This Just In - Top 10% Paid 70% of 2010 Federal Taxes

[B-Man]

. you can't seriously be proposing that conservatives embrace diverse thoughts and beliefs similarly to liberals?

 

when's the last time you read liberals on this board name calling each other?

 

Your two statements don't coincide.

 

 

Which is fine, because, just because you believe conservatives don't embrace differing opinions (like liberals)

 

don't try and claim that it is then true...............

 

 

.

[Magox]

You want conservatives to abandon core principles of self-determination and economic sustainability to become the popular girl at the dance?

 

I could of swore you supported the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008

Edited March 22, 2013 by Magox

[Chef Jim]

the groups you mentioned don't have anyone with the power and influence over the entire organization that people like norquist and ryan do. it's just a much less homogeneous group of beliefs in my opinion. people from billionaire industrialists to coal miners and everyone in between consider themselves liberals, often with very differnt ideas of what that word means. you can't seriously be proposing that conservatives embrace diverse thoughts and beliefs similarly to liberals? when's the last time you read liberals on this board name calling each other?

 

No we're all a bunch of white billionaire males that like to go out and burn crosses for fun on a Saturday night.

 

Is less homogenous a good thing or a bad thing now?? I'm confused.

 

You can STFU now.

Edited March 22, 2013 by Chef Jim

[IDBillzFan]

when's the last time you read liberals on this board name calling each other?

I think you don't see that much because the liberals on this board are too busy pretending to be a disgruntled Republican name-callers.

[birdog1960]

Your two statements don't coincide.

 

 

Which is fine, because, just because you believe conservatives don't embrace differing opinions (like liberals)

 

don't try and claim that it is then true...............

 

 

.

they do if one who breaks ranks is lambasted by nearly everyone else. does it happen among liberals? sure, but in general tolerance is considered an important quality. not so much among conservatives, at least here....

[Magox]

they do if one who breaks ranks is lambasted by nearly everyone else. does it happen among liberals? sure, but in general tolerance is considered an important quality. not so much among conservatives, at least here....

 

I'm a big boy, I can handle criticism. Not the first time I "broke ranks" with conservative orthodoxy and won't be the last.

[Chef Jim]

they do if one who breaks ranks is lambasted by nearly everyone else. does it happen among liberals? sure, but in general tolerance is considered an important quality. not so much among conservatives, at least here....

 

Yes..YES....YES!! We get it liberals are famously tolerant.

 

Which is the biggest bit of bull **** ever uttered by man.

[GG]

I could of swore you supported the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008

 

I absolutely did, because I knew that the "bailout" of the banks was not going to cost taxpayers a dime in the end, and the cost of not doing the bailout was going to be catastrophic.

[B-Man]

Yes..YES....YES!! We get it liberals are famously tolerant.

 

Which is the biggest bit of bull **** ever uttered by man.

 

 

"Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views,

 

but then are shocked and to discover that there are other views"

 

-- William F. Buckley

 

 

 

.

[Magox]

I absolutely did, because I knew that the "bailout" of the banks was not going to cost taxpayers a dime in the end, and the cost of not doing the bailout was going to be catastrophic.

 

Well, then you abandoned your "principles", because standard conservative orthodoxy don't support bailouts. If a company fails, then it shouldn't need the help of the government to prop it up for it to survive, so goes the belief.

 

Listen, I don't blame you for supporting the bailout, although I didn't, but I understand why you and others did. It was a panicky time, and if I was a lawmaker I would have had a hard time not supporting it, but from the sidelines I didn't think it was necessary. The bank bailouts tangibly speaking didn't do much other than recapitalize some of the banks, which wasn't the main problem. At the height of the panic, the main issue was over-night lending, Commercial paper, there was a liquidity freeze and no banks were lending to each other and in order for things to move along, you needed this to flow. So the actions from the Fed, more specifically the CPFF was significantly more crucial to stopping the bleeding than the bank bailouts.

 

Or what about the $16 Trillion that was lent to all the banks and corporations from the Fed during the crisis that no one really knew about until we saw the findings from the audit and GAO report? Seriously, the Bank Bailout was miniscule compared to the actions of the FED.

 

Sure, the bank bailouts provided a psychological boost, which isn't to be discounted, it basically said, the government will do what it takes to back up the banks. I get that.

