Go Back   Bloggingheads Community > Diavlog comments
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Notices

Diavlog comments Post comments about particular diavlogs here.
(Users cannot create new threads.)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-17-2008, 11:22 AM
Bloggingheads Bloggingheads is offline
BhTV staff
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,936
Default The Week in Blog: The Elusive Plumbers' Vote

Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 10-17-2008, 11:52 AM
BornAgainDemocrat BornAgainDemocrat is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: near Chattanooga
Posts: 826
Default Re: The Week in Blog: The Elusive Plumbers' Vote

Taxes are the price we pay for our civilization -- True or False? Hat tip Oliver Wendell Holmes
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 10-17-2008, 11:55 AM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Amanda the Disingenuous

Can we please have someone like James Joyner or Daniel Larison or someone with a grasp of logic and facts beyond AM radio talking points here for this feature in Conn's absence?
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!

Last edited by AemJeff; 10-18-2008 at 09:17 PM.. Reason: misspelling
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 10-17-2008, 05:22 PM
Nate K Nate K is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4
Default Re: Amanda the Disingenuous

Wow. I'm truly shocked out much of an intellectual lightweight this woman is. Since when is "It's just different... it's different," a legitimate response to an important question about the differences in tax plans between BO and JM? This is sad. How did she get on bloggingheads?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 10-23-2008, 06:02 AM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa®ah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Amanda the Disingenuous

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nate K View Post
Wow. I'm truly shocked out much of an intellectual lightweight this woman is. Since when is "It's just different... it's different," a legitimate response to an important question about the differences in tax plans between BO and JM?
Possibly right after Ace o’ Spades was named CPAC Blogger of the Year?

For example:

Quote:
I know what the liberals are asking: Why is [Spitzer] such a big deal, and Sen. David Vitter’s previous experience with call girls isn’t?

Shut up, that’s why.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 10-19-2008, 04:30 PM
timba timba is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 131
Default Re: Amanda the Disingenuous

Fraudulent arguments on ACORN. The law specifies that ACORN must submit every single registration request, even they know it's fraudulent. They have the ability to flag them as possibly, probably, or definitely fraudulent.

There's no instance of these fraudulent attempts ever resulting in someone trying to actually vote after registering as Troy Aikman or Mickey Mouse.

Amanda is either:

1) ignorant
2) manipulatively lying

In either case she's below the standards of BHTV
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 10-19-2008, 04:32 PM
timba timba is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 131
Default Re: Amanda the Disingenuous

"Why won't you address those charges, Bill?"

He just did, you stupid crook. He just pointed out that federal law FORCES them to submit all the forms. Didn't you hear it? Jesus. This is unacceptable.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 10-19-2008, 06:19 PM
Whatfur
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Amanda the Disingenuous

Quote:
Originally Posted by timba View Post
"Why won't you address those charges, Bill?"

He just did, you stupid crook. He just pointed out that federal law FORCES them to submit all the forms. Didn't you hear it? Jesus. This is unacceptable.

The point is that you and yours should be just as upset about this organization making a mockery of the registration process whether by incompetence, problematic methodologies, or fraud, as anyone. You're pointing to the law requiring the submission of all registrations is not an argument against trying to get them to clean up their act. How simple does it need to be painted for you?

Ms. Carpenter tried to explain that multiple times...
"Didn't you hear it?" If not then you probably also did not understand the other two parts. It sure would be nice to know how much money ACORN receives from the federal government AND we would like Obama to expand on the LIE he told during the last debate and come clean about ALL his ACORN dealings (i.e. how much money did his campaign give them, what training did he provide them, etc. etc)
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 10-17-2008, 12:11 PM
alwsdad alwsdad is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 6
Default Re: The Week in Blog: The Elusive Plumbers' Vote

Wow, if Amanda Carpenter is the future of conservative thought, I feel quite optimistic for the future of liberalism.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 10-17-2008, 01:28 PM
Jon Jon is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Rochester, New York
Posts: 15
Default Re: The Week in Blog: The Elusive Plumbers' Vote

"canard"?

