It's Monday. Back to work, you!
A Knoxville, TN man opened fire 
on a Unitarian church, killing two. The police found a note in the suspect's car that described the reason for the shooting: the church was part of the "liberal movement".
The Senate is taking up the co-called "Coburn Omnibus 
" bill this week. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) has used informal parliamentary procedures called "holds 
" to delay the voting on quite a few pieces of legislation that have broad majority support. Majority Leader Harry Reid has decided to roll all the legislation currently under hold by Coburn into a single bill and have the Senate consider that.
Comments :
Thank God for Tom Coburn
His antics continue to guarantee that Alabama does not have the worst member of the United States Senate.
qui tacet consentire
In a roundabout way,
Coburn's strict "No" policy has likely increased government spending compared to the bills he has been trying to block. Cost-Benefit analysis be damned, "No means no"
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Injured vets tell VP to go Cheney himself
Link
Perhaps he could also require them to submit their prosthetics in advance for security screening. You never know when one of those whiney liberal defeatists might blame Big Dick for getting his leg blown off in an unnecessary war.
One of them might stand up and say, "Hey, I lost my arm while I was looking for those WMDs you said were definitely there."
Can't have that.
qui tacet consentire
Still alive
I am, rumors to the contrary, still alive. I still have my kids (leaving mid august) and just enjoyed a nice birthday weekend (I'll assume your presents are in the mail).
In the meantime here are a couple of pretty cool CRS reports:
Costs of major US Wars. IN inflation adjusted dollars Iraq has cost us as much as Vietnam (648 billion vs. 686 billion) despite Vietnam being the far longer conflict. If you add Iraq and afghanistan together the "war on terror" has cost us more than any war except WW2. The report also provides the cost of the war as a function of GDP. Not surprisingly the recent misadventures are less of a fraction of GDP than vietnam, but not much less (1.2% vs. 2.3% ) which is kind of a surpise given how much our economy has expanded since the 1960s.
China Naval Modernization: Implications for US Naval Capabilities. This is a subject I find pretty interesting and mentioned here.
Enjoy.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Happy birthday!
Aren't our interactions here with you present enough?
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
I like rubies...
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
I always loved FAS
As for China attacking Taiwan, I don't think they were go to war with an ally of a major economic market anytime soon.
Just in case, make sure there are a bunch of Harpoons
and the like to knock Chinese ships out of the water and a lot of AA weapons, maybe give another country a bunch of Stingers 
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
The mainland government has tons of pride. So it'll bluster,
bloviate and howl about Taiwan. In the end, they'll do the expedient thing and just up and buy the island.
But I would sell Taiwan the missiles to defend themselves.
Bombs in Baghdad
Seems sort of familiar, neh?
Story
Now I have no ideas if the turkmen are capable of pulling off such a pretty sophisticated attack, or if they are likely to. I can say this sort of smells like the Golden Mosque attack used to stir up problems between Shia and Sunni elements.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Hmmm
Shia and Kurds attacked, but not Sunni.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Herd instincts
Herd instincts
Kevin Drum remarks (vis a vis the credit market evaporating):
Yeah, pretty much. I've been known to giggle like a schoolgirl when people use the term "wisdom of crowds."
(emphasis added)
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
I *heart* Wyden
from the FAS blog on government secrecy.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Liberals Can't Be this Bad
..well at least the ones here shouldn't be.
I participated in the Platform process for the first time--Obama has opened the platform process up to "the people," and we had several breakouts surrounding the traditional Democratic ideals: Health Care, Education, Affordable Housing, Economic "Equality", and a newer one--political conduct (basically how to infiltrate political machines.)
I led the discussion on education. People have this sense that I sound convincing, but I doubt it. Anyway the group left with a fairly new look at education (at least for Democrats)--I was able to get public charter schools as a portion (not private schools, not vouchers, although I support those).
As soon as I brought it up to the main platform group, I couldn't get the word out..I said char-- and heard "No" "Uh-uh" "Take that down" (I didn't). No one from our group spoke up.