 

The point I'm making is not all decisions that are standard "conservative" economic policy always have to be adhered to. Your justification for "abandoning principles" is because it didn't cost the taxpayer a dime.

 

Even under your criteria, it still failed the test. According to the TARP inspector general, there is still a loss of $60 Billion and taxpayers are still owed $118.5 Billion.

 

 

Let's just say it didn't end up costing the taxpayer a dime, you supported it because you thought it was the best course of action. I can respect that, even though I disagree with your view. Everyone who has been on this sight that keeps up knows that I don't generally like mandates, I just happen to think in this instance it is a net winner for the employee and the economy. And you know what? It wouldn't cost the individual taxpayer a dime either.

 

In any case, I don't believe you "abandoned" your "principles", you just stepped outside standard economic conservative orthodoxy believing this was best.

[Chef Jim]

"Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views,

 

but then are shocked and to discover that there are other views"

 

-- William F. Buckley

 

 

 

.

 

"Conservatives are willing to hear liberal views, but laugh their asses off when they hear them"

 

-- Chef Jim

[birdog1960]

"Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views,

 

but then are shocked and to discover that there are other views"

 

-- William F. Buckley

 

 

 

.

that guy was as annoying as george plimpton. what was it he had stuck up his butt? what was i thinking? some people disagree with me? i never knew!

 

I'm a big boy, I can handle criticism. Not the first time I "broke ranks" with conservative orthodoxy and won't be the last.

wasn't defending you just scoring with a few layups.

[DC Tom]

when's the last time you read liberals on this board name calling each other?

 

Never. Because you don't embrace difference, you completely and utterly exclude it.

[GG]

In any case, I don't believe you "abandoned" your "principles", you just stepped outside standard economic conservative orthodoxy believing this was best.

 

That's the thing, there are many flavors of conservative thought, and I make no bones of aligning closer to the neocon perspective. Plus, be careful not to conflate a purely libertarian laissez faire view with a conservative one that recognizes that some government regulation is necessary. There are many industries that should be regulated, with finance probably at the top of the list. The reason that I fully supported TARP is because part of the mess that the banks got themselves in was by skating around misapplied regulations and by being too clever for their own good. But up until the minute Bear & Lehman went belly up, they were in full compliance of all regulations. The other reason I supported TARP is that I knew that the overnight funding issue was not an economic one, but an accounting one. Instead of throwing money at the problem, the regulators could have simply suspended mark to market rules or put a moratorium on collateral calls. That would not have cost hundreds of billions, but it could have made the situation worse if it didn't stabilize the oncoming panic. Lastly, read carefully in what I said about which bailout would not cost taxpayers a dime.

[Magox]

That's the thing, there are many flavors of conservative thought, and I make no bones of aligning closer to the neocon perspective. Plus, be careful not to conflate a purely libertarian laissez faire view with a conservative one that recognizes that some government regulation is necessary. There are many industries that should be regulated, with finance probably at the top of the list. The reason that I fully supported TARP is because part of the mess that the banks got themselves in was by skating around misapplied regulations and by being too clever for their own good. But up until the minute Bear & Lehman went belly up, they were in full compliance of all regulations. The other reason I supported TARP is that I knew that the overnight funding issue was not an economic one, but an accounting one. Instead of throwing money at the problem, the regulators could have simply suspended mark to market rules or put a moratorium on collateral calls. That would not have cost hundreds of billions, but it could have made the situation worse if it didn't stabilize the oncoming panic. Lastly, read carefully in what I said about which bailout would not cost taxpayers a dime.

 

Not to mince words but the bailout was a package deal, which included more than just banks. But in any case, I agree, I also believe that some regulations are necessary, and I also believe in some rare instances mandates as well.

 

What about No Child Left Behind? or National Minimum Drinking Age Act, the Real ID act, or how about the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA)?

 

These are all acts of law that included mandates, and they were done under Reagan and Bush.

 

Again, my point is that like you alluded to earlier and what I've been saying for a while now, not all regulations are bad and that also goes for mandates as well.

 

We just have a differing of opinion on the effectiveness of the raising of the MW, I believe it would be a net positive for the economy, and for me that trumps all, you don't or if that isn't it, it just goes against your principles. I didn't agree with the bank bailout because I didn't think it was the crucial act that stopped the bleeding plus I believe it sets horrible precedence moving forward. But I understood the decision to move forward with it.

