that's still not a refutation. come on, if you're going to claim the narrative in #30 is somehow arbitrary, at least provide a counter-narrative to illustrate your point.

They were required to make the parable match up to the reality as you see it.. :D

Someone else might see a different reality...

admittedly my final installment went off on a tangent that didn't really belong in the discussion. nonetheless, i didn't spy any refutation on your part of the truth behind any of CW's details.

That's just me brown-nosing... :D

Michale.....

the initial parable is incomplete. it attempts to paint real-life taxes in a way that is inconsistent with the way they really work (2+2=5). the "added details" did not come out of thin air; they were required to make the parable match up to the reality it purported to represent (2+2=5-1=4).

admittedly my final installment went off on a tangent that didn't really belong in the discussion. nonetheless, i didn't spy any refutation on your part of the truth behind any of CW's details.

Is that an accurate assessment??

Michale.....

Michale...

You make it absolutely IMPOSSIBLE for me to remain angry with you for more than ...oh, say ... five minutes. :)

That's kewl.. :D

"This ain't over, Falco!!! I've got five Super Bowl rings!! And you'll never be anything more than a replacement player!!"
"Yea.... I can live with that."
-THE REPLACEMENTS

:D

Michale.

It pains me to say this but, your credibility has just hit zero. And, it's heading backwards.

If one is allowed to make up details out of thin air, then it's easy to turn the gist of the story to suit any agenda.

Michale....

michale, you essentially copied a parable which suggested 2+2=5. the fact that CW and I took the time to explain in detail why the answer is really four is not a political perspective, nor does it prove the aptness of the initial equation.

Just as if you poll the American people and ask, "do you think the US should step in and stop the wholesale of innocent men, women and children around the world?" John Q Public will, again, say "HELL YEA!!"

I wasn't saying that we should start wholesaling innocent men, women and children.. :D

I MEANT to say

Just as if you poll the American people and ask, "do you think the US should step in and stop the wholesale slaughter of innocent men, women and children around the world?" John Q Public will, again, say "HELL YEA!!"

Sometimes my fingers can't keep up with my brain. :D

My bust...

Michale.....

Remember, the defecits were surpluses until Bush became president

That was due to a fluke of the economy, the Dot Com bubble, etc etc...

And how much have Obama and the Democrats added to that deficit?? Far FAR more than Bush ever did... Matter o' fact, I believe I read somewhere that Obama, singlehandedly, has increased the deficit more than Presidents Washington thru Reagan COMBINED!!!

Obama Added More to National Debt in First 19 Months Than All Presidents from Washington Through Reagan Combined, Says Gov’t Data

Further, you will note from this graph...

http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/obama_budget_deficit.jpg

... that those surpluses were still surpluses under Bush until 2001..

Hmmmmm Now what happened in 2001 that might have had some effect on the budget and the deficit...

Hmmmmm I'll have to research that one and get back to ya.. :D

Man up. Face facts -- hiking taxes on millionaires is not only popular, it is the most popular item on the list of how to tackle deficits.

As I said before, it all depends on how one asks the question...

Sure, if you poll the American people and ask, "do you think that millionaires and billionaires should be taxed higher than they are now?" John Q Public is going to say, "HELL YEA!!!"

Just as if you poll the American people and ask, "do you think the US should step in and stop the wholesale of innocent men, women and children around the world?" John Q Public will, again, say "HELL YEA!!"

But, as always, the devil is in the details..

If you ask the question, "Do you think that millionaires and billionaires should be taxed higher even if it could possibly lead to more unemployment or a worsening of the economy?" or "Do you think the US should step in and stop the wholesale slaughter of innocent men, women and children, even if it means stretching our military to the breaking point and costing us strategic allies in places like Yemen, Bahrain and Syria??" then that "HELL YEA" becomes very VERY muted, practically non-existent...

It all depends on how one phrases the questions. If you could point me to some of the polls you are referring to, I would have a better foundation of which to base my argument.

But we all know that the answer to polls depend as much on HOW the questions are phrased as they are on the actual questions themselves...

NYpoet,

... except, of course, for the tenth diner, who had no further use for the restaurant, and left the neighborhood for switzerland and the caymans.