I resisted the urge to throw up my hands and ask "What do you suggest?! More money?! Quicker Tenure?! " But what came out was "I understand we have some points of contention, but check out this section on more money for teachers.."
Other things I learned:
- if you charge a dime more than $500 for housing in Manhattan it's not "affordable."
- A proposal for a "federally funded health insurance program, because "universal" health care was not seen as viable by some of the working group's members. However, somehow the entire group agreed the best program would be partially funded by "taxpayers" and partially by "the federal government." I almost lost it when I saw that one.
- Someone proposed a 70% tax rate on "the rich," as a 'compromise,' because in the 1940's it was 90%. Instead of hearing peals of laughter, I heard "they can afford it!"
Political conduct breakout was perhaps the most interesting, because I got to learn about the interworkings of political machines, and was awe-inspired by the barriers put in place by both parties, but especially by city democratic clubs.
Amazing learning experience though--I now have a firmer understanding of where I fit politically. I have video and photos up from the weekend for those interested.
http://wealthweekly.blogspot.com
Wii FC:2805-8311-8040-2678
Brawl: 2277-7051-2186
Heh.
Part of the problem is a highly polarized environment. When I hear anything about "charter schools" or "vouchers" it sets off enormous warning flags that the person has exactly 0 interest in education and only cares about "drowning government in the bathtub."
Now that's not really fair, well intentioned people can think that either of those ideas has merit, but there are so many bad faith actors pushing both solutions that it becomes very hard to entertain any such suggestions.
It's not unlike discussing reasonable restrictions on abortion- damn hard becasue so many view "reasonable restrictions" as merely a back door way to ban the practice.
So while I sympathize with your frustration I also think maybe the liberals are less deserving of the blame on that score.
Were they talking about for low income families? I pay about twice that per month and I know portland's cost of living isn't anywhere close to NYC's.
Well technically the Feds do have revenue that doesn't come from taxes (fees and so forth) but yeah, it was probably a function of muddle thinking.
I take a utilitarian view point. As I see it, the purpose of taxation on the rich is to prevent income inequalities which destablize democracy. So then the answer as to what tax rate is enough is "when it prevents the rich getting richer faster." If that's 70% so be it. It probably isn't though. Especially since what you need is less a jump in income tax rate (which is not where the wealthy are typically making out like bandits) but rather a change in taxation of investment income.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Agreed
Not only is the short and long-term capital gains rate too low, there aren't enough tax brackets. There should be about a 1% increase every $100,000 of income over and above $500,000 leveling off somewhere around 60% or so.
And then, I've heard that simply plugging loopholes and odd deductions and adjustments to income that only hit a very few rich people would be more than enough. Marginal tax rates might not need to be increased (and could possibly be decreased) if there were less loopholes.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Sounds good, but...
to me the thing is we should not be raising rates until the government finds a way to control its spending. It's like we're enabling prodigal kids to spend taxpayer money on building monuments to themselves instead of putting the money towards its proper use.
As for capital gains taxes, I'm a bit agnostic. If anything, I don't see much wrong with tying the cap gains rate to the regular tax rate (about 25-35%) although I don't prefer it. 60% seems a bit steep to me, but if I can put my money in my IRA post-tax (Roth IRA) I'll be much more willing to go along with it. I'd rather them tax my money now than paying a much higher tax rate upon retirement.
http://wealthweekly.blogspot.com
Wii FC:2805-8311-8040-2678
Brawl: 2277-7051-2186
I've said before
that I'd support a very carefully drafted balanced budget amendment.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Cap gains should be taxed more highly than labor
I'd be more than happy to exempt large amounts of money for IRAs. I'd actually be willing to exempt all IRA contributions of taxes for all time, subject to limitations on who is eligible for IRAs.
With respect to trying capital gains to the ordinary rate, I don't necessarily have a problem with that. Capital gains should never be lower than the ordinary rate for sure. Taxes on labor should always be lower than taxes on "investments". This seems to be self-evident to me.
