The Democratic platform included a plank sepcifically endorsing marriage equality. In a more explicit way, I believe every speech I saw at the DNC included a positive reference to marriage equality and glbt persons, but also to quality and tolerance as primary values.
For example, President Obama said:
“We don’t think government can solve all our problems. But we don’t think that government is the source of all our problems – any more than are welfare recipients, or corporations, or unions, or immigrants, or gays, or any other group we’re told to blame for our troubles.”
VP Joe Biden:
“We see a future where everyone rich or poor does their part and has a part. A future where we depend more on clean energy from home and less on oil from abroad. A future where we’re #1 in the world again in college graduation. A future where we promote the private sector, not the privileged sector. And a future where women control their own choices, health, and destiny. A future where no one—no one—is forced to live in the shadows of intolerance..”
I agree with Jeremy at Good As You, however, in feeling a bit of disapointment with Bill Clinton’s speech:
. . . If I write just about anything involving William Jefferson Clinton and LGBT progress, I immediately get reminders of his role in both Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and the Defense of Marriage Act. Every single time. Even if it’s something strong, like when the former Prez came out for marriage equality himself, there is still the residual DADT and (especially) DOMA baggage. More than fifteen years later, both linger. It happened even tonight, in response to my pithy tweet.
More importantly, though:
And yes, this is a party that is now firm in its stand on LGBT equality. Even the cynical among us would have a tough time dinging the three night Convention for its lack of LGBT content. We got mentions of every shape and size from speakers of any number of walks of life. In video, on convicted voice, in textual overlay, in the spirit of the inclusive speaker list—there is no longer any denying this party’s stand.
Are there stronger policy stands we want them to take? Absolutely. I would have loved some explicit mentions of the Employment NonDiscrimination Act, for one. On marriage, I would have liked to hear one of the speakers (or even videos) remind us that Mitt Romney has signed onto the National Organization For Marriage’s truly vicious marriage pledge. More notes about transgender inclusion, absolutely. But the conviction is clearly there. The brand clearly knows its product, its market, and the way to sell a fairer and freer America.
I’m not a single issue voter, but it’s also noteworthy that a single issue can be incredibly crucial. The Republicans are opposed to marriage equality, opposed to ENDA, opposed to treating me as a full citizen. Imperfect though they may be, the Democrats at the least have spoken in favor of marriage, ENDA and treating me as a full citizen.
#1 by brewski on September 7, 2012 - 4:25 pm
I am in favor of marriage equality. Ron Paul is in favor of marriage equality. The government shouldn’t be in the business of marrying anyone.
#2 by Glenden Brown on September 9, 2012 - 10:08 pm
brewski – I normally ignore your comments because you’re trolling, but this one is different.
First off, I appreciate that you and many other people support marriage equality. It’s meaningful that straight folk support marriage equality.
I’ve heard many arguments for getting the government out of the “marriage business.” In my experience, many people who make that argument are well intentioned and believe that changing the law from marriage to civil unions for all and leaving churches to perform or not perform marriages will be a way through which we can hopefully make the issue less divisive and less controversial. I don’t believe that’s accurate. Opponents of same sex marriage frequently argue that even granting civil unions is morally wrong; those same folks argue that allowing same sex couples any legal recognition of any kind represents an assault on marriage and a threat to the family. It’s not uncommon to hear arguments against same sex marriage invoke the supposed immorality of gay people have any relationships with other gay people. IOW, it sounds like a good idea but I believe it would not have the desired effect.
#3 by brewski on September 9, 2012 - 10:56 pm
Glenden,
It is entertaining that you ignore my posts and call me a troller, since I spend some effort quoting from non partisan hack sources (i.e. MSNBC and Fox) providing considerable independent evidence that you and your kind are just plain wrong much of the time. So your dismissing me just shows that you can’t and don’t want to hear any independent evidence which shows that you might be wrong about something…anything.
As for this issue, you are pulling the old trick of “you are wrong because there are other people out there who won’t agree with you, so therefore it can’t work due to these other extremists whom I won’t even bother to source or quote”
When you say “Opponents of same sex marriage frequently argue that even granting civil unions is morally wrong; those same folks argue that allowing same sex couples any legal recognition of any kind represents an assault on marriage and a threat to the family”, I’m not sure who the hell you are talking about. Whose position is this? You just offer up this position which is not my position to shoot down my position which is not this position which you cite.
Secondly, so what? That position, if it does exist, is, in the spectrum of positions, pretty far on one extreme and we will never be able to keep all extremes happy, nor should we.
