blah blah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah....

blah blah.

what's arguing about it online going to do ?

Look at the thread full of sore losers.

I laugh in your general direction

I'll start:

Red states are a bunch of welfare lovin, rednecks. There I said it.

Oh wait I live in Arizona, a so called "red" state. Funny most people I interact with are not Bush supporters.

vegasj:

blah blah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah....

blah blah.

what's arguing about it online going to do ?


About as much as your post, my friend.

Zoultan: Now the Democrats have eye bulging anger at Bush in retribution.


Actually, I'm probably not a dem. I just don't appreciate incompentance. In my opinion, Bush and his cronies have mis-managed this country, jepordized our national and economic security, and ignored (or don't comprehend) the real dangers facing this country. I'd rather we focused on real issues rather than distracting the electorate with gay marriage and abortion.

I think our current spending is unsustainable (and most economists agree). This country is practically bankrupt, and Bush is about to precipitate a financial crisis which will endanger our quality of life for generations.

Economic Armageddon.

I voted for Badnarik, not one of the two tax-raising Socialist frontrunners.

Same here, philwz.

someone referenced:

One of the great cliches of liberal criticism of the Christian right is the idea that these people are wrongheaded because they profess to know the will of God. H.L. Mencken put that one best, and perhaps first: "It is only the savage, whether of the African bush or the American gospel tent, who pretends to know the will and intent of God exactly and completely."

These criticisms sound like they make sense. But I think they are a little off-base. The problem not only with fundamentalist Christians but with Republicans in general is not that they act on blind faith, without thinking. The problem is that they are incorrigible doubters with an insatiable appetite for Evidence. What they get off on is not Believing, but in having their beliefs tested. That's why their conversations and their media are so completely dominated by implacable bogeymen: marrying gays, liberals, the ACLU, Sean Penn, Europeans and so on. Their faith both in God and in their political convictions is too weak to survive without an unceasing string of real and imaginary confrontations with those people -- and for those confrontations, they are constantly assembling evidence and facts to make their case.

But here's the twist. They are not looking for facts with which to defeat opponents. They are looking for facts that ensure them an ever-expanding roster of opponents. They can be correct facts, incorrect facts, irrelevant facts, it doesn't matter. The point is not to win the argument, the point is to make sure the argument never stops. Permanent war isn't a policy imposed from above; it's an emotional imperative that rises from the bottom. In a way, it actually helps if the fact is dubious or untrue (like the Swift-boat business), because that guarantees an argument. You're arguing the particulars, where you're right, while they're arguing the underlying generalities, where they are.

There's a term for this type of thing. I forget what it is.

BrotherAlpha:

2.) Increase the taxes by taxing the farking rich and not the middle class because that hurt the economy, not help it.

Wouldn't work.

Why?

People bearing heavier taxes would offshore their assets or take some other action to limit the amount of their money that is seized by the government (I don't know what the new Caymans are, but whatever they are that's where they'd go. I am aware of the changes made in 1996--to the Health Reform Act and to the Immigration Reform Act--but that wouldn't help. People would look for a less taxing country. In this global economy of ours, it's not that hard to do.)

This isn't something you want to do. Only people with wealth can create it. You can't remove an mechanism to create wealth. Impeding it is not a good route to take either.

3.) Cut corporate welfare.

That could work. And if fixed--[cut] corporate welfare becomes [cut] corporate welfare--we are really getting somewhere.

Decrease spending to necessary levels. Get rid of subsidies and grants and other unnecessary forms of spending.

spelunking_defenestrator:

The blue states should secede from the Union and take our tech sectors and tax dollars with us.

Civil war II, let's do it. Red America would be a third-world country within a month.

I guess "blue America" would just import most of it's food supply (more so than is already done)?

There are are not that many expendable states (Rhode Island is the most expendable for those that care; Delaware's up there too).

MegaDethHead:

Go fark yourself. These people you refer to who join the military tend to be farking 18 year old KIDS from poor slums trying to get out of the rut the government put them in.

Fark you. You know nothing. You suck ass.

Why is it that populists fail to use or understand logic?

Axolotl:

Some compromise should be made.

The very wealthy--for the most part--do much more for the economy than Trailer Park Ned and his toothless 50-year-old stripper girlfriend.

Just saying is all.

Wealthy people aren't evil. No matter how much some guy tells you they are.

it would amount to a hidden tax increase for millions of California taxpayers, who already pay $58 billion a year more to the federal government than they get back in services.

Indeed.

theigorway

"Actually, I'm probably not a dem. I just don't appreciate incompentance. In my opinion, Bush and his cronies have mis-managed this country, jepordized our national and economic security, and ignored (or don't comprehend) the real dangers facing this country. I'd rather we focused on real issues rather than distracting the electorate with gay marriage and abortion.

I think our current spending is unsustainable (and most economists agree). This country is practically bankrupt, and Bush is about to precipitate a financial crisis which will endanger our quality of life for generations."


Sure these are all valid faults of this adminstration, but he looks good in a flight suit and he caught Saddam Hussein! America! Fark Yeah!

2004-12-05 11:24:19 PM spamdog

This argument seems inconsistent with the typical progressive argument for government spending/involvement in social programs. If you're comfortable with your federal gov impounding your life in the form of cash to better the lives of others, why is this particular flavor of social promotion (assuming the facts support your statement) against your fiber?

So the administration is looking at a back-door tax increase.

First, W gives away any surplus he inherited, then spends like crazy (necessary or not, your call), then cuts taxes, then decides that maybe he needs to stoke up ol' federal checkbook.

While I don't like it, i've been expecting something like this for awhile now.

Bush and his supporters have no shame.

They almost seem to be purposely and gleefully setting the stage for civil war.

I hope you Bushies realize exactly what the outcome of Bush's continued attacks on "Blue America" will lead to:

1. A complete breakdown in the U.S. economy, leading to a total collapse of US military and economic power.

2. A world filled with nations that hate us for our arrogance... and who need no be longer fearful of our vanished military might.

Basically, Bush is setting the U.S. up for an azz-farking of enormous proportions.

I guess "blue America" would just import most of it's food supply (more so than is already done)?

Sure. Why not?

Zoultan: It's not against my fiber. I was just being snarky and pointing out what a bunch of idiots people are for spouting off about "wealth redistribution" when they are clearly recipients of it.

2004-12-06 12:09:36 AM theigorway

If you buy into all that Michael Moore dream weaving, you're diluded.

Economic poop pile? Truly. Bush is farking the public check book. Why is it that Republicans are against government spending until they control the purse strings? While we're at it; why is it that Democrats are all for public spending sprees until a Republican is in office?

If you buy into all that Michael Moore dream weaving, you're diluded.

Dear Bush,

Leave NY alone. Same goes for Cali.

Your friend,

kliq

Zoultan:

Economic poop pile? Truly. Bush is farking the public check book. Why is it that Republicans are against government spending until they control the purse strings? While we're at it; why is it that Democrats are all for public spending sprees until a Republican is in office?


Try reading the article I posted before replying. It's not partisan.

Economic Armageddon

Stick a fork in the USA, it's done.

2004-12-06 12:22:23 AM spamdog
I think much of that wealth redistribution that snarks you is a result of pork barreling. I don't think red staters want the feds to take or give money any more than the average blue stater. A practice which seems to stem from individual congressmens ability to persuade their fellow congressmen. That is a trait of both Democrats and Republicans.

Hey dems, Kerry lost, live with it. Besides we had worst presidents than Bush Jr, and we survived. Does Johnson, Nixon, Hoover, Carter, and others ring a bell? Yeesh, I also voted for Kerry, but I did not act like a drama queen about it. I also did not lost any sleep over it.

Er I meant lose not lost.

Sooo...this will affect the richer states then?

Isn't this a tax increase which screws the rich?

And the hippies are unhappy?

I give up. Nobody here makes any sense.

bring_a_towel I believe there's a provision in the federal Consitution prohibiting double-taxation. Yes, but it only applies to taxing income from government bonds; i.e. states can't tax income from T-bills and the Feds can't tax income from muni bonds.

theflyingdutchman Axolotl: Some compromise should be made. The very wealthy--for the most part--do much more for the economy than Trailer Park Ned and his toothless 50-year-old stripper girlfriend. I certainly agree that the Blue State workers and employers do much more for the national economy than the Red State welfare recipients. What's your point?

Just saying is all. Wealthy people aren't evil. No matter how much some guy tells you they are. That's a Straw Man. I'm wealthy and employ 15 people, at a personal cost of $750,000 a year. Again, what's your point?

I guess "blue America" would just import most of it's food supply (more so than is already done)?

California is one of the largest exporters of agricultural produce in the world. California also has the world's 8th largest economy, including manufacturing, computers, bio-tech, movies, and scientific research.

California also pays many millions more each year into the federal kitty than it gets back.

So.. um.. yeah, we "Blue" folks could easily supply our own food, or buy food from Canada (2nd largest grain exporter in the world) if we really needed to.

We'd also save money in the process.

