This is your government's brain on Tea Party
News blogs, sports blogs, entertainment blogs, and more from Philly.com, The Philadelphia Inquirer and the Philadelphia Daily News.
This is your government's brain on Tea Party
Nassau County, N.Y., in the center of densely populated Long Island, is one of the most affluent counties in America. That said, it's had its problems -- some because of decades of mismanagement by a corrupt Republican machine (yes, these exist...think Delco) and some because of the 2008 fiscal crisis -- but they appeared to be manageable.
Until a Tea Party-inspired "tax revolt" took over the county in January 2010.
Barely a year later, Nassau County is broke:
At his January 2010 inauguration, Tea Party-backed Republican Edward Mangano marched up to the podium, pen in hand. Even before being officially declared Nassau County Executive, he signed a repeal of an unpopular home energy tax.
The move elicited chants of "Eddie, Eddie, Eddie" from supporters assembled in the auditorium of Mangano's alma mater, Bethpage High School, 30 miles east of New York City.
"This is very cool and quite an honor," Mangano said as he gave his admirers a thumbs-up.
The fiscal consequences, however, were anything but cool.
The energy tax was part of a three-part plan by the pre-2010 Democratic regime for balancing Nassau's budget during the Great Recession -- along with higher taxes and $61 million in union concessions. But Tea Partier Mangano also bagged the property tax component, unsurprisingly, and he never took the union concessions seriously. The county budget grew so out of whack so quickly that a state panel that monitor's Nassau's finances -- created during that earlier era of GOP misrule -- moved in. The grown-ups are taking over.
Coincidentally, you're going to be hearing a lot over the next 10 days about Ronald Reagan and his 100th birthday, which is such a big deal that they've also created a football game called the Super Bowl to be played that very same day. Most of the Reagan talk will be good, some of it will be critical. Many would ask: Why debate the politics of Reagan nearly seven years after he died? This is why.
What Edward Mangano did isn't exactly copying Reagan -- the Gipper, who signed off on a series of tax increases beginning in the second year of his presidency, was a lot smarter than the Tea Party -- but it is instead what I and others have come to call Reaganism, or the Reagan myth. A central tenet of the Reagan myth is that taxes can only be cut.
What happened in Nassau is Reaganism to the extreme -- exacerbated by Mangano's fear of making tough spending cuts to match his verbal bravado. And it's what would happen to America, if the Tea-fueled Republicans seize control of more of the government in 2013.
It's so crazy I almost want to quote Sarah Palin.
See you Sunday. Win the Weekend!
Comments (142)
I'm still trying to figure out the circular logic these dolts use to justify extending the billionaire tax breaks - that doing so will help job creation - when the policy they want to extend existed during the past decade. So how'd that work out? But what do you expect from a group who confuses ideology with intelligence?— CiceroSpuriousDeodatus- Its amazing you had the stupidity to link to the article. "In a sense, Nassau County's predicament remains highly unusual. The oversight board created by New York State more than a decade earlier following a financial crisis gave Mangano little margin for error." "But in other ways, Nassau County is not unlike many places in the United States today. A June 2010 survey by the National Association of Counties found 65 percent of the 800 counties polled reported budget shortfalls of between $100,000 and $50 million."— RG
- He had to link to it, he quoited too much of it, and even the the Inky won't run Reuters wire copy flat. — MaggieL
Comment removed.- "To be sure, Nassau County's fiscal woes long predate the Tea Party."— RG
- "The grown-ups are taking over" apparently means the unions are back in the driver's seat. Well it *is* New York, after all...— MaggieL
Can ANYONE explain to me why Liberals lack the "logic gene"?
Do all liberals who's brain is more geared to English- than Math think the same way?
Do liberals understand logic? or is it always about how they "feel"?
Liberals- actors- musicians- teachers- journalists- artists- morons- brain dead people.
Why is that?- Lets take the current tact of blaming the previous admin. Works fine for the prez and his supporters. "The county's financial crisis helped usher in an era of Democratic rule. Suozzi was elected in 2001 and served two terms as county executive before his defeat to Mangano, a 14-year veteran of the Nassau County Legislature"— RG
I heard part of the Tea Party Senators (I got Mike Lee and Jim DeMint) explain what should be done with the U.S. economy. It did sound much like what has happened in Nassau County, and I don't think there is a larger entity available than the U.S. to help us when we go bankrupt. The new higher deficit for this year has been pumped up by continuing the Bush tax cuts and now Social Security is spending more than it is taking in for the first time because of the FICA tax cut. The only way out of the deficit mess is to reform taxes in a fair way that brings in higher revenue. I think thoughtful Republicans know this, too, but believe it impolitic to even mention, much less enact.- "The only way out of the deficit mess is to reform taxes in a fair way that brings in higher revenue." Translation: don't take away Archie's goodies, just take more money from the rich to pay for them. — RG
- No need to send donations, just stop clamoring to take more money from them. Pay your own way. Take your money and invest it in green energy, donate it to charity, and fund the causes you support. — RG
- Easiest way to do that? Stop having government subsidize so much. — RG
- 80% of the Country DOES NOT consider themselves Liberal- yet we have to deal with their attraction to the MSM everyday- strange.
Liberals- always trying to solve the world's problems with feelings...never seems to work. - Comment removed.
Give them all a nice fat pension, and it will fix all the problems.— Mr. Smith- Will's big indictment of the Tea Party? A small time pol in an affluent NY suburb takes over a chronically troubled county after 8 years of Dem rule. One year later, the state intervenes. Wow, Will, solid norg journalism there, buddy.— RG
- Comment removed.
