Third Way Not So Bad

Email Print posted by Cenk 02/16/2008 10:05:18 PM EST

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
Ckeck out this article by one of Jill's bosses at Third Way. See, that's funny, totally accurate and actually Democratic.

Yes, I read the other article you guys put up about Third Way. And yes, they have some clear downsides. But on the upside, it's nice to have the corporations on our side for a change. We just have to keep an eye out on them to make sure they're not up to no good.

< Palestinians TV Bunny Rabbit for Kids Threatens to 'Eat the Jews' | Perfect VP for Obama? >
 Display:
Third Way Not So Bad | 50 comments (50 topical, 0 hidden)
Interesting point of view. (none / 0)

It's the open-eyed Democrats vs. the deep-in-denial Republicans. I wish he'd offered cures for the Republicans' mental disorder and for the Democrats' crippling cowardice.

And then there's that pesky post by Anne Kim in the Middle Class section entitled "Stimulating Prosperity Not Pessimism".   ;She decries progressives' assumed joy at Bush's economic mess and proposing "permanent" middle class tax cuts.  What in the hell does "permanent" mean?  Taxes are supposed to go up and down.  And she's worried that we migh be happy that Bush is trying to flush our economy down the drain?  I'm fuckin' furious!  Fear is not necessarily a bad thing.  Sometimes it keeps you from getting bitten by snakes or from falling into bottomless pits -- or from wasting huge amounts of money with the phoney Bush/P elosi/Reid "stimulus" package.

And don't forget that wierd post by Matt Bennett in the National Security section asking us to have pity on the telecoms but ignoring the fact that that the telecoms were asked to spy on Americans before 9-11 -- and to do it without a warrant.

And then there's Rachel Laser, naively worried that if Democrats didn't support the nice-sounding "Reducing the Need for Abortions Initiative" they would sound like they "are just about free love, not morality".  But as with every failed attempt to work with Republicans this one had a devastating impact, too: it ended up increasing funding for the $1.5 billion-wasting abstinence-only "education" program.  And that "initiative" still won't get politicians out of a person's private medical decisions.

I have no idea why Third Way calls themselves "progressive".&nb sp; Sure, they offer some ideas that progressives do find attractive.  But there's a lot of really dumb stuff mixed in with it.

by Juarez Traveller on 02/17/2008 12:11:59 AM EST

Lame, yes (none / 0)
But maybe with our Jilly on the staff she can make some progressive inroads into the DLC wing of the Democratic Party.

by jarett on 02/17/2008 04:48:53 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I wish I'd heard Jill more on TYT (none / 0)

I think I remember hearing her a few times early last year when I first heard The Young Turks on AirAmerica.  But TYT was on pretty early for the Mountain time zone and I didn't get to hear her much (I am so glad that I finally came to the TYT web site and subscribed).

I know a lot of folks here have a lot of respect for Jill, so I hope you're right that she can change the direction of Third Way -- or maybe give them direction.  Right now, I think they're an incoherent mess,  often anti-progressive , and sometimes barely liberal.

by Juarez Traveller on 02/17/2008 05:45:35 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I don't know (none / 0)
the last time she was on the show (and part of Third Way) she seemed to be, as Cenk hilariously put it, be infected with The Virus(!).  Can anyone remember the date of that show so that Juarez can dowload it?

Warning if you do download it: She also didn't let Cenk get a word in to the point where some of us found it hard to listen to (myself included, it was painful at times to me), but admittedly Cenk normally dominates the conversation so maybe she was just getting some payback. ;)

But seriously, based on that one show, I'd have to say that *Jill* is being transformed, not Third Way...but in fairness I'm only basing that on a limited amount of information.

by ihavenobias on 02/17/2008 11:20:48 AM EST

[ Parent ]
catch her a break (none / 0)
It was very obvious that Jill was still in her PR, Third-Way outfit when she came on the show.  Also, anyone knows when you get a new job, especially if it's political in nature, it's takes over you at first.  Overtime I think Jill will realize the bullshit Third Way is pitching, however, maybe she won't.  And maybe she'll bring great changes with Third Way.....

Either way I think it's great experience for her and at least she didn't end up taking that job at Fox. 

by rev24 on 02/17/2008 01:28:03 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I'd love to see that show. (none / 0)

by Juarez Traveller on 02/17/2008 02:34:08 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Ok - Day After Xmas (none / 0)
I wasn't going to come forth, but why hold back.  Her last, infamous Third Way appearance was on 12/26/07.  It was a great show even if I was annoyed with a number of her views.  Check it out if you haven't - even Ben makes an appearance and you can watch both of them google over McCain and Hillary.  It was pretty disappointing if you ask me, but what a X-mas gift.  I also remember the date because I wrote in an entry the day after about my annoyances with the the two.....

by rev24 on 02/17/2008 03:23:04 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Thanks, rev24! :) (none / 0)

by Juarez Traveller on 02/17/2008 03:26:52 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Rats. (none / 0)

The video archive doesn't go back that far.

by Juarez Traveller on 02/18/2008 03:39:46 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Ahhh, I remember that show (none / 0)
Cenk seemed to be enjoying the Jill takeover, I thought.  But yeah, she did get very LOUD.

by jarett on 02/17/2008 03:31:47 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Third RAIL more like it... (none / 0)

Sorry, Cenk, but I think that's some leftover Conservative in you talking. After all, you still think Gates was a good choice. And, then, there's that whole H.W. man crush thing...

