Nice thumbnail pic. Seems somebody has an obsession.. it just gets under your skin he's not a fraud like your political heroes, huh?

You do realize that being a millionaire and having yearly income of $1 Mil are two different things right?

Wasn't Buffet's argument that he pays less taxes than his secretary because he doesn't have "income"? He only pays a capital gains tax of 15%? lolz So who's the clueless jackass that came up with the name "Buffet Rule" for a tax on high income earners?

And why the arbitrary number $1 Million? Why not $500k, or $50k? Does it really matter anyway? The Income tax was passed using wealth envy propaganda (pay their "fair share"). It originally started out only taxing the top 1% of income earners. But it quickly expanded once the government had their foot in the door (or hands in our wallets). There wouldn't be a need for income tax if we didn't still have to pay interest on money we borrowed that was created from nothing almost a century ago. Of course we can't pay off that false debt, because it's physically impossible.

What's even more fucked up about this whole thing is the ultra rich are always going to be given exceptions, rebates, loopholes, tax shelters, etc. Taxing "millionaires" is taxing small business owners that file their business gross income on their personal income returns. It completely ignores the criminals that have already made millions on Wall street through fraud and collusion. And it gives a pass to the crooks that are doing that now.

What if we actually did something constructive like list the millionaire politicians who REFUSE to prosecute Wall Street fraud. Isn't that the real reason we are here? Is taxing "millionaires" going to fix the problem?

The government has made it official policy not to prosecute fraud, and instead to do everything necessary to cover up for Wall Street.


William K. Black: This is the greatest financial crime in the history of the world and no one senior, at any of the major places that drove the crisis, has gone to jail?
...
Unless something dramatic or radical changes, this is going to be the greatest case of elite fraud with impunity in the history of the world. And it is only going to change if we express our outrage as the people and demand that it is changed.

So let's deal with some factual claims here. Cafferty's entire premise hangs on this Washington Times article, which makes the claim that there are $3 in tax increases for every $1 in cuts.

Except, the Washington Times is lying when it says that. According to the WT article itself, the proposal outlines $4.4 trillion in deficit reduction, $1.5 trillion of which is tax increases. That's $1.93 in cuts for each $1 in taxes, nowhere near the $0.33 in cuts per $1 in taxes that the Washington times states.

So how do they arrive at their figure? Well, they subtract out a bunch of things that are "supposed to happen anyways". Things that people like @blankfist insist Obama won't do, such as ending the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and a series of budget cuts that he'd agreed to in the debt ceiling deal a few months back.

Never mind that ending the Bush tax cuts is also something that is "supposed to happen anyways", and the new taxes proposed are more than offset by specific new cuts.

Which reminds me, Cafferty says there are no specific cuts of any kind. Before saying that, maybe he should read the plan? Or maybe even just read the entire Washington Times article he's relying on so heavily. The Washington Times' own conservative (in every sense of the word) estimate is that there are $580 billion in specific cuts, mostly coming from Social Security and Medicare, which Cafferty says have been left untouched.

Then, Cafferty says we have a $1 trillion a year deficit. Except now he is adding in all the things he subtracted from Obama's plan because they were "going to happen anyway." He's including the cost of Iraq and Afghanistan, he's including all the spending that will be cut because of the debt ceiling deal, and he's including the deficit from the Bush tax cuts.

If you're going to subtract those things out as legitimate sources of deficit reduction, then you've also got to subtract them out of your estimate of what the deficit is going to be in the future. If you don't, then you're being straight up dishonest, and exaggerating the size of the gap between the plans for deficit reduction, and the deficit itself.

I suspect Cafferty did this accidentally, but still, it's not like there aren't people at CNN who could've fact checked him before he said this on air.

Anyways, here's a much more fair assessment of the Obama plan, if you're looking for some balance on the topic.

Huntsman certainly seems like the best of the republican field. Not just from his recent statements on science and the debt ceiling, but from my experience living in Utah where he did a lot to moderate an extremely conservative state legislature.

I wonder if liberals should take the effort to vote for him in the primary to help ensure the next republican president is less terrifying than Bush. Or if they should just allow the tea party to nominate someone like Bachmann or Perry in the hopes that they'll be too extreme for the general election.


Here's a few examples of Huntsman standing up to his own the socially conservative LDS church as Governor:

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/02/10/Gov_Huntsman_of_Utah_backs_civil_unions/UPI-69571234319303/

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/07/02/Private-club-law-comes-to-end-in-Utah/UPI-89581246557139/

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_13336062

Its amazing how mislead Democrats are. They think money grows on trees. What fools.

An now its becoming time to pay the piper and they still demand to keep on spending.

The Democrats wanted to increase the debt ceiling to keep from having our credit rating lowered. So the Republicans caved ( like fools) and we were downgraded. So now the democrats blame those TEA PARTY for down grade. Such ignorant fools.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

Second, Ron Paul disagrees with the Tea Party on many more issues than you note, and many issues you would SUPPORT. Drugs and the lack of "war" on them, war itself, debt (Yes, he disagrees on debt. The Tea Party says we should destroy Medicade and medicare, and social security, Ron Paul says that is not possible 'right now' but he would privatize it to only those who wish it. See if the Tea Party agrees with him..."
Let'see, as you said, gay marriage...that's four huge issues right there...habeas corpus... another huge one that Bush disregarded; that the Tea Party would like to see fucked..sorry for the language... five...abortion...let the states handle it (I.e., legalize it for most states...) six...what else?
Besides these SIX HUGE ISSUES, I DON'T know...

Ahh, but here's where the rubber meets the road -- I don't really believe him about most of those.

Would Paul actually try to lead an effort to legalize gay marriage? An effort that would almost certainly divide the Republican party, or possibly even unite them against him?

I don't really believe Paul on Social Security and Medicare. Here's why.

I'm not sure what you mean by Paul "disagreeing" on debt. Paul was against raising the debt ceiling, and even sent out whip e-mail to ask people to call their congressman to tell them to vote against the deal that passed.

I don't believe him on abortion, and in any case "let the states handle it" is not my position, nor is it current law. It should be safe and legal everywhere, and supposedly that's how it is today.

I suppose I could see him relaxing enforcement of drug laws, so I'll grant you that. Thing is, I don't know how well he'd do in persuading congress to actually change the drug laws, or change popular opinion on legalizing serious narcotics like heroin.

Here's the thing though, my big three issues going into 2008 were the wars (and associated civil rights issues), health care, and the environment. Paul was with me on one, and radically against me on the other two.

If I had to pick my three core issues this time, I mostly want to see more stimulus, see the Bush tax cuts expire, and a passionate defense of union rights. Paul is vehemently opposed to all of those.

The long and the short of it is, there's nothing that I think Paul could deliver that would be worth all the damage he'd definitely inflict to countless things that I care about.

I'd rather vote for some random Green or Socialist candidate than vote for Paul. But moreover, I'd rather put what little weight I have behind Obama, because it's basically going to be him, Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann, or Mitt Romney who's gonna be President.

Now, if we had instant runoff voting, I could easily be persuaded to put a Green as my first choice...

A Pyrrhic 'Victory'
By Thomas Sowell
8/10/2011

In Don Marquis' classic satirical book, "Archy and Mehitabel," Mehitabel the alley cat asks plaintively, "What have I done to deserve all these kittens?"

That seems to be the pained reaction of the Obama administration to the financial woes that led to the downgrading of America's credit rating, for the first time in history.

There are people who see no connection between what they have done and the consequences that follow. But Barack Obama is not likely to be one of them. He is a savvy politician who will undoubtedly be satisfied if enough voters fail to see a connection between what he has done and the consequences that followed.

To a remarkable extent, he has succeeded, with the help of his friends in the media and the Republicans' failure to articulate their case. Polls find more people blaming the Republicans for the financial crisis than are blaming the President.

Why was there a financial crisis in the first place? Because of runaway spending that sent the national debt up against the legal limit. But when all the big spending bills were being rushed through Congress, the Democrats had such an overwhelming majority in both houses of Congress that nothing the Republicans could do made the slightest difference.

Yet polls show that many people today are blaming the Republicans for the country's financial problems. But, by the time Republicans gained control of the House of Representatives, and thus became involved in negotiations over raising the national debt ceiling, the spending which caused that crisis in the first place had already been done -- and done by Democrats.

Had the Republicans gone along with President Obama's original request for a "clean" bill -- one simply raising the debt ceiling without any provisions about controlling federal spending -- would that have spared the country the embarrassment of having its government bonds downgraded by Standard & Poor's credit-rating agency?

