Fiscal Cliff 2012: Republicans Say White House Proposes $1.6 Trillion In New Tax Revenue, New Stimulus, Elimination Of Debt Ceiling

I ignored your questions because they are absurd - like just about everything you've typed.



California's problems are not due to taxes being too high or too low. But that's all you want to fixate on. Taxes are generally low all over this country when compared to the rest of the world. Countries like Germany and Finland have higher taxes than us and still thrive.



So the incontrovertible fact is that a tax rate number cannot be the reason why some organization or economy is doing well or poorly. Therefore, your insistence that I explain all of California's problems in the context of your fallacious argument is absurd on face.



Were California pensions a problem? Obviously they were (or are). I believe there was a reform bill passed recently to try to address some of the problems. Are there other problems? There has to be - and I believe they have to exist because a silly belief that the tax rate is the reason for the state's financial trouble is nonsense.



Yet that is what you want to fixate on here. You probably think that if the tax rates - which are the lowest that they've ever been in about 100 years - are raised, then disaster will ensue because bureaucrats will set fire to the revenue. It's as silly and useless an obsession as is possible and I won't waste any more time on its childish irrationality.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Fiscal Cliff 2012: Republicans Say White House Proposes $1.6 Trillion In New Tax Revenue, New Stimulus, Elimination Of Debt Ceiling

Exactly backwards - the human factor is precisely why "rational markets" theories are so consistently proved wrong. Markets (investors and consumers) do not respond like robots to economic conditions.



Your other republican-brain problem is that you think that everything is about taxes. Taxes are a value in equations, but you guys fixate on them - you are enraged by them. You're lost in the "meaning" of taxes. And so you end up making silly comparisons about thing A and thing B based on taxes.



Issues like the fact that many California municipalities were bankrupted by fraudulent investments not too long ago are lost upon you. Issues like other nations in the world have higher tax rates than California but still thrive (any taxes in Australia?!? how is their economy?) crush your superficial argument before you hit the "send" button but you still carry them on anyway. Ridiculous.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Fiscal Cliff 2012: Republicans Say White House Proposes $1.6 Trillion In New Tax Revenue, New Stimulus, Elimination Of Debt Ceiling

Proved fact: reduced spending in a depressed economy results in a contraction in that economy. Find a macroeconomics article published in the last year using currently available data that can dispute it (hint: you can't - ALL data supports it). The best example is UK because they aren't effected directly by the Euro. Part of the problem in the EU (outside of UK) is their Euro ties.



Keynesians predicted it accurately. They also predicted that US Treasury bond rates would stay low while your side has continuously shrieked since 2006 that the bond vigilantes are about to hit us because of our deficit next week. Treasury rates have never been lower - in fact, they are well below inflation and still selling strong.



Tell me, how is the Finnish economy? And then tell me how small their public spending is. How is Germany's economy and how does their public spending compare to US?



So blah nanny blah blah blah all day long. All you have are your vacuous labels. It's the height of republican enlightenment - applying labels. You're afraid of facts and digging into actual data because your feeble attachment to failed policy might be shattered, so don't face the facts, squint hard and scream loud against them. But that doesn't change reality. It just makes you look silly.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Fiscal Cliff 2012: Republicans Say White House Proposes $1.6 Trillion In New Tax Revenue, New Stimulus, Elimination Of Debt Ceiling

Oh, the angry trolllies are out in force today! None understand how the economy works, yet they demand that their austerity solutions be implemented at the same time austerity has demonstrated complete and total failure (as predicted by those who understand macroeconomics) by sending the EU back into recession.



I'm glad to see the President has radically changed his negotiating tactics to finally reflect an understanding that there are sensible, historically successful, solutions to our problems and instead of accepting a slate of republican plans to compound our problems, he is hitting them over the head with those sensible solutions.



These ideas don't solve ALL the problems, to be sure, but they are a great start. And in the meantime, maybe a few republicans who use a calculator to do math will come around. There have been two sides on the macroeconomic playing field and right now the fresh water, Friedman, Randians have been routed over the last few years by the Keynesians - starting with the "bubbles? there is no housing bubble! bubbles are impossible!" and up through the double-dip in Europe.... wrong on every count. It's time for the adherents to republican economic dogma pack it in as it's really, seriously embarrassing.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Why We Should Stop Obsessing About the Federal Budget Deficit

I believe I've seen you vehemently defend the President on many occasions. Some, I'm certain, are more than justifiable. I'm not against the President, but I'm fully frustrated by his weakness on several key subjects - deficit hawking being one of the worst.



