Nonpartisan Tax Report Withdrawn After G.O.P. Protest

[RandomGuy]

It really does flow both ways.

The whole "War on Women" rhetoric is a perfect example.

The President's bill REALLY DOES (or did) force the Catholic Church to pay for contraception; something EVERYONE knows is against their official dogma. This REALLY did infringe on the Catholic church's rights. And yet the Democrat party has taken a perfectly reasonable objection to that requirement, along with a couple of idiot statements by on currently unelected candidate, and another single house member, and made a WAR!!! out of it. I saw a report on the News Hour recently that showed ads relative to this are actually being cited by people as causing them to change their votes; even though, we can argue to the degree, but I don't really want to - because THAT would be pointless, it is pretty much all fabricated!!! The ads actually suggest that Romney wants to BAN CONTRACEPTION!!! It's not true. No one has ever suggested that, much less Romney - and yet, there the ad is, and there are the "morons" pouring to polls to vote for these assholes.

Different issue, different assholes, different morons, same results.

You do realize that particular perception is driven by far more than this one thing right?

Blunt amendment opposition
invasive ultrasounds
increasingly negative depictions of feminists by the mainstream media
opposition to the renewal of the Violence Against Women Act
Cuts in WIC
polemics against welfare mothers

You can't claim or imply it is just ONE thing.

[LnGrrrR]

Look at the data they cite. A tax rate about 1/2 as much for the rich made three times as many rich, at those taxation percentages.

If I have a marginal rate of 70% for 4% of the population, but a marginal rate of 35% for 12% of the population...

Uhm, you can't just say this without numbers. For instance, if that 4% of the population is making, say, 10 million a year, and let's say hypothetically that the population is, oh, 100 million people, that means the total amount of taxes taken in is (4 million * 7 million =) 28 trillion per year.

Using the same population, but going to 35% for 12% of the population, that same top 4% is now kicking in only 14 trillion. If the other 8% is making, say, 5 million a year, then you're set. But if that other 8% is making less than that, you'll lose revenue.

And since most of the wealth is concentrated closer to the top end, then the first scenario likely brings home more taxes.

Edit: Someone smarter than me, feel free to factcheck my math. It's 3:55 in the morning here and I'm not fully awake yet. (Having kids is awesome.)

[boutons_deux]

"arsenal on the recommendation of Homeland Security"

link?

[RandomGuy]

A perfectly reasonable argument. One that can be debated on its merits. Why then, does the Obama campaign not put THAT in an ad? Why do they stretch the truth to make it sound like the Presidential candidate (not even Catholic) wants to ban contraception?

Because he is trying to win an election, and a lot of Democrats are Catholics. Easy.

I would agree that my statement is the one that needs to be debated, but the GOP is spinning this, as you have as a "religious right".

If the church wishes the right to have employees, then it has to obey our laws.

I don't see this as some horrible infringement on religious rights.

[boutons_deux]

"Romney wants to BAN CONTRACEPTION!!! It's not true. No one has ever suggested that, much less Romney"

"religious-right groups in Texas are eagerly entering the war on women’s access to contraception and reproductive health care."

http://tfninsider.org/2012/02/14/tex...contraception/

‘Of Course It’s a War on Birth Control’

This wasn’t a momentary slip of the tongue. Christian is just saying out loud what many Texas lawmakers believe — and many more supported with their votes this session. The ideology underlying all the attacks on abortion and Planned Parenthood is fundamentally anti-birth control and anti-family planning. And as so many others have pointed out, it is ultimately self-defeating, as depriving Texas women of birth control is one sure-fire way to increase the number of abortions in this state.

http://tfninsider.org/2011/05/29/of-...birth-control/

[101A]

"arsenal on the recommendation of Homeland Security"

link?

The poster.

[101A]

Because he is trying to win an election, and a lot of Democrats are Catholics. Easy.

I would agree that my statement is the one that needs to be debated, but the GOP is spinning this, as you have as a "religious right".

If the church wishes the right to have employees, then it has to obey our laws.

I don't see this as some horrible infringement on religious rights.

OK, then, it's a restriction of an employer's rights. A restriction of rights, it is.

It is the government by force of law compelling someone to do something they otherwise would not do. Removing choice, or options, as it were.

[101A]

"Romney wants to BAN CONTRACEPTION!!! It's not true. No one has ever suggested that, much less Romney"

"religious-right groups in Texas are eagerly entering the war on women’s access to contraception and reproductive health care."

http://tfninsider.org/2012/02/14/tex...contraception/

‘Of Course It’s a War on Birth Control’

This wasn’t a momentary slip of the tongue. Christian is just saying out loud what many Texas lawmakers believe — and many more supported with their votes this session. The ideology underlying all the attacks on abortion and Planned Parenthood is fundamentally anti-birth control and anti-family planning. And as so many others have pointed out, it is ultimately self-defeating, as depriving Texas women of birth control is one sure-fire way to increase the number of abortions in this state.

http://tfninsider.org/2011/05/29/of-...birth-control/

Romney is a Texas lawmaker?