It's going to take more than one article written around a stupid time wasting hearing about - shock! - atheletes trying to better themselves through chemicals and grandstanding Congressfolk getting partisan camera time to convince me that Third Way isn't a propaganda machine for the DLC or that the DLC has a progressive bone in it's "body."

These are the Bush Dogs, the enablers of whatever country wrecking policy Bush wants.

Why WERE there hearings on steroids and why were those stories the toppers of the week? Why is Specter calling for Football probes? Distraction, distraction, distraction.

Long as I'm griping, I have one that all "liberal" talk shows and blogs do (Cenk does it on a regular basis)  which irritates me to no end. Whenever something like, say, a FISA bill is being voted on, all the Democrats names who might vote the wrong way are heralded and us great unwashed masses are requested to contact them and try to talk sense into them.

Well, what about the fucking Republicans? Aren't there any Democrats living in Republican districts who can be encouraged to send their displeasure ahead of time? Why should we just keep hounding the same Dems over and over while the Republicans get only encouraging emails from their supporters? Send them a few dings, too!

I'm truly irritated to find that the Democrats haven't even put up a challenger to the Republican incumbent in my district. How many others of you know if you're being offered no choice in your representation? It is pretty damn difficult to get that "veto proof majority" if you don't run candidates.

</bitching>

by MedfordTim on 02/17/2008 11:49:37 AM EST

Well, if we stick to the Senate (none / 0)
I have Dick Burbin and Obama, so there's no republican to hound (thankfully).

But yes, if I had a republican Senator I'd be on him too.

PS---I encourage everyone to call, email or write (fax is a great way to get through actually) your congressmen when they do something RIGHT.  Trust me, positive reinforcement almost always works better anyway and it's rarely done in politics.  If you call to thank someone for their behavior the message is more likely to get through.

by ihavenobias on 02/17/2008 12:06:06 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You think they would listen? (none / 0)
"Why should we just keep hounding the same Dems over and over while the Republicans get only encouraging emails from their supporters?"

Because if I sent John Cornyn and Kay Bailey Hutchinson an email asking them to vote against the Protect America Act, so that al Qaeda can communicate without fear of warrantless wiretaps, they would not be receptive to this line of reasoning. Nor would they be concerned about protecting the civil liberties and constitutional rights of 500 of the world's most dangerous terrorists, who are housed at Gitmo, and who are non-citizens that never set foot on U.S. soil.

Similarly, If I lived in Massachussetts, and I sent Ted Kennedy an email asking him to sponsor another tax cut, I'm afraid my seed would find no purchase.

by KenTX on 02/17/2008 12:07:39 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I asked you about this earlier (none / 0)
And got no response.  

Why is it important to the security of this great nation to have no accountability and no oversight in the process of wiretapping?

Why is warrantless wiretapping important to the security of this great nation when FISA enables those who are performing surveillance to obtain warrants EVEN AFTER the surveillance has occurred?

by jarett on 02/17/2008 03:37:05 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I'm sorry Jarett. (none / 0)
I never ignore your posts. However, sometimes I inadvertently overlook your posts.

Why listen to al Qaeda without a warrant? Senators on the Senate Intelligence Committee have access to information on the process that is not available to you and me. They know what kind of signals intelligence is being acquired, and how it is being utilized. They know how cumbersome it is to seek a warrant through the FISA court. They know that FISA laws were written in the 1970s, before the advent of computers and satellites and global terrorists.

Look at the Democrats who support the Protect America Act. Notice how many are on the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), Evan Bayh (D-IN), Daniel Inouye (D-HI), Tim Johnson (D-SD), Herb Kohl (D-WI), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Mark Pryor (D-AR), Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Ken Salazar (D-CO), Tom Carper (D-DE), Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), Jim Webb (D-VA), Ben Nelson (D-NE), Bill Nelson (D-FL), Kent Conrad (D-ND), and Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)

Evidently, there is widespread support throughout the Democrat Party for intercepting al Qaeda communications with Americans. Maybe they were convinced by Alberto Gonzales’ presentation of the Administration’s position to Congress:

 “This Nation has a long tradition of wartime enemy surveillance. And for as long as electronic communications have existed, the United States has intercepted those communications during wartime, and done so, not surprisingly, without judicial warrants. In the Civil War, for example, telegraph wiretapping was common and provided important intelligence for both sides. In World War I, President Wilson authorized the military to intercept all telegraph, telephone, and cable communications into and out of the United States; he inferred the authority to do so from the Constitution and from a general congressional authorization to use military force that did not mention anything about such surveillance. See Exec. Order No. 2604 (Apr. 28, 1917). So too in World War II; the day after the attack on Pearl Harbor, President Roosevelt authorized the interception of all communications traffic into and out of the United States. The terrorist surveillance program, of course, is far more focused, since it involves the interception only of international communications that are linked to al Qaeda.”