- I'd rather drink the Tea Party Kool Aid than the Democrat Kool Aid ANY DAY.— chrissmith
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Oh no, they're going after Bats' tater tots? What's next, his plastic diapers?
- Michelle is worried about Tater Tots while the Empty Suit smokes like a chimney...NICE— 2ndNlong
- Long Island suburbanites in fiscal trouble? Let 'em drink tea.
- I think the big thing that causes all this anti-tea party hand wringing is Rand Paul and his idea of killing all foreign aid.A country thats bankrupt should not be giving away free money to the likes of Israel,Egypt or anybody else.
I'm sure tea-party ideas bother some people-but turning off that money spigot will really bring out the big guns in the media to run you down.Expect the tea-party to be linked with every disaster from volcanoes to the Oklahoma bombing.Guilt by association.Old trick-works,too.— oakster - We can certainly afford to give up our global influence. Let multinational corporations buy their own peace of mind for a change.
- So, Nassau's cozy suburbanites wanted the best schools money could buy at the expense of poor taxpayers from the rest of the state. The state bailed them out with $100 million, and they still can't balance their books, sitting on the richest real estate on the East Coast with a booming private sector. WTF????????
- I'm not sure where you came to that conclusion, but yes, the state took taxes from others to bail them out. Aren't you normally a fan of that? — RG
- ===]]] I think the big thing that causes all this anti-tea party hand wringing is Rand Paul and his idea of killing all foreign aid [[[===
Brilliant!!!
--snip--
Gallop Poll - do you favor or oppose cutting in the following areas...
Favor Oppose
Foreign aid 59 37
Arts and sciences 46 52
Aid to farmers 44 53
Homeland security 42 56
Military/nat. defense 42 57
Anti-poverty programs 39 55
Medicare 38 61
Social security 34 64
Education 32 67
--snip--
So - out of all the areas that "the media" could train their "big guns" on -- they will focus on the idea of cutting foreign aid - THE ONLY AREA LISTED ABOVE WHERE THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS WOULD LIKE TO SEE CUTS.... and which amounts to less than 1% of the federal budget.
Yes - people aren't objecting to Rand Paul trying to eliminate federal support for education, for his attempt to eliminate government oversight of nuclear safety, for his attempt to eliminate the State Department - which is an integral part of national defense.
I tell ya' folks, our beloved Attytood "conservatives" are just freakin' GENIUSES. They come up with political analyses that you just don't see ANYWHERE else.
Oh. My sides.— Talking point sleuth - TPS is about to have a full on meltdown because a freshman Senator proposed cutting spending to reduce the deficit. Caps locks, snips, sides. If anything happens to Rand, TPS rhetoric should eb held responsible. — RG
- Just caught this beauty: "for his attempt to eliminate the State Department - which is an integral part of national defense." You're criticizing him for cutting the State Dept, because it'll effect national defense, yet the other day you criticized him for not cutting the defense budget. Care to square that circle? — RG
- The government does not care what the majority wants
snip
They do what they want
snip
the corporate media forms public opinion
snip
the people who run the media have a vested interest in giving Israel and Egypt billions of taxpayer dollars
snip
if your sides hurt-try two ex-lax
snip— oakster - "You're criticizing him for cutting the State Dept, because it'll effect national defense, yet the other day you criticized him for not cutting the defense budget."
RG, you DO know the difference between conference tables and aircraft carriers, right?— Hamlet - Yes. That still doesn't make TPS' posts any clearer. He argues we need the State Dept for national defense, while actively wanting to cut money for....national defense. Conference tables don't defend us. — RG
- Right, because military aggression has been working so well for us the last sixty years. Why talk to a government when you have the power to wipe out her people? — Hamlet
- First, they came for the tater tots.— Talking point sleuth
- Comment removed.
- I WANT MY TATER TOTS BACK!!!!!!!1!!!!1!!!!!!!— Talking point sleuth
- Say, cleanup Philly:
What services do polls say that residents in Philly would like to see cut so they can pay less in taxes?
I'll wait.....— Talking point sleuth - Comment removed.
- Philly.com is being particularly cantankerous today.
I'll completely agree with you about the RDA selling properties and cleaning up the problem where delinquent taxpayers hold onto properties while they crumble. It is painful to drive around Philly and see so much beautiful housing stock in such a sad state of decay. That’s why I think programs like Gamble’s plan to work on 200 blocks of the worst areas of the city are positive – particularly because he’s working on a more integrative approach to urban renewal. That doesn’t mean that the process shouldn’t be fully transparent, and it certainly should be subject to close evaluation.
As for your notion that somehow eliminating social services will somehow eliminate inter-generational poverty -- I think your analysis is simplistic. Inter-generational poverty has existed throughout human history, the vast majority of in places where no social services existed.
Poverty rates in this country DECREASED with the strengthening of social services. Concurrent with the initiation of the "Great Society" programs, we saw a significant reduction in poverty rates. The cost/benefit of early childhood education programs such as Head Start have been proven over and over by exhaustive studies.
Welfare and social services reform is a worthwhile and serious discussion, but your simplistic binary determination that because problems persist, social services CAUSE poverty is not a very good starting point.
— Talking point sleuth - Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- I must say, cleanupphilly - your concern for what the residents of Philly do and don't want is touching.— Talking point sleuth
- What they do and don't want is inconsequential. People often want things they can't have. Its what they can actually pay for that matters. And I mean the whole tax base, not voting for extra services that others will pay for. — RG
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- No doubt, cleanupphilly - there is graft and inefficiency in many of Philly's municipal services.
