Maybe it wasn't directed at me, but as far as I recall I'm the only card-carrying leftist here offering a take on what Romney said.

It definitely was not directed specifically at you. :D It was directed at the Left and Hysterical Left who will take anything the Right says and twist it to fit their own agenda...

It's like that picture that floated around during the Bush Administration with Bush looking thru a pair of binoculars with the caps still on.

The Left had a field day with that, even though anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together would realize how out of context it was..

And yes, the Right does the same thing to the Left...

Michale.....

In context, it was clear that the word people meant actual people, not legal "persons". Legal personhood wouldn't be a reason not to tax corporations, and it wouldn't be something for a politician to make a point of.

When I say that Romney was right about the specific point, that's somehow twisting the meaning to further my agenda? Now that's just bizarre.

Maybe it wasn't directed at me, but as far as I recall I'm the only card-carrying leftist here offering a take on what Romney said.

Very good point and dead on balls accurate...

It's typical that the Left would twist the meaning to further their own agenda...

As it is typical that the Right does the same thing..

Michale.....

For all legal purposes a corporation is deemed a person to this day.

Romney knows this better than anyone, and what he said was literally true.

Hmmmmmmmm

Now why didn't *I* think of something like that.. :D

One simply CANNOT argue the logic....

Michale.....

Wait! Just a few more!! :D

If a person with multiple personalities threatens suicide, is that considered a hostage situation?

Why do we put suits in a garment bag and put garments in a suitcase?

Since Americans throw rice at weddings, do Asians throw hamburgers?

:D

Michale.....

Can we stop yet?

Points in a game only matter for keeping score. If you multiply all the numbers of points by ten, it makes no difference, kind of like measuring in centimeters or inches doesn't change any actual distances.

Money after the first few million dollars only matters for keeping score. All billionaires can afford to buy whatever they want, so more money only matters when comparing one's fortune with those of one's fellow billionaires.

Well, it makes sense to me. I guess that's part of why you have the soapbox and I don't.

Why is it "up in smoke", but it's "down in flames"??? Since we're here, why is something that travels by car a shipment and something that travels by ship, cargo?

Something goes up in smoke when it burns and the smoke rises, whereas it goes down in flames when it's an airplane that's been shot down. Anything that gets transported is a shipment because ships were the major carriers of goods, and what they're loaded with is called cargo because "cargo" is Spanish for load. ("Charge" is from the same Latin root.)

Why do we drive on a parkway and park on a driveway?

A park is originally an enclosed area, such as a corral or a car-park. (The noun is older than the verb.) Parkway follows obviously from the familiar noun meaning of "park". I don't know about "driveway", but it sort of makes sense to contrast a maintained road with a mere "way" from carriage-house to street.

Why do fat chance and thin chance mean the same thing?

"Fat chance" is sarcastic.

I can play this game!

Why do we drive on a parkway and park on a driveway?

Why do fat chance and thin chance mean the same thing?

If pro is the opposite of con, what is the opposite of Congress?

Heh.

And the Dem Primary season begins....

Michale.....

Michale, in spite of the irrelevance of so doing, I'll comment on the Commerce Clause either later tonight or tomorrow.

Well, it might be irrelevant insofar as our ability to influence the outcome...

But it's a great topic for debate..

It's rather ironic...

The Left accused Bush (with some validity) of taking his eyes off the ball vis a vis the terrorist threat in Afghanistan by going after Hussein in Iraq...

The irony is that Democrats took their eye off the ball vis a vis the economy and jobs by pushing Obamacare....

As I am fond of saying (ad nasuem :D) there is little difference between the actions of the Right and the actions of the Left...

Anyways, you appear to be very intelligent and well-versed in these subjects and I am very interested in your thoughts...

I probably won't agree :D but that doesn't dampen my curiosity... :D

"Curiosity killed the cat but, for a while, I was a suspect."
-Michael Wright

Today I have marching orders from the Higher Authority.

I hear ya there!! :D

1. Mitt's mistakes and extemporaneous gaffes in Iowa have doomed him;

Awwww, com'on... What has he said that is worse than Obama comparing himself to Martin Luther King???

4. Perry is flawed. (He was Al Gore's chairman in Texas, for goodness sake, when he was a socialist, I mean a liberal, no, a Democrat). One of the lessons out of the WI primaries is they don't turn out well for personally flawed or impure candidates.

