Wednesday, March 18, 2009

Distractions

Distraction the First - As you can see above, I came up with a new playlist. I figured, as I reference the subject so often, that I'd come up with a playlist of songs that think like me. Any questions?

Distraction the Second - AIG. We're worrying about a couple hundred million in bonuses which, apparently, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner knew about. It was only as Congress started ginning up an assload of indignation that Obama picked up his pitchfork to join the lynch mob.

Distraction the Third (and the point) - Now this is something I've seen going on ever since Obama took office and started the spending. The Rush Limbaugh controversy, most vividly, jumps to mind. Every liberal I know that has been talking politics is talking about ANYTHING but the Obama's economic policy. Let my look in my blogroll and see what's going on over on some of the liberal sites:

TORTURE AND THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION - self-explanatory

SUNDAY SPACE SHUTTLE LAUNCH - Not really political until the first sentences: Goodbye, Faux News. Goodbye, AIG. Goodbye, Dick Cheney, Rush Limbaugh and the Congressional Republicans.

GEORGE BUSH WAS A PANSY - One of the right wings beloved talking points is to claim Democrats are sissies. HA!

THE AIG ANTITHESIS
- Congratulations, Toad, you're not the moonbat today.

Admittedly, my sample is small, but three out of four blogs that published in the last 24 hours (as of this post) are busy targeting BUSH!!!!

He's been out of office for two months. He hasn't made news in a while. He was a lame duck since November and had a Democrat majority to (theoretically) fight for the last two years of his administration. So why are you wasting space?

And if you think I'm just picking on lowly bloggers, let me point out the number of times Obama has read either "the [whatever bad] we inherited" or "the last eight years" off his teleprompter. I found four references in his joint address alone.

Here's the point: My last serious comment about Bill Clinton upon his leaving office was on the day he left (as far as I found). And other than the occasional head jokes (which are still in giddily bad taste). I've kind of just walked away until he made news. Because there's little point in harping on the past. The point is to focus on the future.

And if you're in the driver's seat (and the Democrats are), then you push your agenda, you don't whine about what happened last year and go after everybody while ignoring the economy.

One thing I did learn from Clinton, or more specifically, James Carville: It's the economy, stupid! Bush and McCain knew it. And Obama knows it. Which means he either wants to hide his agenda because he knows it won't do a damn thing for the economy, or he's pushing clueless and is just trying to make it long enough for the economy to come back.

In fact, I remember asking liberals how the Bullshit! package would stimulate the economy. And I never got a damned answer. So, if you're getting ready to rip Bush some more in the comments, answer my question first!

42 comments:

TAO said...

I would answer the question about how the bailout would stimulate the economy but you asked only liberals so I cannot answer that question as a radical populist.

So, when you get around to asking the radical populists then I will answer it.

Oh, if you check out the conservative blogs you will find that they are pretty much stuck in a rut on their blogs too...

Read the Average American Blog and its a riot of turning facts into whatever you want them to be....

Shaw Kenawe said...

Patrick,

The reason some (you cited 3) blogs aren't writing about what's happening with AIG may be because it is an extremely complicated subject, the storyline changes daily on who did what with what to whom, and we here in lowly blogland know only what the salivating media report, not necessarily what's really happening.

Also, what has happened to the financial community is probably the result of greed, underhandidness, lying, and loopholes for the manipulators on Wall Street and in the insurance business. Probably some illegality there, but no one has come out and named the laws that could have been breached.

Whereas, what I reported on, Bush's torture policy, is an actual crime.

The International Committee of the Red Cross, who has jurisdiction over these issues and who was given that authority by the UN (and which the US agreed to), has reported this fact, which was uncovered by Mark Danner in his The New York Review of Books article.

Maybe you and other don't believe this is worthy of anyone's attention, but please be aware that millions of people here in this country and around the world do.

The prohibition of torture is found in Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and a number of international and regional human rights treaties. The vast majority of states have ratified treaties that contain provisions that prohibit torture and other forms of ill-treatment. These include: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966), the European Convention on Human Rights (1950), the American Convention on Human Rights (1978)5 and the African Charter on Human and People's Rights (1981).

The absolute prohibition of torture and ill-treatment is underlined by its non-derogable status in human rights law. There are no circumstances in which states can set aside or restrict this obligation, even in times of war or other emergency threatening the life of the nation, which may justify the suspension or limitation of some other rights.

States are also restricted from making derogations which may put individuals at risk of torture or ill-treatment -- for example, by allowing excessive periods of incommunicado detention or denying a detainee prompt access to a court.

This prohibition operates irrespective of circumstances or attributes, such as the status of the victim or, if he or she is a criminal suspect, upon the crimes that the victim is suspected of having committed.

Dave Miller said...

Patrick, perhaps I am one of those liberals.

I have not posted much, if anything on the economic mess.

Here's why. I prefer to wait until we start to see some real results, good or bad, that can be directly attributed to Obama's plan.

In other words, it is too early to tell.

Also, I am just not smart enough to understand all the ins and outs of this.

As for Bush, yes, I have posted on the torture issue. And to be honest, I fail to see how the right wing of our political world, who is so sure Obama has plans to dismantle the US, yet has no evidence of such, has ignored a Presidential Administration that argued for setting aside the Constitution to accomplish their goals.

I thought the GOP was loaded with originists.

If that is so, how can our resident GOP/conservatives argue that the Bush Admin was following the original intent of the framers?

Were not the framers afraid of the power of the state, and thus made sure the populace had the right to bear arms as a check against that power?

If these are both true, how can anyone argue in defense of the Bush memos on torture, property seizure, and restriction of free speech?

The better question Patrick is why no conservatives have blogged on that subject.

Is it because it casts their party and conservatives in a bad light?

Toad734 said...

Well as you can see, the economy is better than it was in December. So, maybe people couldn't tell you exactly how it was going to happen but it has already happened.

We both hated doing it but by pumping money into the banks they started lending again. When they started lending again, people started buying houses again, when people started buying houses again people started building houses, when people started building houses Home Depot started selling 2x4s and vinyl siding, pipes and tools, when Home Depot started selliing siding and tools, manufacturers started making more tools and then when they made tools they had to ship them to the store so truck drivers started working again, etc.

That is just one example.

And by the way, Clinton left us in great shape. The deficit was gone, we were at peace, the economy was good, etc. Bush really did fuck things up or at least allowed things to get really fucked up and yes, we and Obama have to deal with that mess. Obama certainly didn't create the mess although Rush and Hannity would say otherwise. So its still a very valid subject and if we just move on from the past and don't analyze it, how are we to learn from our mistakes?

I still talk about how Clinton fucked up NAFTA so I will certainly continue to talk about all the shit president dumb dumb got us into because it still affects all of us.

The Gray Headed Brother said...

You talk about Distractions and frankly I find that to be very interesting, since I have been Reading your blog here and I think that you constantly talk out of both sides of your mouth.
I'm my honest opinion you are a phony.
And it is not unusual for a person that has a dirty mouth as you do to be a republican. You have no sense of respect for your fellow man.

TAO said...

Oh, Beth...now you have become a 'brother?'

Dave Miller said...

Patrick, it is the economy. Once the dye was cast last year in what we can now call the "Bailout Express," [see bear stearns and lehman bros.] there was not much else we could do.

Our gov't [both parties] made a decision, no doubt influenced by the Chrysler bailout of the 70's which worked, to not let certain companies die.

I believe that is a major factor influencing where we are today. We cannot go back and undo history, we must deal with where we are.

It is the same lesson we are learning from Iraq.

James Wolfer said...

I have posted on both, Patrick. I personally feel we should let AIG fail.

I also think we should prosecute GWB and his Admin for the crimes they committed.

You know why? So no future Administration can do it again. The Bush Admin DID sidestep Congress (Congressional Ban on Torture) and break laws that were in place since Watergate. Do we want Obama to do the same? Hell no.

It needs to be addressed so that we CAN face the future.

dmarks said...

toad: "And by the way, Clinton left us in great shape. The deficit was gone, we were at peace, the economy was good, etc."

As for the first, Clinton ran a deficit in every one of his years in office, including the last. It was not gone.

As for peace, there was already a low-level war with Saddam as his forces routinely violated the cease fire, and US jets shot back. That's not much of a war, but it sure is not peaceful either.

As for "the economy was good", Clinton did hand Bush a recession. I think it is a bit of a stretch to call a recession "good".

I'll spot you the very low-level war as being "peace", but aside from that you batted 0 and 2 on this one.

dmarks said...

toad: "I still talk about how Clinton fucked up NAFTA"

Actually, he did not do too bad on this. The real mistake would have been if he did not sign it.

James Wolfer said...

Dmarks:"As for the first, Clinton ran a deficit in every one of his years in office, including the last. It was not gone. "

We still had a national deficit, but not a budget deficit. Clinton did not add to our deficit and in fact ended his presidency with a budget surplus. From Wikipedia's "Bill Clinton" page:

" Clinton presided over the longest period of peace-time economic expansion in American history, which included a balanced budget and a reported federal surplus. Based on Congressional accounting rules, at the end of his presidency Clinton reported a surplus of $559 billion."

dmarks said...

Yet, the national debt went up. Clinton's reported claim is a matter of cooking the numbers. Like if someone made a report on their household debt, but did not report the mortgage they owed.

It's a lot easier to report a budget surplus if you do things like leave your debt out of the reporting.

James Wolfer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
James Wolfer said...

I guess you were technically correct above, Dmarks. But in technically correct, you were wrong.
Clinton's national debt went up slightly in terms of actual dollars. But in relation to GDP, it went WAY down. When he came into office, the debt to GDP ratio was 66.2%. Four years later, it was 65.6%. When he left office, it was 57.4% of the GDP. Hmm. So, yeah our national debt might go up a little (due to interest), but a lot less than his republican predecessors and sucessor.

James Wolfer said...

forgot to cite my source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

Patrick M said...

Tao: You're welcome to take a crack at justifying the Bullshit! package. No one with a soul can.

And we all get in ruts. But when it's the same one the White House is in....

Shaw: Haven't gotten around to actually reading the blogs (I skimmed the 4 I cited).

Nevertheless, you're talking about something that only becomes news if someone brings charges. Which it won't, no matter the facts.

Thanks for making my point.

Dave: You've posted about it in the past. You haven't been on it recently, as it's effectively old news until something happens.

I'm sure there was some avoidance on the part of conservative bloggers. But we're addressing the present. And I'll have to go visit Shaw and spar on that subject further there.

As for the bailout mentality, it's what's infuriated me more than anything else.

Toad: Well as you can see, the economy is better than it was in December.

No, I can't. And you haven't shown how the Bullshit! package did it. You're talking about the Dastardly, Bastardly Bailout.

And I never said Clinton left us in bad shape. I was citing that things that aren't really affecting us at present (Shaw's obsession with torture for example) aren't really that damned important, and are more of a distraction on the present and pressing issues.

Gray Head: I'm my honest opinion you are a phony.

Yeah, great. And it's my opinion you're clueless.

And it is not unusual for a person that has a dirty mouth as you do to be a republican.

Well, since I'm not....

You have no sense of respect for your fellow man.

No, just no respect for the anonymous. And the dumb.

JW: The reason I don't care about the whole torture issue anymore is because nothing will happen. I can guarantee that if someone tries to push this in the courts, the Obama administration will kill it.

And mostly because yammering on about this serves little purpose right now.

TRUTH 101 said...

I just think Bush is a pansy Patrick.

The Gray Headed Brother said...

Barack Obama's Policies are off to a Good Start!
Barack Obama will restore fairness to the tax code and provide 95 percent of working Americans the tax relief they need and the ones that make over $250 will just have to grin and bare it. In a modern world and a troubled one as it is today, you can never please everybody.

If you saw him on the Leno show, not only did he exhibit a sense of humor, but he explained the AIG situation very well. I thought he was great. The stock market decline has slowed to a large degree and we even saw a 4 day rally. And the housing market has also improved. I'm not sure how much you know about economics, but I’m sure you do know that you can’t turn a situation like this around over night.

Name: Soapboxgod said...

Until we get to a point where we're not including government makework projects into GDP figures, the GDP in and of itself is a bit of a canard.

dmarks said...

Grey said "If you saw him on the Leno show, not only did he exhibit a sense of humor"

Great sense of humor: bashing the disabled in one of his "jokes". He really needs to stick to the teleprompter.

Shaw Kenawe said...

I see dmarks is quite busy today spreading his Obama "bashing" the disabled all over internet blogs.

Here is what Obama said:


Leno asked the president whether the White House bowling alley had been "burned and closed down" in light of Obama's gutter ball embarrassment on the campaign trail last year.

Obama replied, "No, no. I have been practicing . . . I bowled a 129."

The audience roared with laughter, and the late-night talk show host assured Obama "that's very good, Mr. President." To which Obama interjected, "It's like -- it was like Special Olympics, or something."


Intemperate, yes. "Bashing?" No.

This is bashing at its mean-spirited best:

But as long as the nation is obsessed with historic milestones, is no one going to remark on what a great country it is where a mentally retarded woman can become speaker of the house?--Ann Coulter, 2009


I wonder, dmarks, did you run around the internet howling about that one? Oh, I understand. She's not the POTUS, but she IS one of the radical right's darlings, and they look up to her and her little pearls of witticisms. Gordon even calls her a National Treasure.

The Gray Headed Brother said...

I guess that Mr. Dmarks just don't understand humor. Instead you wish to spin it into bashing. I didn't see it that way at all.

Toad734 said...

DMarks:

Where do you keep getting this Clinton deficit shit? The budget was balanced under Clinton. Period! Revisionist history is not going to change that. Stop listening to Limbaugh, he is lying to you.

And its a lot easier to balance the budget if you don't have empire and try to outbuild the Soviets when it comes to nuclear arms, Star Wars, no bid military contracts, arms for Iran etc. Thats how Clinton balanced the budget.

Iraq wasnt costing us 600 Billion dollars and 4000 lives whilst making Iran even stronger. Iran wasn't building a nuclear arsenal and we were not at war. Every few months we would take out a radar site, thats it.

The economy had slowed down but the recession didn't hit until Bush and his Enron pals got a hold of it and allowed a bunch of guys with box cutters to kill more Americans since Vietnam.

Patrick:

Yes, the economy is way better than it was in Nov-December. Look at housing starts, look at mfg stats, the stock market is finally on the way back up instead of on the way down, I actually got a pay check this month, etc.

Now, is that part of the natural balance or is that due to the money injected into the system and some of Obamas actions, the price of oil etc.? Probably a little of all the above. Is the recovery worth the billions we spent on it? That is something else that is also debatable. I still say one bank should have failed and AIG should have failed and then we should sort out whats left and there should have been more conditions on the bail outs, especially the first one.

But wait, regulation is a bad thing. Right?

Name: Soapboxgod said...

"Yes, the economy is way better than it was in Nov-December. Look at housing starts, look at mfg stats, the stock market is finally on the way back up instead of on the way down, I actually got a pay check this month, etc."

Pump enough fiat money into anything and it will look awfully rosey my dear boy. But only for a very short period of time. That is until the sheer weight of it all comes crashing down.

Perhaps you missed this???:

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/00FE0320-BOARD-OF-GOVERNORS.jpg

Toad734 said...

Soapbox:

Fiat money is what caused this. When banks lend out 1000 it doesn't really become 10,000 dollars. Debt isn't really profit so buying bad debt is not real money. These are the concepts which allowd the stock market to soar for the last few years but it wasn't real. If fiat money got us into this mess maybe it will get us out if we just stop using it once everything is fixed.

Name: Soapboxgod said...

"If fiat money got us into this mess maybe it will get us out if we just stop using it once everything is fixed."

And maybe it's just possible for one to be so completely open minded that their brain literally falls right out of their skull.

Patrick M said...

101: Your post said as much....

Gray: Barack Obama will restore fairness to the tax code...

Bullshit. If you define fair by punishing those who succeed, maybe. But taxing the people who can actually create (or save) 3 million jobs is a serious disincentive.

And the problems with our tax code will never be fixed by tweaking rates (whether it's Dems or the GOP doing it). In case you missed the banners and incessant reference, the only real solution lies in something called the FairTax.

As for the downward spiral of the economy slowing, how has anything he has done caused this? Still missing the relationship.

Dmarks: I can imagine Obama will be getting himself a palm teleprompter next.

Shaw: I find both remarks funny. My only issue with Ann Coulter's remark: It's insulting to retards, comparing them to Pelosi.

Toad: For clarification, the signs that the economy is starting to come around have been appearing in their usual places. But the whole point of the Bullshit package (as advertized) was that it would do a whole bunch of things. But it hasn't been implemented yet. As for the earlier bailouts, they merely kept us limping along, and will cost us in the future.

But wait, regulation is a bad thing. Right?

TAO said...

Patrick,

Explain this to me: "If you define fair by punishing those who succeed, maybe. But taxing the people who can actually create (or save) 3 million jobs is a serious disincentive."

So, basically without rich people there would be no jobs. Is it because rich folks like to do nice things so they create jobs for other people? Is job creation like charity?

Why do we need a democracy at all? Lets just accept an aristocracy and allow them to decide who should rule...

You tend to forget that DEMAND has a whole lot to do with job creation and wealth creation.

Even Ford realized when he was building Model T's that if he paid his employees enough THEY could afford to buy his cars and then HE would really make the big bucks!

When you actually run your own company you realize real quick how important consumers are and how much more money you make when you have employees....and you can make a lot more money running a company with employees than you can investing in the stock market.

Even if the tax rate goes up to 39% as proposed by Obama I bet that I do not end up paying more than 21%.

Personally, I think since it is now common knowledge that rich people and corporations can destroy our economic system I think that they SHOULD pay more taxes since they benefit more from bailouts...

So far the economic meltdown has NOT effected my business and there is nothing in the Stimulus package that will benefit me personally....

Get these rich, greedy, irrational moochers off my back....

Arthurstone said...

PatrickM typed:

'Shaw: I find both remarks funny. My only issue with Ann Coulter's remark: It's insulting to retards, comparing them to Pelosi.'



Ouch. 'Retards'??!!!

I think you might be ready for talk radio right now.

dmarks said...

Arthur: "Ouch. 'Retards'??!!! I think you might be ready for talk radio right now."

Or the Presidency, as Obama proved on Leno.

Tao: "Even Ford realized when he was building Model T's that if he paid his employees enough THEY could afford to buy his cars and then HE would really make the big bucks!"

But you can't succeed in the long run doing this. You will be undercut by those who can charge less for their cars because the cost does not include paying for such an unearned giveaway.

TAO said...

"But you can't succeed in the long run doing this. You will be undercut by those who can charge less for their cars because the cost does not include paying for such an unearned giveaway."

Then dmarks, in the long run capitalism cannot succeed can it?

If labor is nothing more than an unearned giveaway and since laborers are consumers; that means consumers will always be squeezed for profits which in turn will limit sales...without sales there is no profit.

Without profit there is no capitalism.

dmarks said...

Labor itself is not an unearned giveaway, but if you routinely pay out to someone, not just what they earn, but additionally an extra amount that supposedly can be used by someone to buy something anywhere, that is not sustainable.... especially when other companies are around that don't overpay like this.

Patrick M said...

Apologies if I'm late getting responses. It's been one of those weeks.

Tao: I never said the rich people gave people jobs out of the kindness of their hearts. They do it because they need labor to make more money. But the less they can make (without changing the risk), the less likely they are to create those jobs.

Personally, I think since it is now common knowledge that rich people and corporations can destroy our economic system I think that they SHOULD pay more taxes since they benefit more from bailouts...,

The problem there is that the whole bailout thing has given the government more tentacles into private industry. Now you're lower on the totem pole than, for example, AIG. But when those big companies have been sucked under government control, then they just move on down the line to the next source of revenue. Eventually, that might be you.

Arthur: You should hear my autism jokes. (side note: my elder youngling is on the spectrum)

Dmarks: Tao's point is (or should be) that Ford looked at the numbers, saw the benefit, and paid his workers accordingly. Of course, he didn't have the UAW to deal with.

Toad734 said...

Patrick:

You act as if taxes always punish those who succeed but that isn't always the case. The only thing Paris Hilton has succeeded in was swallowing some guys load. That doesn't mean that by taxing her inheritance that we are punishing her success. And the AIG execs who made millions of dollars didn't succeed either, they failed yet my money is being handed to them and you think they pay too much in taxes?? I don't think so.

Soapbox:

I don't really propose fiat money is the way to get us out of this but it is what got us into this mess. WEll, that and counting debt as profit only to find out that its really bad debt...oops!

But there does have to be something said for just printing more money. I mean the depression was worsened by the lack of money. When banks create phony money out of thin air, their stocks go up, money is not based on anything real or tangible anyway and only exists because the Feds or a bank says it does anyway so why not just say more exists and give it to the guys who are going to create even more fake money with the money we give them. You have to admit, either that makes sense or our entire financial system makes not sense and we should do away with banks and first and foremost, the federal reserve.

dmarks said...

Toad said: "And the AIG execs who made millions of dollars didn't succeed either, they failed yet my money is being handed to them"

You don't have to look past the bumbling of the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue to find out why this is happening. He signed the bailout bill without even bothering or caring what was in it.

At the press conference, he was asked about the bailout, and said that it took him a couple of days to figure out. This, after he approved it.

For one, aren't you supposed to read bills BEFORE you sign them? One thing we know now, it is easy to "pull one over" on Barack. When it comes to what Congress sends him, he doesn't read the fine print. So much for Presidential responsibility.

For another, doesn't someone in the White House know how to use text-search on digital documents? This would normally take minutes, not days.

Patrick M said...

Toad: When the system becomes so progressive that it only taxes the successful, then yes, it punishes the successful.

And people like Paris Hilton are a reason I support the FairTax. Instead of trying to get a fortune that is well-protected in tax shelters (and out of the country), it taxes the people spending the most money. Trying to tax income punishes those who earn it, and misses the ones with the accountants to hide it (AIG and Paris).

Dmarks: Wouldn't it be nice if we had a President with the balls to break out the veto...?

dmarks said...

I remember the few times George W. Bush vetoed wasteful spending bills... and the Dems gave him hell over it.

Anyway, in the current political climate, it is an incorrect act to even read what Congress passes. I remember when one commenter here accused McCain of "grandstanding" because he dared.... DARED.... to read from the contents of a budget bill. That is such OUTRAGEOUS behavior!

You can't expect Obama to read the bills he signs into law. He's got more important things to do.

Toad734 said...

So you want to punish people who spend money? I don't think that would work right now as we need people to be spending.

Not only the wealthy are taxed. I pay plenty in taxes and I am not rich, by Afghanistan standards, sure, I am rich but not by American standards. You can't tax someone who doesn't make any money, I don't know what you don't understand about that. If you need money to invade Iraq or give money to Halliburton, AIG, Exxon, ADM or who ever, should you be taxing the people with no money or the people with money? Especially since those people with money are the ones with all the access to the government and are the ones who choose our leaders and write our laws and hire all the lobbyists. They get more so they should pay more. Its the same concept as your flat tax, those who spend more get taxed more. My concept is the same, the one who gets more should pay more. If i get a 6 inch sandwich but you get a 12" sandwich shouldn't you pay more than I pay? Isn't that logical?

Dmarks:

I thought Bush was the one who rushed a welfare bill for rich people including AIG to the table without any provisions and probably without reading it??

dmarks said...

Toad: Bush did it when he was in office. Obama has done it too. I guess the idea of "change" does not cover this.

Patrick M said...

Toad: You can't make an argument without mentioning either Iraq, Bush, or Haliburton (or man-ass sex), can you?

Beyond that, your argument just highlights the need for the FairTax. Because the 6" sub would be subsidized with only healthy toppings, the 12" would be taxed normally, and the big-assed party sub would be a deduction.

Toad734 said...

I didn't mentions hairy man ass sex. But you wonder why we have such debt and you need to look no further than Iraq, Bush, Haliburton and of course the out of control free market health care system.

I don't want a deduction for someone who got the 6 foot sandwich, the guys with the 6 foot sandwiches are the ones who get all the deductions, benefits and of course, most of the sandwich right now the way things are. That is what has to change.

Do you still not see the logic behind the theory that if Rich people who work at AIG and all the banks, get billions of our dollars which means they get to keep the jobs which pay them millions of dollars per year, that they deserve to pay more of that back in higher taxes on their personal incomes? Fair is fair right? They got billions from you and I, they are going to be at the tables when the laws are written which will allow them to make even more money, they are the ones who have congressmans personal phone numbers in their blackberries so therefore, they owe more money for all the perks they receive. Nothing is free. Those who get more, should pay more. As it turns out, the ones who get more also make more. That is what you have the problem with but in reality they are the ones who also get more. A 12" sub should cost more than a 6" sub. As you mentioned, you and I get the 6" subs and they are the ones getting the 12' party subs and they should have to pay for it.

Patrick M said...

Toad: I didn't mention hairy asses in the man-ass sex. I just like to mock you. Because if I didn't know you had a woman, I'd swear you're way to fixated on it. Wait, I'm saying that anyway. Of course, what does that say about me as I bring it up every other week? :)

Do you still not see the logic behind the theory that if Rich people who work at AIG and all the banks, get billions of our dollars which means they get to keep the jobs which pay them millions of dollars per year, that they deserve to pay more of that back in higher taxes on their personal incomes?

No. A flat system, where they pay the same percentage as everybody else, but because their numbers are up there they pay a much higher dollar amount is truly the fairest way. But I don't completely favor that approach either. If you go with, say 15%, when you're in the millions, you still have millions. But when you make $20k, that's $2500, which would hurt significantly, just as any sudden expense would.

This is why I keep coming back to the FairTax, which gives the individual some control over how much they pay, exempts people who don't make (and therefore don't spend) much, and still has a progressive element that taxes the people that have and are spending the most money.

What would be patently unfair is to start deciding who makes what after we give them money. If they accept the money with an agreement, that's fine. But demonizing someone after they get paid what the were going to get paid is evil, unconstitutional, and wholly un-American, whether they deserve the money or not.

And I still agree they should have to pay for the party sub. But you don't advocate the change that will make that happen. Under the current plans being discussed, you'll see the biggest party sub buyers go to another sub shop.