And so your answer is to cut services completely? All federal funding for education should be gone?
And you seriously think that the Republicans in the state government haven't been complicit in hiring failed private entities to run schools in Philly?
Where should we cut first in your quest to eliminate federal funding of education in Philly? How about the free lunch programs for kids who come to school hungry?
Yeah - it's clear that your partisan focus on Philly's problems stems from your deep concern about the welfare of Philly's citizens.— Talking point sleuth - The Regan presidency began the era of "compassionate conservatism" -- the era when the federal government and states reniged on taking care of the mentally ill and put them on the street which then caused the homeless condition which we face today.
Likewise, Rush, Bachman, Sarah Palin and their kind are "haters", sowers of hatred and discord. They will see the darkness no matter the light. That is their calling to make what is good look evil and what is right, look wrong. Ironically, they call themselves Christians, but Christ said, you will know them by their "fruit".— angellight21 - Nice try sweetie but this was going on in mid 70s, long before Regan (sic) was elected. The main legal battles started in the early 70s but most of the deinstitutionalization took place under Carter. It was really a case of the road to hell is paved with good intentions. By restricting parens patriae for the mentally incompetent (interestingly, this coincided with an increase in Democratic voters) the homeless problem blossomed. — 2ndNlong
- Right. Cutting the federal assistance that caused the wholesale closing of mental hospitals in the 1980's had NOTHING to do with homelessness and the rise in crime during the Reagan era. Nope. Nuh-uh. — Hamlet
- That trend started in the mid 70s, hard to ag Reagan with that. Reagan also signed a federal act to help the homeless (McKinney-Vento). Don't let the data get in the way of your rant, you'd have to turn in the righteous rage tag for your liberal license. — 2ndNlong
- So the Republican War on Arithmetic continues. As the Tea Party continues to champion the Koch/Murdoch billionaire tax agenda, budgets continue to implode. I don't know when the GOP first got the reputation as the Party of Fiscal Responsibility, but I've never seen them behave in a fiscally responsible manner during my lifetime.— Jeff West
- Neither have I. I always figured it was an advertising slogan. "Have it Your Way" "Party of Fiscal Responsibility" Ball Park Franks - they Plump when You Cook 'em" "Built Ford Tough" — Hamlet
- Because the only thing you consider fiscally responsible is raising taxes on others. — RG
- Well, cutting taxes while starting two unnecessary wars seems to have worked out for your guys, hasn't it? — Hamlet
- how come no articles about the Obamacare lies being exposed that it will not keep cots down and that you will not get to keep your plan if you like it. i know it was buried in the newspaper yesterday. i am not good at cut and paste like TPS, but seems Will is mad when Obama lied abotu clsing Gitmo, but were is the rage for hte Obamacare lie that it does not lower rates and that you will not be able to keep your plan? hear that...............crickets, which is hte sme empty sound heard in every head in Washington - empty space between the ears. maybe this month Obama will talk to his commander in Afghan - since it has been 2. months since the last time he spoke to him - but I forgot - the Bears were in the playoffs - so priorities.........— reddog44
- "but were (sic) is the rage for hte Obamacare lie that it does not lower rates"
HCR reform hasnt even kicked in yet knucklehead. But why we are on the topic of rage, where is the rage about the lies of death panels. And even more important, where is the rage on the right that HCR lowers our deficit. You cant let that happen!!! Right? Gotta keep that deficit high to fuel teabaKKKer passions and hate.— Les Ismore - "HCR reform hasnt even kicked in yet knucklehead." Correct, so your claim that it lowers the deficit isn't true either. — RG
- I've been thinking that the R's are so Hell-bent on repeal before the people find out what the real HCR law actually does for good reason. They will be against repeal after it kicks in. — Hamlet
- Knucklehead?? If "HCR reform hasnt (sic) even kicked in yet" then please explain why so many exemptions have been granted.
Where is Bill Hicks when we need him???? Bill, I hope I don't offend if I comment on this post for you:
"This is your government." I've seen a lot of weird shuff on Attytood. I have never ever ever ever EVER looked at a F'ing egg and thought it was a government.”— bird11- ===]]] Right. Cutting the federal assistance that caused the wholesale closing of mental hospitals in the 1980's had NOTHING to do with homelessness and the rise in crime during the Reagan era. Nope. Nuh-uh. [[[===
Hamlet - you seem to forget what wonderful, healing those institutions were. I mean, it's not like they warehoused people in inhumane conditions, or anything like that. Widespread involuntary commitment and forcing medications on people was a panacea. If only we had that now.....
It is true that de-institutionalization gained momentum under Carter - but with the intent of maintaining sufficient funding to provide adequate care.
Scandinavian countries have much, much more effective mental health care programs than we have - because the have well-funded de-institutionalization.
But I hear that countries like China have extremely good mandatory institutionalization systems.
— Talking point sleuth - My point was dumping mentally ill people on the streets with no help, nowhere to go, not even a way to survive was not the answer. — Hamlet
- Yeah - I got that, Hamlet. And I agree. — Talking point sleuth
- "Whether Bunch likes it or not, people are "taxed enough already." . . . . . I agree, which is why I support eliminating the income tax altogether, and imposing a healthy tax on wealth and property instead, particularly the kind that's amassed "...beyond all healthy limits", as it was once phrased by one of my GOP heros, Teddy Roosevelt.
- No problem. My definition of a healthy limit is just under whatever amount you own and have saved. And my idea of a healthy tax is, say 50%. Put yur money where your mouth is. — RG
- RG, here's my idea of healthy. A 2% (two per cent) annual tax on the net worth of the richest 25% of American households (who own about 80% of the total net worth of all Americans in the neighborhood of $45 trillion) would equal current revenue from the federal income tax. Add just 3 more percent and we could balance the budget.
- So you want to freeload? Sounds like an awesome system. You get to vote for more services, without having to pay for them. Unless, you're in that top 25%, in which case, why don't you just write out a bigger check to the IRS? — RG
- Asking for else taxes for yourself, more taxes for others, and wanting expanded gov services would make you one. ie voting for HCR but asking the rich to pay for it. — RG
- Heck, I'm willing to share in the burden by paying 2% of my net worth, too. I recognize that my ability to accumulate wealth in this country is dependent on a healthy educated middle and working class. We're not all blissfully isolated from society like you RG.
- No, you just appear to be blissfully ignorant of the facts. Spending on education has continued to go up, with increasingly poor results. If you want to continue to throw money down that rathole, thats your business, don't force others to do the same. — RG
- MSL - You want billionaires to be able to keep only 98% of their net worth?
Say someone is worth 10 billion - and you expect them to be able to survive on 9 billion, 8 hundred million per year - just so some "parasite-class" children can get an education?
You're heartless. Absolutely heartless.
— Talking point sleuth - //MSL - You want billionaires to be able to keep only 98% of their net worth?///
He didn't say just billionaires, numb nuts. He said top 25% of households based on net worth.
The 75-89% range of that top 25 has household assets of rouglhy 250k=275k total net worth. That's middle class, and an overwhelming majority of that "top 25%" would be as well.
Your attempt at sarcasm is as weak as your cognitive thought. - there are a couple of problems with this, MSL.
For one thing, you are proposing a hit to the "richest 25%" of us households. But that top 25% is made up of majority middle class. Consider this: household net worth in 2010 is currently equal to what it was in the early 1990s (http://tinyurl.com/4c4uvuy). For argument's sake, the median net worth of the 75-89% percentile was $275k (http://oregonstate.edu/instruction/anth484/wpsipp.html) in 1992-1995, roughly equivalent to what it is today.
Net worth includes retirement savings, assets, home equity and so forth. So if you have a $250k house, and you've paid half, and say you have $125k tucked in your retirement between you and your wife, you would be right up into that 2% yearly net worth tax you want to levy.
I'm sorry, but most of that "top 25%" is far, far from being "rich". They are middle class.
Problem #2, what you're proposing could be considered double-taxation. You want to tax net worth, which means money and assets that have already been taxed. For example, if I had $10k in stocks, and I sold those stocks and made a profit, I have to pay taxes. I am then left with the proceeds. Your proposal would then tax those proceeds AGAIN, each YEAR, even if I just let them sit in the bank, because you are not taxing income (new money), you're taxing net worth (old money).
What you're proposing would be, by far, the largest tax increase in the history of mankind. -
MSL - You want billionaires to be able to keep only 98% of their net worth?
Say someone is worth 10 billion - and you expect them to be able to survive on 9 billion, 8 hundred million per year - just so some "parasite-class" children can get an education?
You're heartless. Absolutely heartless.
— Talking point sleuth - A little over the top there TPS - The Forbes list of net worth has only 22 people in the U.S. with a net worth of 10 Billion or above. I'm sure they could handle the 2%.
But when you talk about the top 25% you are down to people with a net worth much less than $1 million (roughly 8% of U.S. households are millionaires). Most of their worth would probably be from their home ownership. You are suddenly hitting people with an additional $20K tax bill - the same people who already pay 87% of the income taxes paid.
— bird11 - Bird, see my response below to MSL for solid numbers to back this up. Fact is, the 75-89 percentile of that "top 25%" of net worth in the US includes people who have about $250k in assets per HOUSEHOLD. If you have a home with some equity, and your family has some money tucked in 401(k)s and IRAs, you can be at that $250k real fast.
That's middle class, squarely, not "rich."
Furthermore, TPS anti-rich bias comes screaming through when you factor he is OK with MSL taxing on NET WORTH each YEAR. So that means you would be taxing money that has already been earned and taxed (he said net worth, not yearly income).
While I have no love lost for the uber-rich, I have a moral issue with double-taxation. Pass a 2% annual net worth tax on the top 25% and you would be passing the largest tax in history on the middle class.
You would also be severely punishing small business owners. Consider that a person's farmland or business may be worth $500,000. That puts them in the "top 25%" of net worth, because that farmer or owner owns that business and the ownership is an asset.
Now, are you going to explain to that farmer, or small businessperson, that they now have to pay an additional 2% tax on the VALUE of that business, per year, even though they have paid taxes on the INCOME that business generates every year? - General - the 2% tax is a great idea if you make it sound like the only people you are taxing are Bill Gates/Warren Buffett types - but the facts, as you point out, are much different.
I don't know why these people can't just admit they don't want a fair tax system they want wealth redistribution.— bird11 - Because they are liars. — RG
- ===]]] Easiest way to do that? Stop having government subsidize so much. [[[===
Yeah. You tell him, RG. You know what I really hate? All that government subsidization of things like biomedical research. Just think how much better off we'd all be if we had 85% less biomedical research.
And of course, getting rid of those "nanny-state" policies wouldn't hurt, either. Did you hear that the government forced people to get the smallpox vaccine? Just think how much better off we'd have all been if we'd just let infected people continue to run around.
Thanks for fighting the good fight, RG - protecting us from all this government "tyrany."— Talking point sleuth - And when people got sick or died from the forced vaccine, do you have an "oh my sides" for that? If you like biomed research, pay for it yourself. We didn't need biomed research to vaccinate smallpox. — RG
- Comment removed.
- TPS - huge logic error. If the vaccine protects a person from a disease that person's health is not affected by the vaccination status of the rest of the population. Thus, the nanny state provides no benefit to the individual in this case. If folks want to risk disease let them. Market conditions would give an economic advantage (lower premiums) to those who risked getting vaccinated. The nanny state weakens the gene pool because it prevents the punishment of poor decisions. — 2ndNlong
- Yeah - right. Who cares if there's an epidemic?
People dying in the streets, filling up hospital beds, costing society for medical treatment of the indigent, has no impact on anyone who isn't sick.
So, obviously, we would all be better off if the "nanny state" hadn't forced people to get vaccinated.
Now just think how much better off we'd be if the "nanny state" hadn't forced us to stop using leaded gas.
Thanks for the "logic" lesson.
Too funny.— Talking point sleuth - You should come clean and admit that you're too craven to make any tough choices on your own, so you need the government to "force" you to do things. — RG
- TPS has another logic fail. If the plague was bad enough most folks would choose to get the vaccine. Once again, TPS yearns for the 'mommy, mommy' nanny state while using that phrase as a verbal stick to limp-wristedly attack those that oppose her. WEAK! — 2ndNlong
- General, this type of thinking is exactly what is also wrong with excessive inheritence taxes. People end up selling the farm or business to pay the taxes.— bird11
- What do you consider excessive, birdie? — Talking point sleuth
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- That pun sphinx — 2ndNlong
- Comment removed.
- The guy at the book store said this book would help me with puns...egypt me — 2ndNlong
- ===]]] Fact is, the 75-89 percentile of that "top 25%" of net worth in the US includes people who have about $250k in assets per HOUSEHOLD. [[[===
Good point, bucky. I think that MSL wasn't being entirely serious about his proposal - but you are right. The top 25% is too broad a category.
So let's stick to, say, people that have a net worth in excess of 1.5 million. 2% would be $30,000. Leaving them with 1 million, four hundred and seventy thousand remaining. Tough life, huh? Let's say that they go with safe investments on some $500,000 of that money (leaving them $1 million to invest in property) - say in muni bonds that bring a modest 5% tax-free return. That would be $25,000 in income, so at the end of the day, they'd have 1 million, four hundred and ninety five thousand in net work. Man, my heart bleeds.
But you know, bucky, you're absolutely right. I agree - the top 25% of the population is too broad. I think it would be much better to go with something on the order of taxing the top 5%, 5% of their net worth.
Now cry me a river about the terrible hardships they'd endure.
Too funny.— Talking point sleuth - I think you've cried enough rivers for the entire blog. Always whining about how unfair it is that someone doesn't have something, so we need to take it from the rich. But thats juts ho you "roll". Because, instead of actually helping the people you pretend to care about, you prefer to cry about fat cats and inequality. I'm sure the poor and unfortunate appreciate your help. Unfortunately for them, your wealth envy won't feed, cloth, or provide for the,. — RG
- ///But you know, bucky, you're absolutely right. I agree - the top 25% of the population is too broad. I think it would be much better to go with something on the order of taxing the top 5%, 5% of their net worth.
Now cry me a river about the terrible hardships they'd endure. ///
In other words, you were way wrong on the 25%, but now you have to spin it like I'm some kind some kind of rich folk protector. That's a nice bit of pretzel logic there, but it's as transparent as cellophane.
//say in muni bonds that bring a modest 5% tax-free return. ///
Not all municipal bonds offer income exempt from both federal and state taxes, numbnut. There is an entirely separate market of municipal securities that are taxable at the federal level, but still offer a state—and often local—tax exemption on interest paid to residents of the state of issuance. And if you've been paying attention to more than the DJIA, you'd know that the muni bond market is on thin ice right now.
Thank the lord you're not a financial adviser. - Say - bucky. I haven't seen you in a couple of days. I was meaning to ask you... you know, because the Dow crossed the 12,000 mark the other day. Remember when you were explaining how the Dow going down when Obama first took office was a poor reflection of his economic policies? Seeing as how the Dow is now up by some 50% in the two years since Bush left office, I was wondering if you now think that the Dow's rise is a positive reflection of Obama's economic policies.
Because, you know, you're always so consistent in your logic, and you're never a Republican toady.
Too funny.— Talking point sleuth - "I was wondering if you now think that the Dow's rise is a positive reflection of Obama's economic policies." Sure, if you ignore the historic deficit and 9% unemployment. — RG
- If I am not mistaken, you are taking a quote out of context. I do not recall specifically sayign economic policies, but policies in general.
But sure, let's look at those policies from early 2009. Cap and Trade? Dead. Punishing corporate taxes? Dead. Let the Bush tax cuts expire? Nope. His promise to renegotiate NAFTA? Disappeared. His promise to heavily punish companies who ship jobs overseas and tax profits of overseas entities owned by US companies? Nada, zip zilch.
These are just some of the policies he was going to enact when I made that comment. They're all now dead or dormant. Think they have anything to do with a market recovery?
The stimulus bill? Failed. $70 billion in business lending? Unemployment hasn't moved. The Public-Private Investment Program (PPIP), which was supposed to clear up to $1 trillion in troubled assets off of balance sheets? It's gotten about $12 billion. HAMP? Nothing.