[3rdnlng]

birdog1960, on 22 March 2013 - 10:59 AM, said:

 

. you can't seriously be proposing that conservatives embrace diverse thoughts and beliefs similarly to liberals?

 

when's the last time you read liberals on this board name calling each other?

 

 

http://voices.yahoo....ls-1370185.html

 

 

"You see, Liberals believe in Tolerance. They want to understand where everyone is coming from before they will even think about judging what they stand for. They want to know why the Arabs are so angry at the US, instead of just bombing them into oblivion. They want to know why so many Blacks are so very racist against Whites, instead of simply scolding them for claiming to be against racism, but embracing that very thing themselves.

 

That's all well and good, as far as it goes. After all, everyone has the right to question, and what harm comes from a little enlightenment about how 'the other guy' sees things?

 

But, because Tolerance is, to borrow a phrase from the Bible-thumpers, "The Way, the Truth, and the Light" for Liberals, anybody who even seems to question the practice is viewed as "Intolerant" instantly. Thus, we are left with a Left that tells us to question, as long as we don't question their moral authority. They say they want to know the views of others, but reject any that disagree with their own pre-determined conclusions out of hand. They want us to Tolerate any opinion under the sun - except those opinions that aren't ones of Tolerance; their brand of Tolerance, specifically.

 

They want us to consider all sides, but will happily make a snap-judgment about anyone who slips a toe over that very line.

 

Clearly, that doesn't make any friggin sense. It goes way beyond mere hypocrisy, and deep into the realm of flat-out irrationality."

 

Hey Birdog, isn't this like looking in the mirror?

[birdog1960]

birdog1960, on 22 March 2013 - 10:59 AM, said:

 

. you can't seriously be proposing that conservatives embrace diverse thoughts and beliefs similarly to liberals?

 

when's the last time you read liberals on this board name calling each other?

 

 

http://voices.yahoo....ls-1370185.html

 

 

"You see, Liberals believe in Tolerance. They want to understand where everyone is coming from before they will even think about judging what they stand for. They want to know why the Arabs are so angry at the US, instead of just bombing them into oblivion. They want to know why so many Blacks are so very racist against Whites, instead of simply scolding them for claiming to be against racism, but embracing that very thing themselves.

 

That's all well and good, as far as it goes. After all, everyone has the right to question, and what harm comes from a little enlightenment about how 'the other guy' sees things?

 

But, because Tolerance is, to borrow a phrase from the Bible-thumpers, "The Way, the Truth, and the Light" for Liberals, anybody who even seems to question the practice is viewed as "Intolerant" instantly. Thus, we are left with a Left that tells us to question, as long as we don't question their moral authority. They say they want to know the views of others, but reject any that disagree with their own pre-determined conclusions out of hand. They want us to Tolerate any opinion under the sun - except those opinions that aren't ones of Tolerance; their brand of Tolerance, specifically.

 

They want us to consider all sides, but will happily make a snap-judgment about anyone who slips a toe over that very line.

 

Clearly, that doesn't make any friggin sense. It goes way beyond mere hypocrisy, and deep into the realm of flat-out irrationality."

 

Hey Birdog, isn't this like looking in the mirror?

i was following pretty well til the 3rd paragraph and then.. a quantum leap... of reasoning. what exactly is our (liberals) brand of tolerance? toleration of any but conservatives? toleration of any but the intolerant? should we tolerate assad? stalin? pol pot? no, you are correct there are iimits. but various liberals and conservatives will define those limits differently and we generally have more questions than answers. i believe that's the nature of things. we look for the answers, realizing that some may be unknowable but worth pursuing nonetheless. my impression is that, in general, many conservatives don't accept that basic truth...that truth can sometimes be relative. gray is often the answer and not black or white. it's a fundamentally different approach. sometimes we need to be satisfied with gray. that's my definition of tolerance. yours is very likely different. i can tolerate that without liking it.

[3rdnlng]

i was following pretty well til the 3rd paragraph and then.. a quantum leap... of reasoning. what exactly is our (liberals) brand of tolerance? toleration of any but conservatives? toleration of any but the intolerant? should we tolerate assad? stalin? pol pot? no, you are correct there are iimits. but various liberals and conservatives will define those limits differently and we generally have more questions than answers. i believe that's the nature of things. we look for the answers, realizing that some may be unknowable but worth pursuing nonetheless. my impression is that, in general, many conservatives don't accept that basic truth...that truth can sometimes be relative. gray is often the answer and not black or white. it's a fundamentally different approach. sometimes we need to be satisfied with gray. that's my definition of tolerance. yours is very likely different. i can tolerate that without liking it.

Wow, I'm thinking that I'm at a disadvantage here and should "weed up" to be able to respond by myself. The message was is that liberals, by their actions, have proven to be anything but the old time version of liberal, and have proven to be narrow minded in their thoughts and deeds and wish hell on anyone that disagrees with them.

[birdog1960]

Wow, I'm thinking that I'm at a disadvantage here and should "weed up" to be able to respond by myself. The message was is that liberals, by their actions, have proven to be anything but the old time version of liberal, and have proven to be narrow minded in their thoughts and deeds and wish hell on anyone that disagrees with them.

not gonna get off that easy. no chemical enhancement unless you mean endorphins...had a pretty good day.

[OCinBuffalo]

this assumes that the cost of milk is tied penny for penny to lower wage employees wages. that the marginal cost of each minimum wage workers increase will be reflected penny for penny in the cost of each widget produced. so for milk, minimum wage labor costs represent 100% of the cost of producing and selling milk? i don't think so. in reality, it's likely a small fraction of the cost of putting a gallon on the shelf. for argument sake llets make a ridiculous assumption that it represents 25% of the cost to sell that milk. then a 30% increase in that production cost should increase the sale price of the milk by 30% of 25 or 7.5%. btw, some folks with very nice business degrees have concluded that wal mart would do better with a minimum wage increase using what amounts to more sophisticated bicycle economy reasoning.

No birdog. This is not how it happens at all. You have no clue, because you've never been to the meeting.

 

You think a CFO thinks like that? Nope.

You think any of the Exec VPs of operations do? Nope.

And the worst of all: Do you really think a marketing/PR VP is going to let this one go by? This one of their few chances to prove that they are worth the money we are paying them in a substantive and non-abstract way.

 

No, no, and no, birdog. Milk WILL cost $9.00 thanks to your idiot plan, and if the PR people are worth the money, nothing bad ends up on any of these folk's door step. No. Instead, the "blame" for the $9.00 milk will land 100% on you and your idiot plan, even though technically you are only repsonsible for $7.80 of the blame.

 

Wal-mart? You're using Wal-mart? I bet I could quote you the minutes of the Wal Mart exec suite's meeting regarding your idiot plan, I could do it blind, and be about 75-80% accurate, to include nailing the responses from each of the business disciplines represented.

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.

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.

And these are the people who incessanlty babble about "new" ideas. Again, I ask: who are the conservatives here? Who are the people who keep demanding we do the same thing we did last year, and/or, more of the same thing we did last year?

 

How is any of this "new"? How is any of this "progressive"? Where is the progress? F that, where are the results? What's it going to take for the clowns to realize that LBJ really was a moron, like they kept saying in 1965, and that there is no honor is protecting the legacy of a moron. What's it going to take for them to realize it's no longer 1965?

 

We keep having to endure Dopey McKeynsian's lab experiment for no other reason than "someday....one of these days...it will work" , because proving the theory, rather than getting results, is what these clowns are about.

I hear what your saying, but I'm looking at this purely from a pragmatical point of view. I just believe that the current minimum wage is too low for people to survive on.

Would you agree that talking about COLA adjustments/minimum wage increases

is not equal to

the "living wage" idiocy?

Also, would you agree that if we created your "tiered" plan, liberal douchebaggery would find a way to FUBAR it, such that, even if your plan has merit, it's better not to do it, since this prevents the inevitable bastardization, and failure?

Who gives a turkey about GG?

I do. GG reigns in the bizarre around here just fine.

 

However, speaking of bizarre...I was trolling here about the minimum wage a few years back, and interestingly, it was GG who telling me not to be an ideologue about it, and that I shouldn't be against it. He specifically said something along the lines of "you just can't let the politics go, can you". The fact that was trolling a liberal douche, and getting said liberal douche to make all kinds of hilarious claims, didn't register with him.

 

Now, today, it appears he has changed his tune significantly. All goofing aside, under normal circumstances, isn't GG supposed to be arguing Magox's point, and vice versa?