House GOP sacrifices progress for purity
By any rational measure, House Republicans were on the verge of a major accomplishment a couple of weeks ago.
Even though they held control of only one legislative chamber, they had backed President Obama into proposing a $4 trillion deficit-reduction package, including more than $3 trillion in spending reductions over the next decade. Enacted into law, it would have easily been the largest budget-cutting package in U.S. history. All they had to do was say yes.
But they could not bring themselves to utter that word.
Their victory, you see, must be absolute and total or it is not victory at all. A “win-win” outcome — fine for liberals and RINO pansies — is insufficiently decisive to those who feel morally obligated to turn politics into scorched-earth warfare. They are Harry Truman demanding unconditional surrender from Imperial Japan.
And they have the Bomb.
As a result, a historically significant reduction in the federal deficit and in once-untouchable entitlement programs had to be rejected, because in their minds its purity was tainted by an increase in taxes on the wealthiest of Americans.
In his latest column, David Brooks assesses the messianic radicals of the GOP with brutal clarity:
“They do not see politics as the art of the possible. They do not believe in seizing opportunities to make steady, messy progress toward conservative goals. They believe that politics is a cataclysmic struggle. They believe that if they can remain pure in their faith then someday their party will win a total and permanent victory over its foes. They believe they are Gods of the New Dawn.”
Well, they’re not.
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
621 comments Add your comment
Fred
July 19th, 2011
1:32 pm
Here ya go Paul.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AO43p2Wqc08
THE TRUTH
July 19th, 2011
1:32 pm
Can someone tell me what the Democrats or Obama has proposed as to resolving the debt ceiling.
F Troop
July 19th, 2011
1:33 pm
Two things:
Should the GOP give in a actually raise taxes on any kind of compromise deal with the Dems and the WH, it knows full well the Tea Party will revolt and will run a 3rd party candidate a la Ross Perot and a 2nd term presidency will be handed to Obama on a platter. I think that’s why they are going to the mat on this one. Without the Tea Party, the GOP won’t win the White House – but with the Tea Party it is hamstrung. It cannot be seen as compromisers with tax and spend Democrats (which is now about 75% of all the Democrats in Congress).
Secondly, I’m inclined to believe that job growth is priority one. I cannot imagine therefore – if I were wealthy enough – starting a business where my tax rate and health care expenditures would be so high that the profitable incentives to keep me wealthy and bring in more wealth would be defeated. As I see things high taxes are a defeater of private sector job growth, but a boon to public sector job growth. Yet on the other hand there has never been a government that was run as efficiently as a business. And while corporate profits are up these days, the storm clouds of government (more spending and Obamacare costs) threaten to tax away the profits. Who in this climate is inclined to put out a “Help Wanted” sign? I know I wouldn’t be.
DebbieDoRight
July 19th, 2011
1:33 pm
Those are the facts. And I have posted a plethora of incontrovertible other facts to prove their is a War on the Middle Class.
Facts+Republican Party = The Equivalent of Kryptonite on Superman.
Dave R.
July 19th, 2011
1:34 pm
“Has Paul been namejacked or joined the pitifully petty?”
Pious Paul is perhaps the least pitifully petty person on this planet.
Paul
July 19th, 2011
1:35 pm
@@
Follow this thru.
Some people who like Bachmann also support her belief some facets of their being are by choice.
They deny any organic/genetic/nonchoice component.
Yet when they encounter the reality their candidate has a condition characteristic of a small part of the population, they believe nothing she did or chose caused her to be who she is. It just ‘is.’
They deny she could choose to be migraine-free.
“Pitifully petty” applies to those who do not wish to confront the contradictions in their judgmental attitude, don’t you think?
MPercy
July 19th, 2011
1:35 pm
Paul @11:39 am “And he hasn’t proposed lowering the AGI back down to $288,350, which has the effect of shielding nearly a hundred grand from the higher rate.”
Inflation accounts for much of that lower limit on the bracket. $379,150 in 2010 is $302,520 in 2000 dollars.
I’m more than willing to revert to the Clinton rates *for everyone* just as soon as we revert spending to Clinton-era spending as well.