2004-12-06 12:26:11 AM theigorway

Try reading the article I posted before replying. It's not partisan. (Umm, don't know how to make italic)

Not partisan? It's written by the Boston Herald for cripes sake! I make a point of strongly filtering content from media with an agenda and from alarmists.

As for Stephen Roach; he cites the trade deficit and soaring costs of oil as the source for the predicted impending doom. (How are either of those Bushs fault?) Those issues have dogged us for decades. Granted this particular combo is especially daunting, but I caution you to not wring hands with naysayers.

ChuckRoddy

Yep, the hippies say they're all for progressive taxation.

So logically, since the blue states are wealthier, they should pay more taxes - at least in the perfect hippie world.

Bush gives 'em just what they want and they piss and moan about it! Silly liberals.

General Zang Bush and his supporters have no shame. They almost seem to be purposely and gleefully setting the stage for civil war. I hope you Bushies realize exactly what the outcome of Bush's continued attacks on "Blue America" will lead to: 1. A complete breakdown in the U.S. economy, leading to a total collapse of US military and economic power. 2. A world filled with nations that hate us for our arrogance... and who need no be longer fearful of our vanished military might. Basically, Bush is setting the U.S. up for an azz-farking of enormous proportions.

No estate taxes, low taxes overall, low or no corporate oversight, no environmental regulation, little or no social spending... There's a name for the vision the conservatives have for America - It's called Mexico.

Serves all them fancy college boys in the Blue States right. All the good Red State jobs are gone or leaving - someone figured out that the only difference between an American ignoramus and a Chinese slave is about $12/hr.

Zoultan:

(How are either of those Bushs fault?) Those issues have dogged us for decades. Granted this particular combo is especially daunting, but I caution you to not wring hands with naysayers.


The point is that Bush is fearlessly leading us on a crusade against gay marriage and abortion, while the US economy follows Argentina down into the Abyss. He's a crappy leader and not doing anything to address the real dangers facing the US.

Yep, the hippies say they're all for progressive taxation.

So logically, since the blue states are wealthier, they should pay more taxes - at least in the perfect hippie world.

Bush gives 'em just what they want and they piss and moan about it! Silly liberals.

Yes, it's just that simple! No thinking required!

Tinian So logically, since the blue states are wealthier, they should pay more taxes - at least in the perfect hippie world. Yeah, we're okay with that, except that you rednecks try to lecture the rest of us about fiscal responsibility and hard work. Put a cork in your hypocrisy, go cash the welfare checks we pay for and be humble about it.

Any kind of tax reform will cause pain for someone. Get ready for some pain, here it comes.

Did any of you read in the article where Bush hasn't supported this measure yet? It's just an idea being tossed around. There will be a bipartisan commitee studying all of the ideas and this is just one of them.

Also, my state has no state income tax, so the state gets money through a sales tax. We don't get reimbursed from the federal government like states with income taxes do.

Right now I wouldn't be too worried about paying higher taxes. I think the current tax codes are certainly worth looking at and thinking about fixing, I don't know why everyone's so upset about it. Wait a couple of years for when they actually start endorsing ideas and then get your panties in a knot.

2004-12-06 12:41:48 AM theigorway
I've found that usually the people who actually think Bush's primary platform planks are anti-gay marriage and anti-abortion are fringe to either party. I guess one hears what they want to hear.

I can't name one Democratic candidate, let alone the nominee, with fresh ideas to address real issues like, deficit, debt, SS, Health, economic/scientific/manufacturing/technology competitiveness, Islamic radicalism, or nut job regimes. Sure, they said stuff, but it's just a rehash of what every other red/blue offers.

Sooo...this will affect the richer states then?
Isn't this a tax increase which screws the rich?

No, quit being a dumbass. Just because you live in a state with high local taxes doesn't mean you are rich. If anything, you'd have less money because you are paying more local taxes.

Bush is raising taxes selectively on Blue states (see NY and California, and compare to Texas and Florida); they will now have to pay a larger share of the federal tax income than they already do.

But this is all nuanced stuff, so I doubt you'd care or even understand. I suggest you go back to prattling on about how bush is a strong leader or 'believes what he says' or whatever happy horseshiat ignorant righties love to eat up.

Tinian:

Yep, the hippies say they're all for progressive taxation.

So logically, since the blue states are wealthier, they should pay more taxes - at least in the perfect hippie world.

Bush gives 'em just what they want and they piss and moan about it! Silly liberals.

This is why Rush Limbaugh belongs in jail, not for illegal narcotics activity, but for making so popular this inane kind of syllogism.

