The Flip-flopney thread.

[Clarke]

^ DC, we ought to have some conzzvative smileys here. Too much family guy + rock + pot ones and guns are just one of them. BTW going by the theme of the thread:

[Nova]

I really feel for these conzzzzvatives like CA' date=' they've been bearing the burden of us hippies living on the dole. It must hurt their shoulders, their knees buckling, arms trembling but still trying to hold the world aloft with the last of their strength, and the greater the effort the heavier the world bears down upon their shoulders.[/quote'] :cantstop:

[Desi Cartman]

^ DC' date=' we ought to have some conzzvative smileys here. Too much [b']family guy + rock + pot ones and guns are just one of them. BTW going by the theme of the thread:

Peter's father in law reminds me of Mitt Romney

[Brainfade]

But but the job creators already bear the burden of the world. http://indiancricketfans.com/showthread.php?t=286597 I really feel for these conzzzzvatives like CA, they've been bearing the burden of us hippies living on the dole. It must hurt their shoulders, their knees buckling, arms trembling but still trying to hold the world aloft with the last of their strength, and the greater the effort the heavier the world bears down upon their shoulders.

So, did you ever answer the question? What percentage of tax revenues should the top 20% bear? Give a number. I say 94%.

[Brainfade]

I really feel for these conzzzzvatives like CA, they've been bearing the burden of us hippies living on the dole. It must hurt their shoulders, their knees buckling, arms trembling but still trying to hold the world aloft with the last of their strength, and the greater the effort the heavier the world bears down upon their shoulders.

With good reason, too. Check this out - the tax-heavy, entitlement-heavy, hippie-dominated state of California is where it's at!! http://reason.com/archives/2012/09/28/californias-failed-policies-are-driving

CaliforniaÃÔ Failed Policies Are Driving Away Businesses and Residents The Golden State needs to mend its ways before itÃÔ too late. Steven Greenhut | September 28, 2012 Not long ago, I penned a case for staying in California, arguing that thereÃÔ nothing wrong here that isnÃÕ fixable. California, blessed by magnificent and varied geography, mild weather, and an ÅÂnythingÃÔ possible culture, suffers mainly from a political process controlled by union advocates hell-bent on protecting their power and privilege, no matter what that means for the stateÃÔ public finances and public services. The most troubling thing IÃ×e seen is the delusion embraced by the stateÃÔ dominant Democrats, who really believe that California is only one massive tax increase away from being fixed. If voters approve Proposition 30, CaliforniaÃÔ income-tax rates will be the highest in the nation?1 percent above the second-highest state of Hawaii and 34 percent above the third-highest state of Oregon, according to anti-tax activist Richard Rider of San Diego. California is high on the list of most other taxes and regulations, and its wasteful public services are not reform-able because of union power. Business owners talk not just about the costs, but about harassment by myriad government tax and regulatory agencies that often treat them like criminals. Freedom is on the decline as government gains more authority to micromanage virtually everything. ... productive people are leaving and they will do so more rapidly if this ÅËust tax and spend more advice is followed. A new study from the Manhattan Institute called ŵhe Great California Exodus: A Closer Look offers a reality check. Yes, Californians are fleeing mostly for pro-growth states with a better tax and regulatory climate. California used to be a destination state, but has outsourced 3.4 million residents in the past 22 years. ŵhe data suggest that many cost driversÃÕaxes, regulations, the high price of housing and commercial real estate, costly electricity, union power, and high labor costsÃÂre prompting businesses to locate outside California, thus helping to drive the exodus. Businesses and individuals get tired of being viewed mainly as an ATM machine for government. If the stateÃÔ political leaders, most of whom come directly out of ÅÑublic service or the union movement, talked to business owners (and not just the crony capitalists they meet at the Capitol), they might learn about the trials of doing business here. California is a highly urbanized state and coastal metropolises are understandably crowded, but draconian land-use restrictions and misguided transportation policies (roads are bad, rail is good) exacerbate the problem. In cities that have overspent on lush pensions and wasteful redevelopment projects, traditional public services (infrastructure, public safety, parks, etc.) sufferÃÔomething that will get worse as more localities file for bankruptcy.