Ms. Carpenter referred to Mr. Scher's comment about ACORN (that there's been no evidence that the padding of voter registration forms names has led to actual voter fraud) a couple of times as a "canard". I have never heard the word used in that context before. Traditionally, other than a type of airplane part, as Merrium-Webster and other dictionaries define it, a canard is "a false or unfounded report or story ; especially : a fabricated report b: a groundless rumor or belief". That seems an inappropriate use of the term in the context of Ms. Carperter's meaning. Some might say that it's a projection as the actual story seems to lead to the canard that somehow ACORN methods will lead to voter fraud, or that Sen. Obama's sub-contracting of an off-shoot of ACORN was a deliberate attempt to engage in voter fraud. I tend to agree with the NY Times editorial today that the real tradegy is the obstacles politicians have placed on willing and eligible voters in getting registered and the continuing practice of caging the vote. However if there is another meaning of canard that is applicable to her comments I would appreciate being shown it.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 10-17-2008, 01:59 PM
BeachFrontView BeachFrontView is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 94
Default Re: The Week in Blog: The Elusive Plumbers' Vote

With all due respect to Amanda, TownHall is the absolute worst website for political info. . . and I'm a conservative. When I read it, it feels as if it's being written by a bunch of teenagers or something. Conservatives in 2008 just have a plain lack of ideas for the future.


Also, conservatives in America are objectively the most self-righteous people on earth at the moment. The "regular folks" at Republican rallies seem to pride themselves on being dumb and ignorant. But hey, they remain loyal right?


We conservatives need some more Buckley, Brooks and George Will and less Palin and TownHall
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 10-17-2008, 03:18 PM
Foobs Foobs is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 15
Default Re: The Week in Blog: The Elusive Plumbers' Vote

Full disclosure: I'm a neolib. I think the Reagan tax cuts were the right thing to do (speaking generally), as were the HW and Clinton increases, while the W cuts were wrong. I think the first Iraq War was justified and the second wasn't.

OK, now that you know where I come from.

I thought she was an absolute GOP hack. I realize that success dumbs down a political party and the conservatism is a coherent and compelling ideology. The difference between hacks and wonks is that wonks are smarter than the party and hacks are every bit as stupid. I'm not a huge fan of Scher, but...

One of the problems I have with Republicanism is that it has divorced taxes and spending. Taxes become, not how we pay for government, but punishment. Because they see taxes as punishment, they assume that economic success is seen as a bad thing. It is conservatism for idiots.

For the record, I freely confess that there is liberalism for idiots and plenty of idiots who believe it. I'm not knocking genuine conservatism here but bloggingheads for subjecting us to the idiot's version of the ideology.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 10-23-2008, 06:16 AM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa®ah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: The Week in Blog: The Elusive Plumbers' Vote

Quote:
Originally Posted by BeachFrontView View Post
With all due respect to Amanda, TownHall is the absolute worst website for political info. . . and I'm a conservative. When I read it, it feels as if it's being written by a bunch of teenagers or something.
What do you recommend (online) for good conservative thought?

Currently, I read Sullivan daily (arguable, I know, but he still claims the label), Douthat, Larison, Poulos, and The American Scene fairly often, and look at Frum, Derbyshire, and Will occasionally.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 10-23-2008, 07:38 AM
Whatfur
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: The Week in Blog: The Elusive Plumbers' Vote

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjkeefe View Post
What do you recommend (online) for good conservative thought?

Currently, I read Sullivan daily (arguable, I know, but he still claims the label), Douthat, Larison, Poulos, and The American Scene fairly often, and look at Frum, Derbyshire, and Will occasionally.
Actually BFV's view is a little short-sighted. Sure there are marginally skilled people writing columns at Townhall but there are dozens of conservative contributers there and many are fantastic. Some you have seen here... Hugh Hewitt, Matt Lewis, Amanda Carpenter and BHs should tap them for more before TH decides to start their own THHeads.

Although I am betting he might be a kindred spirit for you, my first suggestion is to stop reading Sullivan, because if you think you are getting a conservative take there, you are mistaken. To have him top your list tells me that your request might be a bit disingenuous. The others you list are good but ....hmmm...soft.

NR "The Corner" is great and you will find a number of "Heads" there speaking to eachother and about eachother.

If you want red meat, go to LGF and Hotair. But I suggest you not get involved in discussions there as you would find yourself stripped naked, red-assed, and left in a public place without cab fare. But hey!...You might run into Andrew there.