[RandomGuy]

OK, then, it's a restriction of an employer's rights. A restriction of rights, it is.

It is the government by force of law compelling someone to do something they otherwise would not do. Removing choice, or options, as it were.

Why would you place the employers right over the employees right to access to healthcare?

[RandomGuy]

It is the government by force of law compelling someone to do something they otherwise would not do. Removing choice, or options, as it were.

This logic could be applied to someone with the desire to murder their spouse and bury them in the backyard.

I do not find it, therefore, overly compelling.

Governments should rightfully be doing exactly this, as a matter of course, and proper function.

[RandomGuy]

The poster.

LOL... that was funny.

[Drachen]

Romney is a Texas lawmaker?

Don't engage him.

[101A]

Why would you place the employers right over the employees right to access to healthcare?

I'm sorry, was there anywhere a law restricting an employee's right to buy contraception?

[101A]

This logic could be applied to someone with the desire to murder their spouse and bury them in the backyard.

I do not find it, therefore, overly compelling.

Governments should rightfully be doing exactly this, as a matter of course, and proper function.

Absolutely, the Government does remove a right by outlawing murder; although through murder I have taken away another person's most basic right. Protecting that would be, to me, the government paramount obligation, Equating that with a right to free contraception - directly paid for by another citizen displays a lack of perspective that is, frankly, alarming.

[ploto]

The President's bill REALLY DOES (or did) force the Catholic Church to pay for contraception; something EVERYONE knows is against their official dogma. This REALLY did infringe on the Catholic church's rights.

You do know that many, many Catholic ins utions already provide contraception coverage in the health insurance benefits for their employees - why else do you think you heard little about this in San Antonio where the largest Catholic hospital in the area does so.

[boutons_deux]

"EVERYONE knows is against their official dogma. This REALLY did infringe on the Catholic church's rights."

the group insurance policies of those very same Catholic ins utions actually did pay, VOLUNTARILY, for contraception for many years, and the Bishops said nothing.

[RandomGuy]

Absolutely, the Government does remove a right by outlawing murder; although through murder I have taken away another person's most basic right. Protecting that would be, to me, the government paramount obligation, Equating that with a right to free contraception - directly paid for by another citizen displays a lack of perspective that is, frankly, alarming.

I didn't say it was on an equal footing, just to be clear.

But once you establish what government is/should be doing, the only real question is to what degree.

Aye, there's the rub.

[RandomGuy]

I'm sorry, was there anywhere a law restricting an employee's right to buy contraception?

No there was not.

That wasn't the issue, though.

The issue was why an employer should have the capacity or the right, to define what "health care" is, and what it isn't. That is not the function of private religious ins utions acting as employers.

[Th'Pusher]

It really does flow both ways.

The whole "War on Women" rhetoric is a perfect example.

The President's bill REALLY DOES (or did) force the Catholic Church to pay for contraception; something EVERYONE knows is against their official dogma. This REALLY did infringe on the Catholic church's rights. And yet the Democrat party has taken a perfectly reasonable objection to that requirement, along with a couple of idiot statements by on currently unelected candidate, and another single house member, and made a WAR!!! out of it. I saw a report on the News Hour recently that showed ads relative to this are actually being cited by people as causing them to change their votes; even though, we can argue to the degree, but I don't really want to - because THAT would be pointless, it is pretty much all fabricated!!! The ads actually suggest that Romney wants to BAN CONTRACEPTION!!! It's not true. No one has ever suggested that, much less Romney - and yet, there the ad is, and there are the "morons" pouring to polls to vote for these assholes.

Different issue, different assholes, different morons, same results.

236 representatives and 41 senators, almost all republican, have taken a pledge that they will never raise taxes under any cir stances to an unelected windbag whose goal is to shrink govt so that it can be drowned in a bathtub. And he holds them accountable to this pledge, zeroing in like a laser to oust anyone who breaks his sacred pledge. This is why negotiations break down. Not because of en lement reform. It's always taxes.

[boutons_deux]

Here's Gecko showing why Obama should be voted out because of how the Repugs will OBSTRUCT Barry's 2nd term and causes crises because Barry won't kiss the Repugs' asses.