[ravishingravi]

So' date=' did you ever answer the question? What percentage of tax revenues should the top 20% bear? Give a number. I say 94%.[/quote'] It is irrelevant. Bottom line is what % of their income should they pay. If. Janitor pays 16 % and mitt Romney 13 % then there is a problem.

[Clarke]

So' date=' did you ever answer the question? What percentage of tax revenues should the top 20% bear? Give a number. I say 94%.[/quote'] It was pretty convenient for you to ignore the ground realities of how the free market can be crushing on low wage labor and cosy for the super rich in good or bad times and thus ignore what i put forward: the broader discussion of income & fairness which comes before tax is even discussed. Anways, let me play your game for once: The top 10.3% of country X paid 56.9% of income tax in 2009. The top 10% of country Y paid 70.47% of total income tax for the same year. Is country X fairer than Y ? If yes, you must be the first far right winger to claim Canada has a fairer system than United States. If no, please admit that the statistic by itself is nonsense.

[Clarke]

With good reason, too. Check this out - the tax-heavy, entitlement-heavy, hippie-dominated state of California is where it's at!! http://reason.com/archives/2012/09/28/californias-failed-policies-are-driving

Oh please, for all the noise that you right wingers make about California, have a look at your dumps like Mississippi or Kansas.

[Nova]

Romney finally reveals his nearsighted vision for Health Reform http://www.huffingtonpost.com/linda-bergthold/romney-finally-reveals-hi_b_1918062.html Seriously Mitt. When you open you mouth about health care, I hear a loud sucking sound as my dollars go into you pocket.

[Brainfade]

Oh please' date=' for all the noise that you right wingers make about California, have a look at your dumps like Mississippi or Kansas.[/quote'] Strawman arguments, as usual. Tax-and-spend politics have managed to picking up a state with every possible natural-resource advantage (enlisted in the posted article) and dump it into the garbage dump.

[Brainfade]

It is irrelevant. Bottom line is what % of their income should they pay. If. Janitor pays 16 % and mitt Romney 13 % then there is a problem.

(a) He would've paid 16% if he didn't donate $4 mil to charities. So, maybe he should've given less to good causes. (b) His earnings are on income from investments, which have previously been taxed at ~ 35%. (b) Janitors usually make no more than $50K and are probably paying no federal income tax. © It is relevant. When the top 20% makes ~ 50% of the income and pays 94% of the federal income tax revenue, it is fair enough.

[Brainfade]

It was pretty convenient for you to ignore the ground realities of how the free market can be crushing on low wage labor and cosy for the super rich in good or bad times and thus ignore what i put forward: the broader discussion of income & fairness which comes before tax is even discussed. Anways, let me play your game for once: The top 10.3% of country X paid 56.9% of income tax in 2009. The top 10% of country Y paid 70.47% of total income tax for the same year. Is country X fairer than Y ? If yes, you must be the first far right winger to claim Canada has a fairer system than United States. If no, please admit that the statistic by itself is nonsense.

It is nonsense only if one did not put it in the context of income that was made by the top X%. ... which I did. If the top 20% made 50% of the income and paid 94% of the federal income tax, it seems pretty fair to me. Back when we had some substantive discussions, I have called for progressive taxes, as long as they are simplified and don't include the myriad loopholes and deductions. I am tired of making the same arguments to 5 different people 5 different times on this board. Your tax structure can be termed "vengeful, punitive taxation." Instead of focusing on increasing taxes, why doesn't govt find a way to (a) cut wasteful spending including defense and (b) make it easier for folks to obtain living-wage paying jobs than taxing the high-earners even more?

[Brainfade]

Romney finally reveals his nearsighted vision for Health Reform http://www.huffingtonpost.com/linda-bergthold/romney-finally-reveals-hi_b_1918062.html Seriously Mitt. When you open you mouth about health care, I hear a loud sucking sound as my dollars go into you pocket.