To believe that would be to believe that it was the debt ceiling, rather than the runaway spending, that made Standard & Poor's think that we were no longer as good a credit risk for buyers of U.S. government bonds. In other words, to believe that is to believe that a Congressional blank check for continued record spending would have made Standard & Poor's think that we were a better credit risk.

If that is true, then why is Standard & Poor's still warning that it might have to downgrade America's credit rating yet again? Is that because of the national debt ceiling or because of the likelihood of continued runaway spending?

The national debt ceiling is just one of the many false assurances that the government gives the voting public. The national debt ceiling has never actually stopped the spending that causes the national debt to rise to the point where it is getting near that ceiling. The ceiling simply gets raised when that happens.

Just a week before the budget deal was made at the eleventh hour, it looked like the new Republican majority in the House of Representatives had scored a victory by getting the President and the Congressional Democrats to give up the idea of raising the tax rates -- and to cut spending instead. But now that the details are coming out, that "victory" looks very temporary, if not illusory.

The price of getting that deal has been having the Republicans agree to sitting on a special bipartisan Congressional committee that will either come to an agreement on spending cuts before Thanksgiving or have the budgets of both the Defense Department and Medicare cut drastically.

Since neither side can afford to be blamed for a disaster like that, this virtually guarantees that the Republicans will have to either go along with whatever new spending and taxing that the Democrats demand or risk losing the 2012 election by sharing the blame for another financial disaster.

In short, the Republicans have now been maneuvered into being held responsible for the spending orgy that Democrats alone had the votes to create. Republicans have been had -- and so has the country. The recent, short-lived budget deal turns out to be not even a Pyrrhic victory for the Republicans. It has the earmarks of a Pyrrhic defeat.

Did I just upvote a comment by Bob Knight? I hope your sentiment is bipartison.

The "debt ceiling crisis" was a self inflicted wound. This vote, which has been routine and generally unpolitical, was indeed used, badly I might add, as a political hostage. The many republicans, who in banana republic style advocated a US default on our legitamate active debts are directly responsible for the credit downgrade by S&P. Lest we forget who they are, from TPM:

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), May 17, 2011: "You want to make sure that the bondholder has confidence that the government's going to be able to pay them.... That's what I'm hearing from most people, which is if a bondholder misses a payment for a day or two or three or four what is more important that you're putting the government in a materially better position to be able to pay their bonds later on."

Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA), May 18, 2011: "What I think is that the markets are looking to see credible progress on changing the fiscal trajectory in Washington. The markets are not fooled by some date imposed to say that that is the trigger for the collapse. I think the markets are looking to see that there is real reform."

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), May 19, 2011: "The government is not to be trusted with more of your money, so I will refuse to allow them to borrow more. Now is it a good idea to default? No! But this is a false claim being promoted by big-government advocates. We can simply spend what we take in!"

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC), June 24, 2011 on administration warnings of "catastrophic consequences" of not raising debt limit: "I don't believe them, it's not true."

Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA), May 18, 2011: "This problem is so urgent that there is -- an alternative school of thought has emerged recently," Toomey said. "The most high-profile advocate for this was Stanley Druckenmiller ... one of the world's most successful hedge-fund managers, extraordinarily wealthy from his knowledge of the markets, a big money manager now, and a big holder of Treasury securities -- and he has said that he would actually accept even a delay in interest payments on the Treasuries that he holds. And he would prefer that if it meant that the Congress would right this ship."

Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT), July 13, 2011: "To get a balanced budget amendment in this environment...we'd have to make the serious, credible, earnest threat that if you want to raise [the debt ceiling] and you want to have any Republicans voting for raising it, you're going to have to assist us: You give us 20 votes to adopt the balanced budget amendment in the Senate and we'll make sure you get the votes you need to raise the debt limit."

That is not what the S&P said. They said the fact that politicians were willing to risk default to get their ideologies made into policies triggered the downgrade.

And all parties wanted the US economy to not plummet, which necessitates the debt ceiling raise. The difference with this debt ceiling raise is one faction of one party was willing to have the US default to get their way. The GOP ran the deficit up from 2000-2006 with tax cuts and unfunded mandates, entered the US into two wars, and then stuck a Democratic president with the bill, and then said, "you cut your programs to fix this, or we'll force the US to default" after the economy tanked.

Don't sit there and say the GOP compromised by raising the debt ceiling. They did in fact hold the US economy hostage by suddenly becoming worried about the debt to score political points. The Tea Party is a small faction of the GOP. The GOP willfully attempted to aggregate political will from Tea Party sympathizers.

The problem with all this is the vast majority of Americans, on both sides, do not understand the ramifications of default, large deficits, a growing national debt, etc. On this very site, guys like you for example swear up and down that deficits are never good, when a cursory look at our history shows that deficits have actually been at times wildly beneficial to our economy. Others insist on paying for social security indefinitely from 65 to death without looking at what it would cost to make that happen, or ignoring that people live longer today than they did before, so maybe it's time we raise the retirement age.

Both parties are concentrating on scoring cheap political points, throwing out platitudes about how to fix the economy instead of using actual information and determining a policies moving forward to fix this economy. Sometimes it's on purpose; sometimes it's because they're just as ignorant of economics as the general population. Idiotic things like:

"The government must always spend less than they earn!"
"US citizens should always be entitled to <insert blank without providing a realistic means to pay for it>"
"Providing <insert gov't program> is socialist, and it can never work because the gov't can't do anything right!"
"Corporations are always evil, and always screw the people!"

You know what will fix the economy? Competent policy makers not married to any ideology, willing to make policy based on facts instead of talking points. Unfortunately, the American people, combined with our political system, don't seem to select such people to positions of power.



>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

How was I off? I said that the US debt was 17 Trillion. With the 2.4 trillion 'deal' Congress just made, that is correct (16.9 trillion, but I'm rounding up). I also said that the government spends 28% more than it takes in. I was using GOA numbers, but if you want to use "the wiki" then I will have to correct myself. According to Wikipedia, the US 2010 tax revenue was 2.1 trillion and its expenses were 3.4 trillion. Happy? According to Wiki, the US spends !!61.9%!! more than it takes in. It only furthers my argument - but whatever. I also said the US is in total debt to 571% of its income. This is also correct. Income? 2.1 trillion. Debt? 16.9 trillion. We're in hock over 700% of our income, and it is getting worse YOY.
You lose. I win. Facts and reality tend to do that.
And S&P said cut, cap & balance would have prevented the downgrade - therefore it is not "only the tea party" that liked it. Democrats voted for it. Independants voted for it. Libertarians voted for it. RINOs voted for it. It passed the House. But Obama refused to compromise and sign it. Hint for you neolibs - "compromise" means you compromise YOUR position. The GOP compromised by allowing the debt to go up. That was the compromise. Obama just didn't like it because it didn't give him 2.4 trillion more of his walkin' round money to trowel out past the 2012 election.

I disagree with him on a couple of points. Firstly, the last minute decision to raise the debt ceiling was simply political theatre, not a game of chicken. Secondly, the fact that congress seems to do nothing doesn't mean they won't extend the Bush tax cuts, the propaganda machines (just about all mainstream media) will spin into gear and it will be business as usual. Also, the credit rating agencies have little to no oversight, their business practices are tantamount to blackmail, saying they are independant and non-partisan certainly doesn't mean they don't have an agenda.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8032-2004Nov23.html

^ an example of how the ratings agencies operate.

"Let me get this straight... Events of the past week:

Republicans get their way with the debt ceiling negotiations
Immediately following this S&P downgrades the US's credit rating

You claim it's the "liberals'" fault?

Action-reaction, man. The economists at S&P see the result of the debt ceiling talks as a bad plan and thus they drop the credit rating. If the democrats' policies had been followed this wouldn't have happened."

HA! You gotta love the logic in both of these posts!

In reply to this comment by bobknight33:
They all should have listen to the Tea Party.

The Liberals and RHINOs got what they wanted now we are in a bigger mess.

You cant spend your way out of debt. Fools

'Super Congress': Debt Ceiling Negotiators Aim To Create New Legislative Body
Super Congress Getting Even More Super Powers In Debt Deal
Super Congress: the final nail in the coffin of representative democracy and freedom as we know it
GOA Chief: Super Congress ‘Will Lead Us Into Dictatorship’
Is the new "Super Congress" Constitutional?
Ron Paul: ‘Super Congress’ a “Monstrous Creature”

If you read the report, the debt situation was part of it. It should be addressed. But the major indisputable catalyst for the downgrade was the wholely irresponsible use of default as a political weapon. And having a powerful faction of the House actually want a default to happen. That is the sign of a banana republic.

I said above that ability to pay is a major factor in a credit rating. We had several teabag and republican house members and presidential candidates loudly yell that we shouldn't even be willing to pay our debt, even if we were able. Almost every proposal was rejected by the house faction, many of whom apparently pledged not to raise taxes or even raise the debt ceiling. WTF? Finally we have people who didn't want to raise the ceiling because the default would be a "loss" for Obama. I think every one of these reasons is irrational.

If I didn't think they were retarded, I would call their actions treasonous. They want to see the president fail so badly, they are willing to wreck my money (401k, buying power, etc) to do it. Well, mission accomplished, guys.

Obama is the president, but budgets and the (stupid but encoded) debt ceiling vote must come out of the House.

Bottom line: If the republicans really want to reduce the debt, they should pass an appropriate budget next time. Don't default (or even threaten to default) on our existing obligations!

>> ^quantumushroom:
Now I could be wrong, but as I understand it, FOUR trillion in cuts was required to keep the ratings degradation at bay--not to fix anything, just to keep it from happening right away.
Well, the Right failed.
TWO trillion in cuts later, the socialists, who are still the majority party, allowed this farce to proceed. So how is the Right "victorious" by failing to reach even a bare minimum in cuts? If anything, the Righties are idiots for allowing themselves to be lumped in with the Hawaiian Dunce & Friends, who spent 3 trillion in 3 years to no effect.
No, I really don't want to believe Odumbo is this sinister or ignorant, but what choice do I have? If he's dumb he should just say so and let smarter people decide what to do.
The markets will sh1t the bed on his watch tomorrow. At least he will have sealed his fate for 2012. Too bad the rest of us get to sink with him.
>> ^lampishthing:
Let me get this straight... Events of the past week:
Republicans get their way with the debt ceiling negotiations
Immediately following this S&P downgrades the US's credit rating
You claim it's the "liberals'" fault?
Action-reaction, man. The economists at S&P see the result of the debt ceiling talks as a bad plan and thus they drop the credit rating. If the democrats' policies had been followed this wouldn't have happened.>> ^bobknight33:
They all should have listen to the Tea Party.
The Liberals and RHINOs got what they wanted now we are in a bigger mess.
You cant spend your way out of debt. Fools

Now I could be wrong, but as I understand it, FOUR trillion in cuts was required to keep the ratings degradation at bay--not to fix anything, just to keep it from happening right away.

Well, the Right failed.

TWO trillion in cuts later, the socialists, who are still the majority party, allowed this farce to proceed. So how is the Right "victorious" by failing to reach even a bare minimum in cuts? If anything, the Righties are idiots for allowing themselves to be lumped in with the Hawaiian Dunce & Friends, who spent 3 trillion in 3 years to no effect.

No, I really don't want to believe Odumbo is this sinister or ignorant, but what choice do I have? If he's dumb he should just say so and let smarter people decide what to do.

The markets will sh1t the bed on his watch tomorrow. At least he will have sealed his fate for 2012. Too bad the rest of us get to sink with him.












>> ^lampishthing:

Let me get this straight... Events of the past week:
Republicans get their way with the debt ceiling negotiations
Immediately following this S&P downgrades the US's credit rating
You claim it's the "liberals'" fault?
Action-reaction, man. The economists at S&P see the result of the debt ceiling talks as a bad plan and thus they drop the credit rating. If the democrats' policies had been followed this wouldn't have happened.>> ^bobknight33:
They all should have listen to the Tea Party.
The Liberals and RHINOs got what they wanted now we are in a bigger mess.
You cant spend your way out of debt. Fools

Ah, I hadn't realized that. We switched to displaying YT and Vimeo vids in iframes and some things on the page always assumed an object or embed tag. Will look into fixing it when possible.

Thanks for reporting.

In reply to this comment by xxovercastxx:
The "BRIEF" and "LONG" markers are getting stuffed beneath the video today. "BLOCKED" is behaving properly.

Here's two examples:
http://videosift.com/video/Wait-what-was-the-debt-ceiling-debate-a
bout-again
http://videosift.com/video/The-Torchbearer-part-1-Eerie-Stop-moti
on-Animation

You must cringe when you get that email that tells you I've left a profile comment.

The "BRIEF" and "LONG" markers are getting stuffed beneath the video today. "BLOCKED" is behaving properly.

Here's two examples:
http://videosift.com/video/Wait-what-was-the-debt-ceiling-debate-about-again
http://videosift.com/video/The-Torchbearer-part-1-Eerie-Stop-motion-Animation

You must cringe when you get that email that tells you I've left a profile comment.