For every person who thinks civil unions are immoral there is some nut-job who thinks that free contraception on demand for minors without parental consent is guaranteed in the Constitution. These people will always exist and we will never make them happy. So ignore them.
So back to my proposal, seems like a pretty damned reasonable position that a lot of people on all sides, outside of the lunatic fringe, could accept.
#4 by Glenden Brown on September 10, 2012 - 8:37 am
And you’re right back to trolling.
#5 by brewski on September 10, 2012 - 8:47 am
Facts hurt, huh?
#6 by cav on September 10, 2012 - 9:56 am
brewski and his kind think of facts as weapons. Stick it in, twist it around, then try to ascertain the gratitude in the wincing face of the victim.
That’s just a ‘style’ thing. By every other accounting, he’s close to god in his correctness.
#7 by brewski on September 10, 2012 - 10:53 am
Me and my kind deal in facts and not opinion and spin in lieu of facts. When facts are inconvenient to your preconceived conclusions, you just swear at me and throw laughable ad hominem attacks at me. Shows the thinness of your positions.
#8 by Richard Warnick on September 10, 2012 - 11:32 am
Saying that “the CBO predicts the country will come to an end in 2027″ is not opinion/spin by your definition?
#9 by cav on September 10, 2012 - 11:49 am
Pure ad hominem as I read it. So it cannot be what Mr. brewski wrote. Perhaps not even close. His earnest factuality is without question. Just ask him.
#10 by brewski on September 10, 2012 - 12:14 pm
Actually, no:
http://bipartisanpolicy.org/sites/default/files/CBO%20Report%2011.pdf
Notice I didn’t quote Fox News, Rush, Hannity, Lou Dobbs, the Koch Brothers, etc.
I am just quoting as my sources, bipartisan policy.org and the Obama Administration’s Secretary of the Treasury.
So actually, no. My statement is not opinion or spin, by my definition.
When I have given this information before, you have ignored it or made ad hominem statements about Obama’s Secretary of the Treasury, and have not addressed the substance at all.
Nevertheless, the analysis stands and my statement stands not as opinion or spin.
#11 by brewski on September 10, 2012 - 12:18 pm
Does this site not allow You Tube links?
#12 by brewski on September 10, 2012 - 12:19 pm
Apparently it does. Just wasn’t showing up when I was editing. Sorry for the double link.
#13 by Richard Warnick on September 10, 2012 - 12:26 pm
I substituted the embed code instead.
#14 by Richard Warnick on September 10, 2012 - 12:31 pm
brewski–
It might interest you to know that there are about a dozen countries with debt-to-GDP ratios above 100%. None of them have “come to an end.” Japan is up to almost 230%.
The USA passed 100% last February, and looking around it seems we’re still here
#15 by brewski on September 10, 2012 - 3:18 pm
http://www.aei-ideas.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/021612geithner1.jpg
OK, a bit of hyperbole. But see this chart. I apologize that it comes from AEI, but it comes from the Obama administration, so it doesn’t really matter if AEI reprinted it.
The point is that in 15 years, as Geithner fully acknowledges, things begin to spin out of control. This isn’t that things spin out of control under some GOP plan or after tax cuts for the wealthy. This is things spin out of control under the official Obama plan including all of his taxes and budget proposals are put into place. It is his plan and his budget which shows that things begin to fall apart. We will probably be here in 2027, but we will start to look a lot more like Greece and Portugal.
“Job one for the 12 is to pare down some future promises that even a rich America can’t fulfill. Big money must be saved here.”
Warren Buffett
#16 by Richard Warnick on September 10, 2012 - 3:56 pm
Of course, I don’t like President Obama’s plan. He wants to keep the Bush-Obama Tax Cuts For The Rich in place for all but the top tax bracket. America isn’t broke. Austerity for the middle class and tax cuts for the rich got us where we are today – let’s reverse that policy!
#17 by brewski on September 10, 2012 - 5:20 pm
You still haven’t told me where those cost savings are going to come from. As we already agreed, it can’t be solved by more taxes alone.
#18 by cav on September 10, 2012 - 8:06 pm
Have we spoken about expanding jobs? Silly me.
#19 by brewski on September 10, 2012 - 8:13 pm
2,000,000 fewer jobs is not expanding.
#20 by cav on September 10, 2012 - 8:48 pm
Agreed. But supposing the government really wanted to expand the tax base, one certain way to accomplish that would be to create jobs. Lots and lots of them.
Instead, they cut teacher numbers and cram the surplus students into a class whose teacher may have been super in a class of twenty kids but will be sorely tested in one of forty (watch them burn out) – all the while trimming support. So there are qualified teachers looking for work. Same with so many industries.