BRW
July 19th, 2011
1:35 pm
RB, You need to fire all those undocumenteds you just hired to empty your toilet. Seems it didn’t work out too well……
MiltonMan
July 19th, 2011
1:36 pm
Good to see the libs falling lock step with their GOP-hating Jay Obozoman
Paul
July 19th, 2011
1:37 pm
MPercy
That may be so, but I hardly think Pres Bush and Congress were thinking “hey, and let’s adjust the AGI level to what it will be in 12 years or so…”
MiltonMan
July 19th, 2011
1:38 pm
Libs definition of “shared sacrifices”: sock it to the evil rich
In the gold ole days this was known as socialism.
Paul
July 19th, 2011
1:38 pm
josef
“Are you intimating that I’m a headache?
”
For some on this blog, yeah, you are.
For me you’re more like a cure.
Neon Frog
July 19th, 2011
1:38 pm
Can someone tell me what the Republicans or Boehner has proposed as to resolving the debt ceiling?
BRW
July 19th, 2011
1:38 pm
MiltonMoron, Lock step is for you Gestapo types. We “skip the light fantastic” in our world…..
Brosephus
July 19th, 2011
1:39 pm
Okay, look at that $30,000 in “hand outs.” How much of it goes back into the free enterprise economy…you know, to the property owner, to the grocery store, to Dr. Jones,’ etc. At the end of the day, aren’t THEY the ones getting the welfare you speak of?
No they’re not. They work super duper hard to earn their money.
WOODSTOCK MIKE
July 19th, 2011
1:40 pm
“How do you know that? It’s never been tried………..”
I am speaking from a defecit standpoint which is what the debt ceiling talks are about. If you look at how much money is being brought in by the rich and you increase their tax rates by 5% the amount of increased revenue doesn’t address the deficit issues in any way.
Paul
July 19th, 2011
1:40 pm
Fred
Thanks! Heard some of the group interviewed on the radio the other day. During auditions, they were pretty much told ‘go over the top and you’re in.”
Dave R.
Thanks, but I can do without the initials “PP”.
jj
July 19th, 2011
1:42 pm
You may hate Cantor’s plan but at least he put one on the table. Boehner had a great line the other day where said he wanted a budget from OB, not another speech.
Dave R.
July 19th, 2011
1:42 pm
“Are you intimating that I’m a headache?
”
For some on this blog, yeah, you are.
For me you’re more like a cure.”
I can name one person on here who considers josef a headache. All josef has to mention is the “Late Misunderstanding” and off we gooooooo!
Fred
July 19th, 2011
1:43 pm
Excuse me Mike? More money to pay off the deficit doesn’t address it?
Explain that to me please. And don’t forget that implied in my question is HUGE spending cut, 3-4 trillion dollars worth……… (preferably 10 trillion lol but that would never happen).
AmVet
July 19th, 2011
1:43 pm
“Answer – Simple, they go by the laws that were created by both Democrats and Republicans.”
Cop-out answer. And unacceptable. Those laws that were utterly contrived in the first place MUST be changed, if there is ever going to be some blowback in the War on the Middle Class.
“Uh- because it is not true…”
And if you had any intellectual honesty at all, you would countermand them with other facts, figures, links and data.
You do not, because you cannot.
So you talk in fact-free generalities and give non-relevant, fact-free, simplified non-explanations that maybe perhaps applies to possibly some of those hundreds of thousands of examples and say, “See? There! Answered! Wasn’t that easy?”.
Useless…
Paul
July 19th, 2011
1:44 pm
jj
Do you have a link for Cantor’s plan?
josef
July 19th, 2011
1:45 pm
DAVE R
Yeah, that, too! Want a new thread? How’s this one, “Why are there no Sons of Black Muslim Civil War Veterans?”
MPercy
July 19th, 2011
1:46 pm
Soothsayer @11:40 am, re: corporate rates
Corporations don’t really pay taxes.
The CBO produced a report “THE INCIDENCE OF THE CORPORATE INCOME TAX” in which it states “A corporation may write its check to the Internal Revenue Service for payment of the
corporate income tax, but that money must come from somewhere: from reduced returns to investors in the company, lower wages to its workers, or higher prices that consumers pay for the products the company produces.”