Linda Bergthold says she doesn't know of any failings of Obamacare. She should read more: http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showthread.php?t=288285

[Clarke]

Strawman arguments' date=' as usual. Tax-and-spend politics have managed to picking up a state with every possible natural-resource advantage (enlisted in the posted article) and dump it into the garbage dump.[/quote'] Ghanta strawman .. the dump called Mississippi (and others like Alabama & South Carolina) takes much more assistance from federal govt than it gives back and despite that has some of the highest poverty and many more pathetic numbers that matter. So much for phoney fiscal responsibility and fake small govt doing wonders :haha:

[Brainfade]

Ghanta strawman .. the dump called Mississippi (and others like Alabama & South Carolina) takes much more assistance from federal govt than it gives back and despite that has some of the highest poverty and many more pathetic numbers that matter. So much for phoney fiscal responsibility and fake small govt doing wonders :haha:

You can't duck the fact that tax-and-spenders are driving resource-rich California into the same dump. Why bring up MS and SC when you can bring up WI and IN? http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/17/opinion/la-oe-malanga-wisconsin-california-bankruptcies-20120717

California, look to Wisconsin Op-Ed Golden State cities hoping to avoid bankruptcy should look east for ideas. July 17, 2012|By Steven Malanga Now that three California cities have declared bankruptcy, perhaps it's time to consider the lessons of Wisconsin. One of the reasons Wisconsin Democrats couldn't unseat Republican Gov. Scott Walker in the state's recall election was that his challenger exemplified how Walker's narrowing of collective bargaining privileges for government workers benefited the state. As mayor of Milwaukee, Tom Barrett had relied on Walker's reforms to balance his city's budget. And Barrett wasn't alone among Wisconsin officials. Walker comfortably defeated Barrett in large part because in the 11 months that the governor's reforms were in effect, Wisconsinites got a good glimpse of how they worked, even in Milwaukee, where the savings allowed government to remain solvent and avoid widespread layoffs. PHOTOS: California cities in bankruptcy When Walker introduced his so-called budget repair bill in February 2011, he argued that the biggest beneficiaries of his plan would be cities, towns and school districts, which would gain the flexibility to cut costs without having to negotiate every change in compensation or work rules with local unions. His legislation specifically eliminated collective bargaining by government workers for benefits and required greater contributions from them toward pensions. How local officials employed those changes to cut costs proved revealing. The state's teachers union, Wisconsinites learned, had used its power to collectively bargain for healthcare benefits to demand that local school districts provide coverage through a nonprofit insurer affiliated with the union. Once the state ended bargaining on healthcare, school boards began competitively bidding out their health insurance. By the opening of the new school year in September, just two months after the budget bill went into effect, 23 districts had rebid their contracts, saving $16 million, or an average of $211 per student. The MacIver Institute, a Madison-based think tank, estimated that if all the state's districts were able to negotiate similar deals once their contracts with the union-affiliated insurer expire, schools could save $186 million. As mayor of Milwaukee, Barrett employed Walker's reforms before he knew he'd be facing the governor in the recall election. In mid-August 2011, barely a month after the changes went into effect, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported that the city would save as much as $36 million in its next budget from "healthcare benefit changes it didn't have to negotiate with unions" as a result of the new state legislation. When asked whether Walker's reforms should be credited for the savings, Barrett brushed aside the question and asserted that virtually everyone was in favor of having workers contribute more to their healthcare. Local governments that couldn't immediately employ Walker's savings faced dire consequences. The Milwaukee public school system, for example, had negotiated a new contract with its teachers union right before Walker's budget reform bill was passed. In the wake of Walker's bill, the school system went to the union and tried to work out concessions in line with the savings that would have been possible under the new legislation. But the union refused to negotiate, and two days later the district laid off 519 employees, including 334 teachers. The school system had estimated that if employees agreed to contribute 5.8% of their salaries toward pensions, as mandated by the new state law, that would have saved $20 million, enough to avoid 200 teacher layoffs. Walker has said he was motivated in part because the cost of employing a public sector worker in Wisconsin (and many other places) has soared thanks to rising pension and health costs in particular. Without the flexibility to move quickly to control those costs, local governments faced a long-term budget pinch in which employee compensation squeezes out other spending and drives taxes higher. Californians should understand those fiscal pressures. Average annual pay for a local government employee in the state rose by 60%, to $61,185 (excluding benefits), between 1999 and 2008, according to the Little Hoover Commission on California State Government Organization and Economy. That's about 70% more than the increase in private sector wages in the state over the same period. Average pay for cops and firefighters climbed 69%, to $89,056, again excluding benefits, in the same period. Benefit costs have soared even more than wages. The annual cost of funding pensions in California's 20 largest municipalities has grown from $1.3 billion in 1999 to $5.1 billion last year, according to a study by Stanford University professor Joe Nation. That's an annual growth rate of better than 11%. Faced with such increases, municipalities in California haven't had nearly the flexibility to mend their budgets that officials in Wisconsin have. In San Jose, where the average cost of employing a city worker, including benefits, has soared to an extraordinary $142,000 annually, Mayor Chuck Reed had to fight long and hard for a ballot measure to reduce pension costs that was passed by voters in June. In the three years before the vote, the city had to lay off about 2,000 employees and cut back on parks, libraries and other services. In Stockton, which declared bankruptcy in June, for every dollar the city spent on salaries, it spent another dollar on employee benefits. Facing unsustainable employee costs and an intransigent police union that was demanding the city pay retired officers about $300,000 for unused sick and vacation time, Stockton cut a quarter of its public safety forces and still couldn't meet its obligations. No wonder that state and local government employment slumped nearly 6% in California from the beginning of 2009 through the close of 2011. That's nearly double the rate of decline among state and municipal workers nationwide in the same period. Without pension reform in Sacramento, and with local contracts that make it impossible to cut costs without concessions from unions, cities and school districts in the Golden State are left with few good choices to balance their budgets. That was pretty much the case in Wisconsin too until Scott Walker came along.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/02/14/news/economy/mitch_daniels_indiana_state_budget/index.htm

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Not every state that took a body blow from the recession is staring into the abyss of a budget crisis. While many states scramble to close the widening gap between revenue and spending, Indiana has managed to get its budget deficit under control. 58 4 EmailPrint With a gap in the next budget estimated to be just under $300 million -- or roughly 2% of fiscal 2011 -- Indiana's shortfall is far below the overall average of 20% for the 45 states that are facing deficits in 2012, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Indiana largely avoided the housing boom and bust, but it was hit harder than most states by the economic downturn. With its dependence on manufacturing jobs, its unemployment rate has been above the national rate in most months since the financial meltdown. There's nothing magical about Indiana's ability to avoid the crisis now facing many other states. The secret was making deep cuts in spending early in the process, rather than pushing the problems down the road. Unlike many other states, Indiana's governor has the power to spend less than the legislature appropriates. Indiana's current governor, Mitch Daniels, exercised that power, and ordered deep cuts in late 2009 when revenue forecasts dropped. "There's nothing mysterious about it. We've lowered the base of state spending to match the revenue reality," said Daniels. That included a 20% cut in state government, outside of big-ticket items such as primary and secondary education and Medicaid. State employee headcount outside of education was reduced by roughly 3,000 workers, or about 10% of staff. The state also made more modest trims in the money sent to local schools and state universities. In total, the cuts saved $800 million from the amount that had been appropriated less than six months earlier by the Indiana General Assembly. "Politically, the legislature was insulated from the pain of the cuts and the governor had the power to do it," said John Ketzenberger, president of the Indiana Fiscal Policy Institute, a nonpartisan think tank that studies government finances in the state. Indiana's current budget is being squeezed by the disappearance of federal stimulus money, which had helped the state avoid being forced to make even deeper cuts over the last two years. But a rebound in revenue from an improving economy, especially a pickup in the auto industry that still has a major presence in Indiana, is helping. "We're in better shape than a lot of states," said Larry DeBoer, a Purdue University professor who's an expert on state budgeting, especially Indiana's. "It doesn't mean things aren't tough, but it means we'll get through this thing without any general tax increase." What's good for Indiana...? Daniels and his budgets are getting particular attention now because he is weighing a run for president in 2012. A former head of the Office of Management and Budget in the Bush administration, he believes that other states could learn from Indiana's budget-cutting ways. "You'd be amazed by how much government you never miss when it goes away," he said. But Daniels admits that the lessons of Indiana aren't as easy to apply to the federal budget deficit, especially with entitlements and interest payments making up such a large part of federal spending. "I think there's limited application. I wish I could tell you otherwise," he said. Making a deep reduction in the federal deficit is crucial to the nation's economic health, he said, but it will be a much tougher process than fixing a hole in the state budget. "The huge changes we need for the nation to get out of its fiscal ditch are not going to be achieved in this way," he said, referring to his state budgeting process. "They'll be achieved through a fundamental restructuring of social welfare programs and a look at every major category of the budget, defense included."

