Who Will Be the 2012 Republican Presidential Nominee? - Page 1331 - Politics and Economics

suzzer99 · 02-23-2012, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by STA654

This constant strawmanning of Warren Buffet's tax argument is pissing me off tbh.

"rich people like me should pay higher tax rates than those with middling incomes" ≠ "I, Warren Buffet, billionaire, should pay higher tax rates than those with middling incomes"

Wanting the rules to be changed for the good of the game != I will enforce stricter, different rules on myself only.

The really funny thing is this "you do your thing and leave me alone" argument comes from the same crowd that wants to legislate morality in the bedroom.

Don Keith · 02-23-2012, 03:05 PM

Here are the latest intrade numbers (as of this post-time) listed below:

2012.REP.NOM.SANTORUM
Rick Santorum to be Republican Presidential Nominee in 2012 7.1 7.9
2012.REP.NOM.GINGRICH
Newt Gingrich to be Republican Presidential Nominee in 2012 4.0 4.5
2012.REP.NOM.PAUL(RON)
Ron Paul to be Republican Presidential Nominee in 2012 2.8 3.1
2012.REP.NOM.ROMNEY
Mitt Romney to be Republican Presidential Nominee in 2012 78.6 78.7

seattlelou · 02-23-2012, 03:07 PM

Gallup has Romney leading Obama nationally 50 to 46.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/152918/Ro...ationally.aspx

seattlelou · 02-23-2012, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by suzzer99

Wanting the rules to be changed for the good of the game != I will enforce stricter, different rules on myself only.

The really funny thing is this "you do your thing and leave me alone" argument comes from the same crowd that wants to legislate morality in the bedroom.

The argument that Buffett is being hypocritical has nothing to do with "you do your own thing...." you posed above. Buffet argues that it is unfair for billionaires to pay the amount of taxes he currently does. He can readily rectify this unfairness by sending in a check to the Treasury. His argument that he is not being hypocritical is along the lines of "it doesn’t disqualify someone’s call for collective action that he is not inclined to act fruitlessly alone.” If he was arguing that the deficit is too large and higher taxes is a way to solve this the argument has merit. But that isn't what Buffet is saying.
As an aside is this a kind of argument that can be solved rationally? I never studied logic (ldo I know) but it seems like one that logical rules could be applied to.

pvn · 02-23-2012, 03:24 PM

Is buffet's argument that rich people need to give more in order to accomplish things or that rich people should pay more percentage-wise than poorer people?

In other words, is he arguing for increased means to government ends or just out of some sort of social justice motivation?

seattlelou · 02-23-2012, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pvn

Is buffet's argument that rich people need to give more in order to accomplish things or that rich people should pay more percentage-wise than poorer people?

In other words, is he arguing for increased means to government ends or just out of some sort of social justice motivation?

Maybe this helps answer your question:

Primarily, though, it is a matter of basic arithmetic. Jack LeMenager, in a letter to the Times, pointed out that “the Internal Revenue Service’s own statistics indicate that if the top 1 percent of all taxpayers (households with annual income of more than $380,000) were taxed at a rate of 100 percent, it would net $938 billion, which would barely make a dent in the nation’s multitrillion-dollar annual budget.”
This point, while important, doesn’t affect Buffett’s central argument because Buffett himself conceded it to Charlie Rose: “I don’t think that what I’m talking about on taxes solves the deficit gap at all. But I think fairness is important.”

[Phill] · 02-23-2012, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Jack LeMenager, in a letter to the Times, pointed out that “the Internal Revenue Service’s own statistics indicate that if the top 1 percent of all taxpayers (households with annual income of more than $380,000) were taxed at a rate of 100 percent, it would net $938 billion, which would barely make a dent in the nation’s multitrillion-dollar annual budget.”

I always love seeing these arguments happening in reverse when it comes to saving a couple million a year cutting federal funding of NPR.

The logical conclusion that raising taxes a lot doesnt solve all your problems is not that there should be no raising of taxes. But conversely when talking about spending cuts starting at the small stuff like NPR and unemployment whilst demanding that defence is kept off the table is just completely hilarious. Its ridiculously obvious that America needs to have tax increases back to Reagan levels and spending cuts starting at the things that are least beneficial to Americans working backwards where defence spending is 100% the start point.

seattlelou · 02-23-2012, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by [Phill]

I always love seeing these arguments happening in reverse when it comes to saving a couple million a year cutting federal funding of NPR.

The logical conclusion that raising taxes a lot doesnt solve all your problems is not that there should be no raising of taxes. But conversely when talking about spending cuts starting at the small stuff like NPR and unemployment whilst demanding that defence is kept off the table is just completely hilarious. Its ridiculously obvious that America needs to have tax increases back to Reagan levels and spending cuts starting at the things that are least beneficial to Americans working backwards where defence spending is 100% the start point.

I posted that paragraph mainly to give context to Buffet's comment. I agree with you that the US debt problem is significant any a series of small things help.

Jonaspublius · 02-23-2012, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seattlelou

Gallup has Romney leading Obama nationally 50 to 46.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/152918/Ro...ationally.aspx

Republican firm Rasmussen has Obama up ten on Romney, and the RCP average is still Obama +5.

jsnipes28 · 02-23-2012, 03:48 PM

so apparently frothy was citing noted racist author charles murray last night? very nice, frothy.

Jonaspublius · 02-23-2012, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seattlelou

I posted that paragraph mainly to give context to Buffet's comment. I agree with you that the US debt problem is significant any a series of small things help.

Wouldn't it make more sense to identify beneficial and necessary spending, and then decide how much revenue is needed? Instead, you seem locked in defending the side of cut, cut, cut against the side of the status quo. Most small federal expenditures, like PBS, more than justify or pay their way. As long as Republicans scream cut and balance while ignoring necessity and benefit, Democrats get free votes defending bloat and poor returns. And, America loses.

AlexM · 02-23-2012, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pvn

wait, wut

I thought the objections to this mandate were because it violates the rights of the employer, not the empolyees. Please explain your analogy here.

Something like this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by TimM

This kind of exchange demonstrates one of the most frustrating things about posting here. If you say something and make a typo, or take a shortcut, or use figurative language, those on the opposing side of the argument will ascribe the stupidest possible meaning to what you wrote, and attack that.

Of course he meant something like "Hmmmm wonder why these people aren't asking to be awarded money damages, but are only asking for civil penalties?"

I'm really surprised I haven't seen the following exchange yet:

"The fed creates the money out of thin air..."

"Dude, you moron, you think Bernanke puts on a wizard hat, says some magic words and a pile of Benjamins appears?"

Or this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Regret$

If you look at the exchange between Fly and I over the last 40 or so posts, he more or less completely ignores the substantive points that people have made, then acts like it was some magic trick that the topic was changed. It is like: a) he doesn't care if he is right or not and just wants to win; b) deliberately uses diversionary tactics to cloud issues and belittle people. If he thinks he can get away with the jedi mind trick, I think he will take the chance a large % of the time whether or not he has actually substantially argued against the opposite point.

All other things aside, I appreciate fly's perspective, but it doesn't help his cause the way he debates his points (imo). Then again a large % of people on here debate this way which leads me to believe they are douchebags, so I am probably wrong about it hurting his cause since douches gonna douche.

AlexM · 02-23-2012, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrWookie

By this reasoning, any company employing anyone who is a Christian Scientist and offers health insurance that covers anything is violating the 1st amendment rights of that Christian Scientist.

No, any company that is run by Christian Scientists and presumably has predominantly Christian Scientist employees would make a good analogy though.

Jonaspublius · 02-23-2012, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsnipes28

so apparently frothy was citing noted racist author charles murray last night? very nice, frothy.

I don't hesitate to call a racist a racist. But, Murray does good research, and doesn't shy from race. His conclusions and policy prescriptions suck, but calling him racist makes it easy to dismiss real problems. I will admit "coming apart" is still two books down my list.

seattlelou · 02-23-2012, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jonaspublius

Wouldn't it make more sense to identify beneficial and necessary spending, and then decide how much revenue is needed? Instead, you seem locked in defending the side of cut, cut, cut against the side of the status quo. Most small federal expenditures, like PBS, more than justify or pay their way. As long as Republicans scream cut and balance while ignoring necessity and benefit, Democrats get free votes defending bloat and poor returns. And, America loses.

I agree with you that we can not simply cut our way to a reasonable debt/deficit and increased revenue is going to be required. The tax code needs to be reformed imo and I think it could be done in a way that promotes growth and revenues. The R's in Congress are making a huge mistake economically and politically with the absolute unwillingness to compromise.