9.4% unemployment, 13% real unemployment, housing entering a double-dip, housing starts near record lows, manufacturing contracting further, business sitting on loads of cash but not spending or hiring, foreclosures about to have a record year in 2011.
But yeah, the Dow hit 12,000, so his policies have been great.
Too funny. - Oh, and bucky. One more thing while I'm at it.
Remember this absolutely hilarious post you wrote, where you flew into a rage and accused Will of being a liar?
--snip--
Posted 7:23 PM, 08/31/2010
///"Rich, like myself, loved Glenn Beck," Perkovic told me, //// Perkovic told you nothing, Will. You should correct this because you lifted it from another writer and another interview.
— General Turgidson
--snip--
You know, I missed your post where you fessed up for being so confused that you made such a laughable claim. Because, you know, I'm sure that you came back and offered an explanation.
Oh. My sides.— Talking point sleuth - I love how people get on here and do the typical liberal thinking of trying to spend someone elses money. Any idiot could raise taxes to close the deficit, but you have to remember what got us here, the SPENDING. I support a flat tax, no deductions. You pay a percentage of what you earn regardless the amount.— itzjake
Apples and Oranges.- Comment removed.
- ===]]] I am becoming convinced that Mubarak is running some kind of pyramid scheme. [[[===
About the kind of comment I'd expect from someone who's always posting: "Mummy, mummy, the big bad left-wing media conspiracy is sooooooo unfaaaaaaaiirrrr. Make them stop, mummy."— Talking point sleuth - Comment removed.
- How freakin' ironic is that?
Apparently, sloboat thinks that "Mommy, mommy" should actually be spelled "Mummy, mummy."
You boyz never, and I mean never, disappoint.
Hilarious.— Talking point sleuth - Comment removed.
- Keep spinning, bucky.
You whined about how the Dow falling was a function of Obama's policies. Now that the Dow is up 50% in his two years - you're saying that the rise and fall of the Dow isn't a function of his policies.
See, bucky, that's why some folks my think that you're a Republican toady.
BTW - how much did the Dow rise during Bush's 8 years in office?
Hilarious.
— Talking point sleuth - ///You whined about how the Dow falling was a function of Obama's policies.///
If you are going to quote, at least get it correct. I said his PROPOSED policies.
//Now that the Dow is up 50% in his two years - you're saying that the rise and fall of the Dow isn't a function of his policies. ///
I would say that some of it is due to his policies, but more of it is due to his policy failures. Tell me something he has done that has been an economic policy success, TPS. The list is mighty short.
It's not that hard, TPS, but you still seem too thick to comprehend. See, when he was elected, he wanted to pass a bunch of regulations and taxes, and he made that clear. An already skittish market dipped even further. And that's what I wrote at the time.
In two years, a majority of those proposed policies have failed. His biggest achievement, health care, is a big boon to businesses -- they are salivating at the idea of dumping people onto the government, I am sure.
It's not that hard to comprehend. But then again, considering you think muni bonds are completely tax free, I'd expect you to have trouble with economics. - Oh, and bucky. Here take a look at this thread:
http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/Two_reasons_to_pray_for_more_rain_this_summer.html?viewAllLatest=y&text=#comments
Of course, all your comments were deleted because you subsequently did something so perverted that you got banned at Philly.com, but read through the argument. Over and over you asserted that a short term drop in the stock market was caused by Obama's policies - establishing that you believed in a cause and effect relationship. I patiently explained to you that you were confusing correlation with causation - but you refused to listen.
Here was one of your BRILLIANT comments - that I quoted back to you:
---}}} That's 1.8% in 5 months, which translates to an anemic 3.9& per year average. ... {{{---
You translated a 5 month trend to extend it to a yearly rate. Hmmm. Let's see. 3.9% a year x 2 years... Ok. 7.8%
Well - you weren't off too far, bryanc, er, I mean bucky. You were only off by about 500%.
To freakin' funny.— Talking point sleuth - ...You translated a 5 month trend to extend it to a yearly rate. Hmmm. Let's see. 3.9% a year x 2 years... Ok. 7.8% ////
Let's see where the market sits when he is done, TPS. I'm hoping I am wrong in the long run, personally. A good market helps, for sure. - ===]]] In other words, you were way wrong on the 25%, [[[==== Yup. I think that 5% on the top 5% would be much better.
===]]] And if you've been paying attention to more than the DJIA, you'd know that the muni bond market is on thin ice right now. [[[===
Non sequitur much? Just one example of an investment vehicle. Historically, stocks would do better - so you could pick other ways to determine the income on that $500,000 invested to offset the $30,000 of taxes.
And you don't have to tell me about the concerns about muni bonds - most of my money is invested there: tax free - and at considerably higher rates of return than 5%. And despite a recent drop in value, they're still worth considerably more on the market than my cost basis. Tempting to sell them, actually - but unlike you, I don't freak out about short-term trends and look at the long history of very few muni-bond defaults.
Of course, I just set myself up for post after post of gleeful ARt cackling if the muni-bond market does collapse. But if that does happen, I'll have far bigger problems than a few lunatic Republican toadies giving me a hard time.— Talking point sleuth - Whats funny is that you think whats going on in the muni market is a short term trend. But riddle me this, if you are all about paying your own way and contributing to a society that allows you to prosper, why'd you invest in tax free munis? Looks liek you're trying to shelter some income from taxation. Bad statist! — RG
- Comment removed.