Your Friend,
Ken

by KenTX on 02/17/2008 04:41:49 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Spining Wheel Goes Around. (none / 0)

McCullagh's Law of Politics:

As the certainty that legislation violates the U.S. Constitution increases, so does the probability of predictions that severe harm or death will come to Americans if the proposal is not swiftly enacted.

House Democrats actually had voted to extend the  wiretapping law for three weeks--Bush and the Republicans rejected that compromiseThe only thing at issue is immunity for telcoms. Period.

In any case warrantless spying is occurring as we speak, any representation to the contrary is a lie. This was done in a program the Bush administration authorized following the Sept. 11 attacks and expanded in the "Protect America Act".

"What makes this situation rather bizarre is that retroactive immunitynfor alleged illegal activities by AT&T and other telecommunications companies years ago is unrelated to extending the Protect America Act (which deals with future surveillance authorization). That makes this situation a little like Bush threatening to veto, say, a defense spending bill if it doesn't include authorization for an invasion of Iran.(1)"

Monitoring programs authorized under the original "Protect America Act" will continue until Aug 8 2008 when the authorizations expire.

The president asserts that the expiration of the Protect America Act will pose a danger to our country. The former national security council advisor on terrorism says that's not true. Former assistant attorney general says that's not true. Numerous others, and the chairman, has asserted that's not true. Why is that not true? Because FISA will remain in effect. The authority given under the Protect America Act remains in effect. And if there are new targets, the FISA court has full authority to give every authority to the administration to act. Steny Hoyer

by MRFred on 02/17/2008 05:16:19 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Sorry, Tex. That's just not good enough. (none / 0)
Why listen to al Qaeda without a warrant? Senators on the Senate Intelligence Committee have access to information on the process that is not available to you and me. They know what kind of signals intelligence is being acquired, and how it is being utilized. They know how cumbersome it is to seek a warrant through the FISA court. They know that FISA laws were written in the 1970s, before the advent of computers and satellites and global terrorists.

It is not at all cumbersome.  The paperwork can be submitted, the surveillance conducted, and the warrant obtained -- in that order.  It is not necessary to wait.

If you can show me a changelog of FISA in this bill that simply updates it to reflect the fast-paced, high technology nature of surveillance these days, I will be satisfied that both Republicans and Democrats in the Senate have made the right decision.  I have not found any such summary.  What I have found is Mitch McConnell stating that the PAA did not assist in the collection of data that put criminals away, despite his trying to lie in favor of the PAA in the past.  I have found that the Bush administration appears not to be interested in legitimate, bipartisan updates to FISA that it did not come up with.    And I have found responsible, technology-aware changes to FISA to be rejected by the Bush administration.

FISA was originally founded to prevent abuses of our intelligence services such as the ones perpetrated by Nixon, Ken.  Why should it be necessary to perform an end-run around it now when technological updates have been proposed on a bipartisan basis and shot down every time?

by jarett on 02/18/2008 12:30:18 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Jarett, (none / 0)
Your argument isn't with me, it's with the Democrat members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, including the Chairman, Jay Rockefeller. Look how many of the Democrat committee members are pushing for warrantless wiretaps, gutting FISA, and telecom immunity.

You're working hard to construct a logical argument to maintain archaic FISA rules involving land lines, trans-oceanic cables, cathode tubes, solid state circuitry in an age of satellite phones, supercomputers, disposible cell phones.
jarett world
The problem is that Democrats in the know don't agree with you. They understand the problems, and they understand the dangers, but they can't share the details with you in the interest of national security.

by KenTX on 02/18/2008 03:15:05 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Here is what both I and the aforementioned Dems (none / 0)
know:

http://unamericanrevolution .com/activism/keith-olberma nn-buries-the-president-wit h-truth/

I won't ask you to watch the whole thing.  Just skip forward to the 4:00 mark.

The Democrats in question know this is happening, and yet Claire McCaskill wants us to immunize the telecom companies for doing something they KNEW was against the law.  In the military, we court-martial soldiers for knowingly obeying unlawful orders.  There is no reason to treat these companies any differently.  And there is STILL no justification for removing oversight and accountability from the surveillance process.  