And it goes on to say
“Although economists are far from a consensus about exactly who bears how much of the burden of the corporate income tax, the existing studies highlight the significant types of economic mechanisms as well as the empirical estimates necessary for further quantifying the burdens. CBO’s review of the studies yields the following conclusions:
o The short-term burden of the corporate tax probably falls on stockholders or investors in general, but may fall on some more than on others, because not all investments are taxed at the same rate.
o The long-term burden of corporate or dividend taxation is unlikely to rest fully on corporate equity, because it will remain there only if marginal investment is not affected by those taxes. Most economists believe that the corporate tax system has some effect on investment decisions.
o Most evidence from closed-economy, general-equilibrium models suggests that given reasonable parameters, the long-term incidence of the corporate tax falls on capital in general.
o In the context of international capital mobility, the burden of the corporate tax may be shifted onto immobile factors (such as labor or land), but only to the degree that the capital and outputs of different countries can be substituted.
o In the very long term, the burden is likely to be shifted in part to labor, if the corporate tax dampens capital accumulation.
o Most attempts to distribute the burden of corporate taxation have neglected the possible importance of effects on the relative prices of products.
Brosephus
July 19th, 2011
1:46 pm
josef
Just get the whole blog shut down!!!!!
josef
July 19th, 2011
1:47 pm
DAVE
oops…
That’s SUPPOSED to be “Why are there no Sons of Black Muslim Confederate Veterans?”
Fred
July 19th, 2011
1:47 pm
Paul
July 19th, 2011
1:44 pm
jj
Do you have a link for Cantor’s plan?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
i think it’s here Paul:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.guest.html
or maybe here:
http://www.boortz.com/
AmVet
July 19th, 2011
1:48 pm
josef @1:45,
Because liberals,non-Republicans and progressives are all Islamophobic, Negrophobic racists? (grin)
Paul
July 19th, 2011
1:50 pm
Brocephus 1:46
josef’ll be the first to tell you he doesn’t have the Power!
But if he wants to say ‘please’……
Fred
Oh gosh, the only links for Cantor’s Plan are on Rush and Boortz?
Does Cantor know he has a Plan?
Keep Up the Good Fight!
July 19th, 2011
1:50 pm
Cain is a liberal?
Dave R.
July 19th, 2011
1:51 pm
“Why are there no Sons of Black Muslim Confederate Veterans?”
WOODSTOCK MIKE
July 19th, 2011
1:51 pm
“Excuse me Mike? More money to pay off the deficit doesn’t address it?”
More money certainly addresses the deficit, but, the point is that getting bent out of shape about taxing the rich is pointless because the actual effect of the tax increase is so little. You are right, every dollar counts, but I wanted to make clear that the additional revenue that will be created isn’t exactly a life changer…
josef
July 19th, 2011
1:51 pm
ZamVet…
Well, it WAS the liberals and not the Republicans!
And BROSEPHUS
Ssshh…we know you’ve got the cheat sheet…
@@
July 19th, 2011
1:52 pm
Paul:
Dancing around that campfire would put me in the “Michelle Bachmann’s husband is a closeted gay” crowd.
Thus far, the left has called Michael Steele an Uncle Tom. Reinse Preibus (sp?) a closeted gay along with Rick Perry who they also suspect is gay. All “news” to me but then I don’t focus on those things.
Racism and homophobia seems to abound on the left.
Feel free to dance around whatever campfire you choose.
Granny Godzilla
July 19th, 2011
1:52 pm
I’m wondering if it would be possible to achieve purity by
sacrificing the house GOP?
All we need is to build a little stone altar…..
josef
July 19th, 2011
1:52 pm
PAUL
I know where the power lies, and I don’t mess with it lightly!
WOODSTOCK MIKE
July 19th, 2011
1:53 pm
“Cop-out answer. And unacceptable. Those laws that were utterly contrived in the first place MUST be changed, if there is ever going to be some blowback in the War on the Middle Class.”