I think the solutions are all too obvious even while up front costs could be high. But the ‘deciders’ aren’t really interested in protecting anyone but themselves and their own.
Who’d have thought this severe tribalism would become so devilish?
#21 by brewski on September 10, 2012 - 10:16 pm
I was directly responding to Richard’s suggestion that we follow “current law” to solve our problems, even though the CBO estimates that “current law” would cause 2,000,000 people to lose their jobs in 2013. So Richard is explicitly advocating higher unemployment. An interesting position.
I half way agree with you that one way to collect more tax revenue is to get more people working. But I don’t agree with your premise that the government is even capable of “creating jobs”. If governments could “create jobs” then the most prosperous countries in the world would be Cuba and North Korea. Everyone there would have high paying jobs and be drinking margaritas on the beach since their governments “created” all of these high paying jobs and thus created all of this affluence.
No, government can’t create jobs. It can claim it created jobs. It can have press conferences about it creating jobs. It can convince 26 year olds with French degrees who are now bloggers and professional pundits that they created jobs. But they didn’t.
What governments can do is to create an environment which job creation happens organically, or conversely, don’t create an environment where jobs are suppressed.
Governments can create efficient court systems to referee business contracts. Governments can educate a future work force. Governments can create things which are considered to be “public goods” such as roads, clean air, clean water, etc. Yes, government can do a lot of very helpful things. When this is what government does, then employment tends to flourish.
But just because government can do these things, that doesn’t mean the government will do these things. Governments can also waste money, they can do a horrible job educating, they can make simply following the laws and regulations bureaucratic, cumbersome and expensive. They can also create tax systems which have unintended or even perverse consequences. Governments can do a lot of things which suppress jobs, which retards employment and reduces tax revenues.
I am not against government as some kind of nutty ideology. I am against a government which turns into a power unto its own which ceases to serve the public but rather ends up suppressing employment.
#22 by Richard Warnick on September 11, 2012 - 11:21 am
Maybe we need the so-called “fiscal cliff” to shake things up. In the wake of Bush’s Great Recession, unemployment remains high. Americans who lost middle-class jobs are now taking working-poor jobs or part-time jobs out of desperation. Others are simply retiring early, leaving the work force with a lot less for retirement than they planned on. Public-sector jobs are disappearing.
Congress voted for the “fiscal cliff.” Make them answer for the consequences. The good news is the Bush-Obama Tax Cuts For The Rich will expire. Then perhaps we can get a real recovery going. Bring back the WPA and CCC. Most of the infrastructure built during the Great Depression is still in use today, having paid for itself many times over.
#23 by brewski on September 11, 2012 - 4:08 pm
I don’t know how making 2 million people lose their jobs is making Congress answer for the consequences.
The ARRA only included 0.6% for actual infrastructure projects. That is why it failed. Obama doesn’t know the difference between spending and spending well. He isn’t that smart.
#24 by Richard Warnick on September 11, 2012 - 4:38 pm
The ARRA, at the insistence of Republicans, also included a provision that the federal government not hire anybody with recovery act funds. Failure is a relative term, but if you use 8 percent unemployment as the measure of success you might have a point.
Fiscal cliff! Bring it ON! Don’t fall for the scare tactics, after members of Congress hear from their campaign contributors the government will start spending again.
Although I really think the Pentagon deserves to take 10 percent off the top, probably more than that.
#25 by brewski on September 11, 2012 - 6:21 pm
Why would the Dems care what the GOP wanted in ARRA since the Dems already told them that they don’t matter and to get in the back seat. The Dems could have and did write whatever shit bills they wanted to. They got Obamashitcare with zero GOP votes.
The unemployment rate is not close to 8%. That is a lie.
So you want more unemployment? You’re sick.
Scare tactics from the CBO? You must be watching to much Fox News.
#26 by cav on September 11, 2012 - 7:12 pm
Thread Headline: Democratic party Embarrasses Equality.
I’ve been addressing the wrong issues all along.
#27 by Richard Warnick on September 12, 2012 - 9:05 am
brewski–
Your narrative is wrong. President Obama and the Dems went too far seeking GOP buy-in for ARRA, in exchange for essentially zero votes in the end. I don’t have time to look it up, but I think the final bill got three Republican votes in the Senate and none in the House.
I was trying to help you out with the 8 percent unemployment figure. If you want to declare the ARRA a failure, that’s the only way. The Obama administration was aiming to get the unemployment rate below 8 percent (although this was never a public promise). Why do you go all Joe Wilson on me when I’m trying to find some logic in your position?