Of course our intelligence services need flexibility and speed to be able to keep up with the dynamic nature of modern communications.  The internet is littered with stateless switches that keep no records of the packets that pass through them, much less the actual contents thereof.  STILL, however, there is no conceivable engineering reality that could require the removal of warrants from the process at some point.  I am a computer scientist (currently taking a network management course, in fact) and I certainly can't think of one.  Can you?  Can twba?  Can MrFred?

Those of us who value transparency, accountability, and competence in our government want only for records to be kept on surveillance activities by some body that is outside the executive purview of the surveillance community.  This is not an unreasonable request.  It is not a technologically infeasible request.  It is, in fact, something that has been going on for years while the internet has sprung up around us and the mobile phone network has grown organically from cities out to the Great Plains.

by jarett on 02/18/2008 04:55:19 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Excellent point (none / 0)
on the court martials!

by ihavenobias on 02/18/2008 12:01:51 PM EST

[ Parent ]
This part makes me scream... (none / 0)
"...but they can't share the details with you in the interest of national security."

Not attacking Ken, he is only repeating the official line.

The official line of SHIT, that is.

I am sick to death of these cocksuckers in D.C. - BOTH parties - naking everything "secret" and "national security" just to avoid oversight. We have seen literally millions of examples of documents eventually released which show that there was NO compelling reason vis a vis "national security" for them to have ever been "classified" in the first place.

What we don't know can't hurt them.

by MedfordTim on 02/18/2008 10:10:42 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Is KenTX ignorant, stupid, or a liar? (none / 0)

KenTX says that a vote against the so-called "Protect America Act" would allow al Qaeda to "communicate without fear of warrantless wiretaps".

This is, of course, total bullshit.  The President could get a warrant for a wiretap within minutes if he could justify it.  And it's a sure bet that the FISA court will approve valid warrants.  They are, after all, loyal Americans, too.

Now, I don't know if KenTX is aware of these facts.  If he isn't, then he's merely ignorant.  If he is but believes that the President still wouldn't be able to listen to terrorists' conversations, then he's stupid.  But if he knows that what he said isn't true, then he's an absolute liar.

But I guess it really doesn't matter whether he's ignorant, stupid, or a liar, does it?  He is certainly one of them.  Thus, his comments are worthless, and a case can be made that he should be kept in a secure environment so that he doesn't hurt himself of others.

(Here, Kenny.  I'll give you this cookie if you'll get into the ambulance with the nice man in the white coat.  You'd like to ride in an ambulance, wouldn't you?  They'll turn on the lights and the siren and go real fast, and it will be fun!)

by Juarez Traveller on 02/17/2008 03:55:54 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I wrote to both of my Senators (none / 0)

Bingaman (D) and Domenici (R).  Bingaman has voted against FISA right down the line.  I love him for that, even though he is against impeachment.

Domenici, of course, is literally demented (although I've forgotten the name of his medical condition) and due to retire.  His  ;staffer replied "thanks-for-your-conce rn-I'll-consider-your-comme nts", and then Domenici voted to destroy the rule of law.

Republicans don't listen to their constituents.  They listen to their contributors.

by Juarez Traveller on 02/17/2008 02:43:05 PM EST

[ Parent ]
To be fair (none / 0)
You wrote "Republicans don't listen to their constituents.  They listen to their contributors."

To be fair, that increasingly applies to Democrats as well (hello DLC). 

The answer of course is publicly funded elections.  Because that's the only way to make them listen to their contributors *and* their constituents.  Any fool that would argue against that is either incredibly corrupt, stupid or ignorant (possibly even 2 out of 3).

by ihavenobias on 02/17/2008 03:20:25 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Wow! What an interesting idea! (none / 0)

Hmm.  "Publicly financed campaigns".  That sure sounds like it would get at least some of the corruption out of politics.  Haven't I heard someone talking about that?  I wonder if there are any candidates who would consider it.

Oh! Of course.

BARACK OBAMA!

The revolution starts with publicly financed campaigns.

by Juarez Traveller on 02/17/2008 03:39:46 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Trust me I know (none / 0)
that's a big reason why I'm for Obama over Hillary. I also got pissed at Michael S. the other day when he was co-hosting.  He said public financing, while important, was a "pet project" or something like that.

He said it's not something we'll feel the effects of day to day like healthcare or Iraq.

I was incredulous that he would say something so nonsensical, especially since he's a smart guy.  The fact is that corrupt/pro-industry/lobbyi st sponsored politicians effect EVERYTHING ELSE, directly or indirectly, including Iraq and especially healthcare.

Far too many people seem to forget this for some reason and think "yeah, it'd be nice to have public financing but it's the end all, be all".  And of course it's true it's not a panacea, but it is by the far the one thing that can dramatically improve the quality of the representatives from *both* parties over a relatively short perdiod of time.

