Magox

If so, then you and a few others have redefined it. Also, under your definition, you would also be a "con". Considering that you are on the polar opposite of the bell curve.

Surprisingly I agree with the majority of this post. And that is not "why" the Libertarian's have been gaining traction, sure, that is an element but the main reasons they've gained traction is there overall view of government intrusion in people's life, and their views of the federal reserve.

You do realize that this board doesn't have many "cons" don't you? : a conservative who advocates the assertive promotion of democracy and United States national interest in international affairs including through military means http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/neoconservative

I personally like the Morning Joe Show. Done in an intelligent format, great guests, and very balanced.

Thought this was funny http://www.lithuania...rity-201331890/ Also, on a side note, we were discussing savings the other day. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323639604578368823406398606.html

"What's the lasting effect on two young boys" she asks.

I was actually thinking about beginning a thread on this topic. What's craziest to me about all this is that the EU crafted the deal, I mean it would be one thing if it was something that would of been proposed by their government, it's another to have the EU and IMF put their official stamp of approval. I understand their goal, get all that money from the Russian Oligarchs, who have been evading taxes, but the mechanism that they used by casting such a wide net, that ensnares so many other people is astonishing. Accounts under 100k Euros will get "taxed" (confiscated) at 6.75% and accounts over 100K at 9.99%. Doesn't surprise me that there is a run on their banks, I just don't see how this will be a positive development.

I can with 99.99% certainty say that the US tax code has played virtually no role in the rising disparity between the top 1% and the bottom 50%'s income wages. If anything it has helped "even the playing field" ever since the Bush tax cuts. Any policy prescriptions that look to reform the tax code to try to remedy this dynamic, will bare no fruits whatsoever. Education, training, entrepreneurism and innovation are the best options we have. Liberals believe that in order to remedy the rising disparity of incomes is to apply punitive taxation to the wealthy, and distribute those funds to their intended recipients. The logical way to approach this issue is to figure out a way to put the bottom 50% into a position to where they will earn more, rather than look to support them through welfare, subsidization and entitlement programs. For one, added taxation does demonstrably slow economies down. Two, welfare and entitlements increase dependency and decrease production from many of these recipients. And three, subsidies by in large increase the price (inflation) of the underlying product. It's time to begin looking for real solutions to this issue, rather than the same old liberal one's, which is to punitively tax more those that have and distribute it to those that don't, to simply even out the playing field.

I'm assuming you meant more not less. I agree that the downturn distorts the numbers, but even if you were to take away 2008-2009 and simply look from 2001-2007, you will see that the US tax code produced a more progressive tax code than in previous years.

That's some funny **** You don't understand LA, you see when SOB uses the word "child" when describing Rubio, he feels as if he got a good zinger off. Like "yeah! Child! ( that was a good one)"

What's a conservative like yourself reading an article from a TPM writer?

Patterson would be a reach at 8. Barkley won't make it to the second round, either will Margus hunt in the third. And Nassib and Manuel certainly won't be available in the fourth.

As if you don't know what his reply will be.

ISTP. whatever that means

When I was reading SOB's comment, I knew that something wasn't right with what he had said. Technically he's right, but in actual real world practice, he wasn't. http://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/full_607.pdf In other words, and in Layman's terms, states can and usually do get around the "time limits" for Welfare.

These things would obviously have to be worked out... I think for the most part, we are talking about a framework for some sort of welfare reform.

Didn't see this till right now.

Fred Davis I believe is still available.

He was near the top of my wish list for this year's FA

Which is why I used the word rationally. Making an argument of aggregate totals to justify the progressivity of the code, from my view is not rational. Relative % of income is the best way to measure how progressive a tax code is.

I understand...My approach is a little less hard line, I'd like to give the benefit of the doubt to those that are new recipients rather than the habitual moochers.

It's not that difficult Chef. You know there are these things called records, ya, it's pretty cool, they get to record actual data in these neat things called computers and you can check out what you recorded. WAAAAY COOL MAN! So my view is cut some slack by helping keep retain dignity for those that happened to fall into a bad situation that are now on "welfare". But after a while, if you remain on Welfare for a set period of time, then you would be required to either work in the menial jobs that you suggested or enter job re training programs. Details would have to be worked and tweaked, but that would be the general outline of the plan.

Now juxtapose that to the bottom 50% 1981: the average rate paid 6.62% 1982: 6.1% 1987: 5.09% which is over a 10% drop from the year before... (Of course the tax reform act of 1986 which changed the definition of AGI had nothing to do with it, naaaa) 1988: 5:06% 1991: 4:62% 1993: 4:29% 2000: 4:6% For Top 1% 27.45% 2001: (Bush era begins) 4:09% for bottom 50% ( 13% drop from the previous year) Top 1% paid 27.5% 2002: 3.21% for bottom 50% ( over 20% drop from the previous year) Top 1% paid 27.25% 2003 2.95% for bottom 50% ( over 8% drop from the previous year) The Top 1 % paid 24.31% 2008 2.59% for bottom 50% The Top 1% paid 23.27% 2009 1.85% for bottom 50% The Top 1% paid 24.01% In 2000, what the top 1% paid relative to what the bottom 50% paid as far as a percentage of income paid in Federal taxes was 596% higher. By 2003, what the top 1% paid relative to what the bottom 50% paid as far as a percentage of income paid in Federal taxes JUMPED to 824% higher. in 2009, what the top 2% paid relative to what the bottom 50% paid as far as a percentage of income paid in Federal taxes SOARED to 1297% higher. We're not talking total aggregate, we are talking PERCENTAGE. That's what we call comparisons of relativity. The data is clear. The tax code has gotten more Progressive, specially ever since the Bush tax cuts. The Bush tax cuts was the most progressive act we've seen over the past 30 years. There is no way you can rationally spin those numbers. Even if you attempt to spin it, it still doesn't take away the fact that the US tax code is much more progressive than before the Bush tax cuts. Main reason being is become of the child tax credits incentives like child care and income tax credits for the poor have been greatly expanded.

I understand what you are saying, but there are many people that are on welfare in a transitory basis. From my view, if you are there in the short-term, I don't believe you should be mandated to perform these tasks, but if it's someone who is consistently there, then I have no problem with this.