The KGB Oracle Forums General Public Discussion (SPECIAL ACCESS) KGB Political Debate Central How the world sees Republicans

In a country with informed population "look, they were willing to default on country's financial obligations to get their way" would be a death kneel to any party.

As to TP, here is my anecdote. A friend of mine was early TP activist/organizer. She distanced herself after 'big money' moved in, she tells me as soon as money started pouring in some expensive PR folks started running the show. According to her, her neck-of-the-woods TP now is 100% astroturf.

I dont mind them being willing to default. In fact, that was actually a lie - the govt wouldn't have and couldn't have actually defaulted- but in any case, I am all for it if its for the right reasons.

Remember, the opposite is also true - it takes two sides to default. BOTH sides have to be willing to play the same "my way or highway" game. The TP is no more responsible than Obama for that episode.

I dont doubt your friend, I know that has happened in many areas. As the people the TP elected drift further away from TP ideals, then we will see how people respond.

Rubio for example has already completely sold out, supporting both SOPA and McCains defense authorization provisions to completely eradicate the 4th Amendment. Bachmann is now on record as opposing keeping payroll taxes lower. We will see how it plays out.

It takes two sides to compromise, when GOP assumed "my way or highway" attitude blame is squarely on their shoulders. You can blame The Pledge, or Tea Party or anything else you want, but compromise doesn't work on "I get everything I want" principle.

Have you seen latest temper-tantrum from Republican Congress? "The measure, dubbed the Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny -- or REINS -- Act, would require Congress to sign off on any new rule estimated to cost more than $100 million."

If they had everything they wanted, there would have been no tax increases and a few trillion in cuts. Remember, they offered to do temporary measures to get more time but Obama said no. Only the most extremist partisan can lay blame on the GOP only.

Also, I dont know much about REINS - but it looks like a good idea. The Office of President was not designed to operate as a dictatorship. If the Executive wants to add massive new regulations, getting congress to sign off on it sounds like a pretty good idea really.

Though I will say I would have to read it and think it through before I could say anything for certain, so even though your blurb about it made it sound like a good idea I cant say that the actual legislation as written makes sense.

The whole rich not paying their fair share is bs.
Show me where the rich 250k and above pay less then say a 50k guy.
I already provided a link from the tax man that shows they pay not only their fair share but a higher percentage then the rest.

You are not asking right question. Have you ever considered why so few people are 'well off' these days and why every 'working stiff' can afford less than their parents and grandparents? Why families now have to have two incomes just to keep at the same level what 40 years ago took one? What we want is more well-to-do people, and one way to do it is to make it harder to accumulate more wealth by simply being wealthy in a first place.



I linked this graph many times, but somehow it end up ignored. This graph goes directly to the root of the problem. What it shows is that as of 2007 top 10% take more income home than entire bottom 90%. You can also look at this following way - bottom 90% families now earn less than ever before, and are poorer because of it.

The conclusions you have tried to draw from that data have already been soundly debunked. ( Your conclusions, not the data itself - contrary to the assertions you made elsewhere.)

Time for a new line of argument. Your refusal to process anything anyone says has been noted, and grows wearisome.

I did a little more digging on the graph - no wonder you draw such strong conclusions from it. I should have realized that the conclusions you were spouting werent your own, but rather talking points from an Obama book.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123681860305802821.html

No wonder you can quote data, but not interpret what it means in the real world. You let Obama do it for you.

Trying to make a MORAL case for taxation simply because some families have two incomes and/or live in high cost of living areas just wont ever fly.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/...0000-top-1-per/

You guys like the politofact truth o meter right? Have at it.

Have at it.

Looks like many of the same criticisms already raised, with the additional one of the fact that the graphs only goto 2007, which I had previously noted but not commented on because it would have required additional research - whereas there were plenty enough criticisms of your conclusions already.

rant/ WSJ opinion page - won't even read it, its a yellow festering rag rotting carcass of once-great newspaper. I won't read it because I still remember when WSJ had journalists with respectable (but right-leaning) opinions. These days they print climate change deniers, Palin ghost-writers and the like. You might as well link The Enquirer. /rant



Where is that roll your eyes smiley Jet promised? In case you can't tell - I am rolling my eyes at you. Trying to dismiss my opinions based on similarity to Obamas is laughable. Not only Obama not necessary wrong by a simple virtue of being Obama, but he too based his opinion on something, being The President, and no economist.

My case for progressive taxation is not MORAL, it is very practical in a "what makes most sense for the betterment of country" way. You don't have to look far or dig deep to see how dysfunctional current system is, so the only real question is what direction it must change. More of the same is simply not the answer. Reagan experiment run its course, was shown to be complete failure and we need to stop waiting for the trickle-down, because only shit flows down.

Very interesting, I was not aware of Obama using similar data, but it is not surprising at all, considering these are the facts. Even fact checkers (+1 on reading politifact) don't disagree with these statements, the only thing they find questionable are actual deviations from exact numbers used based on adjusting for various parameters. Politifact did not disagree with argument, they rated Half-True due to inconsistency in exact numbers, while admitting trend is there.