If Democrats were so concerned about the issue like they fool you to believe why didn’t they fix the problem when they controlled the House, Senate, and Presidency?
Brosephus
July 19th, 2011
1:54 pm
I guess all those conservatives who have a new found love of Bill Clinton would have second thoughts of that love after his recent interview…..
Former President Bill Clinton said if faced with default, he would single-handedly raise the debt ceiling using the 14th Amendment and he’d do it “without hesitation, and force the courts to stop me.”
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/07/19/138511612/bill-clinton-says-hed-raise-the-debt-ceiling-using-14th-amendment
josef
July 19th, 2011
1:54 pm
@@
at 1:52
And here’s a liberal serving of Snickers for you! ISH
Brosephus
July 19th, 2011
1:56 pm
Paul
All he would have to do is prod you into doing it. Either that, or he could just lead you into it.
josef
Doggone/GA
July 19th, 2011
1:57 pm
“Former President Bill Clinton said if faced with default, he would single-handedly raise the debt ceiling using the 14th Amendment and he’d do it “without hesitation, and force the courts to stop me.”
And it wouldn’t surprise me one bit if it comes down to that, in the end.
Paul
July 19th, 2011
2:19 pm
@@
“Dancing around that campfire would put me in the “Michelle Bachmann’s husband is a closeted gay” crowd.”
Fred
July 19th, 2011
2:20 pm
And just like that it’s back…………..
Peadawg
July 19th, 2011
2:20 pm
Re-posting since we’ve moved back here:
Also from the ajc Gang of Six proposal article: “Federal revenue would be increased $1.1 trillion over 10 years through changes to tax deductions currently granted for home mortgage interest, charitable giving, and health care insurance.”
And who do those tax loopholes affect? The middle class, of course. F U Saxby.
josef
July 19th, 2011
2:21 pm
Are we back?
Thomas
July 19th, 2011
2:21 pm
Looks like our homeboy Saxby getting some praise in DC and the AJC.
piffle
Peadawg
July 19th, 2011
2:22 pm
“Are we back?”
**Smacks josef in the face**
Nope, you’re not dreaming. We’re back.
WOODSTOCK MIKE
July 19th, 2011
2:22 pm
“And it wouldn’t surprise me one bit if it comes down to that, in the end.”
If he has to do that in order to prevent default, by all means…
Paul
July 19th, 2011
2:22 pm
@@
(sorry ’bout that)
continuing on, I don’t get that at all.
I was addressing the concept that some people think elements of what constitutes what a person ‘is” are a matter of choice, yet when confronted by some elements they say choice has nothing to do with it. It is that inconsistency that interests me. All I can come back to is people’s reasoning goes out the window when the topic deals with matters of sexuality.
You, on the other hand, took what I wrote as concerning the sexuality of spouses or other political candidates. Care to get back to the real intent of the post?
Peadawg
July 19th, 2011
2:23 pm
“Looks like our homeboy Saxby getting some praise in DC and the AJC.” – Him and the Gang of Six are a bunch of Grade A d-bags who all need to be kicked in the nuts. And kicked again when they get up.
WOODSTOCK MIKE
July 19th, 2011
2:24 pm
Taking away the tax deduction for mortgage interest is the dumbest thing in the world, that is going to hurt most of our returns…
Fred
July 19th, 2011
2:25 pm
Peadawg? Can we pee on them while they are down? If so, i completely endorse your proposal.
@@
July 19th, 2011
2:25 pm
We’re back to where we started from…The Gang of Six. A ridiculous waste of time and energy…Washington at it’s best. /snark/
Paul
July 19th, 2011
2:26 pm
Lexicon update from last night’s Jon Stewart.
Stewart ran a number of clips from influential Republicans.
If you’re still referring to “the rich” or “the ultra rich” or “the really, really rich” you haven’t read the memo. You’re behind the times and you’re dating yourselves.
The new term for ‘rich’ is “job creators.” Republican policymakers have spoken.
I’ll bet Soros gets a kick out of that.
Brosephus
July 19th, 2011
2:26 pm
Taking away the tax deduction for mortgage interest is the dumbest thing in the world, that is going to hurt most of our returns…
Well, look at the bright side. They listened to you and are not “taxing the rich”.