[Clarke]

It is nonsense only if one did not put it in the context of income that was made by the top X%. ... which I did. If the top 20% made 50% of the income and paid 94% of the federal income tax' date=' it seems pretty fair to me. Back when we had some substantive discussions, I have called for progressive taxes, as long as they are simplified and don't include the myriad loopholes and deductions. [/quote'] Lets play this Game's 2.0 edition then. Top 10/10.3% made A as income and paid B as income tax collectively. For the year 2009, the top 10.3% of Canadians made 36.7% of all income and paid 56.9% of taxes. The ratio of tax contribution to income is 1.55. In the case of United States for the same/similar 10% group its 1.94. So lets hear it, Canada is a fairer society as per right wing economics. Tired ? The right word for carrying the burden of welfare suckers is shrugged :haha: I said this earlier as well, maybe you are the one who doesn't get it, not all the rest of us. Going by your support for Ryan/Romney and the usual rhetoric on fair share, your tax structure can be termed the roadmap to Somalia. Every recession, cut taxes especially for the rich and claim to reduce spending. How long can this go on ? Don't worry, it'll fix all the problems like it did earlier. Tax rates are the lowest in decades & some increases combined with decreased spending in all avenues like medicare/medicaid/SS/defense can contribute to fixing the problems. How hard was that ? But no, we need to chop taxes especially for the rich along with social spending & increase defense spending is the line of the GOP and you happily chug along with it as long as it claims to cut deficit.

[ravishingravi]

Arithmetic. / story

[Brainfade]

Arithmetic. / story

This is a response to both Clarke and ravi (since you are double-teaming): In 2003, individual tax receipts in totalled $793 billion. Bush cap-gains tax cuts were introduced in 2003. From 2004 - 08: 808, 927, 1043, 1163, 1145 billion During the same time-frame TOTAL tax receipts went up from $1782b to $2524b. Thus, the institution of cap gains tax cuts correlated with increased revenue from individual taxes for the next 5 years. Howz that for rithmetic? Revenue was not the problem, spending was. That idiot government spent on wars, Medicare, and ramping up Govt control of education (NCLB etc.). Increased spending takes us closer to Somalia than do tax cuts. California is moving in that direction quicker than are WI and IN (which both reined in spending). Any comments on that math? As for Clarke's argument about tax shares, all I am saying that I want to keep the top 20% of the population to paying 94% of the income tax revenue. No more ... no less. Who here advocated going lower? To club me in with extreme-right wing economics is disingenuous. Keep taxes where they are, promote growth, increase receipts (as the numbers bear out), and CUT SPENDING. Over and out.

[Clarke]

This is a response to both Clarke and ravi (since you are double-teaming): In 2003, individual tax receipts in totalled $793 billion. Bush cap-gains tax cuts were introduced in 2003. From 2004 - 08: 808, 927, 1043, 1163, 1145 billion During the same time-frame TOTAL tax receipts went up from $1782b to $2524b. Thus, the institution of cap gains tax cuts correlated with increased revenue from individual taxes for the next 5 years. Howz that for rithmetic? Revenue was not the problem, spending was. That idiot government spent on wars, Medicare, and ramping up Govt control of education (NCLB etc.).

