Octopus Overlords

SpaceLord wrote: 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.

I'm a fan of paying taxes. I'm also a fan of paying one's bill, doing homework for class and making an honest day's pay.

I'm not a fan of excessively high taxes (or excessively complex state taxes), but I'm not a fan of excessive homework either. But I am absolutely a fan of living up to one's responsibilities.

Which probably does make me not sane.

I'm not opposed to taxes. I'm opposed to hiking taxes without first making sure the government is as efficient and streamlined as possible. That's the key.

As it stands, many people do not trust the government to wisely spend money, and rightly so. They don't want to keep feeding the hungry hungry hippo unless they know where that money is going.

You guys are climbing all over yourselves to hike taxes without even going through the process of making sure that money is going to be spent wisely.

Given its woeful history of enacting actual spending cuts, I think it's incumbent upon the government to prove that it can indeed cut spending, and cut it drastically. Once it has done everything it can conceivably do in that regard, if there is a revenue problem at the bottom of it, that's the time to discuss tax increases. But until such a time that it is proven -– through action, i.e. actual cuts -– that the government has done all it can in the area of non-theoretical spending cuts, then tax increases seem likely to fuel more spending if history is any indicator.

I worked a job for tips only for 9 months. I tracked my daily earnings and filed my tax return on the amount that I made.

I didn't want to do it, but I was working, and income taxes are paid as a part of that. I was called stupid by my fellow co-workers, as it seemed I was the only one "stupid" enough to actually follow the rules and pay the government a percentage of my earnings for the benefits that they provide.

Like employing my father in the Air Force for 21 years. Like contracting out aircraft maintenance at their bases that has allowed those companies to employ him for the last 20 years.

I pay less than 13% of my annual salary to the federal government in income taxes. As much as I would like to not have to pay them at all, I will say that I'm not taxed enough for the benefits that I get to live in this country. You won't see me march in favor of higher taxes at any level, but you won't hear me complain if, to make this country more stable and a better place to live, I need to pay some more of my income to make that happen.

What has made this country great is the government of this country, not 50 state governments. And if you're not willing to pay for the privilege of continued efforts to be the best, then I will call you a freeloader.

If there came a day that I needed to fight and possibly die under one flag or another, I would gladly do it under the one with 50 stars long before the one with only one. I may not always agree with what the national leadership does, but I trust them more as a group than I do the government in Austin. The smaller the group, the more prone to abuse of power against whatever "them" the PTB have decided is the evil of the day.

geezer wrote:

msduncan wrote: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. And it's a bit weird to hear MSD quibble over the legitimate term 'revenue' in place of taxes given his idols' use of ridiculous terms like 'job creators' in place of 'rich' or 'wealthy' where the meaning is actually a 1:1 match.

msduncan wrote: 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.

As if Republicans don't use politically expedient euphemisms and terms.

YellowKing wrote:I'm not opposed to taxes. I'm opposed to hiking taxes without first making sure the government is as efficient and streamlined as possible. That's the key.

I used to work for a highly profitable Fortune 1000 company and they were bloated and unstreamlined as hell. I've yet to meet an employee of a large company that doesn't feel the same way.

The federal government is many times larger than this company.

How can you expect them to be "efficient and streamlined" when for-profit companies can't pull it off?

You guys are climbing all over yourselves to hike taxes without even going through the process of making sure that money is going to be spent wisely.

We're advocating raising taxes from historic lows because we can do basic math and see that our current budget is unsustainable.

It's a little more realistic than sticking your fingers in your ears and throwing a temper tantrum anytime the idea of raising taxes is brought up.

YellowKing wrote:I'm not opposed to taxes. I'm opposed to hiking taxes without first making sure the government is as efficient and streamlined as possible. That's the key.

As it stands, many people do not trust the government to wisely spend money, and rightly so. They don't want to keep feeding the hungry hungry hippo unless they know where that money is going.

You guys are climbing all over yourselves to hike taxes without even going through the process of making sure that money is going to be spent wisely.

Anonymous Bosch wrote:Given its woeful history of enacting actual spending cuts, I think it's incumbent upon the government to prove that it can indeed cut spending, and cut it drastically. Once it has done everything it can conceivably do in that regard, if there is a revenue problem at the bottom of it, that's the time to discuss tax increases. But until such a time that it is proven -– through action, i.e. actual cuts -– that the government has done all it can in the area of non-theoretical spending cuts, then tax increases seem likely to fuel more spending if history is any indicator.

These are certainly valid concerns, and like the both of you I believe that we need serious, actual cuts in spending. Like everyone says (and like I think some actually believe), I believe that there should be few restrictions on where those cuts come from. I'm game for cutting from the left (means testing for entitlements), the right (military/defense) and from apolitical special interests (restructuring the tax code and eliminating exemptions, subsidies and special interest deductions). I don't actually blame Republicans or Democrats so much as I blame the vast citizenry that wants - no, demands in increasingly shrill terms - that everything needs to be cut EXCEPT whatever benefits them, because you know and I know that the first politician that makes real, meaningful progress toward a debt solution is going to be voted out in short order.

geezer wrote:Most people that earn a living works for a corporation of some sort, though.

That's how they maintain control.

geezer wrote: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).

The word you were looking for is "sociopathic", not evil or amoral.

geezer wrote:A corporation's goal - just like an individual's, is to promote self sustainability and throw off a little extra if possible.

That isn't even close to a corporation's goal.

But that's neither here nor there for this thread. The problem with corporations has nothing to do with the business arrangement itself. The real problems of corporate behavior stem from the dual-threat of massive wealth (and thus power and speech) and when a large gulf exists between ownership and management, and between management and the customer. Once those entities are sufficiently abstract concepts to each other - that's when corporations start doing very bad things like commissioning reports to determine how many customers it is acceptable to kill before it really starts impacting the bottom line.

If there is a direct relationship between ownership and management, and between management and the customer base, that tends to restrict that sort of thing because actual human relationships tend to frown on it.

YellowKing wrote:I'm not opposed to taxes. I'm opposed to hiking taxes without first making sure the government is as efficient and streamlined as possible. That's the key.

As it stands, many people do not trust the government to wisely spend money, and rightly so.

Good luck finding things people want to cut spending on.

apparently, the only thing there's any support for cutting is Defense Spending, Welfare Spending, Foreign Aid, NASA and Improving the condition of black (I'm assuming this alludes to welfare spending, as well?). Foreign Aid and NASA are fairly small portions of the budget (about 1.5% total). That leaves Defense Spending (around 25%?) and Welfare (around 13%?). Even if you managed to cut them all in half - something for which I assure you there is not support for - that would only reduce the budget by 20%. given that we're spending 3.7 trillion and taking in 2.6 trillion, even if you cut spending by 20%, down to 3 trillion, that would still leave a 400 billion deficit.

Isgrimnur wrote: I pay less than 13% of my annual salary to the federal government in income taxes. As much as I would like to not have to pay them at all, I will say that I'm not taxed enough for the benefits that I get to live in this country. You won't see me march in favor of higher taxes at any level, but you won't hear me complain if, to make this country more stable and a better place to live, I need to pay some more of my income to make that happen.

What has made this country great is the government of this country, not 50 state governments. And if you're not willing to pay for the privilege of continued efforts to be the best, then I will call you a freeloader.

Amen to this.

The Republican anti-tax mania isn't a reasoned appeal for wise stewardship of revenues. It has crossed over into an Ayn Rand fantasy world where government and the common good are the enemy.

Isgrimnur wrote: I pay less than 13% of my annual salary to the federal government in income taxes. As much as I would like to not have to pay them at all, I will say that I'm not taxed enough for the benefits that I get to live in this country. You won't see me march in favor of higher taxes at any level, but you won't hear me complain if, to make this country more stable and a better place to live, I need to pay some more of my income to make that happen.

What has made this country great is the government of this country, not 50 state governments. And if you're not willing to pay for the privilege of continued efforts to be the best, then I will call you a freeloader.

