finknottle

Swearing is the crutch of a weak mind, flailing about in its inability to express itself with language. Thoughtfully chosen nouns, verbs, and adjectives - that sort of thing. What's funny is the mental energy you seem willing to expend circumventing filters just to keep your crutches.

Listening to another politician tell you what his priorities are? Maybe so - but that certainly does not mean they honor their requests. And they generally don't, except coincidentally - they follow their own interests. The legislation reflects the elected makeup of Congress more so than the political identity of the president. It is designed to be passed, which means getting the majority of congress on board, which means having enough in it for those congressmen to satisfy their constituents. Being seen to go along with the president takes a distant back seat to being seen to deliver the goods locally and/or championing programs or ideologies which you have built your career on. The obvious example, of which surely you are aware, is the embarrassment the Obama administration faced with his first spending bill. The spin was "it's really owned by the Bush administration, ours starts next year." The reality was that it reflects the budget wishes of Reid and Pelosi, not the White House.

The president doesn't write the budget, Congress does. All he can do is tell them his priorities and what he would like to see in it, and threaten to veto it if what they pass is too unacceptable. No sitting President has ever said "Gee, we need some big-ass farm subsidies." Nor has he ever said "Murtha's airport needs better restrooms - let's borrow a few million for that." As for the parties, the Democrats had the majority in congress for the last two years of Bush. They had control of writing the budget.

But wouldn't we then have to raise food stamps and welfare again?

If a threat or technique is ineffective against some people, then it should be ruled out as an option for all people. Got it.

Jeeves weighs in on the scandal: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/8045040.stm

I don't get it, assume you jest. And anyway, that's households not earners. The red line for single taxpayers is about $130k I think.

Let's not forget the other immediate under-the-radar Obama moves: - Rescinding the financial reporting labor unions have to provide - Ended oversight of the Teamsters by the Justice Dept (in place since their past racketeering convictions) - Slashing the budget for the Dept of Labor office that investigates union corruption (that was the DoL's sole contribution to the vaunted 'line-by-line' scouring of the budget)

Kudo's to the Obama administration for sticking to it's guns on taxation. He promised that taxes on households earning less than $250,000 would not go up to pay for his programs, and he's stuck with it so far. Yippee, the rich will pay for everything! And as we all know, nobody smokes - nobody in sophisticated Democratic circles, anyway. The tobacco tax only effects those cigar-puffing Republican bankers. Now congress is considering new ways to hit the country-club set where it really hurts: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124208505896608647.html Good thing working class Americans only drink spring water!

Interesting piece: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124208471345908641.html The upshot is that the predecessor's legacy that Obama is really unravelling is that of Clinton.

: : He certainly sounds much more relaxed after that first post. I'm picturing him leaning back and smoking a cigarette...

Sort of. The reason they have a broadcasting license (ie spectrum) is because they have agreed to include 'public service' content. That's an undefined requirement traditionally met by broadcasting political speeches and debates, the occasional after school special, and pony'ing up to pay for C-SPAN. I don't know what leverage the government has beyond the nuclear option of not renewing the license, but I do know that it resurfaces as an issue periodically and for some reason the broadcasters trip over themselves to show that they are doing good stuff.

It is amazing how many people stop thinking critically the minute technology is introduced. Consider this small passage tucked away in the recent stories about the postponment of the promised website tracking the spending: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techpoli...-stimulus_N.htm Uh-huh. Right. They can't find a large enough hard-drive to store text data.

Reminds me of the Democrats hoping for the failure of the surge. Schadenfreude is the lubricant of politics.

I disagree with ExiledinIllinois on most topics, but there is nothing wrong with his assessment about controls. You are upset because the target is guns. Change it to nuclear weapons and you (or most people, anyway) would probably agree. So the argument should not be about his logic, but rather on where one ought to draw the line on universally embargoed products.

Nah, it's worse than a muzzle. It has all of the downside - establishing the appearance of a muzzle in the press - without the upside of it actually working. But you are wrong about it being unconstitutional - we already do this now. When an organization chooses to incorporate in various forms, it is voluntarily submitting to the restrictions present in those codes. Churches cannot receive tax-free status if they endorse politicians. Neither can public television. So all Cardin's bill appears to do is offer a newspaper the opportunity enjoyed by certain non-profit niches to be eligible for tax-exempt status. They do not have to take it - they can continue to express their political views as a traditional media source. Nevertheless it is a terrible idea. The political endorsement of a newspaper influences no-one. The slant of the coverage is what influences. And that slant will continue to exist, as it does in public television, regardless of whether they are allowed to overtly endorse.

Easy. Once the government owns stock in a company, it will have to have people whose job is is to manage the program. Middle management will find reasons for upper management never to divest - protecting existing programs is something the workforce is good at. What of this big finger forever stuck in the shareholder pie? It's pretty clear that the government will be an activist investor. That can only end with their looking and acting like state companies. The government won't let them go bankrupt, but it will sure speed them along the road to irrelevancy. So in short, the government will divest without disrupting the market by slowly and ultimately making the holdings worthless.

Not neccessarily. The regulators may be doing it fine and to the letter of the law, for all I know. When you make laws, you make them with some idea in mind. Then people in the real world figure out unintended ways to take advantage. That's not the regulators fault - they are there to apply the laws and regulations, not make ethical judgements. It's not the IRS auditors job to decide whether you ought to be claiming a deduction in your circumstances, only whether the claim is legitimate. Nor is it the KFC checkout person's job to decide whether I ought to receive my third free meal in as many days. His job is only to verify that my printed coupon applies. If KFC corporate doesn't like it, it is up to them to change the program. Don't blame people like me for taking advantage. So I am saying that if some companies have a money-shuffling way to take advantage of the laws, it is the lawmakers who should bare the blame and be responsible for fixing their legislation to better accomplish what they intended. If there is a loophole, close it. Blaming a company for taking advantage of it is nothing but demagogary, as is blaming the idea behind the original legislation.

Rather than WNY, I look to California and elsewhere for a preview of where this country is headed. A story from last year - in the time since, the politicians have shown no taste for bucking the union despite media attention. - Montgomery Country's unions have veto power over the officials reviewing police disability applications. - Coincidentally, 90% of the applications get approved. There is no distinction made between full- and partial-, and no time limit on applying. Officers routinely put in for 10 year old 'injuries' when they are about to move on or are facing legal investigations. - Consequently, 62% of the police who have left in the past four years receive full disability. They get 2/3 of their salary tax free for life. Several have moved on to take the same job elsewhere. - By comparison, the disability figure ranges between 3 and 27% in neighboring counties. The one flush-with-cash county is broke, but if you are a unionized government worker you'll be fine. To me, *that* is the microcosm of the future. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...8090702314.html

I agree. But - to play devil's advocate - I'm sure that some tax lawyers have figured out how to game the system in particular situations, thereby undermining an otherwise reasonable policy. That is inevitable wherever there are laws and regulations. So the real issue IMO is to address any loopholes, not slam the approach and business in general.

I believe the Federal Government considers a small business to be 200 employees or less (and there's a revenue ceiling too, something like $50 million).

Yes. The key misunderstanding may revolve around 'banking it' - I don't think that is what is going on. I believe the rationale has to do with how best to capitalize a foreign subsidiary for a better return later. Taxes need not be paid on the profits of an overseas operation untill you actually start drawing money from it back into the US. So if you are notb 'banking it,' you don't get taxed yet. In that respect, it is analogous to buying a stock and not paying taxes on the market gain untill you sell.

I believe you are correct - it is not double taxation. Foreign taxes paid are a tax credit when calculating US taxes. And, btw, that is why you hear the oft-cited figure that US companies pay an effective tax rate of only 4% on overseas operations. That actually means that our taxes are on average 4% higher, effectively leaving only that difference to be paid after the foreign tax has been accounted for. We do the same to foreign companies operating here - they have to pay US taxes first, and it is up to their government to collect any difference. (Which there usually isn't since our taxes tend to be higher.)

There is not much discussion about the foreign policy angle here. Isn't it supposed to be important that the US show a kinder, gentler face to the world so that they'll like us again? How does slamming Bangalore help? Or does India not count because they are - you know - not cool like Western Europe?

If the left gets it's way, they won't even have to do that. It will be enough for a community organizer to hand in something with sufficient purported signatures on it.