Fred
July 19th, 2011
2:27 pm
But it’s true Paul. Look at all the jobs they HAVE created………….. In China………
Fred
July 19th, 2011
2:28 pm
They are definitely hitting my two biggest tax deductions, mortgage and charitable contributions.
Dave R.
July 19th, 2011
2:28 pm
Well, I guess we’ve all learned what posting the words “Sons of Black Muslim Confederate Veterans” in a question does.
Opens up a yawning chasm in the space-time continuum.
Get Real
July 19th, 2011
2:28 pm
Did Jay ever provide a link to the 4 trillion detail, it is easy to throw out numbers with nothing to back it up. Our bond rating is going to be downgraded regardless of whether or not we raise the debt ceiling because we do not have a detailed plan to reduce debt. Obama has not provided any detail; if this exists please provide the link…anyone??
Paul
July 19th, 2011
2:28 pm
Woodstock Mike
Whenever I’ve heard discussion on that proposal from those with the power to introduce proposals (not just from bloggers, who’ll recommend nearly anything), it isn’t about eliminating the mortgage deduction. It’s about capping the value of the deduction to the portion that applies to the first $500,000 of a home’s value and eliminating the deduction for second (vacation) homes.
Paul
July 19th, 2011
2:29 pm
Fred
You got a point there, you have -
josef
July 19th, 2011
2:30 pm
DAVE
Well, there IS a reason…
PAUL
Oh, Most Powerful One, you owe us an explanation…
Paul
July 19th, 2011
2:32 pm
josef
“ou owe us an explanation…”
for what?
See, unlike Republicans, if I have a debt, I pay it.
WOODSTOCK MIKE
July 19th, 2011
2:33 pm
“It’s about capping the value of the deduction to the portion that applies to the first $500,000 of a home’s value and eliminating the deduction for second (vacation) homes.”
Either way this is just another blow to housing and in my opinion housing might be the most important piece of this whole puzzle…
Brosephus
July 19th, 2011
2:33 pm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-gang-of-sixs-framework/2011/07/19/gIQAibh7NI_blog.html
Ezra Klein has a link to a pdf summary of their proposal. EITC would still be there, but the middle class would face reductions on most deductions that’s available.
@@
July 19th, 2011
2:35 pm
Paul:
You, on the other hand, took what I wrote as concerning the sexuality of spouses or other political candidates. Care to get back to the real intent of the post?
You must’ve been absent the other day. Getalife and Mrs. Godzilla were laying odds that Bachmann’s husband would be revealed as gay. Somebody else pointed out that his counseling business claimed gays can be transformed. The left having fun at the Bachmann family’s expense.
Your post sounded similar.
You, on the other hand, took what I wrote as concerning the sexuality of spouses or other political candidates. Care to get back to the real intent of the post?
No! My choice.
WOODSTOCK MIKE
July 19th, 2011
2:35 pm
“Well, look at the bright side. They listened to you and are not “taxing the rich”.
Listen, I want to be clear, first off let’s define rich, if you think someone making 250K is rich and should be taxed at 50% we disagree, if they were going to increase taxes on the super rich I have no issues at all, but it seems like Democrats definition of rich is a guy living a middle class lifestyle in a city like Atlanta, maybe a 500K house, a few cars, a few kids, a few dogs, a pool… To me that’s not rich…
Fred
July 19th, 2011
2:36 pm
I’m getting dizzy
Uncle Jed
July 19th, 2011
2:37 pm
Details; details; details. This is the sound bite/cliche blog. We don’t need no stinkin’ details.
josef
July 19th, 2011
2:37 pm
Paul
How come you stay here when the rest of us have to go downstairs? Hunh?
willie lynch
July 19th, 2011
2:37 pm
So Steve Wynn is rambling about the President and his “policies”. Yet in all his rambling he never once states a specific. All I hear is the “climate of uncertainty”. Was there a climate of uncertainty during the establishment of two unfunded wars?
The business community was perfectly happy to go about not producing jobs during this time and being so unregulated as to drive the economy into the crapper. So yeah, they want to see the good old day’s when they could reap great profits, create nonsensicle products to make money where there was none, and then, if it all tanks, run to the government to be bailed out.
Steve Wynn is crying about people not having enough money to come to Vegas and throw it away in his casino’s? Poor guy. I guess when faced with the idea of paying $25.00 for a sandwich and fries on top of a $200.00 a night room most people have decided it’s not worth it.
As it was said on this blog, everyone needs to rethink there financial priorities. Well Steve, you’re in a business that’s not a necessity so suck it up and stop trying to blame the President. He needs to pull himself up by his bootstraps and keep it moving. Otherwise all I heard was blah, blah, blah.
Fred
July 19th, 2011
2:39 pm
good point Josef. I smell a rat lol.
Fess up Paul…….
Paul
July 19th, 2011
2:43 pm
@@
I saw that exchange but didn’t engage. I didn’t reference that issue in my post. I meant to say what I said in my post – it’s an issue of why some people think some elements of who a person is are ruled by choice and others aren’t.
I can understand why you wouldn’t want to go down that road -
josef
You got sent downstairs? Rebel!! You have the power to do that! Use it!!!
Dave R.
July 19th, 2011
2:43 pm
Paul is really a Space Monkey sent down to Earth to mess with us.
1811/1801 - 0311/0317
July 19th, 2011
2:43 pm
Paul:
It applies only to the president just like it said. Please don’t add to my posts.
Sad to say but you have to “look” presidential to be elected and if you are a man (or anyone with bad incapacitating migraines) you had best not cry during the campaign.
That’s just the way it is.
@@
July 19th, 2011
2:43 pm
And, Paul?
Not to offend, but I lost the point of your posts some time ago. The only thing I see is you trying to gain points for your “squishy” side.
LUV that word, “squish”. It was Andy’s oft used…
Paul
July 19th, 2011
2:44 pm
Fred
I’m not tracking on that, either. I must’ve skipped a page of posts.
1811/1801 - 0311/0317
July 19th, 2011
2:46 pm
Hey, just heard this:
The mainstream media is like a bunch of palace guard eunuchs in the Obama harem.
Quite amusing and ……………….. accurate.
josef
July 19th, 2011
2:46 pm
PAUL
You DIDN’T get sent downstairs? Hmmm Are we in the State of Denmark…?
Brosephus
July 19th, 2011
2:46 pm
Mike
I’ve never set a dollar amount as a definition of “rich”. Hell, I consider myself rich, and my total household income doesn’t hit 6 figures. It’s all in perspective. I grew up with 26 others under one roof at one time. The fact that I have my own house (which is larger than the one I grew up in), my bills are paid ontime, I have more than I could have ever dreamed of when I was a kid (wife, child, AND an antique car), and I still have money to save afterwards makes me feel rich.
If you want a definition of rich, I’d put those with an income of $1 million plus in a separate bracket from the rest of us. I’d put the $500k-$999k in a different bracket. I’d create one for $300k-$499k, and then put the $100k-$299k in it’s own bracket. At the same time, I’d treat capital gains as regular income.
Paul
July 19th, 2011
2:46 pm
Scout
Got it. All other elected officials can show emotion, but not the president.
That makes all kinds of sense -
“Lessee, Pres Obama just shed a few tears over something. Okay, the guy’s a wimp, Go ahead and launch the attack ’cause we know he won’t send any Hellfires down on us or send in a SEAL team or nothin’.”
Makes more sense all the time.
Paul
July 19th, 2011
2:48 pm
Dave R
The secret’s out –
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y15NnGZIBuM
MPercy
July 19th, 2011
2:49 pm
Left wing management @12:07 pm
You seem to have trouble with hedge fund managers…but probably not this one:
George Soros is a famous hedge fund manager who is widely considered to be one of the world’s greatest investors. Soros managed the Quantum Fund, a fund that achieved an average annual return of 30% from 1970-2000. Soros is most famous for his single-day gain of US$1 billion on September 6, 1992, which he made by short selling the British pound. At the time, England was part of the European Exchange Rate Mechanism, a fixed exchange-rate system which included other European countries. The other countries were pressuring England to devalue its currency in relation to the other countries in the system or to leave the system. England resisted the devaluation, but with continued pressure from the fixed system and speculators in the currency market, England floated its currency and the value of the pound suffered.
