Taxes

[old_tony]

First, any story that blames the media in the first five words already exposes its bias.

Second, the group they cite has received $10 million from conservative organizations. Find someone with a little less bias next time.

National Bureau of Economic Research - SourceWatch

Oh, and third, I don't see why conservatives were up in arms over it. After all, it was the result of deregulation, with is a conservative mantra. You know, less government involvement and all that, except for women's wombs.

Your refusal to address what's actually in the story is duly noted. You can't afford to admit the truth.

 

[Baron Scicluna]

Your refusal to address what's actually in the story is duly noted. You can't afford to admit the truth.

The truth is that "story" and "study" come from biased sources. The truth is that banking regulation is necessary. The truth is that Republicans are against regulation and have said so numerous times.

Find some unbiased sources and unbiased stories, and find some Republicans who admit that government regulation is necessary.

 

[User 11148]

Of all the stupid **** you've posted over the years Baron, that's right there at the top. The NBER is about as gold standard as it comes. Notable alums include arch-right-wingers Paul Krugman and Christina Romer.

 

[Baron Scicluna]

Yo, Baron, your retorts have nothing to do with my points.

The Bush cut from 39.6 percent to 35 percent for top-earning households, in fact, has expired. But it still stays flat from the arbitrary top threshold of $434K or so. Where are the pro-taxation people among the liberal elite who, if consistent, should be pushing for the progressive rates to continue beyond that cutoff, escalating at $500K, $1M and each million or half-million after that?

If you want to pull back the super-wealthy like lobsters crawling out of the pot, that's where liberals should focus. But their own kind at the top won't even lead the way by stroking checks for what they "would" owe under such a system. Why not, if it's so righteous and government is the way to answer all questions?

You seem to want to have it both ways regarding rates on those making less than $434K or so. You grumble about "righties" who didn't want those cuts to go away, but credit "lefties" who only were concerned about people who lost their jobs. I would say that hiking rates on folks making low six figures isn't going to help the economy. And studies show that folks on unemployment hit the job market FAR MORE SERIOUSLY the closer they get to their benefits expiring. Human effing nature.

Finances are a lot like George Carlin's drivers to a lot of folks: Anyone making more than you is "rich." Anyone making less is "poor."

As for the impact of tax-rate cuts on job creation, the science on that hardly is settled, to use the asinine phrasing re: climate change. But it's been demonstrated to take place time and again.

There was seven applicants per job opening at the worst of the Recession. Extending the unemployment had little to do with encouraging the unemployed to find work, BECAUSE THERE WAS NO WORK TO BE FOUND (see, I can do the all caps thing, too).

As far as why lefties don't push for higher rates, they don't because the rightties, and their Koch-supported propagandists, will lie and say they're raising everyone's taxes. Even though they're only raising it for a certain few. Give them equal time on the airwaves and you'll be seeing a much different tune.

As far as tax cuts/job creation, how's Kansas doing right now with that?

 

[Joe Williams]

You mean Ohio?

And since when do the "righties" control the mainstream media. Radio talk shows tilt right, every other freaking mainstream outlet -- newspapers, network news, what's left of magazines -- are self-appointed palace guard for the left.

How 'bout you leave the other guy's money alone and go get more of your own? How 'bout you don't buy votes by promising goodies from welfare to longer unemployment to "free" health care to cell phones to now Internet access and so on? Covetous *******.

 

[Baron Scicluna]

Of all the stupid **** you've posted over the years Baron, that's right there at the top. The NBER is about as gold standard as it comes. Notable alums include arch-right-wingers Paul Krugman and Christina Romer.

For being a gold standard, they sure do have their critics:

Stop Telling Canards About CRA - Bank Think Article - American Banker

"Federal Reserve economists have demonstrated that only 6% of the high-cost, high-risk mortgages made at the height of the subprime boom were made by banks in their CRA-eligible markets."

And here's another critic. I will readily note that it is from a liberal site. He discusses the methodology.

Blaming the Victim, Redux: More Hijinx Around the Causes of the Financial Crisis | Ray Brescia

And another one who notes that the study itself admits the CRA is supposed to be used for "safe and sound" investments, and that if the banks engaged in "risky lending", they were doing it against the CRA.

The latest failed effort to blame the Community Reinvestment Act for Accounting Control Fraud - New Economic PerspectivesNew Economic Perspectives

Which brings me back to the point of regulation. Who are the ones who always insist that regulation is bad. It's not the Democrats.

I will admit that I might have been off about the political affiliation of the think tank because I went with a source that did point out the conservative funding of the tank. But considering the "story" that Tony provided, which I note, that nobody seems to refute my point about its bias, you can't blame me for considering the sources that the writer was using as biased as well.

 

[MisterCreosote]

How 'bout you leave the other guy's money alone and go get more of your own? How 'bout you don't buy votes by promising goodies from welfare to longer unemployment to "free" health care to cell phones to now Internet access and so on? Covetous *******.

 

[Baron Scicluna]

You mean Ohio?

And since when do the "righties" control the mainstream media. Radio talk shows tilt right, every other freaking mainstream outlet -- newspapers, network news, what's left of magazines -- are self-appointed palace guard for the left.

How 'bout you leave the other guy's money alone and go get more of your own? How 'bout you don't buy votes by promising goodies from welfare to longer unemployment to "free" health care to cell phones to now Internet access and so on? Covetous *******.

What's the latest internet meme, six corporations own 90 percent of the media, or something like that? Thank deregulation again. Besides, what you think is liberal is quite frequently called being objective. You know, that conservative paper which just reported about Hillary and the emails. If anything, they bend over backward giving conservative voices a chance to speak their minds, even when their bull**** is debunked. Then when their BS gets reported, such as that sicko Arkansas legislator, his friends start whining about the media.

How about the other guy quit whining over sacrificing a few points for his taxes when there are plenty of brave men and women who are sacrificing a lot more. Especially when those taxes help create a much more civil society than in the past, when people who did fight to earn more money were beaten up and killed by their bosses' goons, who were quite frequently the police who were sworn to protect and serve everyone. Want to get rid of welfare and unemployment? Fine. Have fun during the next fiscal crisis, when you have families sleeping in parks.

Speaking of buying votes, remind me again which party believes giving money is free speech again?

Oh, BTW, that phone thing started during Reagan.

 

[DeskMonkey1]

Wow, i didn't even make close to $50,000 grand before taxes last year.