Ya'all can rewrite the story to fit your political perspective, but the mere fact that you HAVE to do that illustrates quite nicely how apt the analogy is. :D

Liz,

You are dangerously close to exposing yourself as a card carrying member of the Republican cult of economic failure.

It wasn't the GOP that ballooned the deficit to unheard of, even OBSCENE, heights, was it??

No it wasn't...

Obama, Biden, Geinther et al forgot the most logical and rational of economic missives...

When you are in a financial hole, the FIRST thing you must do is STOP DIGGING...

This economic disaster that we are in right now is solely and completely the fault of the Democrats. They had the tools and the majority needed to fix things and they failed.

"Failed... Failed.... Impressively Failed"
-Doctor, ARMAGEDDON

And now, the Obama Administration simply wants to continue more of the same..

Michale.....

You are dangerously close to exposing yourself as a card carrying member of the Republican cult of economic failure.

Please, tread carefully, my friend and be very careful that your credibility does not end up completely shredded.

Because, that would be a cryin' shame. And, I mean that sincerely.

Soon, the Chinese restaurant owned the other restaurant entirely, and things got much worse all around.

... except, of course, for the tenth diner, who had no further use for the restaurant, and left the neighborhood for switzerland and the caymans.

however, he did leave his kids in town with their nanny, because the owner had promised they could still eat free. further, the restaurant would pay diner 10 for the ingredients, as well as for a set of complicated measuring sticks, which would mysteriously spout out impressive data about how tall children were growing.

since half of the children measured (especially the malnourished children of diners 1 and 3, who couldn't afford bus fare to get to the restaurant) seemed to grow to below average height, the manager determined that the kids' menu was obviously "failing." he fired half the chefs that made the kids' meals, and henceforth only fed the children of diners 1-5 if they were above average height. those of below-average height would eat leftovers, if there were any.

So, you disavow any poll which doesn't say what you want it to, but trumpet the polls which do?

That's intellectually dishonest, I have to say.

I don't like all polling, but when several polls all say something I don't like, I reluctantly accept the fact that most Americans don't think how I would like them to think.

Man up. Face facts -- hiking taxes on millionaires is not only popular, it is the most popular item on the list of how to tackle deficits. The Democrats have figured this out. The Republicans haven't, yet. We'll see how it plays out, won't we?

-CW

You've got that wrong. We DO know what doesn't work. Obama laid it out today:

"For a long time, Washington acted like deficits didn't matter. A lot of folks promised us a free lunch. So I think everybody needs to recall, we had a surplus back in 2000, 11 short years ago, but then we cut taxes for everybody, including millionaires and billionaires. We fought two wars and we created a new and expensive prescription drug program, and we didn't pay for any of it. And as the saying goes, there is no such thing as a free lunch."

Remember, the defecits were surpluses until Bush became president.

-CW

Here's how your story should end:

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men ate lunch in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the nine guys discovered a curve ball in the arrangement.

The owner, it turned out, was giving a kickback of $45 cash every day to the tenth guy. This reduced his cost to $14, so he would give a "tip" to the owner each day (a kickback of the kickback, in other words) of $3 "for your re-election campaign." This still lowered his cost to less than the eighth guy on the list. None of the other guys got a kickback, because they had never "contributed to the campaign fund."

The nine guys confronted the owner. "How can you afford to charge us only half price for lunch?" The owner responded "I can't -- it costs more to fix your lunch than I get in return. But I borrow the rest from the Chinese restaurant down the street, so it's OK."

The nine guys went to confront the tenth guy about his massive price break for lunch, but the tenth guy and the restaurant owner had retreated into a gated community with private security, so the nine guys didn't even get heard.

They became frustrated, and started fighting among themselves, which is just how the tenth guy had planned it all along.

Soon, the Chinese restaurant owned the other restaurant entirely, and things got much worse all around.

Heh.

-CW

My point was that we already have the evidence - more than a couple of decades worth of it. And, none of this evidence comports with what you are saying. None of it.

No.

We have evidence that shows that the OLD way doesn't work... Yet it's not even conclusive evidence as there are many factors at play, beyond tax breaks, that would produce the results it did..

There is absolutely ZERO evidence that shows Obama's et al plan would work..

However, there is PLENTY of empirical evidence that shows how effective Obama's et al OTHER plans have failed and failed miserably..

Why should the American people believe these NEW plans will succeed where all other plans have failed??

Are we supposed to HOPE for CHANGE???

Something RADICAL needs to be down to arrest this downward spiral into the economic abyss..

All Obama is promising is simply more of the same crap that got us to where we are today...

Michale.....

I have already previously debunked those "polls"..

I figured doing it again would be redumbnant... :D

Michale.....

See: the 1990s, where after Bush I and Clinton both raised tax rates on the wealthy, we had a booming economy and we actually got rid of the deficit and had surpluses as far as the eye could see... until Bush II lowered taxes on the wealthy, which created 10 years of stagnation.

Or, see: the 1950s, where the highest tax rate was 91% and we also had a booming economy.

nypoet22 -

Good points! Which is why I wrote Monday's article...

OsborneInk [16] -

Heh. The dreaded broccoli-brain disease has spread among Republicans -- Newt Gingrich and Donald Trump are also among the afflicted. This non-factual thing is fun!

Hey, are you guys OK? No twisters in your area? Let us know, it all looked pretty horrific on TV...

David [17] -

That's a good point. We all casually refer to "torches and pitchforks" at times, when talking about the rage against the wealthy, but the rage never seems to exist at this level. Food for thought.

I'm reminded of another one of these internet stories that used to circulate, about a man who spent half his income on guns, and always needed more guns. Anyone know what I'm talking about? Maybe I should check snopes to see if they've got it.

Michale -

I notice that, in the "tax the rich" debate, you're not quoting any polls which state what "the American people" want, as you did in the healthcare debate. Perhaps that is because the American people overwhelmingly support raising the taxes on the wealthy at this point in time? Just wondering.

-CW

The evidence will, in all likelihood, be an utterly devastated economy...

But at least we will have evidence, right?? :D

My point was that we already have the evidence - more than a couple of decades worth of it. And, none of this evidence comports with what you are saying. None of it.

Obama's message in 2009 was, "Just do it my way. If the American people don't like it well... That's what elections are for"..

The American people DIDN'T like it and made that abundantly and crystal clear in the 2010 election.

Obama is STILL saying, "Just do it my way..." while at the SAME time refusing to even state what HIS way is...

Michale.....

The evidence will, in all likelihood, be an utterly devastated economy...

But at least we will have evidence, right?? :D

It's rather ironic.. I asked you to just trust the administration with regards to the war against islamic terrorists.

You refused..

Now, you ask me to just trust the administration on economic matters.

Why should I?

Granted, trusting the administration regarding islamic terrorism WAS the right thing to do, I don't think lightening strikes in the same place twice.. :D

I'm sure you have been following what Secretary Gates has been doing to cut the defense budget in a prudent and responsible manner. He is certainly not suggesting "across the board cuts" as you imply.

Per Obama's campaign speech the other week, there wasn't ANY specifics...

So you might be right or I might be.

We just don't know.. And anyone that tries to ask the Obama administration unwelcome questions is silenced...

Michale.....

No, but I *AM* serious that any kind of tax raise in the middle of this type of economic catastrophe is moronic.. Even an economic idiot like myself knows that...

There is NO evidence to suggest that allowing the Obama/Biden/Geithner high end tax cuts to expire on schedule at the end of 2012 will have any nagative impact on economic growth.

As for extending the cuts on the middle class, there is probably still a good case for one more 2 year extension on those while the economic recovery strengthens.

I sure hope you don't subscribe to the Republican cult of economic failure when it comes to these taxes and on distinguishing the kinds of tax reforms that will promote growth and those that will not.

Anyone who wants to make across the board cuts in the middle of this administration's military adventuring is not thinking things thru or doesn't have the best interests of the US at heart or both..

I'm sure you have been following what Secretary Gates has been doing to cut the defense budget in a prudent and responsible manner. He is certainly not suggesting "across the board cuts" as you imply.

Who decides what "their fair share" is??

The poor??

You see my point..

You first have to decide what IS "their fair share", taking into account a butt-load of variables and consequences...

