StrangeSox

That was just smug defense of my own job! but I'm assuming you're referring to dodd-frank?

Wow, that was just pathetic. The Score and all of their reporters are just protecting KW now? Cowley's the only one telling The Truth about the situation?

QUOTE (ScottyDo @ Sep 2, 2011 -> 11:25 AM) Wowwww. Crazy interview. I get what Cowley's trying to say, that only one side of the story will be told when the other side refuses to talk, but it's very, very clear that he's being a petulant child about KW's silence rather than a responsible reporter. Good to see someone call Cowley's out on his childishness. Only getting one side of the story doesn't mean you have to lose all objectivity and openly side with that source. Especially if you lose access because you're such a giant douche.

Cowley trying to defend only reporting one side of the story and then threatening that he could "blow up" KW is pretty hilarious.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 2, 2011 -> 11:12 AM) I agree, the idea that regulatory uncertainty or overhead is killing small business has always been garbage. There are specific industries, like finance and energy, that certainly do have a LOT of large scale regulatory overhauls underway that are half-baked, and those definitely have an effect... but small businesses don't generally do much in those industries. Regulations can also create job and small business opportunities.

Regulations, taxes aren't killing small business, owners say Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/09/01/1228...l#ixzz1WoNkzoBx

Is austerity killing Europe's recovery?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 28, 2011 -> 01:43 PM) Balta - can you put this into laymans terms? http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gapin...-192334971.html s***ty study? Interesting twist? Will this new data "dramatically alter the global warming debate?" The editor of Remote Sensing resigned as a result of the publication of the Spencer and Braswell paper

The only certainty is no regulations, no taxes.

sure, sure, you obamapologist.

You've changed your tone quite a bit lately.

Tax Policy Center also has a more rigorous analysis of why some "tax units" (lol at that phrase) pay no federal income tax http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publication....cfm?ID=1001547 If Huntsman's plan is just too broadly stated and he would leave the standard deduction in place, that would move only half of the non-paying tax units into the paying column, basically anyone over $30k who pays no taxes would now be payers.

Here's Politifact checking Nyquist's claim in July that cutting cap gains taxes always causes growth, raising them always causes contraction.

I don't know the details of what they were producing outside of the ATC report I heard yesterday. The problem seemed to be that they could never get manufacturing costs below those of conventional solar panels and couldn't project doing so in the future. The story brought up concerns that were raised at the time of the loans that the billion-dollar investor happened to be a big Democrat supporter and concerns over the wisdom of investing so much money in a company that had never turned and couldn't reasonably project turning a profit in the near future.

From the Tax Policy Center, a study in 2008 on the effects and size of tax expenditures. The conclusion: The Huntsman plan uses the opportunity cost to lower marginal tax rates, which benefits higher-income groups at the expense of lower income groups.

Solyndra, a solar-cell maker in California and recipient of over $500m in federally guaranteed loans as well as $1b in private funding, closed its doors an filed for Chapter 11.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 2, 2011 -> 07:46 AM) That also just happens to be the most common day for government entities to be closed. Locally we have been a one party democratic town since the 70's and we have never had Sunday early voting, even right before an election. I think that's two separate cases. You didn't decide to close early voting on Sundays only after seeing who turns out heavily on Sundays to vote early. Obviously, we can't know the motivation behind why poll closures, voting machine distributions, DMV availability in states with Voter ID laws etc. all seem to favor making it harder for typically Democrat voters to vote. It could simply be a coincidence, or maybe this one particular state really is while many of the other actions are not. But the evidence keeps mounting up on one side.

I pointed you to the Simpson-Bowles analysis above that does the math on the cap and dividends tax elimination. There are similar breakdowns available on the same website for the other part of his proposal. You've yet to explain how eliminating every tax credit and deduction doesn't push millions of current non-payers on to the FIT roles while simultaneously dropping the top tax rates and completely eliminating cap and dividends taxes isn't a huge tax cut for the wealthy. What basic realities am I ignoring here that change that situation? What sweeping assumptions are being put in place here? It seems like you're ignoring the basic realities of what this plan actually states in order to paint it as somehow moderate. Pretending that eliminating all capital gains and dividends taxes, which is where the very wealthy derive most of the income, is anything but a windfall for the very wealthy at the expense of everyone else is pretty absurd. If we're cutting tens of billions of dollars in those taxes while also significantly cutting the top income tax rates, the only way for this plan to be revenue neutral is to raise taxes on everyone else. We've cut capital gains and dividends before, and it didn't result in some magical job growth boom; there's no reason to expect that it will benefit anyone in any serious way except the very wealthy who control most capital gains and dividend income.

No one has phone recommendations?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 1, 2011 -> 05:49 PM) To me, national elections and making sure everyone gets reasonably easy access to voting is a clearly and inherently national/federal issue. So I'd be in favor of national standards for how elections are held, more so than are currently present. That all said, I am not sure that curtailing the number of days and hours of early voting - a practice that nary existed not that long ago - is some huge problem. Republicans doing it in a manner that disparately affects black voters who primarily vote Democrat is a huge problem--why only block it on Sundays which just happens to be when black churches have organized voting drives in the past?. Why the sudden push-back against early voting which just happens to have been a large part of Obama's success in 2008?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 1, 2011 -> 05:46 PM) Not that I necessarily agree with it, I don't know yet, but keep in mind that the cap gains and dividend breaks predominantly help the wealthy only in the most direct sense. I don't know a number, but I am 100% sure that anyone looking for a job and anyone with a 401k or other investments would be helped at least SOMEWHAT by the positive effect that would have on corporate sheets and equity markets. No doubt in my mind. I just don't know how MUCH effect it would be. Trickle-down economics doesn't actually result in wealth trickling down, it results in wealth accumulation for the very top. Record profits, historically low tax rates, record income and record wealth disparity and the "job creators" still aren't creating jobs. I don't see how cutting their taxes further is going to really have a positive effect for everyone else who will have raised taxes and/or slashed services. And, as Balta and my earlier link pointed out, 40% of Americans don't have a 401k or other investments, and the bottom 60% only see direct benefits of 3% of the tax cut. There's really no way to paint this as anything but a huge tax break for the rich and a tax hike on everyone else.

The tax policy center scored several of the thought exercises in Simpson-Bowles, which is where most of these proposals appear to be lifted from. On eliminating cap and dividend taxes the breaks go almost exclusively to the top quintile and then overwhelmingly to the top 1%. How much of this plan being "revenue-neutral" is based on really bad Laffer Curve assumptions that 'tax cuts always pay for themselves'?

QUOTE (Tex @ Sep 1, 2011 -> 04:31 PM) Not necessarily, which is why I would like to understand the plan better. How many billionaires have we read about that pay zero taxes? How many corporations receive more than they pay? I don't mind an overhaul. But it will never happen. It would put too many accountants and lawyers out of work and perhaps cause the wealthiest to pay more, and they are the usual donors. How many billionaires derive most of their income from capital gains and dividends, which would now be completely tax-free? It cuts taxes at the top and raises them at the bottom necessarily if it eliminates all credits and deductions. A family of four making $22k will go from a zero FIT burden to a $1760 burden while the hedge fund manager making $22M in dividends will go from a tax burden of 3.3M to zero.

QUOTE (Tex @ Sep 1, 2011 -> 04:22 PM) I'd need to take a better look, but haven't we discussed before how deductions and credits dramatically lower the rate for the wealthiest Americans? The Forbes article points that out. If it's revenue-neutral, it's because you're shifting a huge portion of the tax burden from the very wealthy (who control most of the income and wealth) to everyone else.

The Republican War on (Certain Kinds of) Voting