By leveraging the value of his fund, Soros was able to take a $10 billion short position on the pound, which earned him US$1 billion. This trade is considered one of the greatest trades of all time.
By the way, the primary “loophole” hedge fund manager utilize is using “carried-interest”. Carried-interest is not income as it defined by the tax code (is capital gains instead) and applies to partnerships in general, not just hedge fund managers. The “problem” is simply that hedge fund managers (can) make loads more in earnings that are defined by the tax code as carried interest than other partnerships (e.g. lawyers who are partners in their firms) and that enrages many people, so they want to treat one occupation differently than another occupation rather than eliminating the “loophole” by deleting the carried interest designation for certain types of earnings.
TaxPayer
July 19th, 2011
2:50 pm
Scout,
Quit your whining. It’s so unmanly.
Paul
July 19th, 2011
2:51 pm
@@
Gain points for my squishy side?
- you must be the type who thinks life is about keeping score
- perhaps you could sing “Macho Man” and send the energy my way?
As much as I try to avoid the personal stuff, I hope your husband’s the nonemotional stoic no feelings kinda guy. I’m sure you’re happier that way?
1811/1801 - 0311/0317
July 19th, 2011
2:52 pm
I was just down at Target and saw one of the saddest things around here probably since about 1865 when slavery was at least “technically” done away with ……………. a woman dressed in black peering at me through about a once in slit in her hood.
Do you libs. really think this kind of subservience should really be allowed in America?
I don’t know what the latest court rulings are but ……………………
O.C.G.A. 16-11-38 (2010)
16-11-38. Wearing mask, hood, or device which conceals identity of wearer
(a) A person is guilty of a misdemeanor when he wears a mask, hood, or device by which any portion of the face is so hidden, concealed, or covered as to conceal the identity of the wearer and is upon any public way or public property or upon the private property of another without the written permission of the owner or occupier of the property to do so.
(b) This Code section shall not apply to:
(1) A person wearing a traditional holiday costume on the occasion of the holiday;
(2) A person lawfully engaged in trade and employment or in a sporting activity where a mask is worn for the purpose of ensuring the physical safety of the wearer, or because of the nature of the occupation, trade, or profession, or sporting activity;
(3) A person using a mask in a theatrical production including use in Mardi gras celebrations and masquerade balls; or
(4) A person wearing a gas mask prescribed in emergency management drills and exercises or emergencies.
Thulsa Doom
July 19th, 2011
2:53 pm
willie lynch
July 19th, 2011
2:37 pm
So Steve Wynn is rambling about the President and his “policies”. Yet in all his rambling he never once states a specific. All I hear is the “climate of uncertainty”.
Willie Lynch,
I’ll give you 3 specifics of what Wynn is talking about.
1- Obama’s NLRB telling Boeing that they can’t open up a whole new assembly line in a right to work state like South Carolina. Its flat out scary when the govt starts telling private enterprise where they can and can’t open plants. That alone should scare the hell out of any business in America
2- The Obama administration putting secured bondholders behind unsecured labor union interests in the auto bailout. This is in violation of all legal precedent and bankruptcy law.
3- Obama’s interior secretary Salazar ignoring not one but 2 federal judge’s orders to reallow drilling in the gulf. Once again the Obama administration flat out ignoring the rule of law.
This is an administration that flat out ignores U.S. law. We might as well just make it a dictatorship with these Chicago style thugs in power.
Paulo977
July 19th, 2011
2:53 pm
Citizen of the World
July 19th, 2011
10:24 am
“Kayaker, maybe the bottom 50% barely make enough to get by! Which is a problem in and of itself!”
Some of you seem terrified of becoming a Third World ENTITY?????lol
Left wing management
July 19th, 2011
2:54 pm
Sinkwich: “This guy speaks the truth. This economy will not recover until this European socialist is out of the White House.”
You say that like there’s something dirty or threatening about “European”.