"You know that if the President is re-elected, he will still be unable to work with the people in Congress. He has ignored them, attacked them, blamed them. The debt ceiling will come up again, and shutdown and default will be threatened, chilling the economy. The President was right when he said he can’t change Washington from the inside. In this case, you can take him at his word. When I am elected, I will work with Republicans and Democrats in Congress. I will meet regularly with their leaders."

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/201...e-republicans/

Here's Krugman showing what Gecko's bull really is

The Blackmail Caucus

If President Obama is re-elected, health care coverage will expand dramatically, taxes on the wealthy will go up and Wall Street will face tougher regulation. If Mitt Romney wins instead, health coverage will shrink substantially, taxes on the wealthy will fall to levels not seen in 80 years and financial regulation will be rolled back.

Given the starkness of this difference, you might have expected to see people from both sides of the political divide urging voters to cast their ballots based on the issues. Lately, however, I've seen a growing number of Romney supporters making a quite different argument. Vote for Mr. Romney, they say, because if he loses, Republicans will destroy the economy.

O.K., they don't quite put it that way. The argument is phrased in terms of "partisan gridlock," as if both parties were equally extreme. But they aren't. This is, in reality, all about appeasing the hard men of the Republican Party.
If you want an example of what I'm talking about, consider the remarkable - in a bad way - editorial in which The Des Moines Register endorsed Mr. Romney. The paper acknowledged that Mr. Obama's signature economic policy, the 2009 stimulus, was the right thing to do. It also acknowledged that Mr. Obama tried hard to reach out across the partisan divide, but was rebuffed.

Yet it endorsed his opponent anyway, offering some half-hearted support for Romneynomics, but mainly asserting that Mr. Romney would be able to work with Democrats in a way that Mr. Obama has not been able to work with Republicans. Why? Well, the paper claims - as many of those making this argument do - that, in office, Mr. Romney would be far more centrist than anything he has said in the campaign would indicate. (And the notion that he has been lying all along is supposed to be a point in his favor?) But mostly it just takes it for granted that Democrats would be more reasonable.

Is this a good argument?

The starting point for many "vote for Romney or else" statements is the notion that a re-elected President Obama wouldn't be able to accomplish anything in his second term. What this misses is the fact that he has already accomplished a great deal, in the form of health reform and financial reform - reforms that will go into effect if, and only if, he is re-elected.

But would Mr. Obama be able to negotiate a Grand Bargain on the budget? Probably not - but so what? America isn't facing any kind of short-run fiscal crisis, except in the fevered imagination of a few Beltway insiders. If you're worried about the long-run imbalance between spending and revenue, well, that's an issue that will have to be resolved eventually, but not right away. Furthermore, I'd argue that any alleged Grand Bargain would be worthless as long as the G.O.P. remained as extreme as it is, because the next Republican president, following the lead of George W. Bush, would just squander the gains on tax cuts and unfunded wars.

So we shouldn't worry about the ability of a re-elected Obama to get things done. On the other hand, it's reasonable to worry that Republicans will do their best to make America ungovernable during a second Obama term. After all, they have been doing that ever since Mr. Obama took office.

During the first two years of Mr. Obama's presidency, when Democrats controlled both houses of Congress, Republicans offered scorched-earth opposition to anything and everything he proposed. Among other things, they engaged in an unprecedented number of filibusters, turning the Senate - for the first time - into a chamber in which nothing can pass without 60 votes.

And, when Republicans took control of the House, they became even more extreme. The 2011 debt ceiling standoff was a first in American history: An opposition party declared itself willing to undermine the full faith and credit of the U.S. government, with incalculable economic effects, unless it got its way. And the looming fight over the "fiscal cliff" is more of the same. Once again, the G.O.P. is threatening to inflict large damage on the economy unless Mr. Obama gives it something - an extension of tax cuts for the wealthy - that it lacks the votes to pass through normal cons utional processes.

Would a Democratic Senate offer equally extreme opposition to a President Romney? No, it wouldn't. So, yes, there is a case that "partisan gridlock" would be less damaging if Mr. Romney won.

But are we ready to become a country in which "Nice country you got here. Shame if something were to happen to it" becomes a winning political argument? I hope not. By all means, vote for Mr. Romney if you think he offers the better policies. But arguing for Mr. Romney on the grounds that he could get things done veers dangerously close to accepting protection-racket politics, which have no place in American life.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/article?a=...&sub=Columnist

Gecko and his Repug Congress as "bi partisan" ? G M A F B Gecko was not bipartisan as MA gov, with 800+ vetoes and ignoring the Dem legislature.

[Wild Cobra]

WC

All those extra rich tax payers explains why dubya'a and St Ronnie's tax cuts on the rich REDUCE the tax revenue by many $Ts.

Really?

Are you suggesting that tax rates are the only thing that affects revenue, economy, etc?