Another convenient tactic of showing partial numbers like the 'fair tax' game played earlier. Show a partial picture of an economy on steriods with less regulation and less taxes, what happened after that ? The worst recession since the great depression. Here's a retarded idea: lets do the same things again, or at least some of them. FYI the Bush tax cuts also left a massive hole in the deficit, that incompetent conzzzvative had a surplus to begin with under a higher tax regime. So why on earth are tax hikes absolutely ruled out besides curbing spending ?

Increased spending takes us closer to Somalia than do tax cuts.

The problem with Somalia is big govt now, have you gone total cuckoo after watching fox news for so many years :hysterical: NY Times: "the ultimate example of deregulation,"noting that "[g]utsy entrepreneurs, including some women, opened their own hospitals, schools telephone companies, power plants and ports." Journalist Kevin Sites: "Somalia, though brutally poor, is a kind of libertarian's dream. Free enterprise flourishes, and vigorous commercial competition is the only form of regulation."

California is moving in that direction quicker than are WI and IN (which both reined in spending). Any comments on that math?

How are the Republican dumps listed earlier doing besides living on the federal dole while whining about big govt not letting them make moonshine ? Never worth mentioning i guess.

As for Clarke's argument about tax shares, all I am saying that I want to keep the top 20% of the population to paying 94% of the income tax revenue. No more ... no less. Who here advocated going lower? To club me in with extreme-right wing economics is disingenuous.

Your support for the crazy bunch (Ryan, Cantor etc) and the love for so many of their recent policies suggests otherwise. The Ryan plan is more dangerous for the middle & lower income groups and you're the only person on this forum to show enthusiasm on his VP ticket, besides whining about how the rest of the forum doesn't agree with you.

[Brainfade]

Another convenient tactic of showing partial numbers like the 'fair tax' game played earlier. Show a partial picture of an economy on steriods with less regulation and less taxes, what happened after that ? The worst recession since the great depression. Here's a retarded idea: lets do the same things again, or at least some of them. FYI the Bush tax cuts also left a massive hole in the deficit, that incompetent conzzzvative had a surplus to begin with under a higher tax regime. So why on earth are tax hikes absolutely ruled out besides curbing spending ? The problem with Somalia is big govt now, have you gone total cuckoo after watching fox news for so many years :hysterical: NY Times: "the ultimate example of deregulation,"noting that "[g]utsy entrepreneurs, including some women, opened their own hospitals, schools telephone companies, power plants and ports." Journalist Kevin Sites: "Somalia, though brutally poor, is a kind of libertarian's dream. Free enterprise flourishes, and vigorous commercial competition is the only form of regulation." How are the Republican dumps listed earlier doing besides living on the federal dole while whining about big govt not letting them make moonshine ? Never worth mentioning i guess. Your support for the crazy bunch (Ryan, Cantor etc) and the love for so many of their recent policies suggests otherwise. The Ryan plan is more dangerous for the middle & lower income groups and you're the only person on this forum to show enthusiasm on his VP ticket, besides whining about how the rest of the forum doesn't agree with you.

Step off the ledge. I gave you numbers where I showed that revenue collections INCREASED following capital gains rate cuts. Therefore, it should be obvious that THE BUSH DEFICITS WERE A DIRECT RESULT OF INCREASED SPENDING!!. Sorry for the yelling, but you seem to be shutting your ears and yelling "na-na-na-na..." like a 5-yr old. And you still have not answered my question about IN and WI reining in spending and succeeding. My comment about Somalia was to show that there are many ways to get to disaster, and to show that California - with its increased spending - is headed towards disaster. If reining in spending was going to lead to Somalia, then WI and IN would be there, too. Which they are not. It is criminal for a state as blessed as California to drive themselves into the same dump with uncontrolled spending. I am sure you are smart enough to understand that, but refuse to do so. At no time have I advocated anarchy, and trying to say that I am advocating for Somalia-type laissez-faire is desperate lunacy on your part. I have expressed support for the Romney-Ryan ticket as the alternative has proven to be a tax-and-spender. I have no hopes that the R-R ticket will make any difference. It is going to take uncommon political will to rein in runaway spending. I am desperately looking for someone who has the guts to do it at the federal level.