Political Roundtable - Part VI

[noworriesinmd]

Hand's, re your California comment.

I go to Cali a lot and I have friends who never would have considered leaving Cali...doing just that because of the tax situation.

Dig deeper, (none of these are opinion pieces...just the facts)
* http://articles.latimes.com/2013/may/02 ... t-20130503
* http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/gov ... -to-burst/
* http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/ ... ED20130918
* http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... 20105.html

This is tax planning AND the wealth effect from a couple of high profile IPO's (i.e. facebook).
If you don't believe in the IPO effect look at Federal Tax revenue during the dotcom boom in the 90's (when we started having surpluses).
The California tax "windfall" should disappear and be a "one time" event.

Many financial planners discourage fixed income ppl from moving to CA. That said, I have not seen any reports that prove that millionaires are leaving CAli in droves (time will tell). I do know that Accountants are working overtime and once you can't deduct these taxes from your federal taxes....that is when we'll see how California holds up to the next tax regime.

A + B does not always equal C.

[noworriesinmd]

hands, not picking on you...just bored.

I don't want to debate ACA (i.e Obamacare). However it is wrong to say those things about the R's when D's do the same thing. Messaging is just better.

No matter how you feel....
How is it right that the Employer mandate has been delayed for one year, but the Individual mandate is required for you and I starting in October. And noncompliance is a $95 fine or 1% of our salary...how is that right and just.

It appears to me the difference between you and I is that WE don't have lobbyist.

Politicians pick and choose their facts. For example...my mom is a small business owner and her rates have gone down. However I have friends in the service industry that are in their 20s-30s whose rates would triple if they enroll in a bronze plan.

I'm not debating what the Rs are doing, but you can't claim Ds being righteous when we've been been so brainwashed that we don't know when we've been dumped on.

[hands11]

Don't want to get into any argument about left/right, but I don't like how politicians on both sides "twist" facts.

Hands, your statement about that the deficit is going down is a strawman.

Pretend 10 year period.
My income never goes up during this period and I make $50,000..however my lifestyle is at $60,000
Year 1-9, I rack up 90,000 in CC debt.
In year 10, I cut my spending...and proclaim victory because instead of going into debt at the rate of 10,000 per year...I'm doing it at a rate of 8,000 (58,000 year). You're still in bad shape and it''s nothing to brag at.

PLUS, you still have to pay back another 98,000 in debt....which at 58,000 per year is looking impossible.

Our warped sense of deficit reduction is spending "less", but still spending above our means vs paying off current and past debts. How we get there can be debated...but I consider the above required progress but FAR from victory.

Its no strawman and I didn't claim victory. I was celebrating the success we are having which has been significant success. Significant as in.. historically significant.

Like the Wizard wont go from bad to title contender, you don't go from huge annual deficits to surplus without getting decreasing deficits first. WE HAVE DECREASING DEFICITS and decreasing at historic rate. This is the fastest they have fallen in 60 years.

Something that doesn't make it out of the background noise machine of the Rs because they always have the stereo cranked up (it's their strategy) and now they have it blasting. Rs are great at implementing psychological warfare on American. Thats why their constituents regularly present a higher percentage of the misinformed and some of that does leak out to the general public.

The annual deficits as a percentage of GDP has gotten better in part because of the tax increases which lead to increased net revenues. So your example where your income didnt go up doesn't fit here. Its is getting better because of spending cuts and revenue increases. Thats the way to do it. That is the position the Dems have had. The Rs position is tax spending to the rich and cuts to the poor.

The way to do this even better is the get the economy growing faster. To do that, you want government spending in the right places. Infrastructure would be one of those right places. You can't cut your way out to prosperity. Ask any business owner. That is a diminishing returns model.

You also want to address inefficiencies which is a big part of what Obamacare is doing. Medical was a huge drag on the economy and a huge projected problem to the debt. People going bankrupt because of medical issues was an issue. Job mobility was an issue. Insurance companies skimming way to much profit was an issue. It sucked to much disposable income out. Having to many sick is inefficient. Treating the problems and not preventing them is inefficient. Fighting the insurance companies was a huge waste of human capital. Its better we have our people being productive and healthy. Not slaves to the medical industry. Sheep for them to feed off of.

There is a ton the ACA is going to do to help society, the economy, the deficits and individuals and their families. Its also going to make us more globally competitive. Is everyone going to win. No. Really if ever is that the case. What you want is way more winners than losers and that is what we are going to get. And Rs know it. They got on the wrong side of this issue and employed a failed short sighted political strategy. Now they are just trying to avoid paying the price for that. That and we are watching Bauhner trying to save his job. If not, he would put the clean CR up for a vote and we would move on. Much of this is us watching the R party infighting over who controls the party. That and them trying to no pay a political price for taking the wrong side of this issue.

The exchanges open Oct 1. Even if you don't need to use then, everyone should check them out so you can see what they are and see the prices. As an American, a good family member or good friend, you might want to talk to people and share the facts about what this program is. Specially to people you know will benefit from it. For me personally, nothing will change. That true of most people. Like 85% of us.

Exchanges open Oct 1, 2013
The exchanges close March 31, 2014

Spread the word. Post this link on your facebook. Its the law so best you know what's going on.

https://www.healthcare.gov/
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/10-things- ... =20345355#

[hands11]

hands, not picking on you...just bored.

I don't want to debate ACA (i.e Obamacare). However it is wrong to say those things about the R's when D's do the same thing. Messaging is just better.

No matter how you feel....
How is it right that the Employer mandate has been delayed for one year, but the Individual mandate is required for you and I starting in October. And noncompliance is a $95 fine or 1% of our salary...how is that right and just.

It appears to me the difference between you and I is that WE don't have lobbyist.

Politicians pick and choose their facts. For example...my mom is a small business owner and her rates have gone down. However I have friends in the service industry that are in their 20s-30s whose rates would triple if they enroll in a bronze plan.

I'm not debating what the Rs are doing, but you can't claim Ds being righteous when we've been been so brainwashed that we don't know when we've been dumped on.

Sure, I will give you my take on your questions. Hopefully I'm accurate to the facts.

As for what I said about Rs an what I see going on. I have been a political junky for a long time. Just giving my take on things. I was a Libertarian and 3rd party supporter when I was 20 years old and most people had no idea what they stuff was. One thing I have found true over time is this, the majority of people don't follow any of this and have no idea what is going on. Thats just people in general. Its all just to confusing for them. They would rather go to Starbucks or WallMart. Hell, I do and its hard for me to keep up with it all.

I do try to call it as straight and honest as I can. It may seem harsh to Rs right now, but I think harsh is warranted regarding them as a political party and their actions. I have been harsh on dems in the past. But as a party, right now, they are looking pretty good. They still are a little weak on messaging but they have gotten better. Since Clinton, the Dem party has been way better then the R party. Hands down in my view. The Rs haven't just been bad since then, they have been a train wreck. Actually, they have been a train wreck since Nixon, but that's another story.

Anyway. Here is my take on your ACA questions.

1) How is it right that the Employer mandate has been delayed for one year, but the Individual mandate is required for you and I starting in October. And noncompliance is a $95 fine or 1% of our salary...how is that right and just.

My answer: I think part of this is politics regarding the employer mandate. Enough larger powerful voices chimed in ( for political gain or rightfully..who knows ) and since that was connected to employment claims, it wasn't worth the PR fight when we all can see how ugly the fight is even without that part. Rs are still claiming job loses even though there isn't even an employer mandate until next year. Imagine if there was one this year. Only 2% of companies with >50 employees don't already offer insurance. So what they would contribute to the funding is very small. Specially when their is still an individual mandate. Its a crumb. Beside, those uninsured are still going to be able to use the exchanges to get covered. Their employers just aren't helping, which they weren't before. Delaying the >50 corporate mandate was smart. So was not allowing the Dems to include a single payer government option right now. That would have made things more politically messy as well. Even as the law is, which is well written, Rs are still trying to club it like a baby seal.

So it happened like that because it wasn't worth the fight over having that mandated this year. It was both a compromise and politically smart for Obama to give ground there. Getting the ACA through this exchanges phase is a big enough political fight as it is. We can all see that.