I don’t believe the so-called “fiscal cliff” is going to trigger another recession. It’s a bluff aimed at preserving tax cuts for the rich.
Lawrence O’Donnell says “Off The Cliff” is Grover Norquist’s worst nightmare. Calling the GOP bluff is the only responsible thing to do (video). Let ALL the tax cuts for the rich expire. Then next year the Dems can introduce their own tax cut bill, one that Republicans will have to vote for in order to keep their pledge to Norquist. Of course, I still think it’s a good idea to return to and keep the Clinton tax rates for all tax brackets, because President Obama’s proposal still gives the rich a tax cut on their first $250,000.
By way of contrast, Romney’s tax plan will either bring about record deficits or big tax hikes for the middle class.
Remember, it’s only class warfare if we fight back!
#28 by brewski on September 12, 2012 - 10:37 am
It is nothing but utter weakness and chickenshitness when the people who control 3 out of 3 arms of the government needed to pass any bill blame bad bills on the people who control 0 out of 3. They should resign and apologize rather than blame the ones who weren’t in charge. Truman would switch parties.
The CBO is bluffing and has some agenda to preserve tax cuts for the rich? Really?
As for Lawrence O’Donnell, I don’t trust people who went to prep school and then married a movie star who then want to tell me that they know what is good for me more than I do. He’s an idiot.
As for Romney
http://articles.boston.com/2012-09-10/politics/33713850_1_tax-plan-tax-policy-center-tax-burden
#29 by Richard Warnick on September 12, 2012 - 11:04 am
I said the GOP is bluffing (and starting to panic because they are afraid the Dems will call their bluff). CBO analysis always takes laws passed by Congress seriously, even if members of Congress don’t. That’s why the CBO says (PDF):
You don’t trust Lawrence O’Donnell, but trust has nothing to do with it. Do you agree that his analysis is correct? If the Dems let the Bush-Obama Tax Cuts For The Rich expire at the end of the year, then introduce their own tax cut bill, Republicans will have to vote for it or else violate their pledge to Grover Norquist.
OTOH Romney’s promise to retain the Bush-Obama Tax Cuts For The Rich, pile on new tax cuts on top of that, balance the budget, increase spending, not take away tax deductions for the middle class, and keep the changes revenue-neutral violates the rules of elementary-school arithmetic. When questioned, he says, in effect, “trust me.” Most people do not.
ABC News/Washington Post Poll (September 7-9, 2012).
“Regardless of who you support, which candidate do you trust to do a better job handling taxes: Obama or Romney?”
Obama 50%
Romney 43%
Both 1%
Neither 2%
Unsure 4%
#30 by brewski on September 12, 2012 - 11:18 am
I’d rather have Lawrence O’Donnell say that we have the worst tax code in the world, so the only responsible thing to do is to start from scratch and keep in mind the following goals for any tax code:
1. Collect revenue
2. Be simple to understand
3. Be simple to comply with
4. Be simple to enforce
5. Do not unintentionally encourage unwanted behavior
6. Reducing gaming to the extent possible
7. Be fair (meaning a family that makes $50K by working in New York pays the exact same as a family making $50K by farming in Texas and a family that makes $50K by trading stocks in Utah.
If it doesn’t do these things. Start over.
#31 by brewski on September 12, 2012 - 11:20 am
Is that the same “trust me” when I was told my health insurance costs would go down by $2500 per year?
#32 by Richard Warnick on September 12, 2012 - 11:27 am
Is that the same red herring fallacy that’s your favorite escape route? You can’t refute my statement about Romney, so you attempt to change the subject.
#33 by brewski on September 12, 2012 - 11:33 am
I already have refuted your statement about Romney. Do I need to do it twice?
#34 by Richard Warnick on September 12, 2012 - 12:31 pm
Romney’s arithmetic is bad. How can you refute that? The “Meet the Press” interview did not include an explanation of his tax plan, and within hours the Romney campaign itself Etch-A-Sketched what he said about health care reform.
#35 by brewski on September 12, 2012 - 12:40 pm
So if he hasn’t explained his plan, then how can you or anyone else come to any conclusions about it? You just admitted your own dishonesty. You can’t refute that.
#36 by Richard Warnick on September 12, 2012 - 12:46 pm
My point about Romney is that he is saying “trust me” on taxes, when polls show most people do not trust him. From “Meet The Press”:
Shorter Romney: I’m not going to lower taxes on the rich or raise taxes on the middle class, but it will trickle down somehow and create jobs, and a miracle will happen to balance the federal budget.