And that ultimately means a better democracy that functions for all of us.

by ihavenobias on 02/17/2008 04:53:36 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I know that you know :) (none / 0)

I was kind of surprised at that "pet project" remark, too.  But I think he was distinguishing between legislation that has effects that would be immediately visible to Joe American when he goes to get his mail or to pay his bills versus something more subtle.

There is no doubt that public financing of campaigns would cause a drastic realignment of political relationships.  But Joe American can hold a refund check in his hand.

One thing though: if we do get public financing of campaigns, we're going to have to drastically improve the knowledge and ability to reason of our citizens.  We've been able to let our educational system lag behind other countries with more politically involved citizens because we've been letting corporations make our political decisions, and they benefit if we know only enough to be productive workers.

"New math" ain't gonna cut it anymore.  We're going to have to teach why, not merely how, and that is how the revolution will continue.

--------------------------- -----------------
The revolution begins with public financing of campaigns.

by Juarez Traveller on 02/17/2008 08:05:42 PM EST

[ Parent ]
wasting your time (none / 0)
"There is no doubt that public financing of campaigns would cause a drastic realignment of political relationships."

Thank you for sharing Thommm Hatrmannn’s opinion on the subject. The Supreme Court also has an opinion on the subject, and they expressed it in 1976 ruling on Buckley v. Valeo.

Back in 1976, the Court was very liberal by today’s standards, but even way back in the dark ages, they had enough sense to protect the right of an individual or organization to express free speech in the form of purchased advertising time.

“The limitations on campaign expenditures, on independent expenditures by individuals and groups, and on expenditures by a candidate from his personal funds were found to be constitutionally infirm in that they placed severe restrictions on protected expression and association, yet lacked any compelling countervailing government interest necessary to sustain them.”

I’m pleased to see liberals wasting time, effort, money in tilting at windmills and trying to overturn the Constitution. They will never succeed. The Court will forever protect my right to send money to a bunch of guys who served in a Swiftboat unit with John Kerry, and who witnessed him behaving in a manner unbecoming an officer.

Swiftboat Veterans For Truth represent the future of politics. Through the 527s, I will always be able to contribute unlimited money to explain the truth about Democrat candidate’s political positions, and even character flaws.

Furthermore, it looks like corporations will always be allowed to support organizations that create positive messages for GOP candidates. So individuals and corporations and organizations will always be able to privately finance positive messages about Republicans and negative messages about Democrats.

Why is it fair that a rich man can purchase a louder megaphone than a poor man? Because a rich man pays many thousand times the taxes that a poor man does, yet both men are entitled to a single vote when they go to the polls.   

Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. Start liking it.

by KenTX on 02/17/2008 09:08:00 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I know that I shouldn't be at this point... (none / 0)
...but I am continually amazed at the extent of your inability to grasp any topic at all.

Public financing of campaigns is an entirely different issue than what the Supreme Court addressed and stops no one from speaking or from spending their money anyway that they want to.  It has to do with from whom a candidate or a party can accept contributions: no one at all, if she or he wants public funds.  And those funds would match anything that someone using private funds would try to spend.

And that would be "like shooting fish in a barrel":

"My opponent has taken contributions from [freedom-hating-source] who, as everyone knows, wants to [description-of-a-painful-s ex-act-but-without-Vaseline ] you. But I owe [freedom-hating-source] nothing!"

But if you aren't a candidate you can buy all the newspaper ad space or infomercial time you want with money from any source whatsoever.  And I don't have much of a problem with that (although the Supreme Court's finding that money is speech obviously is a logical fallacy).  Your candidate, however, will be prohibited from coordinating with you, which means that running such independent ads would be a very foolish thing to do unless you want to risk causing your candidate to lose.

By the way: Congress has passed many laws abridging the freedom of speech in direct contradiction to the First Amendment but with, apparently, a compelling state interest (an argument that was not made in Buckley v. Valeo, thank goodness).  But, as I said, that has nothing to do with public financing of campaigns.  YOU will still be able to buy airtime supporting your favorite totalitarian dictator.

Jeezus Ken do some goddamned research on the right topic f'cryinoutloud!  This is getting ridiculous.

by Juarez Traveller on 02/17/2008 11:21:53 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Not talkin' about FREE speech. (none / 0)

Talkin' about PAID ADVERTISING. Advertising has to hold itself to higher standards of truthiness to avoid lawsuits.

I can't believe you would give money to the swift liars. Do you belong to the 700 Club, too?

by MedfordTim on 02/17/2008 11:25:42 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Take charge! Tim for Senate! (none / 0)
DOOOOO IIIIIIIIIT.

by jarett on 02/17/2008 03:34:35 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You laugh! (none / 0)

I looked into putting my name on the ballot just to shame the Dems into running someone who ISN'T an anxiety disorder ridden, clinically depressed long haired fat old guy, but the rules say I  would have had to change parties by last September. Don't ask; dunno why.

