Octopus Overlords

Rumble in the cornfield!! Tonight's Iowa debate stars Mitt Romney, Michele Bachmann, Ron Paul, Herman Cain, Rick Santorum, Tim Pawlenty, Newt Gingrich, and introducing Jon Huntsman as "Mitt Romney." (The role of Rick Perry this evening will be played by "Hazy Nostalgia for the Confederacy George W. Bush.")

Any predictions? The obvious one is that everyone will try to pin the downgrade on the Democrats. The surprise will be that the London riots are also Obama's fault. Personally.

Place your bets, people!

I'm hoping Rick Parry surprises everyone.

Too bad they won't let Fred Karger in to the debate as a big "fuck you" to the social totalitarians.

Holman wrote:
Any predictions? The obvious one is that everyone will try to pin the downgrade on the Democrats.

That much is a given. The more interesting aspect (although not "interesting" enough to make me actually watch the debate) is whether they will focus primarily on economics for the national audience or on God & Country conservatism for the Iowans. Will they trip over one another as they all race to the right, or will the more moderate voices resist that impulse?

Kraken wrote:

Holman wrote:
Any predictions? The obvious one is that everyone will try to pin the downgrade on the Democrats.

That much is a given. The more interesting aspect (although not "interesting" enough to make me actually watch the debate) is whether they will focus primarily on economics for the national audience or on God & Country conservatism for the Iowans. Will they trip over one another as they all race to the right, or will the more moderate voices resist that impulse?

I'm betting a nickel that it'll be a competition to see who can invoke God the most effectively.

Romney: Corporations are people

Do I believe that Social Security should take no part in deficit reduction negotiations? Social security and Medicare are a large part of federal spending. It is about half. Not just this year, but over the coming decades, if we are able to balance our budget, we have to make sure that the promises we make for Social Security and Medicare are promises we can keep. There are a couple ways to do that: one way is to raise taxes on people. Corporations are people. Of course they are -- where do you think it goes? Human beings, my friend. Number one, you can raise taxes. That is not the approach would take

Oh, Mitt.

Huntsman's campaign pounces:

Jon Huntsman spokesman Tim Miller took a shot at Romney on Twitter, replying "Was American Pad & Paper Company a person/friend?" Romney's firm, Bain Capital, acquired American Pad & Paper in 1992 and closed two of its American plants, laying off 385 workers. It later went bankrupt.

OH SNAP

Corporations are people, but not in the way Romney suggests.

I'll let ND cover this one.

I get where he's coming from, but he did word it badly.

I really do disagree with the demonization of corporations by the left, however. It's just ridiculous.

I think he was trolling the liberals with that line. For the lulz. I can respect that.

I took his point as "if you think you can just soak corporations without it impacting people, like corporations get their money from some magical money plant separate from people and their jobs and 401ks and stuff, you're a dummy."

The ones who helped themselves were Romney and Gingrich. I doubt that Newt has any hope of coming anywhere near the nomination, but he was clear, articulate, relevant, and forceful in a way that showed why his participation is valuable to the process. Romney seemed polished and handled the gotchas well, although the cyborg factor abides.

Bachmann held ground, neither improving her lot nor diminishing her standing. She effectively rebutted Pawlenty's ham-handed assaults, but didn't make the case for why the presidency is the best platform for her principled advocacy. She also showed great comedic timing in response to a tired question about Christian spousal submission. Likewise, Cain did nothing to hurt himself; he didn't seem presidential, but also committed no gaffes.

Pawlenty damaged his prospects with an unpleasant demeanor and limp style. Huntsman damaged his prospects by making clear that he's a liberal 'publican who's trying with only moderate success to tack to starboard. Indeed, the contrast between Huntsman's current rhetoric and actual record ended up helping Romney by making the latter seem less inconsistent and pragmatic.

This is probably Ron Paul's swan song at the presidential tier, and if you're at all a fan of libertarian constructs, then you'd have to say he delivered by offering an ideological consistency that the others cannot match. He also schooled Santorum on Iran on multiple vectors, and seemed less hysterical and rambling in style than he sometimes does. It seemed he might cry with joy when Gingrich proposed exhaustive auditing and openness for the Fed, though Paul would regard those as increments on the way to abolishing it. "The mainstream has finally caught up" was his quip, more or less.

Santorum was sanctimonious and irksome. Like Pawlenty, he looks in the mirror and sees a president but fails to realize that he stands nearly alone in that appreciation.