Rush uses this parlor trick at least once a show - Liberals oppose Bush + Bush opposes terrorism = Liberals Support Terrorism. It is amazing to me that this shiat works, but I have only to look at all the American flags on cars in the Wal-Mart parking lot to realize how stupid many of us are.

You should be ashamed for even placing the word "logically" in the middle of that steaming pile of shiat you posted.

Axolotl said:

No estate taxes, low taxes overall, low or no corporate oversight, no environmental regulation, little or no social spending... There's a name for the vision the conservatives have for America - It's called Mexico.

Ah. True.

I guess when they said that NAFTA would erase the disparities between the U.S. and Mexican economies... they were right after all.

:(

Zoultan:

I've found that usually the people who actually think Bush's primary platform planks are anti-gay marriage and anti-abortion are fringe


Actually, I believe the lunatic fringe has become the core of the republican party.

Secession makes total sense, for cultural reasons far more than economic ones, but any means is fine with me. Secession of the heart will long have preceded it, as it is well underway now.

Yes, Blue USA/we would be fine with food. PA, NY, MI, IL, MN, and CA alone should be able to handle it (IL, WI, & MN could do it alone.) The ocean and Great Lakes would also still be where they are, and there's lotsa good grub in there.

The Red States would have a tough time finding cheap efficient transport to market for their food with the loss of 75% of their deep water ports. You would also lose the national rail hub in Chicago. Big as the new F-150 is, all yr cobs won't fit.

Of course, it wouldn't be that way; we'd buy it the same way we do now and you'd sell it pretty much the same way you do now. Blue State secession would be a good incentive for a free-trade zone on the continent. America is about to lose its agricultural trade surplus as it is. There is gonna be imported food quite common even where it is grown.

There are 2 Americas. Get over it.

Partisan

Those states Are richer states. That's why they pay more. While they wouldn't be getting money back from state income tax deductions they might be avoiding the AMT which could save them a great deal more money.

As far as those states paying "more than their share" of the income tax, they do. But think about it this way: In your town I'm sure there are some very rich neighborhoods where all of the doctors and lawyers live. There are probably alot of poor neighborhoods. When deciding which school districts should get funding should the school board base it solely on who paid the most taxes? Since in those poor neighborhoods alot of people are below the poverty line and pay little or no taxes at all should they just not have funding?

Saying California and New York pay more is true, but there is also a reason for it. Don't let your hatred of Bush cloud your judgement. Not everything is part of some evil conspiracy to defraud the blue states. Which, by the way, California has more Bush voters than any other state (not percentage, just sheer number of them).

The_Rippa's graph shows it best. Us liberal idiots continue to get richer and continue laughing at the crybaby republicans who think we're getting the shaft having to pay higher taxes.

Keep up the laughing welfare recipients, you're like retarded step-children who are unable to learn and yet need support because you're part of the family. Eventually evolution causes your type to die out.

2004-12-06 12:56:01 AM theigorway
Maybe so. I think we're just off a year long slug fest with both parties making caricatures of the other and saying bizarre stuff to pander to groups of the electorate. Happens every presidential election cycle. This one is escalated after all the Clinton bashing in the 90's and Bush pissing off the world. I think rationalism will return for most.

acobble: Those states Are richer states.

You know why those states are richer? Because they invest in people - good health care, good education.

hey we gotta pay for this war somehow! bombs aren't free folks. If we don't pay higher taxes, the terrorists have won.

/end sarcasm

Axolotl:

That's a Straw Man. I'm wealthy and employ 15 people, at a personal cost of $750,000 a year.

No you're not. No you don't. You're on fark you liar. Nice way to feel self-important though.

helix400:

Why is it that anti-war people somehow act like they are the voice for soldiers? You're not. You're the furthest thing from it.


Do you know how many anti-war people there are who are veterans of previous wars? THOUSANDS! Do you know how many soldiers are over in Iraq, fighting, who completely disagree with Bush, the war, and his policies? THOUSANDS!

But thanks once again for the across the board generalization.

1 dollar = 1 peso. Can't wait.

Invest in gold, everybody...

Zoultan:

Maybe so. I think we're just off a year long slug fest with both parties making caricatures of the other and saying bizarre stuff to pander to groups of the electorate. Happens every presidential election cycle. This one is escalated after all the Clinton bashing in the 90's and Bush pissing off the world. I think rationalism will return for most.

Don't try to paint other parties with the same brush as Bush's lunatic supporters. The other parties have their faults, but the wackos in the Republican party strike me as far more dangerous and extreme than most. I used to appreciate the moderate wing of the GOP - but they have long since disappeared.
You sound defensive.