Yeah, keep ploughing through the ditch you drove us into.
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams
"Reality has a well-known liberal bias." - Stephen Colbert
http://www.tax.com/taxcom/taxblog.nsf/Permalink/CHAS-89LPZ9?OpenDocument
Most people who are at or just above that income range are small business owners, and punitive taxes will force them to hire fewer employees. You may not have noticed this, but the unemployment rate is a bit high right now.
Myth, and the small percentage (3%) it does affect are "S" corps who became such because of the TAX BENEFITS, and did so before Bush crippled the country with out of control spending on a senseless war and even more senseless tax breaks. We've had ENOUGH of the VOODOO economics.
I'm familiar with Glass-Steagall, and repealing one old, stupid law doesn't put a dent in the massive amount of regulation accumulated over the past 60 years.
Pure horseshit
No one is arguing that we're on a "slippery slope" to anything, just a steady decline into a European-style welfare state.
So you deny using slippery-slope fallacy and in the same breath engage in it. Debate over.
Not quite, you still need to learn what a slippery slope is. A slippery slope argument suggests an unrecoverable end-state that can't be disputed because you don't specify what the end-state actually is. That's why it's a fallacy: by not saying where you're going and how you're getting there, you don't make the logical connection...blah blah blah.
If you can't see how comparing today's US government as it is today with countries who have single payer, etc, etc, etc (which not only are we NOWHERE near today, but we weren't even near when The New Deal started) as a fallacious, slippery slope bullshit talking point argument that has no bearing on reality, we aren't going to find a middle ground, so enjoy your house of cards that you call logic and piss off.
The top tax rate was 90%, and no one paid it. That's why government revenue didn't go down substantially when they cut the rate. If you're rich, you have the money to move your money around and hide it.
Exactly, so why is the right making such a big stink about people who make 250K+? By the time their accountants get done, the amount they pay even after the cuts expire is likely a substantially smaller share of their income than those of us who are struggling to pay our children's medical bills, etc. And the dumbest part is that they would not be making the money they are if it weren't for public education and other infrastructure. Even just the contribution of the government towards modern information systems is HUGE.
My initial inclination is that it's simply not possible for banks to have been nearly as regulated as they are now because there were no computers. But if you have a metric of how much a sector is regulated, I'd like to see some numbers to back up your assertion.
I don't need numbers. Look up Glass-Steagall, whose provisions have been repealed by: The "Marquette Decision," The Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980, Alternative Mortgage Transactions Parity Act of 1982, and Graham, Leach-Blily. On April 28, 2004, in a flagrant final act of eviscerating regulation, the SEC ruled that investment banks may essentially determine their own net capital.
This deregulation led directly to the S&L failures as well as the most recent Banking crisis.
And your numbers are simply wrong on the % of GDP.
You are right, I was looking at WW2 numbers. My statement was incorrect.
No one is arguing that we're on a "slippery slope" to anything, just a steady decline into a European-style welfare state.
So you deny using slippery-slope fallacy and in the same breath engage in it. Debate over.
Real news would be if somebody actually found a way to counteract their deeds.
No, the solution is well-known, just unpalatable to many people: stop having the government attempting to micromanage the economy. Every time Congress decides to treat one segment of the economy differently than another, through special taxes, regulations, subsidies, privileges, etc., the lobbyists will appear. Note that I am not arguing against all taxes and such, just pointing out that all such interference produces lobbyists.
Epic fail. Your words utterly fail to match reality. First off, even if there were no regulations, they would still be lobbying as much (more, actually, since 'regulation' also covers lobbying) to get favorable treatment, government contracts, etc. etc. Secondly, during our best and strongest years(post-WW2), the top tax rate was in the 90's, the banks were heavily regulated, and the government was distributing a large percentage of the GDP for the general welfare of people including helping retired and poor people with their bills and medical expenses, many grants for health and other technologies, and infrastructure (such as highways, power, water, and communications) without which both the commercial and private sectors (of the whole world, and especially the US) would have stagnated and possibly had another dark age!
Both the commercial sector AND government can be great positive OR negative forces. Crippling EITHER is sheer idiocy! We merely need to curtail the TRUE threats without succumbing to slippery slope rhetoric by the radicals.
Furthermore, just because judges have been completely ignoring the precedent set in Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. does not mean that precedent does not exist.
From the prevailing ruling:
[There must be] a balance between a copyright holder's legitimate demand for effective - not merely symbolic - protection of the statutory monopoly, and the rights of others freely to engage in substantially unrelated areas of commerce. Accordingly, the sale of copying equipment, like the sale of other articles of commerce, does not constitute contributory infringement if the product is widely used for legitimate, unobjectionable purposes. Indeed, it need merely be capable of substantial noninfringing uses....
Wrong, see below.
I didn't say legal right, and I surely didn't mean legal right. I mean right as in right under natural law as Locke and Jefferson invoked.
As usual, the strong caveat at the end of the article goes unnoticed:
But Tim Smith, senior publisher for New Journal of Physics at IOP Publishing, which also publishes physics world.com, feels that the study overlooks the role of journal editors. "Peer-review is certainly not flawless and alternatives to the current process will continue to be proposed. In relation to this study however, one shouldn't ignore the role played by journal editors and Boards in accounting for potential conflicts of interest, and preserving the integrity of the referee selection and decision-making processes,"
IRL the reviewers are not chosen at random. Which burns the straw men built by the summary, most of the article, and the skeptics.
So you claim there is no right to fair usage?
I'm sure they would too, but it's one of those issues where it really points out the hypocrisy of the party.
I call complete BS! First and foremost, most Dem supporters and Office holders would denounce such actions no matter WHO is doing it (unlike the right who almost never call their own out). Secondly, a state official that was appointed by a Democrat is very different from three branches of federal government and the majority of the media marching in lockstep. Finally, since the left DOESN'T all march in lockstep (sometimes to their detriment,) there are still varying opinions on police power. This is vary different from a whole party that runs on family values and government frugality and then never holds it's own members accountable to their oft and forcibly stated values when their personal behavior runs completely contrary.
HELP!!!! I'm being held prisoner in /usr/games/lib!