I actually kinda like Perry.. He seems to be a straight shooter and doesn't mince words or try to define what the meaning of 'is' is... I can even forgive him for being associated with the crazed sex poodle (don't EVEN get me started!! Seriously :D)

"Don't. Please don't. Every pun, every joke, done to death. Seriously."
-Dr Daniel Jackson, STARGATE SG-1

But his religious aspects rubs me the wrong way, as all religious aspects do.. I am as agnostic as they come and I firmly believe that "freedom OF religion" also means "freedom FROM religion"...

I am still not sold on Bachmann.. I would much prefer a Palin presidency..

http://sjfm.us/temp/palinpres.jpg

:D

But I have to admit that a small part of that reason is just to see the Left implode with indignation that a Republican woman usurped Hillary's rightful place.. :D

Poet,

someone who makes 100 thousand pays 6%
someone who makes 100 MILLION pays 1%
anyone who thinks that's fair, raise your hand.

"That's re-donk-ulus!!"
-Donkey, SHREK 4

:D

too bad bob mcallister from Wonderama isn't still around to sing it.

Ohmygod!! Not only did you date yerself, but ya also located yerself... :D Wasn't Wonderama a local LA show???

Do ya remember HOBO KELLEY??? :D

regarding the "Submissive" comment, bachmann could have blown that criticism out of the water if she'd just answered with a wink and a nod, e.g. "i thought all you lefties wanted to keep what happens in the bedroom private, don'cha know?"

Perfect! :D

Michale.....

someone who makes 100 thousand pays 6%
someone who makes 100 MILLION pays 1%
anyone who thinks that's fair, raise your hand.

also agreed on mitt romney's corporations are people too (wacka-doo, wacka-doo, wacka-doo). too bad bob mcallister from Wonderama isn't still around to sing it.

Instead, I'm going to make a purely political irrelevant statement: I think it's going to be Bachmann. For these reasons:

1. Mitt's mistakes and extemporaneous gaffes in Iowa have doomed him;

2. Rep. Paul's peculiar blend of libertarianism and corporatist apologist provides him with too much dissonance for any point on the spectrum;

3. The "field" is just the field.

4. Perry is flawed. (He was Al Gore's chairman in Texas, for goodness sake, when he was a socialist, I mean a liberal, no, a Democrat). One of the lessons out of the WI primaries is they don't turn out well for personally flawed or impure candidates.

5. The candidacy and election of a black man, and the nean miss of a women as candidate (and it was the Clintons' turn, BTW) has in a weird way engendered some bizarre political correctness. Witness the "Sexist! No man would be asked about being submissive to his husband!" from the debate.

When partisans run against someone they truly hate, particularly if they think that man is badly wounded, they go as close to the wall as they can to get their candidate. I think that's Bachmann.

And while I won't underestimate her or her machinery, I couldn't be happier right now. Except about my Sunday schedule.

~Labor unions are growing increasingly angry at President Obama and with good reason. In what some are saying is a slap in the face to the labor unions, the Democratic convention will be held in a right to work state, North Carolina. Twelve labor unions will sit out the convention and while Obama may assume that at the end of the day he will get their support, he may be underestimating the electoral impact of having some of the Democrats’ most ardent supporters refusing to take to the streets, go door to door and generate enthusiasm for a democratic victory in 2012. In addition, the unions are none too happy with the three free trade bills (South Korea, Panama, Colombia) that Obama will sign, as they are net job-killers and provide more tax havens for wealthy corporations.
-Taylor Marsh

Michale

To be fair to Obama, he had a lot of help destroying bipartisanship from BOTH sides of the aisle...

It's just sad to see so much promise go down in flames...

(Grammatical side note.. Why is it "up in smoke", but it's "down in flames"??? Since we're here, why is something that travels by car a shipment and something that travels by ship, cargo?? :D)

Anyways... It's really pathetic all the demonizing and 'us vs them' memes (memeii?? memerium??) that is becoming the norm.. :(

Michale....

I guess my beef is the inherent knee-jerk reaction that the Left has with their "Corporations are evil" mentality..

Ironically enough, it's the same inherent knee-jerk reaction that the Right has with their "Unions are evil" mentality. Yes, I am also guilty of that even though I am not of the Right..

BOTH sides need to take a step back and acknowledge the good that Corporations and Unions have done.