- RG freaks out in 3....2....1...— Talking point sleuth
• Batty, questioning the accepted story about the bizarre events of 9/11 does not make one a truther. I've been looking into to it and a lot of the story just does not add up. I always thought that as Americans we should question anything the government tells us. Analyze what we see and hear from them and demand the truth. I could go into a HUGE list of things that just can't be true. Do I have some wild theory about what happened? No. I'm as skeptical about the truther’s claims as I am about the government’s, but I have eyes and a mind and it is my duty as an American to question what I know has to be false. I may never get answers, but asking those questions is my right and the right of any American.
— Hamlet
Ahhh, you gotta love those truthers.- • The WHOLE WORLD KNOWS BIN LADEN IS RESPONSIBLE!" Based on what? You asked me to put up or shut up. The FBI dosen't think so. Show me why you do.
— Hamlet
Uh, maybe because bin Laden claimed responsibility for it himself?
In case you missed it, because your head was in the sand: (http://tinyurl.com/4adgykx)
The exact quote from bin laden "we decided to destroy towers in America" because "we want to regain the freedom of our nation."
Call me crazy, but seeing as how the guy released a tape to the whole world claiming responsibility, that serves as pretty good evidence to back up the assertion of "The WHOLE WORLD KNOWS BIN LADEN IS RESPONSIBLE!"
Yes, Hamlet is ONE funny truther. - And acknowledgement to General Turgidson for providing the retorts to Hamlet, Truther In Chief.
- Comment removed.
- • I'm not a truther. You asked me why I question the accepted story and I told you part of it. There’s more. You disputed none of it. I asked you to tell me why you think bin Laden is responsible for 9/11 when the FBI does not, you have not done it. All you can do is engage in ad hominems against me. I’m tired of shouting at the rain barrel.
— Hamlet
"Exhaustive government and independent investigations have concluded otherwise, of course, and bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders have proudly taken responsibility for the hijackings. FBI officials say the wanted poster merely reflects the government's long-standing practice of relying on actual criminal charges in the notices. "
"The indictments currently listed on the posters allow them to be arrested and brought to justice," the FBI says in a note accompanying the terrorist list on its Web site. "Future indictments may be handed down as various investigations proceed in connection to other terrorist incidents, for example, the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001."
- • WTC 7 - a steel framed building - fell into its own foot print at the speed of gravity, even though it had not been hit by a plane and had only a couple of fires in the building. None hot enough to melt steel (and molten steel was found at its base days after the “collapse”).
— Hamlet
"WTC 7 collapsed because it was heavily damaged by falling debris. From the FEMA and NIST report: ""The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom—approximately 10 stories—about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner." With one section of the building so heavily damaged, it started a progressive collapse: a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse. It LOOKS like a deliberate implosion because deliberate implosions purposely create progressive collapses. when they do demolition on a big building they explode the bottom supports, they do timed explosions around the building and up through the structure so it collapses internally." - Gotta love the moonbat lefties of Attytood. They always keep the hits commin' on.
{{{{{{{{Oh, my sides}}}}}}}} - ===]]] Let's see where the market sits when he is done, TPS. [[[===
Hilarious. So NOW you want to look long term. At five months into Obama's administration - when he took office during the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, which occurred under Bush's administration - you wanted to focus on short-term, explaining how the drop was a poor reflection on Obama's policies.
8 months later, when the Dow was already up 21% under his administration, you back-pedaled. All of a sudden, whether the Dow goes up or down was not a function of his policies.
Too funny.
OK. You want to look long term now? Let's look long term, shall we? At the end of Bush's administration, the Dow was at @10,700. When Bush left office, the Dow was at @7,900. (I saw one calculation that on a dollar-adjusted basis - against other currencies, the Dow declined over the Bush administration by 41%). Eight years in office, down some 26% in unadjusted numbers.
In the two years since Obama took office, the Dow is up by close to 50%. The Dow could flatline for the entire remaining period of Obama's administration, and under his administration the Dow would perform better than under the previous administration by what, something like 2,000%?
So - let's recap, shall we?
5 months in, you were using a short-term period to conclude that the Dow average was a function of Obama's policies.
8 months in, you no longer felt that using a short term period was a solid basis for making that termination.
Now I wonder just what you'll say after for years, or perhaps eight years, assuming that the Dow goes up or remains where it is now, to laughably say that long term periods aren't a valid basis for saying that the Dow average is a function of the presidents policies.
Careful there, bucky - your toadyism is showing.— Talking point sleuth - Here's a tip. The stock market is becoming an increasing poor indicator of the economy. IMO, the reason for the recent rup up has nothing to do with gov policy, but is the result of QE2. When the Fed eases, it buys bonds from banks and financial firms. These firms aren't lending because credit checks have tightened and loan demand is down. so, instead of sitting on the money they bid equity prices up. Thats why we aren't seeing heavy price inflation, except for rises in fuel and food. Those commodity futures are being bid up, along with other equities. — RG
- Here's what a typical rightwing pundit wrote back in May of 2009.
--snip--
As of today’s close, Obama has overseen the worst stock market performance in the history of America for a new president. It’s an unprecedented 28% drop from Obama’s election to today. If you don’t believe my numbers, you can check the historical data here.
I know EXACTLY what the liberals are going to argue: “Obama is dealing with the mess. It’s not his fault because the problems were created under the Bush Administration. The stock market is weak because of what Bush did to the economy.”