Right now there's 2 sets of rules in this country. One for the extremely wealthy. And one for the rest of us. Let's end it. Period.

I completely and unequivocally agree...

Unfortunately, the people we constantly elect to power on the Right ***AND*** the Left refuse to adopt this simple, yet critical, idea...

Liz,

You can't possibly be serious with all of this nonsense about "taxing the rich to death"

No, but I *AM* serious that any kind of tax raise in the middle of this type of economic catastrophe is moronic.. Even an economic idiot like myself knows that...

and your assertion that it's idiotic to make cuts in the military.

It depends on what one is cutting. If one is cutting waste, abuse and fraud, then I think that's a good thing...

Anyone who wants to make across the board cuts in the middle of this administration's military adventuring is not thinking things thru or doesn't have the best interests of the US at heart or both..

Michale.....

You can't possibly be serious with all of this nonsense about "taxing the rich to death" and your assertion that it's idiotic to make cuts in the military. Or, do you really think we are just a bunch of idiots?

This ain't the Huffington Post, you know.

Yes, really.

The simple fact is, the Left is threatening the Rich each and every day.

The ask is that they pay their fair share instead of skipping out on their responsibility. Let's get rid of the special privilege rules.

No violence. No "thuggery". No exaggeration.

Right now there's 2 sets of rules in this country. One for the extremely wealthy. And one for the rest of us. Let's end it. Period.

-David

Oh wait... Paula said that such threats were actually a RIGHT-wing plot...

Wonder where she got to..

I would love to see her eat a main dish of CROW, sauteed in "I was totally out in Left-field" sauce.... :D

Michale.....

Really???

No one is threatening the rich with higher taxes???

What planet are YOU on?? :D

Really? The teachers' union? Yeah, they're a bunch of thugs.

Left-Wing KINDERGARTEN Teacher Threatens to Kill Wisconsin Republicans

'nuff said on THAT.. :D

If conservative philosophy is so good, why do they often resort to so much fear to sell it?

Pretty much the same reason the liberal/progressive philosophy resorts to so much fear to sell THEIR agenda..

Fear-mongering WORKS....

"The 9 angry men went to talk to the 10th man and explained to him that they felt it wasn't fair to divide the savings in this way.

They talked it through and decided on a better way to divide the bill that worked for everyone."

Please elucidate on exactly what that "better way" is....

The simple fact is, the Left is threatening the Rich each and every day.. With higher taxes, with more regulation and with real physical violence..

To deny this is to deny reality...

Michale.....

Just a quick comment on your diner story. I've seen a number of people post this before so its obviously got a certain appeal to it.

A quick bit of Internet research shows that this has been around for at least 10 years yet the author is still unknown.

http://www.snopes.com/business/taxes/howtaxes.asp

Its a powerful piece of writing though because it uses a story and example that seems on a very quick read to make sense.

I'd like to focus on a very interesting piece of the story: The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

I find this amusing because no one is advocating beating anyone up or threatening anyone. Yet somehow the rich man is threatened in the analogy. This reminds me of my new favorite conservative saying: "Union thugs".

Really? The teachers' union? Yeah, they're a bunch of thugs. But notice the similarity. How fear is used when no real threat exists.

Did you know in one of the versions, the 9 men take the 10th out and lynch him?

"The nine angry men carried the 10th man up to the top of the hill and lynched him." - Chicago Tribune Letters Column, March 4, 2001

Here's a question for you:
If conservative philosophy is so good, why do they often resort to so much fear to sell it?

Let's try it w/o the fear. Here's my new version.

"The 9 angry men went to talk to the 10th man and explained to him that they felt it wasn't fair to divide the savings in this way.

They talked it through and decided on a better way to divide the bill that worked for everyone."

Hmmm.

That poses a problem for what the author wanted to get across. The point that if you threaten the rich, you will hurt yourself.

But no one threatened the rich. In fact, I've never heard anyone argue for killing the rich or even beating them up. That's probably the biggest flaw in the analogy.

Its also what makes the story powerful though. Because ironically, anyone who thinks differently and wants to talk about fairness not only becomes a threat to the rich man but also a threat to everyone if the rich man leaves.

To be clear, in the analogy, talk of fairness is equivalent to physical violence against the rich.

Take away this non-existent threat and the story falls apart.

Anyway, thought this was really interesting. Love these parables (is that what you'd call them?) that are passed around.

-David

hehehehehehehehe :D

Yer not cynical a bit, are ya NY?? :D

Michale.....

WASHINGTON – As Monday's tax filing deadline nears, ponder this: The super rich pay a lot less taxes than they did a couple of decades ago, and nearly half of U.S. households pay no income taxes at all.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110417/ap_on_re_us/us_no_taxes_3

So, what do we do?

Make the Super Rich take up the slack for half of the country???

Michale.....

they're both. the taxpayers are the owners of our society - so in your analogy, the diners are supposed to also be the owners of the restaurant, with an equal voice on the menu and prices. diner 10 has been bribing the manager and taking kickbacks, further impoverishing the restaurant by eating take-out chinese every night. now the restaurant is in the red, and the managers (who are all on the take) have proposed to solve the problem by limiting the menu to bread and water.

What's this with politicians should give give up all their money kick you are on? Some sort of voluntary robin hoodism?

Actually, it's similar to the case the Left made when castigating the Right for taking advantage of Stimulus dollars while at the same time denigrating the Stimulus..

Towhit, if the Left sees the problem as "capital gains, caps, overseas accounts, loopholes and so forth" then let's see the LEFT forswear such activities BEFORE demanding that everyone else in the country follow those rules..

In other words, it's putting one's money where one's mouth is..

It's as bad as your global warming is wrong because Al Gore does not live up to your idealistic view of how he should.

That's not exactly my argument, but no sense in opening THAT can o' worms. :D

Yes the left is avoiding cutting Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security but tell me how completely gutting those programs will solve anything?

"How do you know if you don't try??"
-Charlie Sheen, TWO AND A HALF MEN

:D

Where are the cuts in the military, homeland security

It's idiotic to consider cuts in these fields..

Grampa don't need his Viagra...

We DO need a competent and well equipped military...

or corporate welfare?

Now, on this I agree.. But who defines what "corporate welfare" is???

But hey cutting funding to Planned Parenthood and public television is a grand holy crusade even though the total amount of savings is a micro drop in the total budget bucket...

Why can't those entities pull their own weight?? After all, we have it from the mouth of a former NPR exec that they don't need no guv'ment dollars... :D

Personally I think the only real chance of a serious workable budget solution is to figure out what percentage is needed to be cut add 5-10% to that total and cut it from absolutely every budget from congressional staffs to white house entrainment to the military and homeland security to farm subsidies to medicare...all of it. Do it in an amortized ramp up so every budget only needs to be reduced a few percent a year for the next 10 years. Then let them fight/wheel and deal over the 5-10% to fund what they think are the really important programs after the major cut is made. I think this would be win win for everyone. They fix the problem and because everyone across the board suffers, there would not be much backlash from the local electorate.

Ya wanna run for office?? I'll vote for ya!! :D

NY,

i challenge you to read through post #7 and find any mention whatsoever of the republicans.

I was referring to the argument from the Left in general, not your specific argument..

Regardless, it IS a Left vs Right issue insofar as the Left, as a general rule, blames the Right for the problems when, from where I sit, the Left is as much to blame as the Right...

most of the dems are at least not publicly defending that aspect of the status quo,

In my book that makes them complicit AND cowards...

"If we are to be damned, let us be damned for what we truly are..."
-Captain Jean Luc Picard, ENCOUNTER AT FARPOINT, Star Trek: The Next Generation

the restaurant analogy is faulty because the diners ARE the owners,

No, the diners are the taxpayers..

Michale.....

i challenge you to read through post #7 and find any mention whatsoever of the republicans. the democrats have talked about ending the reverse robin hood policies, but you're right, they haven't gone to the mat for it by any stretch of the imagination. it's not a left-right argument, it's the mega-rich and mega-corporations exploiting the middle class of both sides. most of the dems are at least not publicly defending that aspect of the status quo, but you're absolutely right that they're complicit.

the restaurant analogy is faulty because the diners ARE the owners, supposedly with an equal share of the restaurant. however, the ones who previously got the higher bill now decide what everyone else eats, and have convinced the manager to send them a compensation check in the mail for more than what they paid.

now they're demanding that the menu be reduced to bread and water, while they themselves mainly eat take-out chinese, but get sent the same compensation check as if they were still eating here.

The problem I see is that both parties are using fixing the deficit for some serious ideological politicking. Yes the left is avoiding cutting Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security but tell me how completely gutting those programs will solve anything? On the other hand I don't see any scared cow cutting on the right either. Where are the cuts in the military, homeland security or corporate welfare? But hey cutting funding to Planned Parenthood and public television is a grand holy crusade even though the total amount of savings is a micro drop in the total budget bucket...

Personally I think the only real chance of a serious workable budget solution is to figure out what percentage is needed to be cut add 5-10% to that total and cut it from absolutely every budget from congressional staffs to white house entrainment to the military and homeland security to farm subsidies to medicare...all of it. Do it in an amortized ramp up so every budget only needs to be reduced a few percent a year for the next 10 years. Then let them fight/wheel and deal over the 5-10% to fund what they think are the really important programs after the major cut is made. I think this would be win win for everyone. They fix the problem and because everyone across the board suffers, there would not be much backlash from the local electorate.

Well, then...

Let's get the Pelosis and the Soross and the Obamas and the Reids of this country to foreswear those "capital gains, caps, overseas accounts, loopholes and so forth" and abide by what you would call "fair" and I am sure the GOP will follow suit... :D

Seriously, it's a tad wrong to castigate the GOP for this.. What have Democrats done to address this egregious wrong??

But let me give you a little anecdotal story...

HOW TAXES WORK

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

If there is a logical argument, I have yet to hear it. :D

Michale.....

that's a great exaggeration and a straw man argument. the goal that would help the deficit immensely is not to tax the crap out of millionaires, it's just to stop them from paying a lower percentage than everyone else.

capital gains, caps, overseas accounts, loopholes and so forth are blatant mechanisms for the ultra-rich and mega-corporations to pay a lower percentage of their income (much less their overall wealth) than everyone else in the country. even most conservatives would agree that such regressive, "reverse robin hood" policies are not fair.

How would you propose that we get our financial house in order without touching Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security??

Ya'all derided the GOP as the Party Of NO for so long because they had NO plan..

Now they have a plan that makes some really tough decisions that MUST be made.. Democrats surely weren't able to make them. They had a super-majority and all they could do was CrapCare..

So, I have to ask..

What's the better idea??

Oh wait. I know.. Tax millionaires to death. Take all the money from the rich and give it to the poor...

Sounds nice on paper... Or in a romance novel...

But in the real world, I am sure ya'all would agree that it would do more harm than good...

Liz,

{3} Have a mice evening.

{4} And, that goes for your cat, too. :)

"Nice recovery...."
-The Genie, ALADDIN

:D

Michale.....

You lost me at, "I could have gone either way on Biden this week."

Have a mice evening.

Yeah, I could have gone either way on Biden this week. On the one hand, it wasn't a great image, and did distract from Obama's speech (Jay Leno: "Biden has managed to embarrass Obama without even opening his mouth", for instance).

But on the other hand, Joe's had a pretty good (and pretty busy) couple of weeks, so I thought he earned a nap, personally.

:-)

-CW

Vice President Joe Biden provided late-night comedians with fodder for jokes this week by apparently nodding off during his boss' speech. But you know what? The man's had a busy few weeks (he was central to the budget deal struck with Congress). And he likely had already heard Obama practice this speech.

So we're not going to pile on Joe this week with everyone else, and deem that his nap doesn't even merit a (Dis-)Honorable Mention.

Wise decision. And, I mean that sincerely. I'm not trying to be facetious here, number one. And, number two ... Biden likely not only heard this speech being practiced but, more importantly, had a strong hand in crafting it.

You know what I love about reactions to Biden? They easily separate out the intelligent from the ignorant, the honourable from the disreputable, and the commendable from the undeserving ... I could go on. And, that goes for the media, punditocracy, blogosphere and commentariat ... and comedians, too.