I guess over half the country are freeloaders, then, by this definition?

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.

link

Defiant wrote:

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.

link

You know what stood out to me in that link? That 61% of people say we shouldn't try and control Medicare costs *at all*

ZOMG socializms!!!! But wait - when queried with a variety of options that was also the most popular response *among republicans*.

Wonder what the overlap is between those republicans and the ones that say, "no more taxes!!! EVAR!!!!"

Idiots.

geezer wrote: You know what stood out to me in that link? That 61% of people say we shouldn't try and control Medicare costs *at all*

Sixty-one percent of adults said we should “not try to control costs” at all or make only “minor changes.

Defiant wrote:

geezer wrote: You know what stood out to me in that link? That 61% of people say we shouldn't try and control Medicare costs *at all*

Sixty-one percent of adults said we should “not try to control costs” at all or make only “minor changes.

Ok. I missed the second part of that. Nevertheless, "minor changes" aren't gonna fix anything and my larger point regarding folks that thnk cutting alone can solve anything stands. They're crazy.

geezer wrote:

Defiant wrote:

geezer wrote: You know what stood out to me in that link? That 61% of people say we shouldn't try and control Medicare costs *at all*

Sixty-one percent of adults said we should “not try to control costs” at all or make only “minor changes.

Ok. I missed the second part of that. Nevertheless, "minor changes" aren't gonna fix anything and my larger point regarding folks that thnk cutting alone can solve anything stands. They're crazy.

"Minor changes" could simply be code for "Don't turn Medicare into a voucher program," as one party notoriously threatened to do. That radical proposal makes any responsible overhaul look minor in comparison.

Exodor wrote:
How can you expect them to be "efficient and streamlined" when for-profit companies can't pull it off?

Any organization large enough to warrant a bureaucracy is going to have inefficiencies. When we talk about the magical private industry at work, we are almost always talking about the little guy, because the AT&T's, Chase's, GM's, etc etc are all just as inefficient as any other large organization.

It's not like Dilbert is made up solely of government workplace cartoons.

My exact words were as efficient and streamlined *as possible*. Obviously government is never going to be as efficient as a mom and pop shop, but it would be nice to see some actual good faith efforts towards that goal before throwing more money away.

YellowKing wrote:My exact words were as efficient and streamlined *as possible*. Obviously government is never going to be as efficient as a mom and pop shop, but it would be nice to see some actual good faith efforts towards that goal before throwing more money away.

See, this is the problem. It already exists. Do you think the entire government sits around swimming in piles of tax payer money laughing at their foolishness. My boss just drove his own van out to drop off some equipment at the DC. About a 5 hour drive there and back. Saved the government THIRTY FUCKING THOUSAND dollars in shipping charges. Great, right? Probably even get a % of that as a bonus in any decent private industry shop, assuming there were no other shipping options. But no one cares. And even if they did, their attitude toward government waste wouldn't change. We have a contractor who won't shut up about it, even though it pay off his mortgage and he's witness to a hundred various cost savings measures every month.

Those good faith efforts are already going on, at all levels of management.

That's not to say that poorly planned and delivered projects don't waste millions, they do. There is room for plenty of improvement. Slicing budgets in half has nothing to do with efficiency though, and I have little interest in using logic and facts to try to convince people who know they are right based on ideology and stereotypes.

This is actually a very interesting time to be paying attention to politics, as I don't see the problems being identified today being "fixed" to anyone's satisfaction. I am of the opinion that people will get tired and bored of shouting their rhetoric and government will go back to making sure all their special interest groups are taking care of, while keeping a little tighter lid on this so this crisis doesn't repeat itself while the current crop is still in office.

Michele Bachmann won the Iowa straw poll.

The straw poll isn't a scientific poll at all; it amounts to a popularity contest and a test of organizational strength.

Poor showings usually force some candidates, mostly those who are not well-known and are struggling to raise money, to abandon their bids. That could happen this year, too.

The straw poll has a mixed record of predicting the outcome of the precinct caucuses.

In 2008, Romney won the straw poll, but the big news was the surprising second-place showing of former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee. Huckabee won the Iowa caucuses, but dropped from the race soon after. Sen. John McCain, who eventually won the nomination, didn't compete in the straw poll and finished in 10th place.

As much as liberals would love to see Bachmann become the nominee, the straw poll is meaningless beyond internal party jockeying. This just strengthens her hand as Queen of the Fringe.

My boss just drove his own van out to drop off some equipment at the DC. About a 5 hour drive there and back. Saved the government THIRTY FUCKING THOUSAND dollars in shipping charges.

I saved my company $300,000 this year by giving them a more accurate count of our Office installations and suggesting we move to a new licensing standard. But I wouldn't call my company as a role model for cost savings. We still have major, major areas for improvement.

Until this latest debt ceiling fiasco, I certainly have heard of no serious attempts by politicians to save money. The facts don't back up the idea that they're spending less money. If the government truly is saving money right and left and spending less, then by all means bravo. Let's see the numbers and the results. Then we can talk about hiking taxes.

"I think you allow the market to work its way through it," he [Perry] says. "I don’t understand why the TARP bill exists. Let the processes find their way."

If Gov. Perry would only be honest about his economic plan, it would be:

"Let's gid rid of Obama so I can actively do nothing about our impending economic collapse after criticizing the Democrats for not being effective in doing something about it."

I'm going to hold back from piling on msd about taxes/revenue, as my opinions on the subject should be fairly obvious by now.

The realistic and effective attempts to save money won't come from politicians, who are mainly interested in grandstanding. A more efficient government will only come from the administrative heads of each government group. For that, we need politicians to appoint people who have a stake in creating competent government, rather than its failure. Unfortunately, the Republican Party has an abysmal track record here and little prospects for improvement, despite the marketing of their "brand."

YellowKing wrote: Until this latest debt ceiling fiasco, I certainly have heard of no serious attempts by politicians to save money. The facts don't back up the idea that they're spending less money. If the government truly is saving money right and left and spending less, then by all means bravo. Let's see the numbers and the results. Then we can talk about hiking taxes.

It's all anecdotal, of course, but the state government unit I'm working with is working three positions down from the norm at most private sector companies given the number of servers and mailboxes being managed. They've taken blackberries away from all but the senior engineers and even those may go. They are cutting back to a degree that critical state services may be impacted because after hours support is crippled. They just took the goddamned water dispensers out of the office to save money.

I'll let Naednek comment on just how badly state employees are getting reamed right now.

msduncan wrote:Michele Bachmann won the Iowa straw poll.

Let's look at the numbers, which show Iowa Republicans have doubled down on the fringe.

CNN wrote:Bachmann secured 4,823 votes, narrowly besting Texas Rep. Ron Paul who had 4,671 votes. Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty was chosen on 2,293 ballots, placing him third.

[snip]

The next closest contenders, in order, are: former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum with 1,657 votes, businessman Herman Cain with 1,456 votes, and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney with 567 votes. That was slightly less than the 718 who wrote in the name of Texas Gov. Rick Perry -- who declared his candidacy Saturday and wasn't even on the ballot.

[snip]

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich was on the ballot, too, but his cash-strapped campaign did not have a formal presence at the straw poll and he only got 385 votes.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich was on the ballot, too, but his cash-strapped campaign did not have a formal presence at the straw poll and he only got 385 votes.

But he got 450,000,000 votes from Iowa on Twitter.

Any indication of how many of the 718 votes for Rick Perry were spelled with an A?

Pawlenty out.

Perry in.


And it's clear who you guys see as a real threat. The hatchet job has already begun on Michele Bachmann. Interesting because on OnTheIssues.org she is NOT the most conservative candidate. She's got two or three of the candidates flanking her well to the right, and she leans more libertarian than populist.



Here is your beloved moderate Mitt Romney:

So, who is picking up liberal/Democrat talking points and spitting them out here in a blind attack job on Bachmann versus looking at the facts and seeing that Romney isn't as moderate as you are making him out to be?

Or is the real issue that Romney is a robot that could easily be defeated by your favored candidate, and thus you push him and launch personal assaults on Bachmann?

If Bachmann is the "Queen of Fringe", is Romney the "King"?

Oh man, did I miss another meeting? Exodor, it's your job to let me know when The Party is going to issue an instruction packet! How else am I supposed to receive my weekly dose of brainwashing?!?

For what's worth, MSD, most of the Democrats that I know would be thrilled to see Bachman get the nod. But they pretty much wrote her off after the stuff about her husband their camps came out. Romney is sort of seen as inevitable.

But it'll be Perry. Americans simply can't resist a cowboy.

WTF is msduncan smoking?

msduncan wrote: If Bachmann is the "Queen of Fringe", is Romney the "King"?

No, Romney is as Establishment as they come, whereas Bachmann is...um, "not mainstream" would be a polite way to say it. Romney will believe in whatever advances the fortunes of Mitt Romney; if he's tacking to the right to get the nomination now, he'll surely turn centrist in the general election.

He was downright liberal (for a Rep) when he governed MA. He's a slippery one.

Little Raven wrote:
But it'll be Perry. Americans simply can't resist a cowboy.

I agree. Perry at least is genuine, and he seems to be charismatic to the anti-government fundamentalists. It looks like he's the savior they've been praying for. I don't have an accurate read on him yet beyond the prayer-a-palooza thing, and wanting the job because he hates Washington so much. He's just a cowboy caricature to me at this early stage.

I believe he's a caricature to those who do know him well. Just ask our resident Texans what they think of his performance.

msduncan wrote: And it's clear who you guys see as a real threat. The hatchet job has already begun on Michele Bachmann. Interesting because on OnTheIssues.org she is NOT the most conservative candidate. She's got two or three of the candidates flanking her well to the right, and she leans more libertarian than populist.

How could someone as fully committed to social-conservative activism as Bachmann possibly be considered a libertarian? That makes no sense to me.

But as for who is "the threat," I think Democrats would love to see a Bachmann candidacy almost a much as they would love a Palin one. Bachmann is fully committed to every Tea Party position, especially those that most Americans think are craziest. Romney is much more of a threat because he looks like a sane Republican, and the Dem's strongest talking point this time is "Republicans are nuts."

Perry is scary to Dems in a different way. He seems to have plenty of social conservative baggage, but so did GWB. If Perry can come off as a likeable cowboy rather than a belligerent, ideological one, then he will be the real threat.

Between talks of secession and how it's been revealed that both Bachmann and Perry have personally received federal subsidies for farming, I'm still not quite sure how they're being held up as fiscally conservative (or at least "Down with Big Government (tm)") candidates.

I didn't read the "You Guys" memo that was circulated on the OO underground this morning, so excuse me if I'm speaking out of turn.

Smoove_B wrote:Between talks of secession [...], I'm still not quite sure how they're being held up as fiscally conservative (or at least "Down with Big Government (tm)") candidates.

I'm not sure what secession has to do with fiscal conservatism, but isn't it pretty much the radicalized extreme of down with big government?

Defiant wrote:

Smoove_B wrote:Between talks of secession [...], I'm still not quite sure how they're being held up as fiscally conservative (or at least "Down with Big Government (tm)") candidates.

I'm not sure what secession has to do with fiscal conservatism, but isn't it pretty much the radicalized extreme of down with big government?

Secession is insanely expensive, especially with the likely blockade of cotton and Moon Pies.

Defiant wrote:I'm not sure what secession has to do with fiscal conservatism, but isn't it pretty much the radicalized extreme of down with big government?

I guess I was confused over his implications that secession was an option for Texas while at the same time personally accepting federal farm subsidies and encouraging money to flow from Washington into Texas.

I'm having a hard time seeing how hardcore Perry supporters could somehow justify the difference in what he's saying and/or publicly supporting versus what he's actually done.

Smoove_B wrote: I guess I was confused over his implications that secession was an option for Texas while at the same time personally accepting federal farm subsidies and encouraging money to flow from Washington into Texas.

Ahh, ok.