Janis Lane is the Tea Party leader in Mississippi and she appears to long for the days when women were happy chattel. Lane had made headlines in complaining that women are inherently poorly suited to not just serve as bosses but to vote.
Lane explained that “Probably the biggest turn we ever made was when the women got the right to vote. Our country might have been better off if it was still just men voting.” A former marketing director who now leads the party in Central Mississippi, Lane further observed that “There is nothing worse than a bunch of mean, hateful women. They are diabolical in how than can skewer a person . . . I do not see that in men. The whole time I worked, I’d much rather have a male boss than a female boss. Double-minded, you never can trust them.”
Once again, it is remarkable how some of our radicalized citizens share striking similarity with our enemies like the Taliban who would agree wholeheartedly with Lane on her view of women.
Source: Daily Mail
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/10/18/how-mitt-romney-would-raise-taxes-on-poor-americans/
Bron,
Don’t you get a little sick of this? I mean, here it is 3 or 4 years since we started talking, we’ve got history. You know, this whole time, I’ve treated you pretty decently, I may have lost my temper a few times, but I’ve always been honestly inquisitive about your beliefs, and actually given what you said consideration. I’ve even given you home-brewing advice.
The thing is, I knew without googling that it was a Heritage foundation article. Because the only time you don’t give a source is when it’s from that particular group. I knew I was going to have to do a stupid unmasking, because the only source you could find was one that would get disregarded by most people that read here.
Well, since I knew that much, you should have known that I’m actually going to take the time to read the article and respond based on it’s merits. I just like a little context to quotes before I take their claims at face value.
Like does the author mention what the growth rate was BEFORE the tax cuts? In the case of the Kennedy example he does, because that phenomenal growth in revenue he crows about, he includes three years before the tax cut took effect. Hmmmm That doesn’t really seem all that… honest now does it? So, just on a hunch, I checked to see what the GDP looked like in the 1960s. After adjusting for inflation, at first blush is sure looks like growth for the whole decade was pretty static.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_1960_1970USk_09s1li011mcn__US_Real_GDP_Chart
but hey you know what, the revenue from income did grow. See
http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com
/revenue_chart_1960_1970USk_13s1li001mcn_10f
Now if the GDP didn’t pick up any, if I had to guess I’d say the rest of the increase was because employment picked up. So, hey let’s see when that happened According to the link that I’ll post in another post, The unemployment rate began to fall (a very tiny bit) in 1963. Then dropped from 5.6 to 5 (or 12%) between Jan. and Dec. of 1964 (after it was passed but before it went into effect) The following year (the first year the tax cuts were in effect), it dropped from 4.9 to 4 (or 18%). ’66 (and remember that the tax cuts were a gradual process, not all at once so this is as the tax cuts begin to take effect), the rate of new jobs began to slow once again, so just a 5% decrease in unemployment. 67 sees a similar small change, and 68′ sees another large drop in unemployment. The change in the GDP (which you’ll remember was already growing) between 63-64 is 5.8%; 64-65, 6.4%; 65-66, 6.5%; 66-67 7%, 67-68 4.8%; and 68-69 3%.
For comparison, the revenue grew by 2% between 63 and 64, <1% in '64-65 12% 65-66 and 8% 66-67 8% gain, and 67-68 a loss of 2%.
Now, it sure looks to me like the change in revenue was a direct combination of a increased economy and people returning to work. Both of which started BEFORE the tax cut was in effect, and both of which slowed after the tax cut went into effect.
I don't really have the time or energy to look at the rest of the claims, but if one is so grossly wrong and inaccurate (3 of the 8 years of growth that was supposed to be a result of the tax cut happened BEFORE THE TAX CUT, as did the beginning of the things that at first look seem to have driven the increase in revenue).
So, hey, thanks for making me go to all the work of googling your stupid source in the first place. I mean, telling me to look it up myself, and me doing so sure changed the conversation for the better.
(For future reference, if you're too ashamed to link your source, get a better source).
Elaine:
the only certain thing in life is that we are going to die and that may not even be certain in the next few hundred years.
Since it is your money and you have been investing and reading about investing and buying stocks and bonds and maybe paying someone for help, it is probably a safe bet to say that yes it is. We can take this what if scenario to social security as well, the government could go bankrupt, we could have a war, any number of things could happen to prevent paying social security.
Based on your chart social security is not a good deal when people could invest and have a retirement income of $3300 per year after 40 years of work and retire whenever they wanted after age 58.
20 somethings should refuse to pay into it and take the money and invest in private plans. They will do much better on their own and it will benefit the economy.
Do the math, there are financial calculators all over the net.
http://www.vaughns-1-pagers.com/economics/ssa-monthly-payments.htm
bottom line though is people ought to be offered a choice, a government retirement plan or a private one. You can do both but if you choose private you are on your own if you screw up. And the money for the government plan should be in Al Gores lock box, you cant borrow against it, you cant use it for other spending or deficit spending. Retirement only.
October 18, 2012
Obama, Romney tied nationally
Today PPP is releasing the first results from the daily tracking poll it will be running for the rest of the election, sponsored by Americans United for Change. It will be based on a three day rolling average, with 400 interviews conducted each day.
Based on interviews completed between Monday and Wednesday Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are all tied up at 48%. This represents some improvement for Obama compared to PPP’s last national survey, conducted last weekend for Daily Kos and SEIU, which found Romney up 50/46.
Obama is up 51/45 with women, 62/34 with Hispanics, 87/8 with African Americans, and 57/38 with young voters. Romney is ahead 50/45 with men, 46/41 with independents, 58/38 with whites, and 53/43 with seniors.
Voters narrowly disapprove of Obama’s job performance, with 46% of voters giving him good marks to 50% unhappy with how he’s doing. That’s actually up a little bit from a 44/53 spread over the weekend though. Americans are split right down the middle in their assessments of Romney- 47% see him favorably and 47% unfavorably. That’s down from a 49/45 spread on last weekend’s survey.
With less than three weeks to go until election day, this race couldn’t be much more of a toss up nationally. We’ll keep you apprised of the daily movement.
Bron,
You didn’t answer the question that I asked:
“Can you provide proof that the amount you state the person would receive at retirement is guaranteed?”
I retired at 58–but I don’t get a full pension. My husband and I don’t buy new cars–we buy them used. We don’t go on expensive trips. We live quite modestly. I’d have had a lot more money in retirement if the Wall Street banksters weren’t so greedy and unethical.
Does anyone have thoughts or interpretations of this quote by Gov Romney from earlier today while speaking to the largely conservative, anti-union National Federation of Independent Business?
Romney 10/18/12: “I hope you make it very clear to your employees what you believe is in the best interest of your enterprise and therefore their job and their future in the upcoming elections. And whether you agree with me or you agree with President Obama, or whatever your political view, I hope, I hope you pass those along to your employees.”
Apparently, direct lobbying by employers to employees is now mostly unrestricted thanks to the…wait for it…Citizens United Supreme Court decision.
Bron sez:
“…spending is what causes deficits…”
***************************************
You are exactly half right. Spending contributes to the deficit. Lowered revenue through lower taxes also contributes to the deficit by not paying it down.
I see the Republicans and their front man, Romney, want to give the military enormous amounts of money they do not even want or need. One of the best ways to cut spending is to get the hell out of war zones and stay out. And then cut back on new toys for the Pentagon. Romney wants to crank out new aircraft carriers and submarines as if it is still 1942.
It is no longer in our national interest to stay bogged down in Afghanistan, among other places.
Bron Contributed:
“spending is what causes deficits.”
~+~
That is the very heart of the matter. If an organization or individual cannot increase revenue cutting spending is just about all that can be done. Of course it would be best to do both.
Though I would qualify my statement by saying if people or organizations do not spend money to buy investments or buy inventory to later sell for a gain their overall income will fall or stagnate.
The key might lie in deciding what items to spend money on will offer a return that offsets the cost and can be accomplished in a period of time that is advantageous.
From a gov’t social point of view I take this into an example:
A college student and his wife are having great trouble paying tuition and living expenses and ask for food stamps because they are having to choose between living expenses and dropping out from college. The gov’t provides the couple with food stamps that over six months allow them to finish school and graduate at a cost of $2,400 in benefit payments.
Having graduated an after a year, the college student joins a profession that pays $50,000 and for simplicity sake he is at a marginal tax rate of 28% and pays $14,000 in income tax (simple no deductions involved) Had he not received the degree he earns $30,000 a year at a 20% marginal rate and pays $6,000. So for the gov’t essentially investing in this person $2,400 they have a rate of higher income tax return of $5,600 and this was in the first year.
Now if the 2,400 was spent entirely on waste or inefficient programs it only drains the ability of the gov’t to provide the above investment on individuals and contributes to the debt problem.
SwM,
We keep inching forward despite people like Janis Lane … thank you, Constitution.
Blouise, Obama’s decision not to defend DOMA is looking better and better. Scalia has already signaled what he will do.
spending is what causes deficits.
Why not reduce spending to 2008 or 2007 levels instead of cutting the rise in spending and calling it a spending cut?
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=692
this thread is all over the place … kinda fun
Gyges:
go look at the history.
Gene H:
I guess if you spend the additional revenue instead of putting it toward deficit reduction you would think that.
But strictly speaking, reduced tax rates increase revenues.
On the breaking news OS mentioned:
“The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on Thursday struck down the Defense of Marriage Act, finding the Clinton-era law violates the right to equal protection guaranteed by the Constitution.
DOMA defines marriage as between a man and a woman and says states don’t have to recognize same-sex marriage.
It has the practical effect of sometimes requiring gay couples to pay more federal taxes.
In striking the law down, the Second Circuit sided with a 83-year-old Edith Windsor, who was forced to pay estate taxes after the death of her wife in 2009.
The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to take up DOMA – as well as California’s Proposition 8, which barred same-sex marriage in the state – this term.
http://www.businessinsider.com/second-circuit-strikes-down-doma-2012-10
this is great news … going to make the Supreme’s job interesting
Bron,
Got a source?
That pie smells like cherries.
http://rricketts.ba.ttu.edu/Tax%20Rates%20and%20Revenues.htm
http://www.gallup.com/poll/158069/women-swing-states-gender-specific-priorities.aspx Abortion is at the top of the list.
Elaine:
I laid it all out above for a $30,000 yearly income for 40 years and working from 18 to 58 [retiring 4 years earlier than SS with 4 times the money]. I dont know about you but retiring at 58 sounds pretty good to me and you are young enough to do something else and you can live on $3300 per month and quite comfortably especially if you are married and your wife or husband has the same thing.
6% is not a large return on your investment and so is conservative unless you have a severe, protracted bad economy. Which you cannot really plan for in any event.