So yeah. Advantage Romney and Gingrich. Fault Pawlenty and Santorum. So the winner was clearly Rick Perry.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezr ... _blog.html" target="_blank

The most telling moment of Thursday’s GOP debate . . . was when every single GOP candidate on the stage agreed that they would reject a budget deal that was $10 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases. Even Fox News’s Bret Baier couldn’t quite believe what he was seeing. He asked again just to make sure the assembled candidates had understood the question.

Is that true? That seems...well...crazy.

Malificent wrote:http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezr ... _blog.html

The most telling moment of Thursday’s GOP debate . . . was when every single GOP candidate on the stage agreed that they would reject a budget deal that was $10 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases. Even Fox News’s Bret Baier couldn’t quite believe what he was seeing. He asked again just to make sure the assembled candidates had understood the question.

Is that true? That seems...well...crazy.

Yes, it's true. It was quite the sight. I was hoping the moderator would say something like, "how about a one penny tax increase and 500 billion in spend cuts?".

Malificent wrote:http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezr ... _blog.html

The most telling moment of Thursday’s GOP debate . . . was when every single GOP candidate on the stage agreed that they would reject a budget deal that was $10 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases. Even Fox News’s Bret Baier couldn’t quite believe what he was seeing. He asked again just to make sure the assembled candidates had understood the question.

Is that true? That seems...well...crazy.

Let me get this straight:

Not raising taxes is crazy. But their stance that the government must drastically shrink across the board is crazy?

NO FUCKING TAXES. It's 100 years overdue that the government shrinks back down to a manageable level that leaves our citizens with more of their money and more control over enterprise and the future of this country.

All you have to do is look to Europe to see what the effects of the great social experiment in big government results in. They are teetering on the edge of economic doom far more than even we are.

msduncan wrote:

Malificent wrote:http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezr ... _blog.html

The most telling moment of Thursday’s GOP debate . . . was when every single GOP candidate on the stage agreed that they would reject a budget deal that was $10 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases. Even Fox News’s Bret Baier couldn’t quite believe what he was seeing. He asked again just to make sure the assembled candidates had understood the question.

Is that true? That seems...well...crazy.

Let me get this straight:

Not raising taxes is crazy. But their stance that the government must drastically shrink across the board is crazy?

NO FUCKING TAXES. It's 100 years overdue that the government shrinks back down to a manageable level that leaves our citizens with more of their money and more control over enterprise and the future of this country.

All you have to do is look to Europe to see what the effects of the great social experiment in big government results in. They are teetering on the edge of economic doom far more than even we are.

It's the 10:1 thing. I'm not knowledgeable enough to speak to our tax rates now as versus the past or versus Europe. But having every candidate say that there is NO room for compromise, that's not them being politicians, that's them being dicks.

Whatever. I think it is time for me to bury my head in the sand and hope when I look back up in a few years, politicians will actually start compromising and working together.

msduncan wrote:Not raising taxes is crazy. But their stance that the government must drastically shrink across the board is crazy?

No, it's not the stance that's crazy, it's the methodology.

It's fine to believe that government is too big and should shrink. It's fine to believe that tax increases should be kept to an absolute minimum, or avoided all together if possible.

But it's troubling to see every single candidate pretend there isn't another side to the debate. Even if Republicans take both houses and the Senate, unless they get a super-majority, they're going to need to compromise somewhere along the line. And a 10 to 1 deal would be a pretty damn good compromise, don't you think?

It's depressing, but it really seems like most wouldn't take the 1 penny tax increase for $500 billion in cuts, just so that they could say they never raised taxes (or because they'd be afraid of being labeled as someone who had). I mean, they signed a pledge! The ideological rigidity is paralyzing.

msduncan wrote:



NO FUCKING TAXES. It's 100 years overdue that the government shrinks back down to a manageable level that leaves our citizens with more of their money and more control over enterprise and the future of this country.

When have you EVER paid fewer federal taxes than you do now? When has anyone? Thanks to EITC and other (bipartisan) giveaways, half the country pays NOTHING. In short, W.T.F. are you talking about?

Captain Caveman wrote:It's depressing, but it really seems like most wouldn't take the 1 penny tax increase for $500 billion in cuts, just so that they could say they never raised taxes (or because they'd be afraid of being labeled as someone who had). I mean, they signed a pledge! The ideological rigidity is paralyzing.

And crazy. Just so we're clear.

geezer wrote:

msduncan wrote:



NO FUCKING TAXES. It's 100 years overdue that the government shrinks back down to a manageable level that leaves our citizens with more of their money and more control over enterprise and the future of this country.

When have you EVER paid fewer federal taxes than you do now? When has anyone? Thanks to EITC and other (bipartisan) giveaways, half the country pays NOTHING. In short, W.T.F. are you talking about?

*hugz*

msduncan wrote: All you have to do is look to Europe to see what the effects of the great social experiment in big government results in. They are teetering on the edge of economic doom far more than even we are.

If you look at Germany which is a high tax state that is not the case. It's about spending within whatever limits you have, regardless of taxes.

YellowKing wrote:I really do disagree with the demonization of corporations by the left, however. It's just ridiculous.

Spend more time studying corporate behavior.

geezer wrote:

msduncan wrote:



NO FUCKING TAXES. It's 100 years overdue that the government shrinks back down to a manageable level that leaves our citizens with more of their money and more control over enterprise and the future of this country.

When have you EVER paid fewer federal taxes than you do now? When has anyone? Thanks to EITC and other (bipartisan) giveaways, half the country pays NOTHING. In short, W.T.F. are you talking about?

He'll ignore this, too. He pays less in taxes than anyone at his income level for over 50 years, yet screams he's paying too much. Some people, you just can't reach.

I'm guessing that plays well to the base, but I'm also guessing that whichever R comes out of the primary season won't be thinking that way (or at least speaking that way) when it comes to the general election.

#howpoliticsaredone

Rick Perry is set to announce tomorrow and the vetting has already started

Perry believes, for example, that the national Social Security system, which he calls a “failure” that “we have been forced to accept for more than 70 years now,” should be scrapped and that each state should be allowed to create, or not create, its own pension system. “I would suggest a legitimate conversation about let[ting] the states keep their money and implement the programs,” he says.

Perry also includes Medicare in his list of programs “the states could substantially better operate,” suggesting that each governor should be “given the freedom from the federal government to come up with his own innovative ways [of] working with his legislature to deliver his own health-care innovations to his citizens.”

And Perry thinks TARP was a total mistake—along with all subsequent efforts to backstop or stimulate the economy. Instead, he prefers an entirely laissez-faire approach to job-destroying financial crises. "I think you allow the market to work its way through it," he says. "I don’t understand why the TARP bill exists. Let the processes find their way."

I'm sure those positions will play well with the elderly and in the auto-producing midwest states.

msduncan wrote:NO FUCKING TAXES. It's 100 years overdue that the government shrinks back down to a manageable level that leaves our citizens with more of their money and more control over enterprise and the future of this country.

I'm curious - how would this work?

According to these old numbers I found in a quick google search we spent ~$1.5T more than we brought in. (That's the projected number for 2011. The real number is probably slightly different but not really important to the discussion).

SO to balance the budget without any new taxes we would have to remove $1,500,000,000,000 of economic activity from the economy.



What effect do you think that would have on the US economy?

geezer wrote: When have you EVER paid fewer federal taxes than you do now? When has anyone? Thanks to EITC and other (bipartisan) giveaways, half the country pays NOTHING. In short, W.T.F. are you talking about?

IIRC, that refers to federal income tax. Not total taxes paid by the citizenry. In an average year, I pay a good deal more to my town and state than I do to the Feds. If I am the sort that is bothered by paying taxes, it is unlikely that I will discriminate between them. Yes, I pay a much lower percentage of my income to the Feds than in days gone by, but over that same time period, my local property taxes have gone up by more than 1000% (and sadly that is not an exaggeration).

I pay more to my town alone than I do to Uncle Sam (as much as 40% more in some years).

Captain Caveman wrote:It's depressing, but it really seems like most wouldn't take the 1 penny tax increase for $500 billion in cuts, just so that they could say they never raised taxes (or because they'd be afraid of being labeled as someone who had). I mean, they signed a pledge! The ideological rigidity is paralyzing.

It is fanatical and bordering on zealotry. The world changes every day, our population changes every day. Sometimes taxes may need to change too. After all, new tax loopholes and cheats are discovered every day, shouldn't we adjust the tax code to account for that?

Or should we still be taxing buggy whip importers and not automobile importers?

It is small-minded zealotry, and is the closed-mindset that is running this country into the ground. Or should we just never pay for the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan, where we spend more than NASA's annual budget on air-conditioning?

And no, this isn't directed at you Cap, just in agreement.

RunningMn9 wrote:

geezer wrote: When have you EVER paid fewer federal taxes than you do now? When has anyone? Thanks to EITC and other (bipartisan) giveaways, half the country pays NOTHING. In short, W.T.F. are you talking about?

IIRC, that refers to federal income tax. Not total taxes paid by the citizenry. In an average year, I pay a good deal more to my town and state than I do to the Feds. If I am the sort that is bothered by paying taxes, it is unlikely that I will discriminate between them. Yes, I pay a much lower percentage of my income to the Feds than in days gone by, but over that same time period, my local property taxes have gone up by more than 1000% (and sadly that is not an exaggeration).