I agree with you, however, that the tax issue is a big point... Funny you should mention GE, eh?? :D

I guess what Romney SHOULD have said is that "Corporations are Americans, too.."

LB,

Could it be that it was badly argued? Or maybe the appeal was framed differently? Have we lost all faith in the deliberative ability of judges, and just suppose that they, like everyone else in the country, are becoming a mob of partisan hacks?

I couldn't agree more. It's ironic that, when Obama was elected, it was all about "No Red States, No Blue States, just a UNITED States..."

I honestly and truly wish Obama would have delivered..

But I was more interested in your opinion of the mandate itself.

Do you think it's constitutional?? Why or why not??

Michale.....

OK, I have to say the canasta example went right over my head.

On the bright side of things, I just read a bunch of original James Bond novels, and I now know the rules for baccarat for the first time.

:-)

-CW

Haven't read it yet, although I have read the 6th (Cincinatti) Circuit's June decision. Anyway, it's going to the Supreme Court, without a flicker of doubt.

But I will tell you what is really starting to pi$$ me off about the reporting of this: the judges are all identified by who appointed them to the Appeals, and, in the "more detailed" analyses, who appointed them to a Federal bench initially, and if a Democrat-appointed judge opined against it, or a Republican appointed did the opposite, well, mein Gott!

Could it be that it was badly argued? Or maybe the appeal was framed differently? Have we lost all faith in the deliberative ability of judges, and just suppose that they, like everyone else in the country, are becoming a mob of partisan hacks?

Sorry, it's late and I'm cranky.

Two points regarding this. First, the more minor: consumption does not, surprisingly, drop of sharply. But, again, that's of minor societal importance.

Far more important is the curtailment that would happen in risk capital. Venture capital, the likes of which financed Google or Facebook, also finances the innovations in such things as, say, variable refractive index glass for vision restoration, or anti-cogging generators for alternative power. That can't be done with debt, and corporations, with few exceptions, eschew innovation.

Very high tax rates would require a commitment by Congress to support and subsidize venture research far beyond the levels that now exist. And then, you have to ask yourself: would a GS- rated analyst with the Small Business Administration be as good at the allocation decisions as people whose own capital was going at risk?

To normal people with income less than a hundred thousand, it seems as though anyone with income close to a million is pretty darn affluent. So fairness arguments aren't likely to get much traction in favor of having a low marginal rate on the 800,001st dollar of income. The argument I call the "canasta tax", on the other hand, doesn't really kick in until people really are pretty darn affluent.

Suppose Hoyle's put a 90% tax on the game of canasta. Now you get a hundred points for a red three; under the tax you would get ten points and Hoyle's would get ninety. Likewise you would get half a point for a seven, instead of five points, and so on down the line. The number of points needed to meld or go out would also be reduced by 90%, of course.

The game would not change at all. Just as we have calories for thermodynamics and kilocalories (aka big-C Calories) for nutrition, people would keep score in deci-points and just call them points.

Beyond the first few million, you've got your yacht and your mansion and anything else you can think of to buy. At that point, more money is just a matter of keeping score. A sky-high tax rate on that income would be a canasta tax. There's no good reason not to have one, as long as it's set up so that it doesn't distort the economy when people try to avoid or evade it.

But even though $800,000 is already an obscene amount to pay a manager whose workers are paid so little they get more from welfare and food stamps than they are by their supposed employer, it's not in canasta-tax territory.

I don't believe in fair. When one of my kids stubs his toe, fairness would tell me to take a hammer and give everyone else om the family a good whack on our toes.

It's the same with taxation. Taxes are about as much fun as getting your foot smacked with a hammer, and they should be allocated to cause as little harm as possible. If we must whack someone's foot, figuratively speaking, (and we must, if we're to meet our debt payments and other obligations), we should only go after the people who happen to have steel-toed boots. It doesn't hurt them.

But some of them sure do seem to like seeing the folks with only sandals writhe in pain.

Oh, I know, the point Romney was making is a valid one, in some respects. But then the point Hillary Clinton was making when she said "lobbyists are people, too" was also equally valid. On a political level, however, I think both quotes are a negative for the candidate.

BashiBazouk [2] -

Bonus points for the Soylent Green quip! Ha!

:-)

Michale [3] -

Note that it appears that calling Romney "weird" is the graver offense. Not the fact that they Obama administration wants to "kill" Romney...

I noticed that too, but I didn't ding them for it mostly because the "weird" quote was sourced to (according to the article's author) quite a few campaign folks, whereas I think the "kill" quote was just one source. In other words, the "weird" thing seemed to be the bigger problem. Which is why Axelrod felt he had to push back. But I'm confident that Axelrod would also fire anyone he could trace the "kill" quote back to, as well.

Michale [5] -

Corporations are not inherently evil, but neither are they inherently good. The problem I have is the percentage of federal taxes they contribute, as measured against the percentage that middle-class Americans pay. Twenty or thirty years ago, corporations paid a fairly big slice of the tax burden. That percentage has dropped over time until now, when they pay a tiny tiny fraction of what middle-class workers pay. It's the balance I have a problem with, in other words.

Michale [6] -

More to the point, why aren't the media covering it? Democrats can scream all they want, but if it doesn't make it through the filter of the media, then most Americans never hear the screams.

dsws [7] -

Whether corporations deserve credit is up to the investment banks and the bond markets.

OK, that was funny!

The only thing I'd add to your serious section would be the fact that the concept of a "corporation" exists solely to protect the owners of a business from being sued. "Corpus" the root of corporation and incorporate means "body" and on a purely legalistic level, Mitt is wrong, because the corporation itself is a legal "person" as well (something Mitt didn't admit). When a corporation gets sued, the corporation is the one to defend itself in court. If they lose a whopping big lawsuit which awards the entire value of the corporation to the winner, then the corporation will cease to exist and be liquidated. BUT the corporate officers will not be personally liable, so their yacht and mansion will not be taken from them. In the British world, this is even more obvious, because the term isn't "Incorporated" (or "BigCompany, Inc.") it is "Limited Liability Corporation" (or "BigCompany, LLC"). The liability limit is the main reason for incorporating in the first place.

I'd also like to say that "Mitt didn't admit" (which I didn't even think about, when writing) sounds pretty cool, and I may use it further in the future, whenever I can squeeze it in. Heh.

LeaningBlue [8] -

When I am compensated at even a tiny fraction of the rate of Julia Roberts, I promise I'll start calling myself a "pro," how's that?

:-)

I did like your use of Sesame Street, I have to admit, though.

LeaningBlue [10] -

I'd agree with you if the tax rates were progressive all the way up the scale -- like they were in WWII and Eisenhower's time, for instance, with a top tax rate of 90%. However, the uber-wealthy already get a huge break because the tax brackets stop increasing the tax rate at less than a million bucks. So someone making $800,000 is taxed at the same rate as someone making $800,000,000. That's a big tax break, right there, for the uber-wealthy.

Michale [11] -

I hear your point about corporations and innovation. And I'm glad to see you give the Unions some credit, too, for things we enjoy today (40 hr. workweek, workmans comp, overtime, no child labor, etc.). But I do have to point out one further thing -- while Bell Labs (and many other corporations) do indeed invest heavily in R-n-D, a lot of very basic research is also funded by the government. From public universities which do cutting edge research (Berkeley, for instance) to private universities which get government grant money, a lot of the R-n-D is paid for by taxpayers. To say nothing of Pentagon R-n-D, which doesn't just cover weapons and weapons systems, but also has given us (in recent times) GPS and the very Internet we're communicating over.

But I'm quibbling, I realize. I do agree that corporations improve our lives in many ways, by investing in R-n-D. What I object to is GE paying zero in taxes -- not GE itself, on an existential level, in other words.

-CW

In an effort to be a little more mature about the subject, I will refrain from using the term "CrapCare" and call it DunselCare... :D

Actually, DunselCare isn't really appropriate either..

ObamaCare???

Michale.....

The thing is, they have their reward. They get it as bonuses, dividends, stock-repurchase payments (essentially the same thing as dividends), and interest. They haven't earned any additional goodwill on top of that, that would excuse them from bearing an appropriate share of the tax burden.

I was speaking more existentially...

Most of the things we have today can be traced back to corporations footing the bill for RnD....

As I pointed out in a previous commentary, Unions deserve credit for the good they have done on behalf of the workers..

In that same vein, corporations also deserve credit for the good they have done..

I just was wondering if ya'all agree...

LB,

I was wondering what your thoughts are on the latest Appeals Court ruling on CrapCare and the mandate???

Michale.....

On "wealth," inheritance tax laws with strong eleemosynary incentives which serve to preclude the formation and perpetuation of oligarchy is essential to our System.

But on high income, my above point and view is that punitive, or even sharply rising, marginal rates is neither fair nor needed.

Personally, I have a somewhat center-right view of taxes on uber-income (as opposed to uber-wealth, which is not always the same thing). If the tax law were amended so as to make it very difficult to avoid tax on high income, I suggest that it would be equitable -and a huge source of revenue- to tax seven-figure-plus income at long term capital gain rates. Why? Because in a very real economic sense, such incomes are, generally, returns to human capital. E.g., if Julia Roberts is paid $20 million to make a film, it's a return to, and an assignment to the owners of the film of, her personal capital, not a payment for how hard she works to act in that film.

While on the topic of films, I find the narration provided by David McCullough in Seabiscuit a very wonderful and moving explanation of the power and purpose of the arguably "socialist" programs of the New Deal. I'm not at all center-right when it comes to public works employment in economic depression. The nation, I fear, is at risk of depression even in the statistical measure of it, with an accelerating probability of it in fact, regardless of the outcome of next year's elections.

Finally, to not end this post on a down note, this.

Some snippets (and comment) from CW's lead-in to the Talking Points

(1) Volume 177...

(2) I write these talking points every week...

(2a) [and they are linked above the fold on what is probably the highest-traffic progressive website]

(3) But, being an amateur at it...

Now, particularly with Bert and Ernie being mentioned in one of those talking points, I think it would be appropriate to all to sing to Chris the Sesame Street favorite we all know from our, our children's, and/or grandchildren's formative years :

"One of these things is not like the others, One of these doesn't belong ..."

Whether corporations deserve credit is up to the investment banks and the bond markets.

Ok, seriously: no. Corporations don't deserve any credit (or blame), because they aren't people.

Entrepreneurs deserve credit for starting businesses. Bank employees who evaluate business plans well, and loan money to viable start-ups but not to stupid money-pits deserve credit for doing their job. People who put their money at risk by becoming limited partners in sound start-ups but not bad ones deserve credit for it. When it's useful to incorporate a business, managers who do so deserve some credit for it. (Not much, because it's pretty routine to incorporate a business when it gets big enough.) People who save money, which provides the financial capital for corporations via banks or bonds or bond funds, deserve credit for it. People who put their money at risk by buying stock deserve credit for it. The inventors of the joint stock corporation, some centuries ago, deserve credit for figuring out how to fund trading voyages without having a sole owner go bankrupt when his ship doesn't come in. Legislatures deserve credit for letting them do it.

But that's all the credit there is to go around. None is left for the corporation itself. You can't have it both ways: if taxes on corporations are really taxes on people, then credit to corporations really belongs to people, not corporations.

The thing is, they have their reward. They get it as bonuses, dividends, stock-repurchase payments (essentially the same thing as dividends), and interest. They haven't earned any additional goodwill on top of that, that would excuse them from bearing an appropriate share of the tax burden.

Why aren't Democrats screaming this plan [increase taxes specifically on firms involved in international trade] to the high heavens?

Basically, many are. Not necessarily that particular version, but stupid protectionism infests my side of the aisle about as much as yours. Unlike almost all Democrats and probably all Republicans, I would be against protectionism even if it did "succeed" (by making the rest of the world poorer so we look better in comparison). I say that people in poor countries have just as much moral right to opportunity as people in rich countries.

Now, see... This is a plan that even *I* could get behind!

Why aren't Democrats screaming this plan to the high heavens??

Probably because the Democrats who are worth more than a million or a billion don't want to pay the higher taxes...

Michale.....

Do ya'all think that Corporations deserve ANY credit for the contribution that they have made to society??

Michale....

Good point...

Michale.....

It's like the Arizona shooting (and the subsequent hysterical hypocritical outcry from Democrats) never happened.

Good call, CW...

By week's end, the Obama folks were desperately trying to walk this back -- going so far as to suggest that anyone on the campaign staff who used the word "weird" would be fired.

Note that it appears that calling Romney "weird" is the graver offense. Not the fact that they Obama administration wants to "kill" Romney...

Apparently......

"There is no Arizona..."
-Jamie O'Neal

Michale.....