#37 by Richard Warnick on September 12, 2012 - 12:56 pm
Romney’s “trust me” plan:
$1.2 trillion deficit – $0 in additional revenue + $100 billion defense spending increase = $1.3 trillion deficit
#38 by cav on September 12, 2012 - 1:09 pm
So THAT’S where so much of the money’s been going. I thought they were baking towering 9-11 cakes.
#39 by Richard Warnick on September 12, 2012 - 1:19 pm
“Fiscal cliff” scenario for FY 2013:
$1.2 trillion deficit – $500 billion in additional revenue – $55 billion in defense budget cuts – $55 billion in non-defense cuts = $590 billion deficit
According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the “fiscal cliff” would lower the nation’s indebtedness by $7.8 trillion over 10 years and bring the budget nearly to balance by 2016.
Misguided “Fiscal Cliff” Fears Pose Challenges to Productive Budget Negotiations: Failure to Extend Tax Cuts Before January Will Not Plunge Economy into Immediate Recession
#40 by brewski on September 12, 2012 - 2:48 pm
I thought you just told me that Romney hasn’t said what his plan is, so where do you make up these numbers from? Oh that’s right. He hasn’t said what his plan is so you assume for him what his plan is and you make up numbers even though he hasn’t said what his plan is, so then you say his plan in wrong even though you say he hasn’t said what his plan is. Were you born dishonest, or did that happen later?
So where do you want support that the $55B in non-defense cuts come from? Give me your $55B list.
#41 by cav on September 12, 2012 - 2:59 pm
brewski, Willard has planted a few numbers. Were he finally elected, with the help of a congress that may or may not support him, he’ll have to back-build the rest of his ‘plan’ seeking legislative approval all the while. Nothing to see there. If the congress doesn’t shape the way he’d have to have it (which it more than likely will not), he’ll have pretty much the same set-up President Obama had. The dems may not say it outright, but they’ll also try, with all of their might, to see Willard’s opportunity is of the shortest possible duration.
That’s ‘Murkin politiks these days.
Attacking Richard’s honesty will not change that.
#42 by Richard Warnick on September 12, 2012 - 3:08 pm
I simply took Romney’s “trust me” budget plan as he has described it. Revenue neutral (except for an extension of the Bush-Obama Tax Cuts For The Rich), and a $400 billion increase in the defense budget over four years (assuming $100 billion in FY 2013). Beats me how he expects to balance the budget by 2016, that part does not compute!
#43 by Richard Warnick on September 12, 2012 - 3:15 pm
brewski–
Nobody gets to pick and choose where to cut budgets. That’s not how sequestration would work.
The Budget Control Act requires that sequestration be implemented in exactly the manner prescribed in Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Amendment of 1985, which requires that across-the-board cuts be applied evenly by “program, project and activity.” Precisely what that phrase means varies by department, agency, and program.
Going off the so-called “cliff” means no more tax cuts for the rich, but it’s also about breaking the pattern of GOP brinkmanship. Dems need to prove they are not afraid of the threats anymore.
Thelma and Louise show how it’s done
#44 by brewski on September 12, 2012 - 4:22 pm
No you aren’t. You are making up numbers as you see them and telling him what they are and then concluding how they will be bad for you and then weasel out by saying he didn’t describe his plan, even though you have numbers for it and criticize it. Did you wake up this morning and say to yourself “I vow to be more dishonest today than I was yesterday”?
#45 by Richard Warnick on September 12, 2012 - 4:25 pm
OK brewski, maybe you can tell me how Romney plans to simultaneously:
(1) Cut taxes for the rich (or not)
(2) Dramatically increase military spending
(3) Balance the federal budget in 4 years
#46 by brewski on September 12, 2012 - 4:40 pm
I thought you just said he hasn’t described his plan, and you are already describing it for him. Do which is it?
1.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2012/09/09/romney_says_he_won_t_cut_taxes_on_rich_will_keep_some_of_obamacare_provisions.html
He says he won’t cut taxes on the rich and you keep telling him that he is. Since he hasn’t told you that he isn’t going to cut taxes on the rich, then why do you keep telling him that he is, and then you tell him that he hasn’t described his plan at all. So you are lying and making no sense. You can’t refute that.
2.
“Mitt will begin by reversing Obama-era defense cuts and return to the budget baseline established by Secretary Robert Gates in 2010″
3.
See 1 and 2
#47 by Richard Warnick on September 12, 2012 - 5:39 pm
1. By extending the Bush-Obama Tax Cuts For The Rich, he is proposing to cut taxes for the rich. Also, there is no way to make his proposed additional tax rate reductions revenue neutral.
2. Um, what defense cuts?
3. How is lowering taxes and increasing spending going to balance the budget?
#48 by brewski on September 12, 2012 - 6:27 pm
You keep telling Mitt what his plans are at the same time saying he doesn’t have any plans at the same time his plans don’t work which don’t exist. So which is it? You keep losing the argument against yourself.
Citizens for Tax Justice? Really?
#49 by Richard Warnick on September 13, 2012 - 8:48 am
FactCheck.org:
#50 by cav on September 13, 2012 - 9:11 am
With ‘a cliff’ on one side, the Trans-Pacific-Partnership barreling straight at us from the other, and a snowballing war in North Africa and the Middle East – The options are clear: Cancel the ‘lection, award leadership to Willard (who we all know is ‘tough’ enough), bring out the Islamic “bug killer”, and begin Fracking like there’s no tomorrow, There may not be.
#51 by brewski on September 13, 2012 - 10:10 am
So I guess it is “not possible” the way lowering our health insurance premiums by $2,500 is “not possible” under Obama’s corporate bribe / health insurance reform plan.
#52 by Richard Warnick on September 13, 2012 - 10:23 am
brewski–
The Willard tax plan is arithmetically impossible, unless it raises taxes on the middle class to pay for a massive tax cut for the rich. Which he now says he doesn’t want to do.
If you want to compare Romney’s health care reform plan to the ACA, go ahead. Oh wait, there isn’t one.
#53 by brewski on September 13, 2012 - 11:51 am
Richard–
The Hussein health insurance plan is arithmetically impossible, unless it actually lower costs. Which he now says he hasn’t a clue how to do.
If you want to compare Romney’s health care reform plan to the ACA, go ahead. Oh wait, there isn’t one.
#54 by Richard Warnick on September 13, 2012 - 12:54 pm
brewski–
You may have forgotten that I turned against the Obama administration’s health care “reform” a long time ago.
Kill the Bill – Or Kill Our Best Hope of Health Care Reform (December 24, 2009)
Health Care: Insurance Industry Wins (December 18, 2009)
Romney-Ryan have offered no ideas to address the ongoing national health care crisis. From 2010 to 2011 the overall number of uninsured Americans dropped somewhat, from 16.3 percent to 15.7 percent. However only seven states saw a statistically significant decline in the uninsured rate. Two, New Hampshire and Colorado, actually saw their uninsured rates go up.
#55 by brewski on September 13, 2012 - 1:02 pm
The truth about Mitt’s tax plan is that if he was president there would be a negotiated reform bill drafted among the house, senate and WH, with Ryan leading the effort. So what he says his plan is now is about as meaningful as Obama’s statements in 2008 that he wouldn’t have an insurance mandate. So it doesn’t really matter what Mitt says his plan is or isn’t.
#56 by Richard Warnick on September 13, 2012 - 1:05 pm
Romney Re-Explains Why He Can’t Be Trusted on Health Care
Also, Romney’s tax plan (if he ever gets around to revealing the details) probably includes getting rid of the deduction for employer-provided health insurance.
#57 by Richard Warnick on September 13, 2012 - 2:31 pm
New Study Finds High-Income Tax Cuts Don’t Stimulate Economic Growth
#58 by brewski on September 13, 2012 - 2:41 pm
Who is talking about tax cuts? What tax cuts? Also, the link doesn’t seem to distinguish lower marginal rates which are revenue neutral or even positive from these not-described “tax cuts”.
#59 by Richard Warnick on September 13, 2012 - 2:59 pm
brewski–
Romney is talking about extending the Bush-Obama Tax Cuts For The Rich. He also wants to cut income tax rates by an additional 20 percent, and cut the corporate income tax rate from 35 to 25 percent.
How come I have to tell you what Romney is proposing? Don’t you know?
#60 by brewski on September 13, 2012 - 3:00 pm
Analyze these numbers and tell me what they tell you:
For 2008:
Corporate tax rate:
Canada = 19.5%
Denmark = 25%
UK = 28%
US = 35%
Corporate tax revenue as a % of GDP:
Canada = 3.3%
Denmark = 3.4%
UK = 3.6%
US = 1.8%
So if the US adopted the word for word tax codes of any of those other countries, and the tax revenues as a % of GDP skyrocketed, is that a tax cut or a tax increase in your world?