Last edited by Whatfur; 10-23-2008 at 07:47 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 10-17-2008, 02:00 PM
Trevor Trevor is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 44
Default Re: The Week in Blog: The Elusive Plumbers' Vote

Amanda Carpenter does not understand marginal tax rates

There's no "penalty" for making over $250,000, it's just that each additional dollar earned above that amount is taxed at a higher rate. This is a totally normal and uncontroversial feature of the American tax code. To be clear: even though income beyond $250,000 is taxed at a higher rate, and thus the average effective tax rate on all income inicreases, the rate increases more slowly than income. Joe will always have more after-tax income making $280,000 than $250,000. For that not to be true, effective marginal tax rates would have to be over 100%.

Now, that sometimes happens at the very bottom of the income spectrum, where poorly-designed welfare programs can mean that a family is better off earning less and qualifying for more benefits, but it's never been true at the top.

Last edited by Trevor; 10-17-2008 at 02:08 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 10-17-2008, 02:36 PM
Bill Scher Bill Scher is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 83
Default Kimberley Strassel Gets No Apology

Amanda said I should apologize to WSJ's Kimberley Strassel. I will not. She is a standard conservative hack peddling misleading statistics.

Strassel writes: "Mr. Obama will give 95% of American working families a tax cut, even though 40% of Americans today don't pay income taxes! How can our star enact such mathemagic? How can he "cut" zero? Abracadabra! It's called a 'refundable tax credit.' It involves the federal government taking money from those who do pay taxes, and writing checks to those who don't."

First, earning too little for income taxes is not the same as not paying any federal taxes. As Atlanta Journal Constitution's Jay Bookman explains, that doesn't take into account the regressive, flat 15.3% payroll tax that only applies to income below $102,000, and is not strictly diverted to Social Security and Medicare trust funds, but goes into the same general funds pool as income taxes.

Second, Obama proposes specific "refundable tax credits" -- meaning they can result in tax refunds if you don't end up owing income tax -- for specific instances, not wholesale for every single person who doesn't owe income taxes.

As the McCain campaign laid out to ABC: those credits are "(1) a 'make-work-pay' credit of up to $500, (2) a universal mortgage credit of 10% of mortgage interest, (3) three different extensions of the Earned Income Tax Credit, (4) a refundable child care credit, (5) a [retirement] saver's credit, (6) a Hope Credit [for certain education expenses], and (7) a 100% match of college expenses up to $4,000."

In other words, it's a way to help low-income people get more take-home pay, stay in their homes, save for retirement and pay for education, without involving additional government bureaucracy (despite the conservative attempt to make it sound like a stereotypical welfare program, giving handouts to lazy deadbeats).

But as ABC also notes (as did I during our diavlog), McCain's health insurance tax credit is also designed to be "refundable." Maybe he offers fewer refundable tax credits than Obama, but he obviously is not opposed to the concept in principle.

Sorry Amanda, no apologies from me.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 10-17-2008, 02:44 PM
Bill Scher Bill Scher is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 83
Default Re: Kimberley Strassel Gets No Apology

I should add that Amanda was also inaccurate in saying the Obama's refundable tax credits amount to a blanket "entitlement" when they are tax credits for specific actions.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 10-17-2008, 02:56 PM
ledocs ledocs is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: France, Earth
Posts: 1,165
Default Re: Kimberley Strassel Gets No Apology

Just an aside, I believe that both Milton Friedman and Richard Nixon (the latter less surprisingly) supported negative income taxes at times. It's not a radical idea. It seems radical to the terminally stupid.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 10-17-2008, 03:05 PM
Trevor Trevor is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 44
Default Re: Kimberley Strassel Gets No Apology

Not to mention conservative bloggingheads Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 10-17-2008, 04:43 PM
PaulL PaulL is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 109
Default Re: Kimberley Strassel Gets No Apology