And of course, spending is always an issue. I'm for whatever raises the most revenue. I'm very nearly for a type of Ron Paul shock treatment: tax everyone at normal rates for a year but zero out all non-discretionary spending for that year.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Socialists masquerading as Liberals
Unfortunately, many self-identifying Liberals believe that they are Liberals precisely because they are proponents of policies such as high marginal income tax rates and robust social welfare programs including all the big ones already in place plus new ones such as a program for government funded health care for all. This is quite simply not the case. There is nothing within the traditional Liberal philosophy of individual freedom and equality of opportunity for all under the rule of law which would necessarily require an individual to subscribe to these kind of socialist policy positions. Nor is there any part of Liberalism which would necessarily preclude charter schools.
A 70% marginal income tax rate, on the other hand, could be seen as quite an infringement on individual freedom because it so punitive towards private accumulation of wealth above a certain level. In that respect, I believe it's the most anti-liberal policy position amongst those you mention. I believe a nation which is truly protecting the individual liberty of its citizens should ideally be characterized by a great deal of class mobility, whereas punitive marginal income rates actually protect the privilege of "old money" at the expense of new, emerging entrepreneurs.
I believe that your a la carte approach to issues and general political philosophy places you amongst the True Democrats-- the true Liberals-- who are usually outnumbered by the garden variety populists/quasi-socialists in gatherings of self-identifying Democrats, but produce an outsized amount of the fresh thinking in the party.
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
taxing the rich *decreases* class mobility?
I don't see how you can support that. A high, even punative, tax rate on the wealthy serves to move money from those that are already at the top, making it more accessable to those below.
That can only help social mobility (in both directions, allowing the industrious poor to rise and the idle rich to sink).
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
It's a high marginal income tax we're talking about...
...not a high wealth tax. You can live in a 100 room castle filled to the rafters with gold bars and pay no income tax at all and thus send not one flake of gold to the government in the form of income tax, while an entrepreneur who is striving to become that rich thru his or her own efforts can slave for 16 hours a day to try to get there, and according to you apparently, the fact that they only get to keep 30% of the marginal fruits of their labors (minus state and local taxes of course) doesn't represent a hindrance to upward class mobility beyond a certain point!?
And the tax money would not be "made more accessible" to the lower classes exactly. The bulk of the money would go to reinforce the safety net with niceties such as universal health care, so that in theory the baseline class would be raised all at once, one time. But this also does not increase class mobility, and in fact the number of people who were satisfied with the baseline class and never moved above it would be greater than with the prior, less robust safety net. Fewer people would feel the urgency to strive for higher class levels, as more basic needs were met. Likewise, people from higher classes would have less far to fall when they fell on hard times, as they hit the higher social safety net.
I'm not saying that raising the social safety net by soaking high earners would not benefit many people, but it would certainly decrease class mobility, don't kid yourself.
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
Three things
1) I pointed out that what we really need is not a high income tax rate but a change on investment taxes.
2) with regards to this:
Well, yeah. If the guy is making 15 million dollars a day I don;t think keeping 30% of that is any hindrance at all to his social mobility. Nor do I think you do either. Now if the guy was making 40 grand a year, that's a different story. But we weren't talking about 70% taxes on the middle class. We were specifically talking abbout them on the wealthy, extremely wealthy, and obscenely wealthy.
In other words by the time you hit the high tax rate you are already on the top. Making it easy for you to go up isn't social mobility it is concentration of wealth. Or plutocracy, take your pick.
3) with regards to this:
Well I don't see how you can be so sure it will go to safety nets, and even if it did that still helps social mobility. The rich are vastly more likely to leave resources tied up in investments that really benefit no one but themselves. On the other hand the poor and middle class are vastly more likely to need to spend the money that they get, even money made available due to safety nets taking on other responsibilities.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Good to be back and see that nothing's changed with you, Tlaloc
You did?
There's a lot of middle ground between an income of 15 million a day-- $5.47 billion per year-- and $40,000 per yer. I don't think anyone in our country has $5.47 billion in income in a typical year anyway, though I could be mistaken about that. If someone did earn $5.47 billion in a year, I would say that yes, they would indeed be at the top of the class food chain, even with a 70% top tax rate. But to make any real money from a top marginal tax rate, you can't just single out income over $5 billion-- you might have to step in the top tax rate at something more like $1 million, and at that point you are most certainly hindering the 'wealthy' from stepping up to the 'extremely wealthy', and the 'extremely wealthy' from achieving the pinnacle of becoming 'obscenely wealthy'.
The obscenely wealthy have a pretty darn good track record of philanthropy, by the way. There seems to be a peer pressure thing going on amongst multi-billionaires, or maybe it just feels good to do good deeds and help people, go figure. The two wealthiest Americans, Gates and Buffett, are dedicating themselves to giving away the vast majority of their fortunes to worthy causes. There's something that feels fundamentally better to me about a country where a simple but smart man like Buffett from Omaha, Nebraska, can become the richest man in the world and give it away while he's still alive and kicking than a country with a government that goes to its most successful entrepreneurs every April, asks to see the sum of their labors from the previous year, and then counts through it all, portioning it out: "three for me, one for you; three for me, one for you..."
We've gotten ourselves in a budget mess, and I might reluctantly admit that the top rate may need to be raised, hopefully just temporarily, while we return some sanity to the insane Bush era budgets. But the top marginal rate should never ever be 50% or above under any circumstances. Government must tighten it's belt and not look for the easy way out by punishing success.
I can't, but I'd wager that Mr. TheyCanAffordIt wants it to go into the safety net in large measure.
See, your problem is that you see only one side of "investment". Money is not "tied up" when it is invested, and in fact it is FREED up-- for use by the ultimate recipient of the investment. Your job would not exist without such investments. Our standard of living which has seen average lifespans nearly double in a mere century and which we enjoy luxuries and possibilities that would have been considered ludicrous fantasies by our ancestors has been made possible by aggregated capital and streamlined investment processes.
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
I am consistent if nothing else
:)
It was up thread a little bit. Here's the direct quote:
"As I see it, the purpose of taxation on the rich is to prevent income inequalities which destablize democracy. So then the answer as to what tax rate is enough is "when it prevents the rich getting richer faster." If that's 70% so be it. It probably isn't though. Especially since what you need is less a jump in income tax rate (which is not where the wealthy are typically making out like bandits) but rather a change in taxation of investment income."
I don;t disagree with that. Where we disagree is whether gradations of "wealthy" and the ability to change same really qualifies as "social/economic mobility."
Or maybe they just have guilty consciences. I'm not familiar enough with Buffett to know if he's earned one. Gates does. And a pirate who gives away 5% of what he's stolen isn't a philanthrope. He's just a pirate with good PR.
Ask yourself this- do you really believe the government of the united states has less than 50% to do with the fortunes of the rich who reside here? Do you think Gates could have done nearly so well in Paraguay or China? I doubt it. That being the case then why shouldn't they pay their fair share for the tremendous advantages they have taken advantage of so lucratively?
The US is an economic theme park. Taxes are your admission fee. People who want the all day pass pay more.
Equality always seems like a loss to those who were the winners before. The secret is that it isn't a loss, because they aren't always going to be winners.
The rich want government funds in safety nets by and large? That's news to me.
Depends on the investment, as well as the ultimate destination. Gates investing in a plant in Tokyo does nothing for people in the US, whereas that same money, taxed and redistributed to US citizens, would. This is an example of what I mean. Joe Blow is very unlikely to take his refund check and run off to invest in foreign markets, or to hide assets in offshore accounts. Most everything he spends recycles right back into the nation. Gates on the other hand is a very different story.
Maybe, but I doubt it. And if it is so then I'd still much rather see a hundred investors with 1 grand each than one investor with 100 grand. It works better. And it is more stable.
Which a point that always seems under-appreciated in these arguments. You can only push income disparity so far before the masses decide enough is enough and pull another french revolution.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Teddy loved Robber Barons, damn Liberal with a stick.