#61 by Richard Warnick on September 13, 2012 - 3:04 pm
Canada’s 2011 federal corporate tax revenue was 1.8 percent of GDP.
I suppose your theory is that corporations, which have a fiduciary duty to stockholders, will stop complaining and trying to avoid taxes if we lower the rate?
Romney’s Adviser Complains About Company’s High Taxes — But It Pays Just 2.2 Percent
#62 by brewski on September 13, 2012 - 3:19 pm
From your source:
“federal corporate tax revenue equalled 1.8 per cent of Canadian gross domestic product, a much higher percentage than the revenue produced during the recessionary years in the early 1990s.”
#63 by brewski on September 13, 2012 - 3:23 pm
From one of your lefty sources:
http://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/issues/2011/06/pdf/low_tax_graphs.pdf
See graph 8.
The US collects less than almost everyone in corporate taxes, but has about the highest statutory rate.
Conclusive evidence.
#64 by brewski on September 13, 2012 - 3:26 pm
It isn’t my theory about anything. It is the objective evidence that too low of rates will collect too little revenue, and too high of rates will collect too little revenue. It is a kindergarten conclusion to say that corporations will stop avoiding taxes. The correct conclusion is that corporations will shift their taxable income to those countries where it makes sense for them to shift it to. Right now every country is shifting income to Canada, UK and pretty much everywhere else and away from the US. Therefore, too high a rate equals lower taxable income and lower revenue.
#65 by Richard Warnick on September 13, 2012 - 3:27 pm
Where did you get your erroneous numbers?
And your belief is that corporations will happily pay more in taxes as long as they can say the marginal rate has been lowered?
#66 by brewski on September 13, 2012 - 4:28 pm
What numbers of mine are erroneous?
Why do you use these phrases like “belief” and “theory” when I show you real evidence? You should keep your faith and religion out of this.
#67 by Richard Warnick on September 13, 2012 - 4:53 pm
Canada 3.3% of GDP when it is really 1.8%. What is your source?
I am in favor of reality-based policy discussion. But you are giving us faith-based stuff like trickle-down economic theory.
#68 by brewski on September 13, 2012 - 4:55 pm
Read you own data. Different year.
#69 by brewski on September 13, 2012 - 4:56 pm
I haven’t given you any trickle down theory at all. I am supplying you with actual data which your blindness won’t allow you to even acknowledge.
#70 by brewski on September 13, 2012 - 5:01 pm
What have we learned today:
1. You can’t read data
2. You can’t interpret data
3. You can’t tell the difference between data and faith
4. Your faith in the unseeable prevents you from seeing data
5. You interpret data you don’t like as being someone else’s faith
#71 by Richard Warnick on September 13, 2012 - 5:03 pm
So you’re not going to tell me the source, got it.
Somehow you believe that corporations want to pay more in taxes, as long as they can do so at a lower marginal rate. I don’t know what religion preaches that.
#72 by cav on September 13, 2012 - 5:15 pm
“The truth about Mitt’s tax plan is that if he was president there would be a negotiated reform bill drafted among the house, senate and WH,”
What? No hat tip bubbles?
And again, a reminder, negotiating, it would appear, may or may not turn up the end product you’re hoping for. It didn’t work for me and I don’t expect it will work for you – not with this corrupt clown posse negotiating. Now if they thought a distracting world war were required, All bets would be off.
#73 by brewski on September 13, 2012 - 7:03 pm
First of all, why do you want to know? Do you think I am lying? Do you think I am making it up? Do you think it is from Fox News so they must be making it up? The difference between your 1.8% and my 3.3% is that yours is 2011 and I was quoting 2008. This seems to really freak you out. Your source is the Globe and Mail. Do you want me to just dismiss your number because it comes from some pinko newspaper? Is that your game?
I actually linked to you a chart from one of your favorite lefty sources: It shows that in 2009 that Canada’s corporate income tax collected 2.5% of GDP compared to 2.1% in the US for that year. So your lefty site which you have used before shows that Canada collects more revenue using a lower rate. What more do you want?
#74 by brewski on September 13, 2012 - 7:12 pm
“Somehow you believe that corporations want to pay more in taxes, as long as they can do so at a lower marginal rate”
What is this word “believe” you keep using? I don’t need any beliefs when I have data. I showed you data from your sources and you won’t believe it.
You also have no idea how corporations manage their overall global tax liability. I do. You just don’t get it and you never will.
#75 by Richard Warnick on September 14, 2012 - 8:59 am
What about corporations that aren’t global (i.e. the vast majority of them)?
#76 by brewski on September 14, 2012 - 9:20 am
How is it that you refuse to address the data that all those other countries collect more in revenue with a lower statutory rate?
Dodge Dodge Dodge.
You have your hands over your ears screaming “I can’t hear you I can’t hear you”
S-Corporations, LLC’s and partnerships all pay income taxes and social security taxes and medicare taxes at the individual level.
Only C-corporations pay taxes at the corporate rate. One of the reasons why the ratio of corporate income taxes collected as a percent of GDP is so low is that fewer and fewer companies are orgainized as C-Corporations. So the low ratio doesn’t at all mean that the taxes are not being paid. Part of what it means is that the taxes are being paid by the individuals and not as C-Corporations.
The comparison to other countries is not apples to apples since the use of S-Corporations, LLCs and partnerships is much less popular. The reason why they are less popular in other countries is that they have higher individual rates than corporate rate. So there the choose to be C-corporations and pay corporate taxes. In the US the two rates are basically the same, so owners choose S-Corporations, LLC’s and partnerships to avoid double-taxation.
So you see, you actually need to understand this stuff in order to have a well-founded opinion about them. Being totally ignorant on these topics and working for some lefty blogger with a logo that makes you look important and never having had a real job makes one not credible. This is why I don’t listen to 26 year olds with political science degrees who have never had a real job and who work for these “think tanks”.
#77 by Richard Warnick on September 14, 2012 - 11:28 am
brewski–
Why won’t you provide a source for your data? I have asked a couple of times already.
The True Laffer Curve
Whadda ya know, raising tax rates raises revenue.
#78 by brewski on September 14, 2012 - 11:32 am
Why won’t you ever answer any of my questions. I have asked a couple of times already.
Your curve defies the data I already provided which you keep dodging.
#79 by Richard Warnick on September 14, 2012 - 11:47 am
The True Laffer Curve is based on real data. Check the link. And the link to your data is… where?
An AEI economist disagrees with you:
#80 by brewski on September 14, 2012 - 12:46 pm
I am not making a Laffer Curve argument. So you are arguing with yourself.
I showed you data from the Center for American Progress and you ignore it.
You are on your own.
#81 by Richard Warnick on September 14, 2012 - 1:15 pm
Sorry, but I can’t accept data without being able to check out the source.
#82 by brewski on September 14, 2012 - 1:21 pm
http://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/issues/2011/06/pdf/low_tax_graphs.pdf
Chart 8, already showed it to you. What’s your problem with reading your own lefty sources?
#83 by brewski on September 14, 2012 - 1:30 pm
http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/taxation/taxes-on-corporate-income_20758510-table5
I would use this database as being the most apples to apples from country to country.
As you can see, the US collects the least amount of revenue with the highest rates. Conversely, countries with lower rates collect higher revenues.
Go ahead the dodge this one.
#84 by Richard Warnick on September 14, 2012 - 2:23 pm
Laws differ from country to country, as do the number of multi-national corporations. The U.S. has a lot of multi-nationals, and our government allows them to hide profits offshore.
The OECD table doesn’t agree with the 2008 numbers for percent of GDP you gave earlier. So we still don’t know where those numbers came from.
#85 by brewski on September 14, 2012 - 2:46 pm
1.8% vs 2.0% are you kidding? Does it change the directional analysis?
#86 by Richard Warnick on September 14, 2012 - 3:02 pm
You must have gotten those numbers from somewhere. Where did you get them?
#87 by brewski on September 14, 2012 - 3:08 pm
Tell me why it matters.
Admit that lots of other countries collect more revenue with lower rates.
Admit that you are wrong.
Beg for my forgiveness.
“Laws differ from country to country,”
No shit Sherlock. That is what I am talking about.
“The U.S. has a lot of multi-nationals,”
Compared to whom? UK, Switzerland, Netherlands, Denmark? Those countries have a huge number of multinationals relative to their size.
“and our government allows them to hide profits offshore.”
Our government encourages them to allocate profits to other countries. Other countries have figured out that punishing companies for bringing profits home is a bad idea.
#88 by Richard Warnick on September 14, 2012 - 3:39 pm
Sorry, I have this thing about checking facts. Which is, if it’s not checkable, it’s not a fact.
#89 by brewski on September 14, 2012 - 4:14 pm
That’s the funniest thing I have ever heard. You throw around crap like an explosion in a fertilizer factory. You have no interest in facts at all and you repeat verifiable lies every day. I call you out on your lies and show you independent sources and you just ignore them. That is the fucking funniest thing you have ever said. You live in a completely fact free world and go out of your way to ignore facts.