I pay more to my town alone than I do to Uncle Sam (as much as 40% more in some years).

I hear you, but that's really a separate issue - especially when part 2 of the (ignorant-as-fuck) "DAMN COMMIE FEDERAL GUBMINT TAKIN MY MONEY!" argument is often "Local Control - wheeeeeeeee!!!!!!!"

It's not that I love paying taxes - it's that people that complain about federal taxes suddenly being some sort of bright line issue while extolling the virtues of powerful local government are seemingly incomprehensibly stupid. And they're often located in states where they take far more than their share of federal dollars to boot

RunningMn9 wrote:

YellowKing wrote:I really do disagree with the demonization of corporations by the left, however. It's just ridiculous.

Spend more time studying corporate behavior.

*hugz*

I actually typed in two separate responses before backing out before submiting each time. The more I learn, the more I think corporations are not just demons, but the one and only anti-C himself in distributed format.

geezer wrote:extolling the virtues of powerful local government

in his defense, I don't think I've ever seen mad extoll the virtues of powerful local government. My experience thus far has tended to teach me that if there is something worse than the federal government, it's state governments. And if there is something worse than that, it's local governments.

Being closer to the problem you are trying to solve doesn't help when you are wholly incompetent.

Case in point, I won the Democratic Primary for Town Council this year. I wasn't running, and certainly wouldn't have run as a Democrat. I beat a 7-year old. These are adults that voted. It's lunacy.

I am not a fan of taxes at all, but I think that an absolutist "no new taxes" position -- taken when federal taxes are at historic lows, taken when we're in an economy-threatening debt crisis -- is not practical or prudent.

As I've said before, my main concern about raising taxes from historic lows is that Congress, rather than matching the tax increases with spending cuts to reduce the deficit and debt, will simply adjust spending upwards to match the increased taxes. That would accomplish nothing.

Mr. Fed wrote:I am not a fan of taxes at all, but I think that an absolutist "no new taxes" position -- taken when federal taxes are at historic lows, taken when we're in an economy-threatening debt crisis -- is not practical or prudent.

As I've said before, my main concern about raising taxes from historic lows is that Congress, rather than matching the tax increases with spending cuts to reduce the deficit and debt, will simply adjust spending upwards to match the increased taxes. That would accomplish nothing.

I agree with you on all points. Was just trying to provide a possible context for msduncan's position.

If you want to resolve the budget deficit, tax revenue must go up. Anyone that won't do it isn't serious about solving the problem.

GreenGoo wrote:

RunningMn9 wrote:

YellowKing wrote:I really do disagree with the demonization of corporations by the left, however. It's just ridiculous.

Spend more time studying corporate behavior.

*hugz*

I actually typed in two separate responses before backing out before submiting each time. The more I learn, the more I think corporations are not just demons, but the one and only anti-C himself in distributed format.

Most people that earn a living works for a corporation of some sort, though. Unthinking demonization of corporations is about as goofy as unthinking hardline stances on taxes. A corporation isn't evil - if anything it's amoral (though officers of said corporation can certainly be good, bad, or, like almost everyone in a certain context, somewhere in between). A corporation's goal - just like an individual's, is to promote self sustainability and throw off a little extra if possible. A CEOs desire to maximize income at the expense of employment cost isn't necessarily any worse than an employee's desire to maximize wages at the expense of the company's bottom line. Note that I'm not defending or attacking either attitude - simply stating that both side get something from the relationship and, unfortunately, both upsides sometimes come at the expense of the other.

Mr. Fed wrote:I am not a fan of taxes at all, but I think that an absolutist "no new taxes" position -- taken when federal taxes are at historic lows, taken when we're in an economy-threatening debt crisis -- is not practical or prudent.

As I've said before, my main concern about raising taxes from historic lows is that Congress, rather than matching the tax increases with spending cuts to reduce the deficit and debt, will simply adjust spending upwards to match the increased taxes. That would accomplish nothing.

Indeed. But I don't hear anyone arguing for all revenue and no cuts, or even anything close to that.

geezer wrote:

Mr. Fed wrote:I am not a fan of taxes at all, but I think that an absolutist "no new taxes" position -- taken when federal taxes are at historic lows, taken when we're in an economy-threatening debt crisis -- is not practical or prudent.

As I've said before, my main concern about raising taxes from historic lows is that Congress, rather than matching the tax increases with spending cuts to reduce the deficit and debt, will simply adjust spending upwards to match the increased taxes. That would accomplish nothing.

Indeed. But I don't hear anyone arguing for all revenue and no cuts, or even anything close to that.

If you are so confident in your pro-taxes stance, then please quit hiding behind the word "revenue". It's taxes. Call it taxes. Democrats need to stop being chicken shit about calling it what it is.

msduncan wrote:

geezer wrote:

Mr. Fed wrote:I am not a fan of taxes at all, but I think that an absolutist "no new taxes" position -- taken when federal taxes are at historic lows, taken when we're in an economy-threatening debt crisis -- is not practical or prudent.

As I've said before, my main concern about raising taxes from historic lows is that Congress, rather than matching the tax increases with spending cuts to reduce the deficit and debt, will simply adjust spending upwards to match the increased taxes. That would accomplish nothing.

Indeed. But I don't hear anyone arguing for all revenue and no cuts, or even anything close to that.

If you are so confident in your pro-taxes stance, then please quit hiding behind the word "revenue". It's taxes. Call it taxes. Democrats need to stop being chicken shit about calling it what it is.

He called them taxes in the post previous.

Maybe you should focus on real issues and stop hiding behind chickenshit issues like whether people are calling them revenues or taxes.

msduncan wrote:

geezer wrote:

Mr. Fed wrote:I am not a fan of taxes at all, but I think that an absolutist "no new taxes" position -- taken when federal taxes are at historic lows, taken when we're in an economy-threatening debt crisis -- is not practical or prudent.

As I've said before, my main concern about raising taxes from historic lows is that Congress, rather than matching the tax increases with spending cuts to reduce the deficit and debt, will simply adjust spending upwards to match the increased taxes. That would accomplish nothing.

Indeed. But I don't hear anyone arguing for all revenue and no cuts, or even anything close to that.

If you are so confident in your pro-taxes stance, then please quit hiding behind the word "revenue". It's taxes. Call it taxes. Democrats need to stop being chicken shit about calling it what it is.

But it's not just taxes. It's eliminating deductions, credits etc. I don't have any issue saying that an increase in taxes needs to be part of the solution, but an increase in *revenue* can come from places other than simple tax increases.

Mr. Fed wrote:I am not a fan of taxes at all [snip]

No sane person is a 'fan' of taxes. I don't like paying taxes. But the idea of having a social structure of some sort is worth it. Of course, msduncan has smeared me and others with the smear of "TAX LOVER" many, many times.

Mr. Fed wrote:I am not a fan of taxes at all, but I think that an absolutist "no new taxes" position -- taken when federal taxes are at historic lows, taken when we're in an economy-threatening debt crisis -- is not practical or prudent.

As I've said before, my main concern about raising taxes from historic lows is that Congress, rather than matching the tax increases with spending cuts to reduce the deficit and debt, will simply adjust spending upwards to match the increased taxes. That would accomplish nothing.

Honestly, I'm a little whatever about the idea that we should match raising taxes with spending cuts. There's no hard and fast rule that the two should be linked, and if the taxes are at historic low then we probably should be focusing on increasing them more than decreasing spending.

And yes, I said taxes. Taxes, texas., TAXES. We need to be responsible and pay taxes.

geezer wrote:

msduncan wrote:

geezer wrote:

Mr. Fed wrote:I am not a fan of taxes at all, but I think that an absolutist "no new taxes" position -- taken when federal taxes are at historic lows, taken when we're in an economy-threatening debt crisis -- is not practical or prudent.

As I've said before, my main concern about raising taxes from historic lows is that Congress, rather than matching the tax increases with spending cuts to reduce the deficit and debt, will simply adjust spending upwards to match the increased taxes. That would accomplish nothing.

Indeed. But I don't hear anyone arguing for all revenue and no cuts, or even anything close to that.

If you are so confident in your pro-taxes stance, then please quit hiding behind the word "revenue". It's taxes. Call it taxes. Democrats need to stop being chicken shit about calling it what it is.

But it's not just taxes. It's eliminating deductions, credits etc. I don't have any issue saying that an increase in taxes needs to be part of the solution, but an increase in *revenue* can come from places other than simple tax increases.

This is one of the occasions in politics where one side doesn't have arguments, they have what I call "stickers." They build a straw man: "tax lover', "socialist", and then apply those to everyone they disagree with, and yell these labels over and over again, instead of a discussion. When you point out, in the example of msduncan, that the very thing he supports with tax dollars, NASA, is socialist as hell, you get ignored. When you mention that he pays lower federal taxes today than anytime in generations, you get ignored.

Oh, and TAXES.