So how does one defend this President's insistence on 'going it alone' after Congress rejected his plan to form a dog food commission and forming his own dog food commission by appointing deficit hawks who demanded Social Security cuts, tax cuts for the wealthy, and savage federal spending cuts? How do you defend his persistent talk about reducing the deficit - especially when compared to his talk of increasing revenue and seizing the current opportunity to fund infrastructure spending at bargain prices (T-bill rates under 2%)?



I just don't see how Professor Reich can be expected to be one of the few torch carriers on this - why doesn't the President buck up?!
About Deficit
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Just Do It: A 10-Point Solution For The Fiscal Cliff

I'd spin the same point another way. Estate tax isn't "redistribution" - look at it as what it literally is: an income tax break for heirs.



There's no concept of "family income," so when someone dies and hands off $10 million, it's clearly $10 million of INCOME to the receiving party. The estate tax laws give these heirs a huge break on taxing this INCOME. Since it's a tax break, it should be called as such. After all, if someone in my family hands me $100,000 (and, uh, that ain't possible, BTW), I have to put it on my tax returns as income - so why is it 'fair' that someone handed $10 million as 'inheritance' is absolved of that same responsibility?!?



Hence - 'tax break for heirs.'



And when the inheritance is things - like farms or buildings or cars, then we should probably deal with them in a more lenient fashion. Maybe give the heir the option of paying a percentage of the last 5 years of the object's value or paying a percentage of the object's actual price when sold. Thus, family businesses and farms can really stay that way, while those who just want to grind their parents' bones into cash as fast as possible have a way out, too.



If that's too much for people to handle, then consider it a 'war against concentration of wealth.' "Redistribution" is used by the author, intentionally or unconsciously, more as a dog whistle invictive than anything.
About Nancy Pelosi
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Lashes Out At Top Republicans Over Benghazi-Linked Criticism Of Susan Rice

Come on, Obama - put it ALL on the table RIGHT NOW!



How many thoroughly qualified nominees have been languishing (or have withdrawn from consideration) over the last 4 years?!?! Dozens? Hundreds?!?



And only a handful of gingerly, quietly made recess appointments in response.



"Come at me" is hollow and unimpressive. But worse, it's not even close to the darn point! If the man descended from heaven tomorrow and was nominated for Sec of whatever, Jesus Christ himself would be rejected by the republicans for having long hair or looking too middle-eastern. NO ONE will be acceptable - how many times does this have to be proved to you, Mr. President?!?!



So how about pulling on the bigboy drawers and wading into the fight for once. Tell the nation that there are ___ vacancies right now that are adversely effecting performance of government operations. The republicans have blocked them all - and offer this story and some of the other most colorful rejection excuse stories to expose their unethical, bad faith conduct.



Set expectations for adult behavior and if there is none forthcoming, inform the nation that you will make recess appointments aplenty. THAT would be leadership. THAT would be toughness. Threatening a discussion is neither of those things AND it wastes even MORE time than has already been wasted trying to fill important posts. Enough!! DO SOMETHING!!!
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Meaning of a Do-Nothing Election

Tired of the nader beatings - give it up. Gore failed to fight for a new ballot in Florida. He could have won if he pushed for that. Gore's campaign had the opportunity to earn votes from nader supporters, but failed to do so. You could make a case that Florida's government earned some blame in 2000, but how can anyone claim that avoiding a confrontation over their corruption is nader's fault (answer is no, BTW)?! Clinton won despite Perot - no reason Gore couldn't win despite nader (except for not running a good enough campaign).



Kerry avoided confrontation with dubya and the swiftliars, leading to his loss. They weren't as good as they needed to be.



It's a badge of bitterness to continuously redirect blame onto those who deserve it less than those who have personally, directly earned it.



Stop with these pleas for absolution of a perfect man in the White House. He's NOT even close. He only looks good because the repubs are so overthetop terrible. No one forced Obama to appoint geithner as Treasury Secretary - one of history's worst appointments for the job. Obama refuses to fill vacancies because he's too weak to use recess appointments - which is undeniably HIS fault.



The belief that Obama is flawless and everyone else is to blame - voters, republicans, etc. - is intellectually equivalent to Harriet Meiers's judgment that dubya was one of the most brilliant people she's ever met: groundless, illogical, and totally driven by emotion.
About House Republicans
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Meaning of a Do-Nothing Election

In general, I can't find much to disagree with in your post. This President is too scared of or enthralled by the big powers and thinks he can charm them into doing the right thing - despite being proved wrong every single time he's tried (e.g. health insurance reform). His Treasury Sec nominee will probably be the definitive statement on the tenor of the next 4 years - a rerun of missed opportunities, historically terrible negotiating/capitulation to adversaries, and poor judgment, or a term featuring a few drops of testosterone and courage. We'll soon see.



That said, I'm sorry, Tom, I'm not very bright. What does the term "call to the colors" mean? I've never heard it before.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost