So about General Petraeus

[maniacmechanic]

you guys make my head hurt

[wetwrks]

And now Jill Kelly has admitted to haveing a breakfast at the White House about 2 months ago.

http://news.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474981759030

[cockerpunk]

When you do it in mobs (groups, peaceful? protests, etc) that burn people in effigy it is generally an attack.

I did not know the capital gains tax rate was reserved only for the 1%. I know plenty of middle class individuals (making far less than that quarter million dollar a year cut off that somehow became middle class) who take advantage of it.

i take advantage of it, and you should to. that doesn't however mean it makes any sense to give a discount for investing, but not a discount for producing (labor). both should be equal under the tax code because both are required for GDP growth. when we favor investing over producing, no **** we destroy the US manufacturing base.

conservatives love to talk about how taxes are punishments, but they don't seem to grasp that when you punish actually making something at a higher rate then merely investing in things, no **** you wreck your middle class job market and destroy your manufacturing. the tax code also essentially punishes being middle class currently. this is just silly that someone could defend that.

[Lohman446]

i take advantage of it, and you should to. that doesn't however mean it makes any sense to give a discount for investing, but not a discount for producing (labor). both should be equal under the tax code because both are required for GDP growth. when we favor investing over producing, no **** we destroy the US manufacturing base.

conservatives love to talk about how taxes are punishments, but they don't seem to grasp that when you punish actually making something at a higher rate then merely investing in things, no **** you wreck your middle class job market and destroy your manufacturing. the tax code also essentially punishes being middle class currently. this is just silly that someone could defend that.

The original income tax max rate was like 7% wasn't it and only applied to the wealthiest 10% (I actually think it was less and lower but did not bother to look it up). I'm all for returning to fiscal discipline by the federal government that allows us to return to those as the max rates.

Actually the Laffer curve is a pretty good example of the value of a lower capital gains tax rate. Granted we don't know exactly where we are on the curve and it needs some research but the increase in tax revenue during Reagan's presidency seems to indicate it was too high.

[cockerpunk]

The original income tax max rate was like 7% wasn't it and only applied to the wealthiest 10% (I actually think it was less and lower but did not bother to look it up). I'm all for returning to fiscal discipline by the federal government that allows us to return to those as the max rates.

Actually the Laffer curve is a pretty good example of the value of a lower capital gains tax rate. Granted we don't know exactly where we are on the curve and it needs some research but the increase in tax revenue during Reagan's presidency seems to indicate it was too high.

the laffer curve is a conservative pipe dream. so is the the reagan tax revenue increase. at no point in US history has a tax rate decrease EVER lead to higher tax revenues. hell, even the bush economists that pushed the bush tax cuts have said outright, that the primary effect on the budget of those tax cuts will be lower revenues. historical data from the USA, and indeed every other modern western nation shows very little correlation between tax rates, and GDP growth. however, the data also supports that a lowering of the capital gains tax does funnel money to the rich at astonishing numbers. one only needs to look at income through time in the USA from 1950 to today to see the obvious problem with supply side economics.

also, if you are willing to go back to the original tax rate and government levels, does that mean you are also willing to go back to the the standard of living they had then? so i assume you are going to be removing your child from school and getting them a job in a sweat shop ASAP correct?

[Lohman446]

also, if you are willing to go back to the original tax rate and government levels, does that mean you are also willing to go back to the the standard of living they had then? so i assume you are going to be removing your child from school and getting them a job in a sweat shop ASAP correct?

Public funded schools (at least on the elementary level) predates the 1900s. The 16th Amendment (authorizing the federal income tax) was not ratified until 1913.

Your argument sounds compelling. It is factually flawed though.

The Laffer curve - at least in its theoretical construct is sound. We can have another discussion about where were are on the curve (as the only points actually defined on the curve are a 0% and 100%) and I agree that has not been well studied

[cockerpunk]

Public funded schools (at least on the elementary level) predates the 1900s. The 16th Amendment (authorizing the federal income tax) was not ratified until 1913.

Your argument sounds compelling. It is factually flawed though.

The Laffer curve - at least in its theoretical construct is sound. We can have another discussion about where were are on the curve (as the only points actually defined on the curve are a 0% and 100%) and I agree that has not been well studied

my quip about schools was not that schools were only made after taxes (that is false), its the gilded age phenomena where families did take there children out of schools, and into the workplace, because they were too poor to feed themselves. because that was the standard of living was across the country.

the problem is that the curve has no real world data to support it. at any point.

i mean we have the data on tax rates, GDP, effective tax rates, income distribution etc etc etc, take a look and see how this conservative dogma melts away. corporate profits just hit another high, financial sector profits are nearing another record. the money is out there, and the middle class is who is producing that wealth, but we are seeing none of it. caterpiller is making record profits, and cutting there workers wages, thats not america. you work hard, your company does well, you should do better. but the middle class is actually worse off then it was 25 years ago. we have lost ground, lost standard of living. how can we be losing ground with the GDP of the country has doubled? where is that money going?

supply side economics doesn't work. our economy isn't failing because of a lack of capital. its failing because of a lack of demand. the real job creators are a middle class that can purchase and buy things.

[Lohman446]

my quip about schools was not that schools were only made after taxes (that is false), its the gilded age phenomena where families did take there children out of schools, and into the workplace, because they were too poor to feed themselves. because that was the standard of living was across the country.

the problem is that the curve has no real world data to support it. at any point.

i mean we have the data on tax rates, GDP, effective tax rates, income distribution etc etc etc, take a look and see how this conservative dogma melts away. corporate profits just hit another high, financial sector profits are nearing another record. the money is out there, and the middle class is who is producing that wealth, but we are seeing none of it. caterpiller is making record profits, and cutting there workers wages, thats not america. you work hard, your company does well, you should do better. but the middle class is actually worse off then it was 25 years ago. we have lost ground, lost standard of living.

supply side economics doesn't work. our economy isn't failing because of a lack of capital. its failing because of a lack of demand. the real job creators are a middle class that can purchase and buy things.

Taxing the rich does not fix this. There is a major difference between a middle class family buying a television that is built by their neighbor and one built in a country with virtually no worker protections in place. As long as we artificially inflate the standard of living by letting consumers purchase parts produced by cheap labor that is not part of our economy we are creating a problem.

Personally I feel our government has a duty to tarrif those goods that are imported from countries that do not provide their workers a standard of living reasonably comparable to ours. This would allow many of the jobs lost to overseas competition to come back - as shipping still costs money. This increase in jobs would offset the loss in purchasing power caused by the increase in price of consumer goods.

When you tax the rich too far they either find ways around it through accounting, evade it entirely, or simply move to countries that treat them better. The rich have the ability to create themselves a standard of living in other countries that the workes do not.

Can the rich pay more? Possibly. I do not know where the tipping point is (nor do I expect you do). However we have to address one of the major other problems: our economy is no longer supporting itself - that is when we purchase something we are not buying something built by our neighbor with the same standard of living as us. Our government has a duty to protect our workers and they can through tarriffs in this case.


Note: I am highly suspicious of your assertion that the standard of living has fallen in the last 25 years. Unless we really were that poor when I was young

[wetwrks]

patraeus...he is being used as a destraction by the White House to draw attention away from the murder of us citizens.

AND...now things have blown over and nothing is done about the fact that Obama claimed over and over that this was just a demonstration that got out of hand when all the evidence shows that Obama knew all along that this was a planned attack.

[cockerpunk]

AND...now things have blown over and nothing is done about the fact that Obama claimed over and over that this was just a demonstration that got out of hand when all the evidence shows that Obama knew all along that this was a planned attack.

and he called it that within 24 hours

Petraeus did testify, and as i told you all, nothing crazy was revealed. barely even made the news because we already knew everything he talked about.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/16/politics/benghazi-hearings/index.html

take off the tin foil hats folks. the rage media machine lies.

[Lohman446]

I'm not sure exactly what anyone expects out of this.

Are we pretty certain that Obam and the administration lied? Yep

Are we pretty sure they continued to lie about what they knew and when? Yep

I'm just not sure what the next step in the conversation is. Politicians routinely lie and cover up the truth. The entire purpose of the CIA involves allowing our elected leaders to make decisions based on information that may not be readily available to the public at the time.

I don't like Obama or his politics. I think his handling of this situation was extremely poor. However we do not remove politicians because they lie. I just don't know what the intent of proving Obama lied is.

[Tunaman]

and he called it that within 24 hours

Petraeus did testify, and as i told you all, nothing crazy was revealed. barely even made the news because we already knew everything he talked about.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/16/politics/benghazi-hearings/index.html

take off the tin foil hats folks. the rage media machine lies.

Do you think that Obama will go the entire 8 years without a budget? I do. Raising the tax rates will do nothing but give the Democrats more money to piss away that we dont have. Biggest bunch of phonies I have ever seen.

[dahoeb]

and he called it that within 24 hours

Petraeus did testify, and as i told you all, nothing crazy was revealed. barely even made the news because we already knew everything he talked about.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/16/politics/benghazi-hearings/index.html

take off the tin foil hats folks. the rage media machine lies.

I saw the President's press conference. I saw the little snippets of UN Ambassador Rice making the rounds on the talk shows. They repeatedly said it was an act of violence that was driven by a youtube video.

Why would they call it a terrorist attack on day 1, and for the next 2 weeks tell the public that it was just an innocent event inspired by a youtube vid?

[cockerpunk]

I saw the President's press conference. I saw the little snippets of UN Ambassador Rice making the rounds on the talk shows. They repeatedly said it was an act of violence that was driven by a youtube video.

Why would they call it a terrorist attack on day 1, and for the next 2 weeks tell the public that it was just an innocent event inspired by a youtube vid?

they also called it a terrorist attack.

they called it a terrorist attack all those two weeks too.

do you guys not get this? even the general who you all thought was part of the cover-up said it in so many words. there are two acts of violence in this attack, a violent and chaotic riot, and a planned deliberate attack. its not one or the other, its actually both.

dont take my word for it, go read what the dear general said.

[dahoeb]

they also called it a terrorist attack.

they called it a terrorist attack all those two weeks too. So it was a terrorist attack AND a spontaneous attack spawning from a non-existant protest that occurred because of a video on youtube.

do you guys not get this? even the general who you all thought was part of the cover-up said it in so many words. there are two acts of violence in this attack, a violent and chaotic riot, and a planned deliberate attack. its not one or the other, its actually both.

dont take my word for it, go read what the dear general said.Uhhh...why would I?....Petraeus wasn't making the rounds on all the TV networks speaking out about this, the POTUS and Rice were.

Susan Rice blaming the video

Susan Rice says that a protest got out of hand within the first 2 minutes, skip to the 5 minute mark for the money shot.

She also says 2 of the 4 Americans that were killed were providing security, as their function. This also proved false, they were former Navy Seals who were assigned in a completely separate building, blocks away, who made their way there to assist.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kklWr1CnAXs]FOX News (GASP!) Time line[/URL]

skip to the 5:03 mark, watch until 5:50.
Start again at 6:10. Watch 7:41 , they dodge "T" word again.
7:50 Obama blames it on the Mohammed video on Letterman, but he does go on to say that "extremists and some terrorists used it as an excuse to participate and hijack" (paraphrased).

Susan Rice "no protests" But wait, there was no protests, according to politico reporting for ABC and Susan Rice. Or according to the final entries in Ambassador Steven's journal. Or according to your Huffpo.

Your one CNN link about Petraeus' testimony doesn't come close to erasing all the BS Obama's staff has been feeding the public regarding this.

Best case scenario, the administration is incompetent. They spun up some garbage without all the facts and let the message go out to the 300+ million Americans.

Worst case scenario, they deliberately tried downplay and throw smoke screens over the event to avoid any election backlash.