Brosephus
July 19th, 2011
2:54 pm
Do you libs. really think this kind of subservience should really be allowed in America?
Should a wife not be obedient to her husband in accordance with The Bible?
1811/1801 - 0311/0317
July 19th, 2011
2:54 pm
Paul:
You still miss the point and are just being argumentative.
After you’re elected you can boo hoo all over the teleprompter. It doesn’t matter. You’re already president.
Now try crying during the election and see what happens.
I don’t make the rules or determine the results. Just look at history.
If you have a candidate (male) that you really like you want to be president ………….. tell them to let the tears flow. I don’t care.
Paul
July 19th, 2011
2:58 pm
Scout 2;52
Probably the best ’stir the pot’ post of the day.
2:54
I understand you’re talking about what that would do to a candidacy? If so, I made the same point a few hours’ back -
I think it’s nuts, but that’s just the way it is. I look at forums such as this as a way to have people reconsider their prejudices.
1811/1801 - 0311/0317
July 19th, 2011
2:59 pm
Taxpayer:
Again, debate the issue.
I assume you meant “whining” and not crying.
If so, I ain’t “whining” about anything. I am just stating what I believe to be true.
“IF” Bachmann really does have serious issues with dehabilitating migraines (takes her out for a day or two), then I think she is done. Even the drugs one takes to help (basically anti-depressants) is a big problem.
Do you disagree ??
Brosephus
July 19th, 2011
2:59 pm
Well, it’s time for me to begin the Festival of Brosephus. First beer’s outta the way. Check y’all later on. If you’re at work, tell your boss to let you leave early or give you holiday pay. If they ask why, tell them it’s Brosephus Day!!!
Check y’all later!!!!!
@@
July 19th, 2011
3:01 pm
Paul:
As much as I try to avoid the personal stuff, I hope your husband’s the nonemotional stoic no feelings kinda guy. I’m sure you’re happier that way?
My husband’s a far right-wing fighter. Politics gets his blood boiling. We argue politics all the time…I’m more laid back than he when it comes to the topic. I know exactly where he stands, and he I.
It’s great fun!
1811/1801 - 0311/0317
July 19th, 2011
3:01 pm
Paul:
Two points:
1) Happy to see you quit taking shots and just debate.
2) I hear you and think we now agree. A male presidential candidate who breaks down and crys is basically done. What is …………… is.
1811/1801 - 0311/0317
July 19th, 2011
3:02 pm
Paul:
Regarding the 2:52 ……………. that’s why I put it there. This one is dull …………………..
Paul
July 19th, 2011
3:03 pm
Scout
Not being argumentative, but think about Pres Kennedy. The nearly debilitating back pain he suffered and the way he still functioned in his office.
And if the migraine issue is directed at Bachmann, you do understand many will take that as implying a criticism of females (we both have experience with people reading our posts and saying ‘that’s not what you meant, I know what you were implying”) as I’m sure you remember the arguments some years back that women were not suited for senior ranks in the military or in public life as their monthly cycles led them to days of irrationality and ineffective decision-making?
WOODSTOCK MIKE
July 19th, 2011
3:03 pm
“If you want a definition of rich, I’d put those with an income of $1 million plus in a separate bracket from the rest of us. I’d put the $500k-$999k in a different bracket. I’d create one for $300k-$499k, and then put the $100k-$299k in it’s own bracket. At the same time, I’d treat capital gains as regular income.”
I like it… And on another topic, based on the comments you made about your upbringing, I believe that part of our issues in America are many have become so spoiled and think they are entitled to so much that they have truly taken for granted the benefits of America. People think they need so much these days to get by, its like the guy making 50K driving a 30K car, racking up credit card debt, watching his plasma TV, eating out 2-3 times a week, and complaining about being broke…
1811/1801 - 0311/0317
July 19th, 2011
3:04 pm
Brosephus :
“Should a wife not be obedient to her husband in accordance with The Bible?”
I was waiting for just that.
Now I ask you ……………… to what extent?
1) To allow her husband to be the “head of the family”
2) To wear a burka with only an eye slit in public.
Are you comparing the two ?