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Scher View Post
Amanda said I should apologize to WSJ's Kimberley Strassel. I will not. She is a standard conservative hack peddling misleading statistics.
First, earning too little for income taxes is not the same as not paying any federal taxes. As Atlanta Journal Constitution's Jay Bookman explains, that doesn't take into account the regressive, flat 15.3% payroll tax that only applies to income below $102,000, and is not strictly diverted to Social Security and Medicare trust funds, but goes into the same general funds pool as income taxes.
...
Sorry Amanda, no apologies from me.
So Bill is admitting that the Al Gore's Social Security lockbox and the statement that Social Security is a retirement plan are complete BS.
Is the spin now , Obama is not a liar. Al Gore was. Other victim under the bus.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 10-17-2008, 05:41 PM
Bill Scher Bill Scher is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 83
Default Re: Kimberley Strassel Gets No Apology

Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulL View Post
So Bill is admitting that the Al Gore's Social Security lockbox and the statement that Social Security is a retirement plan are complete BS.
Is the spin now , Obama is not a liar. Al Gore was. Other victim under the bus.
The Stupid. It burns.

Gore was proposing a lockbox for Social Security and Medicare so payroll taxes would no longer be used for general purposes. But he lost, and there is no lockbox today. Payroll taxes -- regressive taxes that fall on the middle-class and low-income families, even those who don't pay income taxes -- help fund regular government operations. That's just a fact.

Whether having a lockbox is a good idea for the long-term health of Social Security and Medicare is a completely separate matter.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 10-17-2008, 06:30 PM
PaulL PaulL is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 109
Default Re: Kimberley Strassel Gets No Apology

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Scher View Post
The Stupid. It burns.

Gore was proposing a lockbox for Social Security and Medicare so payroll taxes would no longer be used for general purposes. But he lost, and there is no lockbox today. Social Security -- regressive taxes that fall on the middle-class and low-income families, even those who don't pay income taxes -- help fund regular government operations. That's just a fact.
The middle-class and low-income families pay
Whether having a lockbox is a good idea for the long-term health of Social Security and Medicare is a completely separate matter.
That is viewing Social Security as a Government welfare program opposed to a retirement savings plan that it is sold to the public as. If it is not a retirement plan why do I get statements every year of what benefits I will collect if/when I retire?

The middle-class and low-income families pay the most into Social Security because they are getting the benefits from the Social Security as a retirement savings plan.

I hope that progressives/Democrats continue working towards removing the income cap and/or means testing the benefits of Social Security to help dispel the retirement savings plan myth.

From what understand there is a "lockbox", the US Treasury takes the money and puts a IOU in the Social Security "trust fund". This however may be the mistaken impression. I may have heard another politician referring to the Social Security "trust fund" as a lockbox and associated it with Al Gore's "lockbox".

Lets not forget who rolled the Social Security payroll taxes into the general budget/opened the lockbox Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson.

Enjoyed the Stupid insult. I'll just have to comfort myself with the knowledge that I did not get a ARM when I brought my house.

Last edited by PaulL; 10-17-2008 at 06:58 PM.. Reason: After thought
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 10-18-2008, 04:31 PM
jimM47 jimM47 is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 459
Default Re: Kimberley Strassel Gets No Apology

Quote:
First, earning too little for income taxes is not the same as not paying any federal taxes. As Atlanta Journal Constitution's Jay Bookman explains, that doesn't take into account the regressive, flat 15.3% payroll tax that only applies to income below $102,000, and is not strictly diverted to Social Security and Medicare trust funds, but goes into the same general funds pool as income taxes.
To be clear, Bill, are you disputing the WSJ writer's assertion that 40% of Americans don't pay federal income taxes? If Obama is only proposing cuts in the federal income tax, which was my understanding, I do not see how he can truly cut the taxes of those not paying the tax being cut.

The purpose of your invocation of the payroll tax is not immediately clear. Is Obama proposing cutting the payroll tax? (If so, he's suddenly in contention for my vote again.) Or is your point that Obama will expand earned income tax credits, and that because money is fungible, this is much like a cutting the amount of payroll taxes paid by the affected workers?

If that last possibility is indeed your point, I disagree with your characterization, but I concede that the point is minor, and mainly semantic, since the people Obama is addressing with the 95% comment are not likely to actively differentiate between the flavors of tax they are paying.

On the other hand, if that is your point, then it is a murky enough one that I do not think it at all justifies the seemingly-reflexive scorn you showed to the WSJ writer and her paper. That sort of dismissiveness looks ugly, and it encourages others to have the same reaction about what you say.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 10-18-2008, 04:58 PM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: Kimberley Strassel Gets No Apology

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimM47 View Post
To be clear, Bill, are you disputing the WSJ writer's assertion that 40% of Americans don't pay federal income taxes? If Obama is only proposing cuts in the federal income tax, which was my understanding, I do not see how he can truly cut the taxes of those not paying the tax being cut.

