thu May 14, 2009 18:03:53

Florio Free in '93!

by **TenuredVulture** » Thu May 14, 2009 18:08:03

jerseyhoya wrote:Florio Free in '93!

Flush Florio is the one I remember.

The funny thing is that had Florio's tax plan stayed in place, the Corzine might not be in such trouble now.

Archived

Condescension, Flaming, Politics (in that order) Here