If social mobility is brought up as a reason for higher tax rates, I'm sure that most "higher tax for the rich advocates" would support some kind of tax deduction or credit for sole proprietorship or partnership for most gross/net income. It sure would be hard for the anyone in the lowest 20% to start a business, regardless.
And Tlaloc mostly brought up the point that "the rich" make out like bandits in capital gains, which isn't what you brought up about social mobility.
I don't see the upper 40% needing too much of a "safety net" the way the lowest 40% would.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
I hate how unsurprising this garbage has become
emphasis added to intensely creepy interview question.
Kevin drum excerpts a part of the full report to give a sense of just how blatant this politicization of the DoJ was:
It is *exactly* like the Iraq reconstruction- the mission is treated as a vehical for promoting their partisan ideology and not an end unto itself.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
How do you think Karl Rove was going to get a permanent
republican majority? By balancing the budget? By ideas?
No, he had more practical considerations in mind. La Casa Nostra sounds more like his way of doing things.
Robert Novak Has a Brain Tumor
Seriously.
But let's stay cool all.
http://wealthweekly.blogspot.com
Wii FC:2805-8311-8040-2678
Brawl: 2277-7051-2186
Actually
It does explain how he could hit someone with his car and not realize it.
qui tacet consentire
This is funny!
Could It Happen to You
It is the economy, stupid.
Boy Meets World
I wouldn't be surprised if every actor in there was from some nearly forgotten esoteric basic cable show. MoveOn can't even get B list celebs.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
What about the 'chick'
That's an Oscar winning peep.
It is the economy, stupid.
I don't know what to say
Via Cunning Realist:
Story
Apparently the wife handled the family's finances and the husband had no idea they were bing foreclosed on. Guess he's got a lot to deal with right now. At least her son is grown (24) and not a kid.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Bush feels her pain
Link
qui tacet consentire
Carolina Love....
SC judge banned from bench after racial comment
.
Has "the left" gone too far in their PC correctness once again?
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
I'm no fan of PC
but I don;t see how this can be qualified that way. The Judge's comment (apparently to the effect that crack is "a black man's disease") indictates a pretty clear prejudice in viewing the matter, and that matter may well be important to his job.
Put it this way, why would a black defendant accused of selling crack think he would get a fair trial before that judge? Given the statement doesn't it seem likely that a hispanic, asian, caucasian, or even female crack dealer is more likely to get off?
Personally I think it would be adequate for the judge to recuse himself from cases involving crack cocaine, but I can see where people might wonder what other prejudices he holds but hasn't vocalized.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
It always depends on intent
It would depend on the intent of the judge's words.
If he intended to disparage black people, then he should be removed from office. If he had no such intent he should be censured and taught that such language is usually offensive to people.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
I don;t think disparagement is the issue
so much as simply being prejudiced. The judge seems to be suggesting that crack is specific even exclusive to blacks, and depending on how he meant the term "man" maybe even specific to black males. That's a serious misunderstanding of reality, and the fact that it is phrased in a manner that sounds an awful lot like a value judgment means it is hard to trust that the judge is really a fair arbiter of matters that involve blacks.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
I think the clincher is that he made this offensive comment
while on the job (he was discussing a warrant
). If he had made the remark casually on his own time, I might be inclined to give it a one-time pass in terms of career repercussions if it were not part of a greater body of evidence of racial bias, and he issued an apology and an explanation. But to make such a comment, even one time, on the job, as a judge, shows bias and an uneven temperament which makes him unfit for his duties.
But you've got to wonder what a guy like this was thinking, to make that kind of remark in a judicial setting-- it's almost as if some folks who reach a certain position of power begin to feel invincible and feel the need to prove it to themselves by engaging in reckless behavior. "Am I really a god now and can get away with anything? I think I am a god! But just to prove it, let me take this bribe and see if anything bad happens to me. Let me use this 'escort service' and see if anything bad happens to me. Let me make this offensive remark in public and see if anything bad happens to me."
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...