StrangeSox

Canada's Not Buying This

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Dec 13, 2012 -> 05:55 PM) That's actually a good zinger by urlacher, lol. Packers did win without him Agreed, that's pretty solid.

yeah that was more the point there

QUOTE (chw42 @ Dec 13, 2012 -> 02:40 PM) Yeah, that's what I meant. This makes so much more sense!

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/1...t-decade-watch/

Solar Panels For Every Home

but what pressure did Google face, what was their PR nightmare? that's the part that doesn't make any sense.

I don't care about any of what you just said, I care about understanding why chw42 said Google supposedly gave in thanks to PR nightmare.

If we're talking about a "PR nightmare" and which side is feeling pressure, then yeah, what headlines say is what matters. I really don't understand why Google would be the one "giving in" here. Apple is taking a beating in the public because of their sub-par maps program, not Google.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Dec 12, 2012 -> 11:13 PM) Google released Google Maps for iOS, which actually has turn-by-turn voice navigation now. If you're on iOS 6, you should probably get it... Remember all those stories where Google wouldn't give Apple turn-by-turn and Steve Jobs was super duper pissed? All it took was a PR nightmare and some competition before Google decided to give in. Wait wasn't the pr nightmare on Apples end? Like the people getting stranded in the Australian outback because of their terrible maps? I would think Google would have the leverage here, not Apple.

The Republican Bait-And-Switch http://prospect.org/article/republican-bait-and-switch

Actual targets is a nice change.

The Fed announced that it's going to keep money loose until UE hits 6.5% and will tolerate inflation up to 2.5%. http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/12...icy.php?ref=fpa

ss2k5 is so much smarter than the rest of us eta: unless you meant kap's claim, then I take that back.

pick two: alfred morris, david wilson, ryan mathews, felix jones, joique bell I'm leaning morris/bell right now.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 12, 2012 -> 10:10 AM) I'm not saying they did things right...but when recessions hit, governments are supposed to flood money. That depends on the nature of the recession. edit: the Fed pursued policies in the early 80's to stamp down inflation, and they knew it would cause a recession. It was intentional, so they wouldn't want to turn around the fight the recession they induced.

Not until the recession really hit in 82/83 http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 12, 2012 -> 09:57 AM) Great. Rich people can happily count the payroll tax as part of their total tax rate. Since the payroll tax only hits the first $110k or so of a person's income, it's enormously regressive, and it winds up being I'm slightly below middle income, and I'm paying around 12% including the portion of the payroll tax that I pay myself. If I factor in the fact that my employer is also paying a chunk of payroll tax on my account, and that's a legit chunk of money that could come to me otherwise, then i'm close to a 16-17% rate. fyi that's only true of the SS part, not the Medicare part

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 12, 2012 -> 09:55 AM) Deficits were supposed to explode under Reagan, when he came into office, he had an unemployment rate almost double what Obama has, with interest rates of 13-17%. You're supposed to spend such times...you have to spend in such times. Which is why I disagree with conservatives that say we need to stop spending now. It shows they don't understand economics. Once again, the problem is that when times get good, we tend to not stop that spending. That's where we go wrong. Budgets continued to explode for Reagan's entire Presidency, though. And Bush's. They stopped towards the end of Clinton's Presidency, but then we had a mild recession, two rounds of tax cuts and two unfunded, decade-long wars. BTW the unemployment rate when Reagan took office was ~7%, lower than what Obama has now and what he faced coming into office. Didn't Volcker also intentionally cause the early-80's recession in order to crush inflation?

Rich people can count their payroll taxes, but a portion of it is capped a little above $100k and only wage income is subject to it, so those living off of capital gains and dividends i.e. the really rich pay little payroll tax relative to their income. It's a highly regressive setup.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 12, 2012 -> 09:46 AM) Well, we're kind of talking about two different things to a degree. I wasn't strictly speaking about a actually achieving a "balanced budget", I was simply saying historically they were closer to trying to achieve such a thing via being a bit more conservative without the help of a Clintonesque .com explosion which made such a budget easy mode. Today, I agree, it's just an excuse...they don't want to balance a budget unless they're not in power...and even then, I doubt they care...it's political pandering and nothing more. I think Tex's point -- and it's my point -- is there was a time that the majority of them actually wanted this...they no longer do until it's convenient for them politically. This was, at a minimum, pre-Reagan, though. Deficits exploded under Reagan. Yes, Democrats controlled Congress, but Reagan's proposed budgets were right in line or even above what Congress ultimately enacted. So if you want to say that you agreed with the Republican party of 32+ years ago, ok, but we're getting quite a ways back there.

But I don't think there's anything to support your claim that historically, they were any different. At least in any of our lifetimes and certainly longer ago than 15-20 years. You have to go back to pre-Reagan at the earliest to find Republicans actually interested in a balanced budget.

Effective tax rates used to be higher than they are now, but this is all a distraction from how absurd kap's claim is. The Republicans of the 70's enacted the EPA, for christ's sake.

Why? Do you have any historical evidence to the contrary? They've always opposed entitlement programs and taxes, at least since 1980.

Well, this being a discussion board and all, feel free to point out the parts you take issue with and why. Otherwise I'm left shrugging my shoulders as to what you actually disagree with. For instance, I have an issue with how he references to a "Republican Congress," as if it means the same thing in 1947 and 2012, that they're the same people or the same philosophy, static throughout the decades. It's an ahistorical argument.