The purpose of your invocation of the payroll tax is not immediately clear. Is Obama proposing cutting the payroll tax? (If so, he's suddenly in contention for my vote again.) Or is your point that Obama will expand earned income tax credits, and that because money is fungible, this is much like a cutting the amount of payroll taxes paid by the affected workers?

If that last possibility is indeed your point, I disagree with your characterization, but I concede that the point is minor, and mainly semantic, since the people Obama is addressing with the 95% comment are not likely to actively differentiate between the flavors of tax they are paying.

On the other hand, if that is your point, then it is a murky enough one that I do not think it at all justifies the seemingly-reflexive scorn you showed to the WSJ writer and her paper. That sort of dismissiveness looks ugly, and it encourages others to have the same reaction about what you say.
Another minor point is that the payroll tax is applied (regressively, at that) even to income not subject to the federal income tax.

Bill's scorn is for the WSJ editorial page, which has no credibility except as an organ of the Republican party. (Distinct from the paper as a whole, which hasn't earned that slur.)
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 10-18-2008, 07:27 PM
Bill Scher Bill Scher is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 83
Default Re: Kimberley Strassel Gets No Apology

jimM47, what I am disputing is Kimberley Strassel's completely false assertion that Obama's tax plan "involves the federal government taking money from those who do pay taxes, and writing checks to those who don't."

Obama's $1000 "Making Work Pay" refundable tax credit -- the one Obama is referring to when he talks about "95 percent of workers and their families" getting a tax cut -- is only for workers and their families, meaning any household receiving it at least currently pays payroll taxes. No one would receive it who wasn't paying federal taxes in some form.

Conservatives usually only mislead by subtly implying that not paying income taxes means not paying any taxes, and omitting the full truth. Strassel flat out lies.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 10-19-2008, 04:22 AM
jimM47 jimM47 is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 459
Default Re: Kimberley Strassel Gets No Apology

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Scher View Post
jimM47, what I am disputing is Kimberley Strassel's completely false assertion that Obama's tax plan "involves the federal government taking money from those who do pay taxes, and writing checks to those who don't."
A fair enough point. I glazed over both Carpenter and Strassel's lack of an explicit qualifier differentiating between income taxes and all taxes, assuming that it was implicit. But you are right that this qualifier cannot simply be assumed, and without it, the statement is incorrect and will mislead those who do not assume it.

*****

Though, having now considered things in that light, if I may attempt to rescue some small part of the point Amanda Carpenter failed to make: I think there is a real difference between a tax cut, as I understand that term, and a tax credit. When I hear the words tax cut, what I think is a decrease in the marginal rate of taxation that applies to me, and though this may color me as uninformed, previously when I heard Obama say that I would be getting a tax cut, that's what I had thought he meant.

That he does not mean this, and instead means a tax credit, does disappoint me, and had I been unskeptical about the statement in the first place, I would now feel deceived upon learning the true nature of the tax "cut." Because while it won't make a difference for my tax bill what mechanism is being used to lower it, my own tax bill is not my chief concern. What concerns me most is the incentive structure created by the tax system, and a tax credit will not alter that incentive structure the way a decrease in the marginal tax rates would.

Indeed, without that effect on incentives, the combination of an increase in the upper rates of taxation and a general credit going to 95% of workers does seem nakedly redistributional. And while I happily support redistribution in the context of helping the truly poor-off, I do not support it for anywhere near 95% of workers.

So, to summarize, when I heard Obama say "tax cut" I was mislead, assuming it meant a policy with which I agree; but after reading these comments and looking things up, I see it is a policy with which I do not agree. I should have kept myself more informed, but I was probably not the only one to predictably take the wrong meaning from a well-crafted phrase. If you are feeling charitable, then this justifies Carpenter's assertion that there is something surreptitious about Obama's discussion of tax policy.

(No doubt someone will find an example of a Republican selling a new tax credit as a "tax cut." This will not convince me that such a usage is not deceiving. It will lower my opinion of the Republican found to be employing such a usage.)
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 10-17-2008, 02:46 PM
ledocs ledocs is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: France, Earth
Posts: 1,165
Default Re: The Week in Blog: The Elusive Plumbers' Vote

AC is terminally stupid. She's at the Sarah Palin level. Get rid of her. I can't listen to anyone who is this stupid. Just an example. First, she grants the hypothesis that under Obama's income tax proposals, and as calculated by Dean Baker, the marginal tax rate on a small business income of between $250,000 and $280,000 increases by less than 3%! Even an additional $30,000 of income results in a maximum additional tax of $900. Three percent! She thinks this increase is excessive. On what planet? I'm a liberal, and I wonder if the proposed increase in the marginal tax rate at this level of income is really this low, but what I really don't believe is that anyone could think that such an increase in the marginal rate is too high, that it represents a punitive rate, or that anyone would be moved to work less because of such an increased tax rate. I've never heard anything so stupid in my life. Please get rid of her. She's terrible. I believe in free speech, but not for terminally stupid people on bloggingheads.

[I have edited this post, because, when I wrote it, I wasn't thinking that the marginal rate on this hypothetical small business owner with an additional $30,000 in net income was increasing from 31% to 34%, or something like that. It is embarrassing to admit that I wrote this post under a misapprehension, which I later myself realized. Nevertheless, I don't see how an additional 3% changes anyone's behavior, almost regardless of the prior marginal rate. If the marginal rate went from 90% to 93%, no one's behavior would change. And I've heard AC before. She is insufferable and stupid. I stick with that characterization.]

Last edited by ledocs; 10-17-2008 at 07:17 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 10-17-2008, 03:10 PM
sealrock sealrock is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 18
Default Re: The Week in Blog: The Elusive Plumbers' Vote

Amanda Carpenter seems to have a hard time thinking THROUGH logical arguments. On numerous occasions Bill pointed out how McCain's actions are similar Obama's, but she dismisses the logic by saying "it's just different" (speaking at ACORN, the value of tax rebates). Either McCain and Obama are both wrong or they are both are correct.

I am sorry for being mean, but Amanda doesn't seem very bright or intellectually honest. She's obviously very driven and has been able to get a gig on Townhall and Bloggingheads (and a little googling shows that she's appeared on Fox News), but it's easy to see that she has a hard time processing points that go against her world view.

I can see her argue value of small government and in the same breath support Bush's expansion of government. Not because she understands the differences between philosophic ideals and the reality of politics... but because she seems like someone who can easily reconcile her views to whatever works at the moment.

Amanda... debating is more than just about making your point. It's about honestly sharing ideas. Concede some points and make others. I recommend that you watch more debates on Bloggingheads and less on cable news.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 10-17-2008, 03:17 PM
PaulL PaulL is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 109
Default WSJ vs. feministe

I wonder if Bill realizes when he quoted them that his reaction to WSJ's Kimberley Strassel is the same many people have for feministe and the other fem-blogs.
So when will be a policy debate on the definition "health of the mother" exception and what it entails occur?
Or will it be shut down when the pro-abortion types such as NARAL and feministe scream that the people calling for the policy debate are misogynists.

As for Government cuts, I am sure Obama will use the Clinton era practice (peace dividend) of the cutting Defense spending and claim to be reducing the size of Government.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 10-17-2008, 04:29 PM
DoctorMoney DoctorMoney is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 305
Default Re: WSJ vs. feministe

Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulL View Post
As for Government cuts, I am sure Obama will use the Clinton era practice (peace dividend) of the cutting Defense spending and claim to be reducing the size of Government.
Wouldn't that be extremely prudent? Or am I missing something.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 10-17-2008, 04:45 PM
PaulL PaulL is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 109
Default Re: WSJ vs. feministe

Quote:
Originally Posted by DoctorMoney View Post
Wouldn't that be extremely prudent? Or am I missing something.
Other than providing Defense is stated in the Constitution as a primary role of the Government.
Quote:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
It is not "provide the general Welfare"

Last edited by PaulL; 10-17-2008 at 04:50 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 10-23-2008, 07:39 PM
DoctorMoney DoctorMoney is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 305
Default Re: WSJ vs. feministe

Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulL View Post
Other than providing Defense is stated in the Constitution as a primary role of the Government.

It is not "provide the general Welfare"
My question about what is prudent got answered with fringe constitutional theory! Seems like a pretty drastic change of topic.

Should I not be trusting the Supreme Court on this subject? Is it your view that the legal establishment has been infiltrated by radicals?
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 10-17-2008, 06:08 PM
Foobs Foobs is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 15
Default Re: WSJ vs. feministe

Cutting defense would be beyond prudent.

The United States has no peer rivals. Of course, we very well may in 20 years. The key to improving the United States' position then isn't a bigger military now, it's a stronger economy and less debt. Not breaking the bank on useless military technology would be useful in strengthening America's long-term position.

As far as smaller wars like Iraq and Afghanistan, those don't require the kind of technology we're throwing money at. Of course, the United States' long term position would also be improved by avoiding stupid wars of choice...
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 10-17-2008, 05:16 PM
Markos Markos is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 334
Default Re: The Week in Blog: The Elusive Plumbers' Vote

It sounds like Amanda doesn't want Joe the Plumber to contribute to the support our troops in Iraq. I guess Amanda doesn't want to support our troops with our tax money either. I guess that's why she supports McCain: so we can let future generations pay for the cost of our troops and our wars, because Americans shouldn't have to pay taxes.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 10-17-2008, 05:18 PM
radmul radmul is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 27
Default Re: The Week in Blog: The Elusive Plumbers' Vote

By Amanda Carpenter's own standards she is a liar. Everyone in America pays taxes in some form. Sales tax, state tax, property tax, taxes on cable and phones. Or is she trying to say that 30% of us are homeless paupers.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 10-17-2008, 05:25 PM
Markos Markos is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 334
Default Re: The Week in Blog: The Elusive Plumbers' Vote

It sounds like Amanda thinks Joe the Plumber should not support our troops with his tax money. It sounds like Amanda doesn't want to pay taxes to support our troops. I guess that's why she supports McCain: Because McCain doesn't think Americans should have to pay taxes to support our troops.
I guess Amanda believes future generations should explain to our creditors that Americans shouldn't have to pay for our troops or our wars.
$900 our of $280,000 is apparently too much to pay to support our troops.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 10-17-2008, 06:27 PM
Tara Davis Tara Davis is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 193
Default Re: The Week in Blog: The Elusive Plumbers' Vote

Bill is completely right that McCain's flat $5000 heath care tax credit is a hand-out just like Obama's "tax cuts" are hand-outs.

Which is exactly why conservatives are not very excited about McCain.

But saying "McCain's plan is also dishonest" is not a defense of the rampant dishonesty of the Obama tax plan.

Does anybody honestly have any doubt which candidate is going to raise taxes more, raise government spending more, and offer more hand-outs?
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 10-17-2008, 09:02 PM
themightypuck themightypuck is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Pasadena
Posts: 506
Send a message via AIM to themightypuck
Default Re: The Week in Blog: The Elusive Plumbers' Vote

Recent history suggests the Republicans will. Just because they say they won't doesn't mean they won't. Sadly, it isn't about how big government will get, it's about whether you are going to benefit from the money they will throw around. I live in Southern California and Reagan is revered here not because he brought down the USSR but because he brought home the bacon.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 10-17-2008, 06:34 PM
themightypuck themightypuck is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Pasadena
Posts: 506
Send a message via AIM to themightypuck
Default Re: The Week in Blog: The Elusive Plumbers' Vote

Amanda Carpenter is spewing disingenuous talking points and sounds like she should be an MSM talking screamer. I truly miss Conn.

Edit: I owe AC a bit of an apology as she starts to make more sense past the halfway point.

Edit 2: I should have trusted my first impression. Conn is capable of forming convincing arguments and in my view tends to shade Bill in most of their dvlogs. Amanda seems to lack any interest in drilling into the complexity of things and leaves Bill the winner by default.

Last edited by themightypuck; 10-17-2008 at 06:57 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 10-17-2008, 06:53 PM
rgajria rgajria is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Posts: 177
Default Re: The Week in Blog: The Elusive Plumbers' Vote

I am wondering why Amanda Carpenter was so snippy throughout this diavlog. Otherwise an interesting discussion. Thanks.
Reply With Quote
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:29 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.