The reason there is a fine is because you are not adhering to the law. That happens when you break the law. Everyone needs to be insured. Because hospital don't turn away the uninsured, we were all playing for this anyway. If you choice not to sign up for a plan, we are all paying for you anyway. The way to enforce this is to make you pay something anyway and the best easiest place to do that is when you file you taxes. I don't know all the details of how they can get people to pay if they lie on their taxes or don't file, but with most things, you can only do so much to keep people honest. People will find ways to work around the system.

2) Politicians pick and choose their facts. For example...my mom is a small business owner and her rates have gone down. However I have friends in the service industry that are in their 20s-30s whose rates would triple if they enroll in a bronze plan.

Answer. I need to do more research on this part. What I think is happening is in part because the plans those people had where more like term life insurance. They aren't getting the same level of coverage and protection they are getting in a Bronze plan. Those plans had caps on spending so after they ran out, we were all covering that person. We as a country were subsiding those plans. But it wasn't done directly. Also, they couldn't get a similar plan to what they had once they actually used it for something significant and then had a preexisting condition. They could get kicked off those plans. Plus, those old plans rate would go up if they really used them. None of that is true now.

And, what they see as the price of the bronze plan isn't what they are likely to spend on it .. NET. When they file their taxes if they don't make enough, they will get REBATED. They need to look at that part of as well.

The exchanges open on Oct 1. I would be interested in hearing more about what your friend discover when they get signed up. What did it end up costing ? Did they see how much would be rebated when they signed up ? What did their old plans cover and what do the new plans cover? Again, the new plans have no cap on benefits and no preexisting conditions. Two things those old plans didn't have. Are any of your friends able to get coverage that couldn't before ?

If you could keep up posted on their experience once they use the new system, that would be appreciated.

Hope my answers helped clarify things.

[Induveca]

This is a fight over taxation, period.....still

US hovers at a 40% taxation rate for corporations, companies such as Applied Materials (and many others) are fleeing the US to take advantage of 0-20% corporate tax rates. Trillions of dollars derived from US based companies are kept offshore, uninvested to avoid the 40% hit. Apple for instance simply deposits tens of billions per year overseas and reaps a 7-8% gain on their investment. There are trillions of corporate dollars sitting outside the US in legal shell companies doing business as subcontractors.

Obama is funding all of his programs supposedly "off the backs of the rich". Fact is, it's a truly global economy and to bring any funds home to the US and NOT reinvesting them overseas would equate to an immediate 40% tax in the US.

Simple math:

Leave profits outside US:
25,000,000,000 sitting overseas at compounded interest over five years turns into 36 billion.

Bring profits home (as of today)
25,000,000,000 immediately becomes 15,000,000,000.... -40% from day one

A corporate accountant would NEVER suggest repatriating corporate profits with the current setup. It makes more sense to leave the US altogether for vast portions of a company's business. 21,000,000,000 difference there.

Here's a crazy idea, lower the corporate tax rate for repatriating funds for TWO YEARS to 10%, instead of 40% and trillions will flood the US market. Leave it at 40 and all Obama's administration is doing is pushing more companies out of the US while maintaining their "corporate presence".

The idea that "corporations" will fund social programs with this type of aggressive push is misinformed, and shows the general lack of experience in corporate matters within the Obama administration. My 2 cents.

[hands11]

This is a fight over taxation, period.....still

US hovers at a 40% taxation rate for corporations, companies such as Applied Materials (and many others) are fleeing the US to take advantage of 0-20% corporate tax rates. Trillions of dollars derived from US based companies are kept offshore, uninvested to avoid the 40% hit. Apple for instance simply deposits tens of billions per year overseas and reaps a 7-8% gain on their investment. There are trillions of corporate dollars sitting outside the US in legal shell companies doing business as subcontractors.

Obama is funding all of his programs supposedly "off the backs of the rich". Fact is, it's a truly global economy and to bring any funds home to the US and NOT reinvesting them overseas would equate to an immediate 40% tax in the US.

Simple math:

Leave profits outside US:
25,000,000,000 sitting overseas at compounded interest over five years turns into 36 billion.

Bring profits home (as of today)
25,000,000,000 immediately becomes 15,000,000,000.... -40% from day one

A corporate accountant would NEVER suggest repatriating corporate profits with the current setup. It makes more sense to leave the US altogether for vast portions of a company's business. 21,000,000,000 difference there.

Here's a crazy idea, lower the corporate tax rate for repatriating funds for TWO YEARS to 10%, instead of 40% and trillions will flood the US market. Leave it at 40 and all Obama's administration is doing is pushing more companies out of the US while maintaining their "corporate presence".

The idea that "corporations" will fund social programs with this type of aggressive push is misinformed, and shows the general lack of experience in corporate matters within the Obama administration. My 2 cents.

Come on. You know damn well 40% is not the effective tax rate for corporations. Stop the spin.

One thing you got correct though is that it is in large part about the rich. But not as it relates to job creation.

Here is simple solution to your outlined issue. Change the tax laws so Apple gets no benefit for doing that. You want to play here, you have to pay here. Then what would they do ?

As for addressing tax structures, we still need to do that. Maybe we could be doing that instead of this stupid nonsense. But of course that's dreaming because no way the Rs would negotiate anything that makes sense out of the house.

I welcome this government shut down for one main reason. Rs are going to pay the price come the midterms. Then maybe we will find a reasonable partner on the other side to develop reasonable laws. The way I see it, its only a matter of time until their power diminishes and we can start getting things done again.

[montestewart]

I'm not sure what the point of the hypothetical 40% tax rate is, since virtually no corporations pay that, and the average effective tax rate is FAR below 40%.

As much or more of the reason for locating outside the U.S. (and generally outside of developed countries) is to dodge regulations and take advantage of cheap labor. I hear in some places, it doesn't take too much cash to grease the wheels either. The rapid advances in communication and the global transportation network have enabled many U.S. and European companies to relocate much of their operations far away from strict regulations and high labor costs, and simply transport end products into wealthy markets with taxpayer subsidized distribution networks.

[Induveca]

Repatriation of funds whether at 40 or 30 percent is far worse than collecting 6-8 percent letting funds t overseas in glorified merchant accounts for a subsidiary. You don't necessarily need much of any staff.

Too many variables here, but worked with enough of these companies to realize just how complicated it gets. Check out Apple's overseas tax setup. Arguably the most complex accounting setup in corporate history. Setup almost exclusively to avoid the repatriation of overseas profits.

[noworriesinmd]

Its no strawman and I didn't claim victory. I was celebrating the success we are having which has been significant success. Significant as in.. historically significant.

Like the Wizard wont go from bad to title contender, you don't go from huge annual deficits to surplus without getting decreasing deficits first. WE HAVE DECREASING DEFICITS and decreasing at historic rate. This is the fastest they have fallen in 60 years.

This line is BS (not directed toward you).
What is a bigger percentage drop:
2-1 = 1 (50%)
8-2 = 6 (25%)

Your reduction is talking about the 6 in historical terms.

Our GDP is growing...so this is just spin.

The annual deficits as a percentage of GDP has gotten better in part because of the tax increases which lead to increased net revenues. So your example where your income did not go up doesn't fit here. Its is getting better because of spending cuts and revenue increases. Thats the way to do it. That is the position the Dems have had. The Rs position is tax spending to the rich and cuts to the poor.

Not true, as someone who reads FT, WSJ, IBD daily and who watches Bloomberg & CNBC all day long (my job), Tax increases have helped...but the biggest factor in government revenue has been an "improving" economy. When more people are employed revenue goes up. When 401k's appreciate and housing values go up...something called the "wealth effect" takes over and people spend more...causing more government revenue.

The way to do this even better is the get the economy growing faster. To do that, you want government spending in the right places. Infrastructure would be one of those right places. You can't cut your way out to prosperity. Ask any business owner. That is a diminishing returns model.

Please site your sources, for this statement. If you do a little research, you'll actually find that the majority of businesses trading on stock exchanges have cut their way to prosperity. If you read or watch any financial paper/show, this is called "productivity" gains. Most companies have cut to the bone. This is the most profitable period of time for companies in a long time and most F500 companies have the fewest employees in years.

You also want to address inefficiencies which is a big part of what Obamacare is doing. Medical was a huge drag on the economy and a huge projected problem to the debt. People going bankrupt because of medical issues was an issue. Job mobility was an issue. Insurance companies skimming way to much profit was an issue. It sucked to much disposable income out. Having to many sick is inefficient. Treating the problems and not preventing them is inefficient. Fighting the insurance companies was a huge waste of human capital. Its better we have our people being productive and healthy. Not slaves to the medical industry. Sheep for them to feed off of.

Not sure what you are saying here...mostly a rant. Single Payer is the only way we can truly cut costs, however their are some downsides to invoking this policy. 90% of American's (# I made up), probably don't fight with insurance companies annually. I would argue that the most stark outcome of ACA will be spousal healthcare inequality...where one spouse has really good coverage, while the other does not..and the two can't be reconciled because companies are pushing spouses off plans.

There is a ton the ACA is going to do to help society, the economy, the deficits and individuals and their families. Its also going to make us more globally competitive. Is everyone going to win. No. Really if ever is that the case. What you want is way more winners than losers and that is what we are going to get. And Rs know it. They got on the wrong side of this issue and employed a failed short sighted political strategy. Now they are just trying to avoid paying the price for that. That and we are watching Bauhner trying to save his job. If not, he would put the clean CR up for a vote and we would move on. Much of this is us watching the R party infighting over who controls the party. That and them trying to no pay a political price for taking the wrong side of this issue.

[/quote]

I would argue that ACA is a coverage bill and not a cost containment bill. Ds are choosing to talk about favorable numbers (ignoring Rs because we know where they stand) and they ignore the other #'s that don't support their case. The savings that our President talks about...is fuzzy math. CBO projected that insurance would cost x. Instead it actually costs y. However y is still more than z, which we payed in the past. The savings that the President is talking about is y and not z (the number I care about).

Example:
CBO projected - 100 per month
Actual cost - 90 per month
In the past - 50 per month.

The president is talking about the $10 in savings, but ignoring the increase of $40.

[noworriesinmd]

Hands, I can't take you seriously when you state the ACA is a well written law. It is a horribly written law.
It has carve outs to special interests. A lot of the regs have not been written and are up to interpretation. The employer mandate could not be implemented because employers don't know how to implement it (those are facts).

In terms of waiting to implement the employer mandate, it is wrong. HR plans have to be made in advance. So many HR departments are implementing changes now.

The reason why costs for insurance is going up for low income and young people, is because most companies can't provide micro plans anymore. (I believe McDonald's got a waiver). A lot of people go the ER to get treatment, however I would argue a low percentage of these people are 20 somethings.

Repatriation of funds, to spur capital investment, is stupid. I used to be for it, however interest rates are so low that Companies are borrowing money or floating bonds to make capital investments. (see apple). Any large repatriation of funds will probably go out as a dividend to shareholders...which I have no issue with.


The Corp tax rate issue is complicated. However, F2000 companies have very low tax rates, however small businesses have LARGE tax rates. IBM or GE pays an effective rate rate around 20, whereas a 50M a year small business pays 40%. The issue is the small business tax rate. People look at the biggest companies and say they don't pay a lot...that is the top 0.5% the other 99.5% pay a lot in taxes.

[hands11]

"Not true, as someone who reads FT, WSJ, IBD daily and who watches Bloomberg & CNBC all day long (my job), Tax increases have helped...but the biggest factor in government revenue has been an "improving" economy. When more people are employed revenue goes up. When 401k's appreciate and housing values go up...something called the "wealth effect" takes over and people spend more...causing more government revenue"



Yes, a growing economy can greatly reduce the debt. The middle class tax cuts we have still in place are really expensive. A 1% increase in GDP greatly lowers the annual deficits. I can't remember the estimated number but it was significant. Thats why we should be focused on growing the economy, not shutting down the government which is only going to hurt the economy.

Yes, I am very aware of the wealth affect.

I think part of what you are mentioning here regarding housing getting better is that fannie paid a big chuck in taxes when things got better. Also, people being less upside down or even rightside up in their homes helps a lot. Property tax, wealth effect, etc. etc.

I understand its a complicated formula of where the tax revenues come from. Middle class, capital gain, corporate taxes, etc.etc. And all of that is helped when a healthy economy. But the new tax law passed are helping as part of that formula.

I'm all for a greater number of people paying their share while also curtailing the most wasteful of government spending and investing and better programs. But you can only cut government spending so quickly and so much. You can't simply cut your way to prosperity ( government/macro economy). You have to also grow yourself to it.

"Please site your sources, for this statement. If you do a little research, you'll actually find that the majority of businesses trading on stock exchanges have cut their way to prosperity. If you read or watch any financial paper/show, this is called "productivity" gains. Most companies have cut to the bone. This is the most profitable period of time for companies in a long time and most F500 companies have the fewest employees in years."

Right. Well in part right. You make a huge mistake when you equate our government/macro economy to a private business. There are some similarities but there are also some vast differences. But yes, companies did do that and it did help their bottom line. I didn't say you can't cut and it wouldn't help. But that approach has it limits and their are diminishing returns. Just like their is a multiplier effect, there is a demultiplier effect.

At the end of the day, they need to sell their good. That means someone needs the purchasing power to purchase them. Maybe I should have said it better as, you can't exclusively using cutting measures for long term prosperity. Not even in individual company can do that. And I was talking about the government and the macro economy, not a individual private company. You sound like you are smart enough to understand how they are different.

To your last remark saying that we are paying more so the projected decrease doesn't matter. I think you are missing the bigger picture. The bill is self funded. There are lots of numbers you can look. One of the easier ones that projects the net effect is the CBO score that say the ACA will reduce the deficit. You have to look at more then one bucket of spending. You need to look at that aggregate.

Economies are complicated things. Extracting the net positive effect of the ACA isn't easy. Just like most economic projections. Its not a 1 in 1 out model. But it clear what we had been doing have massive increasing cost and not increasing benefits. We we all paying for the uninsured indirectly anyway. This is a more efficient model. Give it a chance before passing a judgement. The core of it hasn't even kicked in yet.

[hands11]

Hands, I can't take you seriously when you state the ACA is a well written law. It is a horribly written law.
It has carve outs to special interests. A lot of the regs have not been written and are up to interpretation. The employer mandate could not be implemented because employers don't know how to implement it (those are facts).

In terms of waiting to implement the employer mandate, it is wrong. HR plans have to be made in advance. So many HR departments are implementing changes now.

The reason why costs for insurance is going up for low income and young people, is because most companies can't provide micro plans anymore. (I believe McDonald's got a waiver). A lot of people go the ER to get treatment, however I would argue a low percentage of these people are 20 somethings.

Repatriation of funds, to spur capital investment, is stupid. I used to be for it, however interest rates are so low that Companies are borrowing money or floating bonds to make capital investments. (see apple). Any large repatriation of funds will probably go out as a dividend to shareholders...which I have no issue with.


The Corp tax rate issue is complicated. However, F2000 companies have very low tax rates, however small businesses have LARGE tax rates. IBM or GE pays an effective rate rate around 20, whereas a 50M a year small business pays 40%. The issue is the small business tax rate. People look at the biggest companies and say they don't pay a lot...that is the top 0.5% the other 99.5% pay a lot in taxes.

Let agree then that we don't take each other serious because with you answered and approach to interacting with me and my comments, I don't take you serious.

I never said it was well written or not. I didn't say it can't be improved. That is a strawman.

Your HR comment is valid. I should have considered that. My bad. But again, this affects 2% of the companies with over 50 employees.

[dobrojim]

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/359264

The New York Times yesterday highlighted shocking under-reporting of accidental gun deaths of children in America. The newspaper compiled a report on this problem going back to 1999 which highlights inaccuracies in official statistics quoted.

Frankly I am not the least bit shocked. This is completely by design.
It's part of our national pathology. Under-reporting is of great value
to those who want to continue to profit from the sale of guns. One
can only hope there is a special place in hell for these people.

[noworriesinmd]

hands I like reading your stuff, especially for the Wiz

[noworriesinmd]

Before I get started, my family was directly effected by gun violence that took away two people I loved a lot.

HOWEVER, guns have always been available in this nation. What has changed?

* Sensationalization of the reporting of violence.
For example, crazy could not get a crazy idea...but now the seeds are planted via 24/7 cable news
* Realistic Video Games and Movies
Before I read this, I was thinking to myself...why so many horror movies? It seems that is all they are releasing now.
* Decrease in mental health spending.
St. Elizabeth closed and many homeless people have some issue

I'm for some gun control, but I don't think the selling of guns is the reason why crazy people are walking into [name place] and killing people.

Also, ask the Urban residents of Chicago if gun violence has changed. The only reason why this is an issue is because it is going to the burbs vs effecting low income people.

[Zonkerbl]

This whole episode troubles me -- doesn't a minority have the right to stand their ground on issues that they feel really strongly about? Isn't that what we spent a large part of the sixties fighting for?

The riots of the sixties did more damage to the poor populations that were rioting than to anybody else. It looks like the Tea Partiers are prepared to do the same thing over the debt limit -- to show their commitment to their core beliefs, they are willing to basically set off a nuclear bomb in the middle of the economy. And the Republicans, being the party that basically represents rich people, will be hurt the most by the fallout.

I sympathize. On an intellectual level. But, you know, I really don't want some terrorist setting off a nuclear bomb in DC, and I don't want the Tea Partiers to set off an economic nuclear bomb either.

[Zonkerbl]

On a completely unrelated note, I remember that Karl Rove's strategy in 2004 was to appeal to the conservatives of the Republican party. Basically, why try to appeal to independents, where you're not sure exactly what they want? Whip up the extreme right over gay marriage, though, and you know what you'll get. Using his very careful statistical analysis, he apparently had a good idea of how many votes he would get per dollar spent everywhere in the U.S., and he whipped up those hard core conservatives good, so good that he created the Tea Party in 2010, which apparently is in the process of destroying the U.S. economy and is more than likely bringing the Republican party down with it.

Amazing how much damage Karl Rove and Bush did the economy already, and yet we're still getting little "payoffs" from them.

[Zonkerbl]

You know, I take it back. We spent a large part of the sixties fighting for the rights of minorities, precisely so they WOULDN'T have to use riots or violence or terrorism to get what they want.

So what the Tea Partiers are doing now is completely unforgivable.

[hands11]

This whole episode troubles me -- doesn't a minority have the right to stand their ground on issues that they feel really strongly about? Isn't that what we spent a large part of the sixties fighting for?

The riots of the sixties did more damage to the poor populations that were rioting than to anybody else. It looks like the Tea Partiers are prepared to do the same thing over the debt limit -- to show their commitment to their core beliefs, they are willing to basically set off a nuclear bomb in the middle of the economy. And the Republicans, being the party that basically represents rich people, will be hurt the most by the fallout.

I sympathize. On an intellectual level. But, you know, I really don't want some terrorist setting off a nuclear bomb in DC, and I don't want the Tea Partiers to set off an economic nuclear bomb either.

"This whole episode troubles me -- doesn't a minority have the right to stand their ground on issues that they feel really strongly about? Isn't that what we spent a large part of the sixties fighting for? "

Zonk, your not seeing what is really going on. Its understandable. That has been a lot of noise. But I have already outlined this.

No, the house should not be doing this. Its not the way things should be done. And its politically stupid.

Can they do it. Clearly they can. But lets look at the obvious.

One government position and one platform was voted on by all of American. That is the Presidents job and it was his agenda.

The Rs ran on a platform and lost. They also lost house seat. They also got less total votes for those house seats that were voted on. THEY HAVE ZERO MANDATE TO DO THIS.

Can they do it. Its appears so. Do they have any political grounds to do it given the past election. NONE AT ALL. And they are about to play a huge political cost for them immaturity and stupidity. This will hurt the economy if they shut down part of the government. But this will get taken care of by out election process.

They are playing their last cards in hopes that some miracle happens between now and when they lose even more power then they have already lost. Its a plan I guess. Just not a very good one. But they will continue to lie, lie, and lie some more until we make them pay the price for their childishness.

[hands11]

On a completely unrelated note, I remember that Karl Rove's strategy in 2004 was to appeal to the conservatives of the Republican party. Basically, why try to appeal to independents, where you're not sure exactly what they want? Whip up the extreme right over gay marriage, though, and you know what you'll get. Using his very careful statistical analysis, he apparently had a good idea of how many votes he would get per dollar spent everywhere in the U.S., and he whipped up those hard core conservatives good, so good that he created the Tea Party in 2010, which apparently is in the process of destroying the U.S. economy and is more than likely bringing the Republican party down with it.

Amazing how much damage Karl Rove and Bush did the economy already, and yet we're still getting little "payoffs" from them.

right. He is a turb blossom

I got a question. Why is Woody doing on the house floor? I liked him in Cheers. When did he turn into a lying POS