It would tickle my Elmo to show up at a political rally in my ratty old green bathrobe...

by MedfordTim on 02/17/2008 11:33:13 PM EST

[ Parent ]
What-the...! (none / 0)

"Change parties"?

No.

It can't be.

You're not --

Green are you?!?!

(I'd love to have a viable Green Party in this country -- but without the nutcases they've got now, and there are more than a few.  But I'll vote for the first candidate of any party who shows up at a rally in a "ratty old green bathrobe", whether he's nuts or not.)

by Juarez Traveller on 02/17/2008 11:53:16 PM EST

[ Parent ]
No (none / 0)

I was registered as an Independent, I switched to Dem so I can vote in our primary.

by MedfordTim on 02/18/2008 10:02:08 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Just wondering (none / 0)
"Taxes are supposed to go up and down."

When in your life have you ever advocated a tax cut?

by KenTX on 02/17/2008 12:10:47 PM EST

Every time there's a recession. (none / 0)

It's true.  Tax cuts -- given to the right people -- can help stimulate an economy, although there are faster and more certain ways to do it.  Kennedy's tax cuts, for instance, were absolutely necessary.  And then, when things get better you raise taxes again so that you can pay back the debt you incurred during the recession and save up a little for the next downturn.

Bush's tax cuts, however, we re totally insane .  They went mostly to the absolutely wrong people -- the already filthy rich.  While he didn't invent the "jobless recovery", he sure did perfect it.

And you really are an idiot.

by Juarez Traveller on 02/17/2008 02:53:15 PM EST

[ Parent ]
All the time! (none / 0)

I am a firm believer is dismantling sales tax, hotel taxes, cigarette and alcohol taxes, all those indecipherable charges on the phone bill, and business "personal property tax" (for those who don't know, at least in OR, every piece of equipment, furniture, etc, is taxed every year. No matter how old the stuff is, there is never a cut off date. you can literally end up paying many times more in taxes than on purchase price). To me, tacing any of the above items is a form of double taxation. Tax the income, leave the outgo alone.

I also have some fairly radical ideas on auto insurance which would cover every single driver on the road that didn't originate with me, but I've never found a flaw in the concept. Ask me if you woant to know how.

by MedfordTim on 02/17/2008 11:42:43 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I've been telling my liberal friends for years... (none / 0)

...that we need to get rid of all taxes, including the corporate income tax, and tax only personal income, but they never get it.

And I'd love to hear your idea about auto insurance.  Do it in a new blog article!

"Government and Personal Finance for Progressives"

(Yeah, you're right.  Nobody reads articles wi th that kind of title.)

by Juarez Traveller on 02/18/2008 12:01:22 AM EST

[ Parent ]
dumbest idea of the day (none / 0)
"I've been telling my liberal friends for years that we need to get rid of all taxes, including the corporate income tax, and tax only personal income, but they never get it."

As I've stated before, Bill Gates was able to amass a fortune of $65 billion, while paying relatively little in the way of taxes. That’s because we tax income in America rather than wealth.

Rich people don't earn paychecks like the rest of us. Bill Gates does not pay taxes on his wealth until he sells some of his Microsoft stock to buy a toy.

If you want to prevent families like the Kennedys from developing inter-generational kingdoms, tax the hell out of their estates when they die.

As the laws are currently written, a guy making six figures gets killed by income taxes. By contrast, rich guys (above six figures) have numerous options for sheltering wealth.

JT, I know you'll never understand this subject, and I know you'll never have to worry about the consequences, but you'll just have to take my word for it. Income taxes are a great scheme for the Super Rich. That's why they so often support Democrat candidates.

by KenTX on 02/18/2008 12:32:26 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Ken, Ken, Ken... (none / 0)

Why can't you just once follow a simple idea.

We tax transactions.  Who gives a damn if someone gets a "paycheck" or if a rental or dividen d or interest or [insert payer source here] payment is automatically deposited in a bank account or if something of value is inherited?  It's all income.

Your proposal that we tax "wealth" defines a transaction that is nothing more than another form of income: inheritance.  Why you assume that it's not and that I wouldn't want to tax it demonstrates another reason for why our exchanges are so mind-numbingly  ;boring to me: you simply don't understand simple concepts and you make invalid assumptions without examining them.

I want to eliminate all other taxes and tax only income transactions -- and there are many differen t kinds including inheritance.

(Please note that I haven't talked about rates, so don't go making the stupid but popular claim that we can't generate enough income to pay for highways and defense or anything else.)

Of course, I realize that following a chain of thought to its logical conclusion is far beyond your capabilities, so you're forgiven for missing this elementary point.

C'mon, Ken.  Use your damned brain.  I'm sick of having to explain the simple stuff to you.

by Juarez Traveller on 02/18/2008 03:18:57 AM EST

[ Parent ]
blogging panhandler (none / 0)
I suggest you read up on laws pertaining to capital gains taxation, so you can sound more educated on the subject.

The fact that you're so passionate about taxing the income of America's producers, achievers, and high earners is a sure sign that you're not a producer, achiever, or high earner.

I encourage you to try earning your own living, and I will thank you to kindly get your hands out of my pocket.

Henceforth, you will be known as the Forum Bum.

Have a nice day.  

by KenTX on 02/18/2008 03:43:49 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Okay. (none / 0)
You think I'm a bum and I'm convinced that you're an idiot.  Other than that -- oh, yeah, you mentioned capital gains taxes for some unfathomable reason that you failed to connect to anything -- I don't see anything which requires a reply.  But just for the hell of it:

Don't you wish that you actually knew something about me besides that I might live somewhere in southern New Mexico?  You're going to have to use much better bait than that transparent  crap.

I'll be sure to let you know when your opinion of me matters.  Until then you can go on believing absolutely anything you want about me because I really don't care what you think of me.  I'm in this forum for the battle of ideas, and on that battlefield you are completely unarmed.  You lack the abilities of comprehension and reason, and you are further crippled by prejudice and an ideology that doesn't permit the exploration of new ideas.

Oh, and about capital gains taxes:  Even you should know that you failed to make any point whatsoever with your statement.  All you accomplished was to waste more bandwidth with more of your brainlessness.

You're shooting blanks, Ken.

by Juarez Traveller on 02/18/2008 04:49:38 AM EST

[ Parent ]
say WHAT?? (none / 0)

How DARE you give my title away!

There can be only ONE Forum Bum!

I've been the Forum Bum for three years, and I didn't notice any ballots going out to vote for a new one! Who the hell does Ken think he is appropriating my title and just redistributing it to someone else. He must be a Commie!

I worked for YEARS to become the sort of Bum who could hold an office of utter meaninglessness and I resent terribly being stripped of my rank like Chuck Conners at the beginning of "Branded."

An immediate retraction and title return is called for, as well as apologies on Imus', Limbaugh's, and Scarborough's shows. As we have learned in the last few years, only an apology (it's okay, you don't have to mean it) can fix America's problems. Don't male me let Mitt Romney's dogs out!


Haaaaa- RUMPH!!!

by MedfordTim on 02/18/2008 10:25:43 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I dunno, MT. (none / 0)

I kind of like the title.  It doesn't quite fit yet, and I'd have to retire right now.  But my dad retired early and became a golf bum, and is now occupied -- and happy -- with pissing off my sister by continually trying remodel her house.  I admire that.  I think being a bum could be fun for a change!  It's gotta be better than this 25-hours-a-day-8-days-a-wee k business I've got now.

I think I could live up to the title.  I'll start by taking a nap.

by Juarez Traveller on 02/18/2008 01:18:05 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Wow... (none / 0)
I actually disagree with Juarez on this one (first time for everything, right?), but that's admittedly after a very superficial review of his suggestion.

And MT not wanting sin taxes?  Screw that. Make marijuana (for example) legal to bring it out of the black market, and instead of wasting millions and millions on arrests and courts and so on, tax it and *make* millions and millions from it.  Now THAT makes sense to me, even though some might call it a "sin tax".  As long as the price is still low enough to keep a new black market from emerging.

PS---Conservatives need to explain their contradiction when they like to talk about how the only people who want higher taxes on "achievers and producers" are people who do neither, yet they also talk about "latte liberals" and liberal hollywood. 

Explain that Ken. I assume in order for people to drive volvos into their nice garages (with fine wines and cheeses in the trunk) they must be some sort of "achiever or producer". I also assume those in liberal hollywood have achieved and produced. And I'm sure those like Warren Buffet (remind me, where does he rank on the richest person in the world list?) have surely "achieved and produced".

Not to mention the fact that most of us here support Obama, and you know which type of voters he's appealing to.

by ihavenobias on 02/18/2008 12:22:06 PM EST

[ Parent ]
And don't forget that perrenial Republican enemy (none / 0)

George Soros.  There's another guy who knows how to handle money.  You'd think that Republicans would admire people who make a lot of money and then use it to make the world a better place.

But I guess that strays a little too far from Republicans' policy of out-and-out money-grubbing greed.

As for my tax proposal, it's pretty simple.  All user and sales taxes are regressive by nature and, therefore, unfair in that they are a greater burden the less that you make.  The burden should be shared equally among all citizens, which requires a progressive tax rate.

But if we applied progressive tax rates to all of the different kinds of taxes and revenue-generating mechanisms that we have now, our tax system would become more complicated, more unpredictable, and more expensive than it is now.  I think it would collapse.

I want to simplify things as well as make things fairer. I want to get rid of all sales taxes, user fees, and other revenue sources and have only a progressive net income tax.  I want to tax only net income, but all net income except for assistance and/or investment payments to the poor, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and the like.  I see no reason to exempt any other kind of income.

However, I would provide for income deductions for business expenses, and basic living and investment expenses such as medical, food, housing, education, and child support expenses*.  This is because I'm interested in taxing only real income.  But the whole tax system would be simpler, saving lots on administrative expenses -- and not merely the government's administrative expenses.

And the rate structure would be an exponential curve that matches the exponential income curve.  (That's right, rich guy: we're comin' for ya, because you've benefitted hugely from the infrastructure that we've provided to you.)

The whole purpose is to make it possibly to fairly distribute the burden of paying our country's expenses.  Right now, there's no way to do that without increasing the size and cost of our bueauracracy tremendously -- and unnecessarily.

Note to the left: never apologize for fair taxation.  People have to understand that they are paying a debt that they incurred the day that they were born -- although we'll happily forgive everything and provide for their every need until they grow up.

--------------------------- ---------------

* Here's were I get crazy: Ideally, all of those things should be provided as part of our social contract, and all citizens should share an equal quality of life, also sharing an equal burden for maintaining that quality of life.  This urge that some people have to be "better" than their neighbors is inherently immoral.  Still, I recognize that not all people contribute equally to society.  For instance, I'd take every cent I could from leeches like George W. Bush because they contribute nothing to society.  I'd be more forgiving of Soros.  And the moneychangers and bookkeepers no longer would be the richest people in our society.  It would be the inventors, engineers, scientists, artists, and teac hers who compose the upper crust (with special recognition to extraordinary organizers).

But I'll leave that for future generations to figure out how to provide in future centuries, when they've found that exact center between socialism and capitalism.

by Juarez Traveller on 02/18/2008 02:12:50 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I've been asked a question. (none / 0)
"Explain that Ken."

Try this experiment.

Plug the zip code into this campaign contribution link.

Did you notice how the super-rich support Democrats? It’s always been this way, year in and year out.

Here are the reasons:

  1. The current tax system is rigged in favor of the super-rich.
  2. The super-rich don’t earn paychecks like everyone else.
  3. Income is taxed in America, not wealth.
  4. Most of the super-rich inherited their wealth.
  5. Most of the super-rich have never earned a living.
So if the poor vote Democrats and the super-rich vote for Democrats, who has been voting Republican?

The middle class. The people who work for a living. The people who pay the taxes.

by KenTX on 02/19/2008 12:33:48 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Trivial and ignorant (none / 0)

1) Then why have you voted Republican?

2) Bullshit.  The get paid by check -- electronic or paper -- just like everyone else.

3) You assume that there is no inheritance tax -- or, as you Republicans like to call it, a "death" tax.  Hmm.  Well, I guess that since we know that there is one, we can completely dismiss you claim as being totally false.

4) So?

5) I'd like to see some proof to back up that claim.

Your claim that the super rich -- I'm assuming that you mean the majority of them -- vote for Democrats requires proof.  (Here's a golden oldie: "A lot of people call you the elite.  I call you my base.")

Your statement that the middle class -- I'm assuming you mean the majority of them -- vote for Republicans is a waste of bandwidth.  Gore got about half a million more votes than Bush.  And what was the percentage in 2004? 51-49?   Not exactly a "mandate", is it?

It's clear that you learned your debate style in the lap of a Republican.  Lesson 1: If the truth is inconvenient and lying doesn't work, ignore it.

Oh, and your zip code anecdote is another logical fallacy, but I'll bet you can't spot it.

by Juarez Traveller on 02/19/2008 01:16:36 AM EST

[ Parent ]
what do you know about wealthy people? (none / 0)
We've already established that you're an impoverished bum.

"Your claim that the super rich -- I'm assuming that you mean the majority of them -- vote for Democrats requires proof." 

Chew on this article.

If you need more information, it's easy to retrieve. In fact, you should try it sometime.

by KenTX on 02/19/2008 01:41:51 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Umm (none / 0)

If I may. Ken, you really need to start reading the articles you link to. This is how the article defines "rich".

"A key measure of each district's wealth was the number of single-filer taxpayers earning more than $100,000 a year and married couples filing jointly who earn more than $200,000 annually, he said."

Are these the super rich people we are talking about? I don't think so. Also, I am familiar with those districts in Maryland, Pennsylvania and Florida and I can tell you that with the cost of living there $200,000 a year is not a whole hell of a lot of money.

The real point to that article is that the suburban Republican is becoming an endangered species. Just like I have been telling you all this time. 

by z1p101 on 02/19/2008 10:50:38 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Third Way Not So Bad | 50 comments (50 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: