so these people would be happy with a something like a 20% sales tax on everything?

No, more like 30%.

and that's before state and city sales tax? I didn't realize anyone was pushing for that

dajafi wrote:Good times...

Signs in the crowd reflected the anti-government ethos of the movement, calling for spending cuts, an end to the “Marxist income tax,” and quoting the libertarian icon Ayn Rand. “Redistribute my work ethic,” read one sign. Others called for a Fair Tax — a national sales tax to replace the income tax — or to repeal the health care bill passed in March. “Down our throats on March 21st,” one sign said, “Up Yours on Nov. 2nd.”

But others reflected anger about illegal immigration — “Uncle Sam wants you to speak English,” read one — and the controversy over the planned mosque at ground zero, which many Tea Party supporters have rallied against. “Obama Creates Jobs at Ground Zero,” read one, over a picture of a mosque.

Speaker after speaker complained about portrayals of the Tea Party movement as extremist.

But signs in the crowd did not shy away from outright anger. “By ballot or bullet, restoration is coming,” read one sign, held over a yellow “Don’t Tread on Me” flag.

And as much as many Tea Party leaders have disavowed the “birthers” who question whether President Obama is a citizen, other signs in the crowd cast doubt on the validity of his birth certificate. “Undocumented worker” read one, over a picture of the president. “We don’t want a Kenyan reject,” read another.

Down our throats/Up yours is pretty funny, I have to admit.

Newt Gingrich: all class

Newt Gingrich said this weekend that President Obama exhibited “Kenyan, anticolonial behavior,” an observation that drew angry if puzzled responses from Democrats and questions about Mr. Gingrich’s meaning and motivation.

Mr. Gingrich, who is mulling a bid for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012, made the comments to National Review Online. He was quoted by the conservative Web site as saying: “What if [Obama] is so outside our comprehension, that only if you understand Kenyan, anticolonial behavior, can you begin to piece together [his actions]? That is the most accurate, predictive model for his behavior.”

Commenting on a recent article in Forbes by Dinesh D’Souza, Mr. Gingrich told National Review Online that Mr. Obama “is a person who is fundamentally out of touch with how the world works, who happened to have played a wonderful con, as a result of which he is now president.”

“I think he worked very hard at being a person who is normal, reasonable, moderate, bipartisan, transparent, accommodating — none of which was true,” Mr. Gingrich was quoted as saying.

What has he done that even could be argued as "anti-colonial"? He obeyed the Status of Forces agreement in Iraq, actually escalated in Afghanistan, and basically has kept the whole rancid Bush National Security State apparatus in place, absent an articulated commitment to torture. (I would guess we're still doing it, though.) Short of skull fucking captured terrorists, I'm not sure what more these guys could want.

Not that the facts matter one iota to Gingrich. Never have, never will.

Whoa... I thought Gingrich often looked pretty good in public appearances, but... he appears to be losing his grip.

All class, that Newt. Seriously, he's scum. Always has been, always will be.

dajafi wrote:
What has he done that even could be argued as "anti-colonial"? He obeyed the Status of Forces agreement in Iraq, actually escalated in Afghanistan, and basically has kept the whole rancid Bush National Security State apparatus in place, absent an articulated commitment to torture. (I would guess we're still doing it, though.)

I think this is a bit much.

Not to change the topic, but in terms of world class db's, does Glenn Greenwald break the mold? I mean, even when he's right, he's such a putz. Could one be around this guy for more than 10 minutes without wanting to smash his face?

jeff2sf wrote:

dajafi wrote:
What has he done that even could be argued as "anti-colonial"? He obeyed the Status of Forces agreement in Iraq, actually escalated in Afghanistan, and basically has kept the whole rancid Bush National Security State apparatus in place, absent an articulated commitment to torture. (I would guess we're still doing it, though.)

I think this is a bit much.

Not to change the topic, but in terms of world class db's, does Glenn Greenwald break the mold? I mean, even when he's right, he's such a putz. Could one be around this guy for more than 10 minutes without wanting to smash his face?

I think of Greenwald the same way I do the ACLU. Unpleasant, supremely self-righteous, but good to have around. The world needs unreasonable idealists.

So what's "a bit much"?

the bit much is that we're basically bush minus the up-front torture.

He's willing to engage with "the enemy", he's re-engaged Russia, he's kept to the timeline in Iraq (an open question on whether a Republican might do so). He's gradually unwinding Guantanamo, but of course, most states and politicians are getting in the way with a lot of NIMBY. Ok, he put forces in Afghanistan like he said he would all along.

Obama is a pragmatist. He has decided to not retroactively go after the war criminals. I could have told you that several years ago (I think I DID tell Buddy Groom that). He may when things settle down. He may not. "This is not what the country needs right now" can be an awfully unsatisfying reason for idealists, but it also can be 100% true. We've got enough problems going on right now.

Now, would it shock me if we're still doing some torture? Sadly no (but of course, we've probably done "some torture" since 1776). He's been a little too happy to invoke exec privilege/state secrets, the problem I have is that we can't know for sure that he's overly using the privilege since there really might be issues of nat'l security there.

It's amazing the mass of problems that were dumped in Obama's lap on day 1. He's trying to triage and doing a reasonable job in doing so.

Doesn't a left-leaning moderate "HAVE" to root for Castle? I mean, if we're not carrying the Democrats water, then the increased chance of a Democrat controlled Senate with ODonell winning does not make up for the chance of her actually winning the whole thing and being called a Senator. Right?

Houshphandzadeh wrote:so these people would be happy with a something like a 20% sales tax on everything?

If it meant paying no income tax - yes. Basically tax consumption with exemptions for things like food and other necessities. We're headed there anyway with all this talk of a VAT. May "only" be 5-10%, and that's on top of income tax. Buy your TV's now.

jeff2sf wrote:Doesn't a left-leaning moderate "HAVE" to root for Castle? I mean, if we're not carrying the Democrats water, then the increased chance of a Democrat controlled Senate with ODonell winning does not make up for the chance of her actually winning the whole thing and being called a Senator. Right?

O'Donnell has an almost zero chance of winning the general election. I could see an argument of how a left leaning moderate would want a moderate Republican like Castle in the Senate to join Collins, Snowe, Brown and possibly Kirk to form a serious, moderate blue state caucus in the GOP Senate caucus. I would not let O'Donnell's 1% chance of winning the general affect your calculus.

Houshphandzadeh wrote:and that's before state and city sales tax? I didn't realize anyone was pushing for that

i think it is definitely something that should be looked at or at least in some variation. i think our tax code should be simplified and when you have the mc courts not paying income tax since 2005 you know something is broke.



http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer


we could always call it a VAT and actually i think something like that would be less prone to the creation of an underground economy. maybe not totally get rid of the income tax, but definitely simplify it with no deductions.

no income tax >50k
>50k 5%
>150k 10%
>250k 15%

honestly i haven't gone through that entire site. i really do think there is a good compromise that could simplify things and take some ideas from BOTH the so-called left and right. hopefully something that can cut down on the cheats too. hopefully this would decrease the irs and their bureaucracy.

there still is the question of state and local government and their funding. i think it is definitely something that should not be dismissed whether or not the left wants to call it a VAT or the right a fair tax.

wouldn't a tax based on spending essentially doom our economy??

EDIT: I mean if the majority of our tax base was coming from spending-based transactions.

I'm for tax reform (is anybody not?), but the problem in getting it is the same problem inherent to any reform effort: the people whose ox(en?) would be primarily gored are politically strong enough to have gotten the code to where they want it in the first place.

I'd love to see Warren Buffett pay a higher marginal rate than his secretary, hedge fund managers be taxed at 35 percent rather than 15, the McCourts pay something, etc. But even that part won't be easy, and that's before you get into the really tough stuff like reducing or phasing out the home mortgage interest deduction, a VAT (which I predict would very quickly become the new locus for hideous complication and political gamesmanship), or whatever else.

Add in a miserably uninformed electorate--the people dressing up in wigs and tricorner hats to bemoan oppressive taxation almost universally don't know that we pay less in taxes than at any time in the last fifty years--and our shit-awful media culture, and it's hard to summon up much optimism on the prospects of meaningful reform.

Bucky wrote:wouldn't a tax based on spending essentially doom our economy??

EDIT: I mean if the majority of our tax base was coming from spending-based transactions.

they have a study that says it will actually increase spending with the extra income, but i really don't quite totally buy into it. i think if it makes people become a little more fiscally responsible and avoid debt that the rest of us wind up paying for in some form or another is a good thing long term. neither the government or individual should live beyond their means and that is what created this mess.

From a revenue perspective, a mix of revenue streams provides stability. Since state and local governments cannot really run deficits, they tend to rely on some combination of sales, income, use/severance, and property tax which in combination are more predictable than relying on one or the other.

The feds rely primarily on payroll and income taxes. (There is some money from corporate income tax as well, and a tiny sliver from tariffs and excise taxes) Some adjustment to the mix might not be a bad thing, but the devil is in the details. To flip entirely from an income tax to a consumption tax would be incredibly disruptive.

dajafi wrote:What has he done that even could be argued as "anti-colonial"?

Tricorne tax?

Just got a GOP push poll here in TN.

Stuff like, "If you were to learn that Jim Cooper has sex with monkeys and supported Obama's crippling deficit-inflating budget, would you be more or less likely to vote for him?"

I said I was Republican and answered everything wrong.