Well guess what, folks…as ANY economist will tell you, capital markets are forward-looking. The Dow Jones Industrial Average usually rises and falls based on expectations of what will happen, not based on what’s happening right now. In other words, if stocks fall, it is because investors believe the future is looking bleak, not because the present state of the economy is bad. Note that the stock market collapsed in 2001 in anticipation of the recession that followed. The stock market is collapsing now in anticipation of the fact that Obama’s plan will be ineffectual....
[...]
Investors so far are unequivocal in their opinion of Obama. They have zero confidence in him, as we further report on here. If investors had any confidence in Obama’s vision of the future, they would be buying stock right now instead of heading for the hills.
Be Afraid. Be Very Very Very Afraid.
--snip--
Oh.
My.
Sides.
.
— Talking point sleuth - Sorry - that should have been when Bush TOOK office, the Dow was at around 10,700. I wouldn't want our beloved ARts' and libertarian-extremists' head to explode.— Talking point sleuth
- When I observe the logic of people who give the top 10% of wealth earners in this country no responsibility in the maintenance of our tax base; I say no wonder America is falling behind the rest of the world in math. The proof is in the Curve that Politicians use in the way they grade constituients responsibility by giving those earning the most 100% of what they earn and those earning far last being tax far more
- The top 10% of wealth earners pay 70% of all federal income taxes. The bottom 50% orf earners pay only 3% of federal income taxes. Those earning less are not being taxed "far more". http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/22652.html — RG
- Here's a nice little chart. It has nice pretty colors.
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/images/wealth/Figure_7.gif
What is shows is the share of all income earned and all taxes paid, by quintile.
For example, the top 20% earns 51% of all income and pays 64% of the taxes. Oh, those poor, poor people that are in the top 20% or earnings. How do they survive? They pay 13% more in taxes than they earn.
Now cry me a river, boyz.— Talking point sleuth - So they pay more than their fair share, yet you still cry and whine about how "unfair" life is. But you're not obsessively driven by wealth envy. Too. Funny. — RG
- While you're crying your eyes out, boyz, take a look at this:
% of income paid as tax, including local and state:
Lowest 20% of the population - 16%;
Top 20% - 30.8%
Absolutely tragic:
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/images/wealth/Figure_6.gif— Talking point sleuth - Sorry - that was top 1%.— Talking point sleuth
- "Cry me a river" is a poor argument for why you should be entitled to others money. Of course, this is what you are left with after your previous talking point, that the rich don't pay their fair share, was proven to be completely false.— RG
- ===]]] "Cry me a river" is a poor argument for why you should be entitled to others money. [[[===
Actually, RG - I'm in the quintile where the % of income and % of taxes paid match up precisely.
I just think that it's reasonable that the working poor on foodstamps should pay less of their income in taxes than people buying gold-plated shower curtains.
I just roll that way.— Talking point sleuth - ===]]] Here's a tip. The stock market is becoming an increasing poor indicator of the economy. [[[===
I never said that it was. What I'm laughing at is the selective reasoning of toadies.
They think it's a good indicator when it goes up with a Republican in office, a bad indicator when it goes down when a Republican is in office, a good indicator when it goes down with a Democrat in office, and a bad indicator when it goes up with a Democrat in office.
Fact is, over the past 6 decades or so, it has gone up more under Democratic administrations than under Republican administrations. Make of that what you will.
It's like when Republicans think that the Republican Party is the party of "fiscal conservatism," - even though under the past six decades spending as a % of revenue and debt as a % of GDP have been better under Dems.
Oh, and so have GDP growth, unemployment, and job growth.
— Talking point sleuth - Comment removed.
1
Popular Posts
Search this blog:
Blog Roll
- Andrew Sullivan
- Blinq
- Blogorrhea
- Blonde Sagacity
- Free Republic
- Instapundit
- James Taranto
- ScrappleFace
- The Corner
- Buzzmachine
- Eat the Press
- Editor and Publisher
- Media (Huffington Post)
- Media Bloodhound
- Mickey Kaus
- Pressthink
- Romenesko
- The Inksniffer
- A List of Things Thrown Five Minutes Ago
- Above Average Jane
- BlankBaby
- Citizen Mom
- Keystone Blog
- Metroblogging Philadelphia
- Phawker
- Philadelphia - America's Hometown
- Philadelphia Will Do
- Philebrity
- Philly Future
- Phillyblog
- Phillyist
- The Clog
- The Next Mayor
- Welcome to Phillyville
- Young Philly Politics
- Afro-Netizen
- All-Spin Zone
- Atrios
- Bad Attitudes
- Billmon
- Booman Tribune
- CorrenteWire
- Fables of the Reconstruction
- iFlipFlop
- Kiko's House
- MyDD
- Philly (Dragonballyee)
- Rowhouse Logic
- Slacktivist
- Suburban Guerilla
- Tattered Coat
- upyernoz
- AmericaBlog
- Andy Borowitz
- BuzzFlash
- Crooks and Liars
- Cursor
- Daily Kos
- David Sirota
- Drudge Report
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Fire Dog Lake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Hullabaloo
- Jesus' General
- Jon Swift
- Josh Marshall
- Juan Cole
- Kevin Drum
- Mad Kane
- Majikthise
- Matthew Yglesias
- Oliver Willis
- Raw Story
- Swing State Project
- Talk Left
- Taylor Marsh
- TBogg
- The Carpetbagger Report
- Think Progress
- War and Piece
- Wonkette
- A Citizen's Blog
- Balls, Sticks and Stuff
- Beer Leaguer
- Dick Polman
- Phillies Nation
- Philling Station
- Shallow Center
- The 700 Level
- The Good Phight
Classifieds:
Site Services:
Partners: