One more point. If severability was initially included and subsequently removed, it is declarative of the fact that the author and signatories intentionally did not want severability to be included. Therefore, it should be excluded.
Printable View
One more point. If severability was initially included and subsequently removed, it is declarative of the fact that the author and signatories intentionally did not want severability to be included. Therefore, it should be excluded.
[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;415355]One more point. If severability was initially included and subsequently removed, it is declarative of the fact that the author and signatories intentionally did not want severability to be included. Therefore, it should be excluded.[/QUOTE]You don't have to take my word for it. Vinson himself acknowledges my point: "the absence of such a clause, in and of itself, does not raise a presumption against severability. .." P. 67 of Vinson's opinion (quoting Supreme Court decision in New York v. USA). As an example, if Vinson instead had addressed a challenge to the 1099 provision and found that provision unconstitutional, there is little doubt that he would have held this provision to be severable. The point, again, is that lack of a severability clause does not automatically mean that if one provision is held unconstitutional, then all of ObamaCare fails.
Why is this significant? Because many are predicting that this issue will go to the Supreme Court. These same folks predict that Kennedy will be the deciding vote, because he frequently swings between the liberal and conservative wings of the court. Kennedy is known for lacking a particular part of the anatomy: a spine. He tends to split the baby. So, as a baby-splitter, many also are predicting that Kennedy would hold that the individual mandate violates the Constitution but that this portion of ObamaCare [b]is[/b] Severable, and therefore the remainder of ObamaCare can stand. In so doing, he would be giving something to each side, consistent with his reputation.
I don't think he would do that here. Kennedy sided with the conservative majority in the Lopez case, which is where the Supreme Court started setting limits again on the Commerce Clause. But, he definitely has a reputation of trying to be friends with both camps. So, he could easily agree with the conservatives on the Commerce Clause and the liberals on the severability issue.
[QUOTE=Stan Da Man;415365]You don't have to take my word for it. Vinson himself acknowledges my point: "the absence of such a clause, in and of itself, does not raise a presumption against severability. .." P. 67 of Vinson's opinion (quoting Supreme Court decision in New York v. USA). As an example, if Vinson instead had addressed a challenge to the 1099 provision and found that provision unconstitutional, there is little doubt that he would have held this provision to be severable.[/quote]Excellent point. In a contract between two parties, either party can argue that the absence of such a clause is indicative of the understanding between the parties and that severability is not in the spirit of the original agreement. Obviously, the other side would argue that severability, despite the omission of an explicit mention in the document, is valid.
You example is excellent. I agree that such a finding on the 1099 issue would likely have resulted in the issue being severed. However, in Vinson's finding the unconstitutional mandate is so inextricably interwoven in the fabric of the law and the fact that the law is dependent upon this extra-constitutional "taking" therefore the issues could not be severed.
[quote=]The point, again, is that lack of a severability clause does not automatically mean that if one provision is held unconstitutional, then all of ObamaCare fails.[/quote]Agreed. However, the fact that Vinson did not sever, and opined on the nonseverability, means that the law is unconstitutional and by virtue of the ruling there is an ipso facto injunction on its implementation.
[quote=]Why is this significant? Because many are predicting that this issue will go to the Supreme Court. These same folks predict that Kennedy will be the deciding vote, because he frequently swings between the liberal and conservative wings of the court. Kennedy is known for lacking a particular part of the anatomy: a spine. He tends to split the baby. So, as a baby-splitter, many also are predicting that Kennedy would hold that the individual mandate violates the Constitution but that this portion of ObamaCare [b]is[/b] Severable, and therefore the remainder of ObamaCare can stand. In so doing, he would be giving something to each side, consistent with his reputation.[/quote]Agreed. A federal judge has ruled that the Law is unconstitutional. The supremes will decide. The Kennedy factor is all the more reason for having Kagan recuse herself.
[quote=]I don't think he would do that here. Kennedy sided with the conservative majority in the Lopez case, which is where the Supreme Court started setting limits again on the Commerce Clause. But, he definitely has a reputation of trying to be friends with both camps. So, he could easily agree with the conservatives on the Commerce Clause and the liberals on the severability issue.[/QUOTE]Will the Supremes be able to consider the issue of severability? If so, I will be interested in Harry Reid's reasoning behind behind taking severability out of the law.
By the way, the Obama administration has already been found in contempt for dismissing a judge's ruling regarding the offshore drilling moratorium.
By the way, Obama is totally f-ing up this Egypt situation. What started as a protest against rising food prices is now a total mess replete with WH flip flopping. Right or wrong, Eqypt under Mubarak has been one of our, for lack of a better word, allies in the region. I can assure you that the Muslim Brotherhood will be no more benevolent a ruler than Mubarak (think Mullahs in Iran). This is Iran part II. Barrack Hussein "Jimmy Carter" Obama.
Do a little reading on the Muslim Brotherhood and their role in the spread of global terrorism. Anybody remember what was going on in Beriut '80-'83? How about the primary export of the Bekaa Valley? Hint: "_ _ rrorism"
I agree. And, I don't mean to imply that I think the individual mandate is severable. I agree with you (and Vinson's holding) that it isn't. There was some commentary here, and there's been much in the media, that the lack of a severability clause would automatically result in all of ObamaCare being stricken if any portion of it was held invalid, and that isn't the case. Kennedy would have to do some real mental gymnastics to find that the individual mandate is severable, but you frequently get that sort of thing out of the Supreme Court.
So, the legal fate of Obamacare probably will come down to how Kennedy parses the issues associated with the Commerce Clause. Vinson found that the Commerce Clause cannot be stretched to allow Congress to regulate inactivity, [i]not purchasing[/i] Health insurance. Few courts would dispute this, even the ones that upheld ObamaCare. Instead, however, they have twisted the argument. They frame the issue as whether the Commerce Clause gives Congress has the power to regulate "economic decisions". Framed this way, they find that Congress clearly has the power to regulate economic decisions, and that everyone who doesn't purchase insurance has necessarily made an economic decision, even if they never gave the matter a thought in the first place.
Using the test announced by the courts upholding ObamaCare, it isn't much of a stretch to argue that Congress can regulate absolutely anything, so long as there's a whiff of economics in there somewhere along the lines. That's a pretty big stretch. Nevertheless, two Democrat appointees have so held, and there likely will be four disingenuous Supreme Court justices who agree. Personally, I don't think Kagan will recuse herself. She should, but why let a little thing like the appearance of impropriety get in the way.
Stan and WW – Severability.
While you both make good points regarding the recent ruling on ObamaCare, I've worked with several attorneys over the years and what it usually comes down to after all the fancy foot work, smoke and mirrors is WHAT DOES THE CONTRACT SAY. In this case the fact there was a severability clause in an earlier version of the bill but it was not in the bill which became law argues for the law stands as a whole or falls as a whole. Due to Kagens involvement in ObamaCare prior to her appointment to the Supreme Court she should recues herself from the hearing making it a slam dunk for the bill going down. I don't expect a Democrat to understand the words honor or decency so I doubt she will.
Esten – Medical Service Academies.
You allude to the United States Military – Naval – Air Force and Coast Guard Academies as examples of how physicians can be trained. These academies combined produce a little more than 4, 000 graduates per year from all 4 academies with 8 year commitments at a cost of several hundred thousand dollars per graduate for what is a undergraduate degree. (I am a little familiar with this since my daughter graduated from USMA West Point)
Physician training usually takes 4 years under grad. 3 years medical school, and 2 to 4 years internship and residency before they are really ready to be out practicing. Now you're trying to tell me you want to produce physicians in 4 years from similar facilities as the service academies? If so I would volunteer you to be the first patient for brain surgery by one of your new 4 year medical wonders.
Obama and Egypt.
Obama's poll numbers are beginning to sink like a stone again due to his policy (does he really have one) toward the current unrest in Egypt. WW is right, if you want Iran II let the Muslin Brotherhood size the reins of power. To make matters worse this fool we have for a president is making polite overtures to them! I told you Obama was going to make Jimmy Carter look good!
[QUOTE=Doppelganger;415377]Due to Kagens involvement in ObamaCare prior to her appointment to the Supreme Court she should recues herself from the hearing making it a slam dunk for the bill going down. I don't expect a Democrat to understand the words honor or decency so I doubt she will.[/QUOTE]I tend to agree. But, here are two more scenarios. First, let's say Kagan did recuse herself. It would probably never happen. But, assume for a moment that she has an involuntary spasm at the precise moment when they ask for a showing of hands if anyone wants to recuse herself. Then, assume that Kennedy sides with the three liberal justices and the four conservative justices vote as we would expect. It's a 4-4 tie. What happens? The decision of the lower courts stand. But, what happens if there are different decisions among multiple circuit courts, and the Supreme Court grants review of all of them? They all stand. We have ObamaCare in some states but not others, depending on what the Courts of Appeal decide on the way up to the Supreme Court. A fine mess, but altogether possible.
Second and more likely, though, the Supreme Court will punt on this issue as long as it can. Some ObamaCare provisions go into effect before 2014, but the most dramatic measures don't kick in until then. The rest is just taxes to punish the rich. So, what likely will occur is that the Supreme Court will do [i][b]nothing[/b][/i] Until 2013, at the earliest. That way, they can wait and see whether Republicans re-take the White House and Senate in the 2012 election and they can just let Republicans obliterate this abomination. The Supremes wouldn't need to get their dainty little hands dirty, which usually is their preferred course of action. They'll act, but probably only if they have to.
In the news today: Federal judge in Mississippi throws out suit challenging constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act.
And this judge, Keith Starrett, was appointed by Bush. Who to believe? Vinson? Starrett?
Don't get your hopes up too much. Odds are Obama is re-elected and Supreme Court upholds the law. Of course, that probably won't stop Repubs in their endless quest to help the rich and slam the poor.
[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;415352]Rockharders and Esten revile the Constitution.[/QUOTE]Walleye hates poor people.
After all, this is the same guy who told us hunger is a good motivator. I guess the GOP plan is to 'motivate' the poor enough so they will go out and get all those good paying jobs out there.
[QUOTE=Esten; 415383]In the news today: Federal judge in Mississippi throws out suit challenging constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act.
[/QUOTE]He didn't totally throw it out.
[quote]The Huffington Post reported: "The judge, Keith Starret, who serves on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, ruled that plaintiffs suing over the coming implementation of the individual mandate did not demonstrate sufficient standing for him to take the case. He "granted in part" the administrations motion to dismiss the case, but gave the plaintiffs 30 days to amend their complaint." [/quote]
Excellent point Stan and as you already know we have different rulings from different Federal District Judges now. The next round will be to wait for the Appeal Courts decisions which I doubt will be unanimous which would set up the scenario you outline.
I see Virginia's Attorney General has requested a 'fast track' to the Supreme Court and the Government's attorneys are fighting it to delay the issue reaching the Court as long as possible. I suspect this tactic is being used by Holder to have as much of ObamaCare implemented prior to the Supreme Court hearing the case as possible in the hope of swaying the Court's decision (Kennedy).
If that's not bad enough, now China's national aviation corp is trying to use a near bankrupt California aviation firm as a partner to bid on the next generation of helicopters for Marine One. Wow, the ChiComs are going to try and get the contract to build the helio for the president, wonderful!
As far as Egypt goes, I wonder how Obama would have liked it if some other foreign leader was telling him to step down during the Tea Party rallies in 2010, sort of the same thing with him suggesting Egypt's president leave? Maybe Obama should stay out of other countries politics or perhaps he is trying to redirect attention away from his failed presidency?
[QUOTE=Esten;415383]I guess the GOP plan is to 'motivate' the poor enough so they will go out and get all those good paying jobs out there.[/QUOTE]Actually, they can start with entry level jobs (like the rest of us did), and then they can work their way up the ladder to the "[i]good paying jobs[/i]" after they've demonstrated some work ethic (like the rest of us did).
[QUOTE=Esten; 415383]In the news today: Federal judge in Mississippi throws out suit challenging constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act.
And this judge, Keith Starrett, was appointed by Bush. Who to believe? Vinson? Starrett? [/quote]So what? A federal judge has declared it unconstitutional. Do you think that an unrelated ruling in another state somehow overrules the outcome of the prior adjudication?
[quote=]Don't get your hopes up too much. Odds are Obama is re-elected[/quote]Which odds are those? I believe FDR is the only US pres to be reelected with unemployment greater than 8.
[quote=]and Supreme Court upholds the law.[/quote]I guess that is why BHO is fighting the effort to fast track to the supremes.
[quote=]Of course, that probably won't stop Repubs in their endless quest to help the rich and slam the poor.[/quote]I am sure that their efforts will remain consistent with past practices.
[quote=]Walleye hates poor people.[/quote]Not true. I hate being a poor people. Therefore, I get off my ass and do everything I can to get ahead.
It appears that Esten, Obama and their ilk hate the poor. Everything they do either drives up the cost of living, including prices for food, fuel and health care or reduces employment opportunities. How does that help the poor? It doesn't.
[quote=]After all, this is the same guy who told us hunger is a good motivator. I guess the GOP plan is to 'motivate' the poor enough so they will go out and get all those good paying jobs out there.[/QUOTE]That approach has worked since the dawn of mankind.
Your approach is to have the productive members feed the nonproductive (including some who actually need help) thereby eliminating the source of motivation for nonproductive people, who could actually be out there producing. Great plan.
[QUOTE=Doppelganger;415392]As far as Egypt goes, I wonder how Obama would have liked it if some other foreign leader was telling him to step down during the Tea Party rallies in 2010, sort of the same thing with him suggesting Egypt's president leave? Maybe Obama should stay out of other countries politics or perhaps he is trying to redirect attention away from his failed presidency?[/QUOTE]Nothing tells the world that you are in command of the issues like having two of your spokespeople (Hillary and Biden) publicly state that your administration is on both sides of the issue.
Because our douchebag president thinks crowds in the street must be indicative of strong community organizing, we are throwing our support behind the Muslim Brotherhood as opposed to Mubarak. What is worse is that the press and this administration are calling the protesters "pro-democracy" with absolutely no basis for making that assessment. Please show me a democratic government with a large contingency from the Muslim Brotherhood or their ilk.
I think that the back story on this is that BHO thinks that in order for us to be loved by the Muslim World, we have to dump Israel. He has clearly been anti-Israel for a long time. However, I think he sees dumping one of the very few Islamic leaders who maintains peace with Israel as a step in the right direction.
It is incredible to look at the destruction Obama has wreaked upon us in just two short years. He has destroyed our economy, attempted to destroy our healthcare industry, trampled the constitution, increased global fuel and food costs, and has helped to send the Middle East back to a circa-'78 complexion. Wow, how's that hope and change working for you?
[QUOTE=Punter 127;415386]He didn't totally throw it out.[/QUOTE]He didn't throw it out at all. He gave them 30 days to amend.
[url]http://www.hattiesburgamerican.com/article/20110203/NEWS01/110203027/Judge-dismisses-Miss-lawsuit-against-Obamacare[/url]
And, the dismissal with leave to amend had nothing to do with Constitutionality. This just held that the plaintiffs hadn't demonstrated standing (a procedural issue) because they hadn't shown imminent injury. If the judge had addressed Constitutionality and held that ObamaCare passes muster, he would not have granted leave to amend.
The upshot: This case doesn't even go on the scorecard yet. There simply hasn't been a decision on the merits. And, if standing is a problem, there may never be a decision on the merits.
[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;415405]It is incredible to look at the destruction Obama has wreaked upon us in just two short years. He has destroyed our economy, attempted to destroy our healthcare industry, trampled the constitution, increased global fuel and food costs, and has helped to send the Middle East back to a circa-'78 complexion. Wow, how's that hope and change working for you?[/QUOTE]It's George Bush's fault!
[QUOTE=Stan Da Man;415408]And, the dismissal with leave to amend had nothing to do with Constitutionality. This just held that the plaintiffs hadn't demonstrated standing (a procedural issue) because they hadn't shown imminent injury. If the judge had addressed Constitutionality and held that ObamaCare passes muster, he would not have granted leave to amend.[/QUOTE]Stan,
Liberals never let the facts stop them from uttering a good sound bite.
Thanks,
Jackson
[QUOTE=Jackson;415409]It's George Bush's fault![/QUOTE]I need a little couch time in front of the big screen at the AP house so we can wax philosophically about all that ails this world. Cigar Eric will be kind enough not to point out how abrasive I am and we can discuss possible menu items for Thursday dinners. No doubt, in the end, we'll find that it is in fact, all George Bush's fault.
BTW, did you know that George W. Bush is / was a conservative? That's what Esten said, so it's got to be true.
The community organizer in chief continues to figuratively take to the streets (of Cairo) and rail against the Man (I guess in this case Mubarak). This dimwit is so f-ing stupid that he is calling for transition to take place immediately then later he has his minions back pedal and say "begin the transition process, immediately." That is like throwing a steak in front of a Doberman and asking it to wait before it eats it. Like I have said many times before, whatever room Obama is in, he is the least experienced person in the room. His ineptitude in this situation is pushing a quasi-ally of 80 million people and de facto controller of the Suez canal into the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood (kind of like a union for terrorists).
F-ing brilliant. He's the smartest guy in the world.
Who said Bush was a conservative? I didn't.
And why do you guys keep saying "It's all Bush's fault". Do you really believe that?
[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;415405]It is incredible to look at the destruction Obama has wreaked upon us in just two short years. He has destroyed our economy, attempted to destroy our healthcare industry, trampled the constitution, increased global fuel and food costs, and has helped to send the Middle East back to a circa-'78 complexion. Wow, how's that hope and change working for you?[/QUOTE]Conservative delusion at its best.
[QUOTE=Jackson;415396]Actually, they can start with entry level jobs (like the rest of us did), and then they can work their way up the ladder to the "[i]good paying jobs[/i]" after they've demonstrated some work ethic (like the rest of us did).[/QUOTE]History is being rewritten at breakneck speed these days!
Sarah Palin says the Russians went broke winning the space race and self-destucted as a result.
Michelle Bachmann says the Founding Fathers went all out to end slavery.
Glenn Beck says a long-planned caliphate is descending on the US as Muslims are encircling the borders.
And Jackson says "the rest of us" (who one must assume means every white man in America) worked our way up from entry level jobs. Apparently no one was ever given a head start by a well-off, well-positioned dad, mom, grand dad or whatever.
He adds "the rest of us" picked up the "work ethic" along the way! Which makes one wonder where he worked all his life and who he worked with. In my experience, the "work ethic" hasn't been an attribute of most of the spoiled upper class white college grads I worked with for the past twenty years.
Well, well, well, Republican Texas Governor Rick Perry.
We all know that you advocated succeeding from the Union and your desire to invade Mexico. (what was that?)
We also know how you loved to bash California because of the state budget deficit while claiming Texas and your Tea Bag followers really know how to manage a state run government.
Now it was revealed that it was all a dog and pony show, just a room full of smoke and mirrors.
Texas now projects it has a budget deficit similar to the same size of California! ($27billion)
[url]http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-texas-budget-20110207,0,4154023.story[/url]
So much for the TEA BAG "Texas Miracle."
[QUOTE=Moveon; 415448]Well, well, well, Republican Texas Governor Rick Perry.
We all know that you advocated succeeding from the Union and your desire to invade Mexico. (what was that?)
We also know how you loved to bash California because of the state budget deficit while claiming Texas and your Tea Bag followers really know how to manage a state run government.
Now it was revealed that it was all a dog and pony show, just a room full of smoke and mirrors.
Texas now projects it has a budget deficit similar to the same size of California! ($27billion)
[url]http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-texas-budget-20110207,0,4154023.story[/url]
So much for the TEA BAG "Texas Miracle."[/QUOTE]Right. Think again.
* Texas has a $9 billion rainy day fund that they aren't even touching to cover this. California had a rainy day fund when Pete Wilson was in office. I think it got to about 45 cents before California legislators raided it.
* The budget deficit for Texas is based on [i]two years[/i] (because they're smart enough to shut the legislators out every other year). The budget deficit for California is $28 billion over the next year and 4 months.
* California's projected deficit over the next two years is a whopping 29 percent of revenues, and Jerry Brown plans to "not raise taxes" by asking voters to agree to continue $12. 5 billion in tax increases to cover part of the shortfall.
* The worst-case interpretation for Texas is a 17 percent deficit, and Texas is closing it's budget deficit without raising taxes.
* The worst part of Texas's job loss appears to be in the past, and unemployment is gradually decreasing. In California it is still increasing.
* Texas's business community and population continue to grow; California's continues to shrivel.
This last issue is the biggest concern: Every year, legislators in California have fewer pockets to pick, while those in Texas have more.
New York and New Jersey have the same problems as California. The differences is, they have governors who are trying to fix the problem. In California, Jerry Brown is just adding fuel to the fire, or fiddling while Rome burns. Pick your metaphor.
Any sane person would take Texas's problems over California's any day of the week. Even Jerry Brown, so that would apply to some insane persons, as well.
Moveon, since I live in the Great State of Texas, let me give you a little lesson in economics. Perry is (gasp) cutting spending to close the budget gap and not raising taxes. OMG!
What a novel idea, when you don't have the money you cut spending!
Wonder if this might catch on in Washington?
Ok now all you liberals and progressives can start telling me how we are kicking the poor ect ect ect.
[QUOTE=Moveon; 415448]Well, well, well, Republican Texas Governor Rick Perry.
We all know that you advocated succeeding from the Union and your desire to invade Mexico. (what was that?)
We also know how you loved to bash California because of the state budget deficit while claiming Texas and your Tea Bag followers really know how to manage a state run government.
Now it was revealed that it was all a dog and pony show, just a room full of smoke and mirrors.
Texas now projects it has a budget deficit similar to the same size of California! ($27billion)
[url]http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-texas-budget-20110207,0,4154023.story[/url]
[/QUOTE]Very interesting article, thanks.
One line got my attention: [i]"People could stake me and Gov. Perry on the ground and torture us, and we still would not raise taxes."[/i] Ideology is strong.
Texas and California will both be interesting to watch. But the approach of combined spending cuts and tax increases is the superior approach. There is no sound moral or economic reason for not including revenue increases through somewhat higher taxation on those who can easily afford it.
Texas already has a poverty rate over 17%, the 6th highest in the country. Spending cuts without higher progressive taxes tend to increase economic inequality and increase poverty. The only way to possibly offset that will be strong state GDP growth, which is what Perry is counting on. We shall see how the experiment turns out.
At the end of the day the most important metrics are those that relate to the well-being of the poor and middle class.
[QUOTE=Tiny12; 415287]Esten, O. K, I've looked. Median household income (GDP per capita prior to 1967, when there's no data for the median) increased faster than trend after Coolidge, Kennedy and Reagan cut taxes. You may argue about the last Reagan tax cut, although I believe higher oil prices and other factors caused the recession in 1990/1991. It would be absurd to argue that lower taxes caused that. Median household income BEFORE INCOME TAX did not increase after the Bush tax cuts. As I've mentioned before, the standard of living for the middle class and median household income after income tax did increase, and you need to take the trend to smaller households into account. As you know, there are other factors besides tax rates that effect the economy and income distribution. That's what happened during Bush's terms in office. Also part of the reason why things went well during Clinton's terms. Again, Clinton and the Republicans did a lot that was right.
You don't have enough data in my opinion looking solely at the USA. That's why I think it's important to drag in other countries, and the data clearly show lower tax rates benefit all. Also, there's the business cycle, demographic changes, other economic policy changes, etc, that obscure the effects of tax cuts / tax increases. Another reason why looking at the prosperity of the middle class in countries versus their tax rates is a better indicator than looking at median growth in household income after tax cuts / increases. [/QUOTE]Tiny, sorry for the delay in getting back. Glad to see you took some time to look up the data. Here is my case on taxes.
1) The great economic expansion and growth in middle class prosperity that began with FDR occured under far higher upper income tax rates than we have today.
2) As you noted real income (and poverty) improved faster than trend after Reagan tax cuts. But they also did so faster than trend after Bush / Clinton tax increases (which you omitted). AND unlike Reagan, Clinton balanced the budget.
3) The W Bush tax cuts did NOT provide further improvement in real income and poverty (or GDP growth) vs. What Clinton achieved, despite conservative ideology which states that tax cuts grow the pie and benefit everyone. In fact most metrics under Bush were unfavorable compared to Clinton. 9/11 and the wars cannot be blamed for the performance of these metrics under Bush, except deficits.
All of this tells me tax cuts (especially for the wealthy) are not the great harbinger of prosperity for average Americans that some would have us believe.
Conversely, moves to higher tax rates (as evidenced by FDR and Clinton) can produce positive outcomes.
I think there is plenty of data to evaluate the effects of taxation in the US, and that getting into comparisons with other countries introduces more confounding variables. The question I am interested in is what are the effects of lower vs. Higher taxation within the US.
Esten,
To begin with Texas has no state income tax, is business friendly, has experienced an influx of people, is controlled by a Republican governor & legislature and is recovering faster from the recession; California has the exact opposite trends. But then everything has to be measured against how the 'poor' are doing to suit the liberals / progressives. Let me give you a little hint here, you have to have a viable economy and funds to spend before you can 'help the poor', the two go hand in hand.
Liberals / Progressives have done more to insure the 'poor' stay 'poor' therefore insuring their constituency than anyone else. It is the liberal / progressive poverty pimps who have created the new underclass via Welfare and who continue to preach class warfare to that constituency.
Texas will do fine and weather the budget shortfall where very soon you will see California beating on Obama's door asking for a hand out to save their state. I just don't understand how liberals / progressives can not grasp the simple concept of you don't spend the money when you don't have
[QUOTE=Esten;415459]Very interesting article, thanks.[/quote]Translation: I like propagandist materials that support my cockeyed view of the world.
[quote=]One line got my attention: [i]"People could stake me and Gov. Perry on the ground and torture us, and we still would not raise taxes."[/i] Ideology is strong.[/quote]The Liberal Left (not all democrats) lives in a vacuum, devoid of principles or personal convictions. This is derivative of having no moral core, upon which such beliefs can be established. Therefore they create an artificial group of untethered 'beliefs' (environmentalism, Scientology, etc) in order to make themselves feel better and to give themselves the facade of moral superiority."I drive a hybrid, therefore I care more about the environment than you." "I care about the poor, therefore I am better than you." It also leads them to attack anyone who actually has beliefs or convictions (except if those convictions are the felony kind). While they may be able to fool others, subconsciously, they cannot fool themselves. So lacking a moral compass and jealous of those that have them, they develop a righteous form of short-man's disease. This form of dementia leads them to force their supposedly, morally-superior beliefs down everyone's throat, because they 'know' that they are right. When challenged, they become volatile and dangerous, not because of the strength of their beliefs but because their fear that if proven wrong, the basis of who they are will have been proven to be nonexistent.
[quote=]Texas and California will both be interesting to watch.[/quote]Comment, below.
[quote=]But the approach of combined spending cuts and tax increases is the superior approach.[/quote]When was the last time any liberal advocated cutting taxes for those people who pay taxes? When was the last time any liberal advocated cutting spending? US State and Federal Governments in general never really cut spending. They merely reduce the amount by which a line item is increased and call it a cut.
What Esten is saying here is that California, under the tutelage of Governor Moonbeam, will have a superior outcome to that achieved by Texas, via increasing taxes and maintaining modest spending growth (in liberal terms that is "slashing the budget to the bone"). As has been stated below, CA's tax and regulatory policies have driven Californians out of the state in droves (WA, OR, NV, NM anyone?). Therefore, Esten's superior approach to closing the budget deficit is to reduce state revenues by hastening a reduction in the tax base via additional tax hikes and of course increase spending.
Interesting to watch? About as interesting as watching Old Yeller over and over again just hoping that one of these times that fucking mutt will live.
[quote=]There is no sound moral or economic reason for not including revenue increases through somewhat higher taxation on those who can easily afford it.[/quote]In addition to the comment above, which sheds light on your state of mind, you might try reading (books, not bumper stickers). The economic and moral reasoning are completely intertwined. It is no surprise that you are unaware of either. There is more than a little empirical evidence that shows the economic harm wrought by increasing tax rates and their asymmetrical impact on the poor. Fact: as marginal tax rates increase, monies that would have flowed into the private sector economy are reduced. That means that the share of the economic pie available to all individuals is reduced (corporations don't pay taxes, they pass them all on to individuals). The deleterious effects actively reduce personal wealth, across all socio-economic strata. Those who can 'afford' tax raises survive while those who can't are marginalized and transitioned from productive members of the economy to wards of the government. It is far worse than irony that these marginalized individuals become subsidized by the ranks of the productive, which their government forced them to leave.
Do I need to go into how that relates to morality?
[quote=]Texas already has a poverty rate over 17, the 6th highest in the country. [/quote]Is this a non sequitur or are you establishing the baseline to which you wish to add via tax and spend policies? Or are you being duplicitous by ignoring how liberal policies regarding the invasion of America by its southern neighbor has distorted the poverty rates in many southern states, not the least of which is Texas?
[quote=]Spending cuts without higher progressive taxes tend to increase economic inequality and increase poverty.[/quote]That is complete bullshit. Look at tax the empirical evidence (I. E. Not your unfounded opinions) of tax cuts imposed by Kennedy, Reagan and Bush43.
[quote=]The only way to possibly offset that will be strong state GDP growth, which is what Perry is counting on.[/quote]No shit? Why isn't Governor Moonbeam counting on economic growth? Because he knows that there won't be any precisely because of his and his predecessors' policies.
[quote=]We shall see how the experiment turns out.[/quote]We shall, but why can't we use factual examples of how things have worked and not worked in formulating solutions to current problems? Why must we throw out what we know so that the left can prove itself wrong again and again?
[quote=]At the end of the day the most important metrics are those that relate to the well-being of the poor and middle class.[/QUOTE]At the end of the day, we are stuck with moronic liberal spew like the above. All men are equal, some just more than others.
I know you don't respect it or see any value in it but there is this thing called the Declaration of Independence. Despite the fact that was written a while back by a bunch of white guys, it encapsulates the core upon which America founded.
Part of it goes like this:
'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. '
The Declaration has served us pretty well for nearly 235 years. Who are you that you know better? Herein lies the fallacy and danger of liberalism, outlined above.
[QUOTE=Esten; 415459]Very interesting article, thanks.
Texas already has a poverty rate over 17, the 6th highest in the country. Spending cuts without higher progressive taxes tend to increase economic inequality and increase poverty. The only way to possibly offset that will be strong state GDP growth, which is what Perry is counting on. We shall see how the experiment turns out.
At the end of the day the most important metrics are those that relate to the well-being of the poor and middle class. [/QUOTE]Esten,
Yes, the Texas budget deficit destroys the myths about Texas and Tea Bag darling. Republican Governor Rick Perry.
We also know the ones who will be really affected will be the Hispanic population of Texas first and foremost. I really doubt if any Tea Bagger cares, anyway.
Too bad for the Republican Party! They have ZERO chance in the next Presidential election without the LATINO Vote.
Esten, I have been meaning to ask you: Have you seen the FEMA concentration camps or seen the Obama DEATH PANELS yet? (FOX NEWS) Let me know when you do.
Thanks-
Moveon
[QUOTE=Moveon; 415467]Esten,
Yes, the Texas budget deficit destroys the myths about Texas and Tea Bag darling. Republican Governor Rick Perry. [/quote]How, exactly?
[quote=]We also know the ones who will be really affected will be the Hispanic population of Texas first and foremost.[/quote]The legal ones or the illegal ones? Why don't you care about poor black people or Texas' poor white crackers?
[quote=]I really doubt if any Tea Bagger cares, anyway.[/quote]About what? If you make up some sort of nonsense hypothetical, why should someone care?
[quote=]Too bad for the Republican Party! They have ZERO chance in the next Presidential election without the LATINO Vote.[/quote]All hail Moveon, he knows more than than 86. 19 million Americans.
[url]http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2011/02/americans-think.php[/url]
[quote=]Esten, I have been meaning to ask you: Have you seen the FEMA concentration camps [/quote]Who suggested there would be FEMA CCs? If Obama is calling the shots, I would expect them to be much more high-minded, reeducation camps.
[quote=]or seen the Obama DEATH PANELS yet?[/quote]Check out Avastin.
[quote=](FOX NEWS) Let me know when you do.[/quote]I am pretty sure you'll be the last to know
[QUOTE=Wild Walleye; 415469]How, exactly?
*That a Tea Bag Republican Governor politician will never allow a budget deficit to exist under his watch. A $27 BILLION budget deficit, that is.
The legal ones or the illegal ones? Why don't you care about poor black people or Texas' poor white crackers?
*Sorry, the majority happen to be Hispanics in that state.
Who suggested there would be FEMA CCs?
*GLENN BECK, FOX NEWS.
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEBC63Qr0A0[/url]
Check out Avastin.
*You got me there. Last time I checked, Avastin is a drug used to treat certain types of cancer. (colon, brain, etc)
[QUOTE=Moveon;415473]*That a Tea Bag Republican Governor politician will never allow a budget deficit to exist under his watch. A $27 BILLION budget deficit, that is.[/quote]Duh, what? Do you follow US politics?
[quote=]Sorry, the majority happen to be Hispanics in that state.[/quote]Thanks for removing all doubt.
82. 1% of Texas residents identify themselves (to the census bureau) as being white. 46. 7% as non-hispanic white and 36. 9% as of hispanic or latino origin, while 12% are black. Now I'm sure you got some mighty fine learning when you was growing up but where is you getting that majority number? When I was a kid, a majority used to mean more than 50%.
[quote=]Who suggested there would be FEMA CCs?
*GLENN BECK, FOX NEWS.
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEBC63Qr0A0[/url]
[/quote]I'm afraid that I am not all that familiar with Glenn Beck. However, I am pretty sure he is an American citizen. I am not sure why you think the First Amendment (part of the Constitution thingy) should not be available to him, specifically.
[quote=]*You got me there. Last time I checked, Avastin is a drug used to treat certain types of cancer. (colon, brain, etc)[/QUOTE]Right and wrong at the same time. Avastin is a drug and while it could be used to treat certain diseases, Obama's FDA has banned doctors from prescribing it.
[url]http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/2011/jan/12/tdopin02-yes-obamacare-has-brought-them-back-to-li-ar-767967/[/url]
If you had half a brain or maybe if one of your loved ones had breast cancer, you might have a different perspective.
Walleye.
Dude, you must be smoking crack.
Did you bother to read the newspaper article? TEXAS now predicts a BUDGET DEFICIT of $27 Billion. Which means it's in the same league as California. Rick Perry has for years touted Texas and his administration to be fiscally conservative and always liked trampling, liberal California. Now it's deficit is a LOT HIGHER proportionally speaking. Per resident. With no income tax base to work with, that means education and all social services will be cut drastically.
The ones who will be hurt the most will be the Hispanic population. That is what I was referring to. (follow the chain) Anyway, the Tea Party does not care about the Hispanics. They will end up splintering the more moderate Republican party and without Immigration Reform and the Hispanic vote, the Republicans have little chance of winning the next Presidential election.
Glenn Beck is a conservative talk show host on FOX News. But what does the Constitution have to do with the misinformation provided by Glenn Beck?
The FDA is banning Avastin because of the harmful side effects. Come on, are you saying the FDA is part of Obama's "DEATH PANEL"???.
Mongers-
I just got off the phone with my good buddy B. Hussein Obama and he has informed me that "his" FDA is planning on banning Viagra, Levitra, Cialis and the like, officially for safety reasons but really because even taking all three of those drugs at the same time can't give him the "go-power" needed to get it up to fuck his wife Michelle. Time to cut your dick off and hang yourself with it WallyWildeye.
Suerte,
Rock Harders
[QUOTE=Moveon;415467]Esten, I have been meaning to ask you: Have you seen the FEMA concentration camps or seen the Obama DEATH PANELS yet? (FOX NEWS) Let me know when you do.[/QUOTE]I haven't seen the Death Panels yet, but I am sure they are coming because Sarah Palin warned us about them.
BTW Palin provided some brilliant commentary on Obama's SOTU address. Check out the video interview with Fox News below. You can't make this stuff up!
[url]http://www.dailykos.com/tv/w/002802/[/url]
[QUOTE]GRETA: Governor, last night there was a lot of discussion about the Sputnik Moment the President wants us to have. Do you agree with him? Is this our moment?
PALIN: That was another one of those WTF moments, when he has so often repeated, the Sputnik Moment, that he would aspire Americans to celebrate, he needs to remember that what happened back then with the former communist USSR and their victory and that race to space, yeah, they won, but they also incured so much debt at the time that it resulted in the inevitable collapse of the Soviet Union so I listen to that Sputnik Moment talk over and over again and I think, no we don't need one of those. [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Doppelganger;415464]Liberals / Progressives have done more to insure the 'poor' stay 'poor' therefore insuring their constituency than anyone else. It is the liberal / progressive poverty pimps who have created the new underclass via Welfare and who continue to preach class warfare to that constituency.[/QUOTE]Republicans have [i]practiced[/i] class warfare since Reagan with their huge giveaways to the rich.
Doppel instead of spewing your drivel have a look at the data. Below are poverty rates for red states and your boy Bush. Tell me if you see any trends.
Highest state poverty rates, 2005 (Wikipedia) :
40 Kentucky 14.8%
41 Tennessee 15.0%
42 South Carolina 15.0%
43 Arizona 15.2%
44 West Virginia 15.4%
45 Oklahoma 15.6%
46 Texas 16.2%
47 Alabama 16.7%
48 New Mexico 17.9%
49 Louisiana 18.3%
50 Mississippi 20.1%
Poverty Rate under Clinton:
1993: 15.1%
1994: 14.5%
1995: 13.8%
1996: 13.7%
1997: 13.3%
1998: 12.7%
1999: 11.9%
2000: 11.3%
Poverty Rate under Bush:
2001: 11.7%
2002: 12.1%
2003: 12.5%
2004: 12.7%
2005: 12.6%
2006: 12.3%
2007: 12.5%
2008: 13.2%
[QUOTE=Esten; 415480]I haven't seen the Death Panels yet, but I am sure they are coming because Sarah Palin warned us about them.
You betcha!
Sarah should stop eating all that Moose meat and quit drinking it up with her Joe 6-pack.
Eye opening "WTF" video. I ended up looking at that video, over and over again. God, is she scary.
By the way, the only DEATH PANELS I am aware of are the health insurance companies that deny coverage.
[QUOTE=Esten;415482]Republicans have [i]practiced[/i] class warfare since Reagan with their huge giveaways to the rich.[/quote]I am Esten and I'm saying one thing and posting completely irrelevant statistics. More over, I won't even post the statistics to which I refer. Here I go again, republicans hate the color orange. Don't believe me? Look at the facts, since Eisenhower, attendance at MLB games has increased at an inexplicable rate.
Rank Team Games Total.
1 NY Yankees 81 3,765,807
2 Philadelphia 81 3,647,249
3 LA Dodgers 81 3,562,320
4 St. Louis 81 3,301,218
5 LA Angels 81 3,250,816
6 Minnesota 81 3,223,640
7 Chicago Cubs 81 3,062,973
8 Boston 81 3,046,443
9 San Francisco 81 3,037,443
10 Colorado 80 2,875,245
[quote=]Doppel instead of spewing your drivel have a look at the data. Below are poverty rates for red states and your boy Bush. Tell me if you see any trends.
Highest state poverty rates. 2005 (Wikipedia) :
40 Kentucky 14.8%
41 Tennessee 15.0%
42 South Carolina 15.0%
43 Arizona 15.2%
44 West Virginia 15.4%
45 Oklahoma 15.6%
46 Texas 16.2%
47 Alabama 16.7%
48 New Mexico 17.9%
49 Louisiana 18.3%
50 Mississippi 20.1%[/quote]Wow! Stats from one year, holy shit batman look at that trend!
Wait a minute, you can't have a chronology-based trend with data points from only one moment (unless were talking global warming). Now, I would never accuse Esten or Moveon of cherry-picking stats (I know that they would be confused trying to understand multiple data sets and relating causality).
Clearly, it is George Bush's fault for the sky rocketing poverty rate in Mississippi. Due to Bush's policies, that one-time bastion of technology and innovation has slid from 50th in poverty to 50th. Moreover, you deftly ignore the fact that 22 states have poverty rates equal to or above the national average. Clearly, these states suffer in poverty because republicans hate black people and Mexicans, 'cept the ones that make good house help. It has nothing to do with other issues such as population density, lack urban wealth centers, legacies of under education, entitlements and the like. All those states happen to have significant rural populations, suffer from brain drain and lack of opportunity. With the exception of TX (Dallas and Houston) there are few large cities as commercial and wealth centers. Similarly, we know there are no poor people in New York and that the stats for that state don't have rich people in Westchester County offsetting poor people in the Bronx.
[quote=]Poverty Rate under Clinton:
1993: 15.1%
1994: 14.5%
1995: 13.8%
1996: 13.7%
1997: 13.3%
1998: 12.7%
1999: 11.9%
2000: 11.3%
Poverty Rate under Bush:
2001: 11.7%
2002: 12.1%
2003: 12.5%
2004: 12.7%
2005: 12.6%
2006: 12.3%
2007: 12.5%
2008: 13.2%[/QUOTE]Once again, Esten is right, our first black president saved us from poverty and delivered us from evil, all the while managing to bust a nut on some fat chick's blue dress. Now I'm not a pointed-headed elite like these two geniuses but back in the one-room school house that I attended, they taught me readin', writin' (maybe right'and too) and 'rithmatic. I was even able to read this from that right-wing bastion of conservatism, the Institute for Research on Poverty:
"In the late 1950s, the overall poverty rate for individuals in the United States was 22 percent, representing 39.5 million poor persons. Between 1959 and 1969, the poverty rate declined dramatically and steadily to 12.1 percent."
Wow, didn't JFK cut taxes during this presidency? When was that again?
"As a result of a sluggish economy, the rate increased slightly to 12.5 percent by 1971. In 1972 and 1973, however, it began to decrease again. In 1973, the poverty rate was 11.1 percent. At that time roughly 23 million people were poor."
Wait, wait! Are you telling me that under Johnson and his great mutherf-ing society poverty increased? Say it ain't so! But he declared war on poverty so the stats must be wrong! Poverty decreased under Nixon? But he was the devil (before Reagan, Bush41 and Bush43).
"In 1975 the poverty rate increased to 12.3 percent. It then oscillated around 11.5 percent for the next few years. After 1978, however, the rate rose steadily, reaching 15. 2 percent in 1983."
Hang on a minute, poverty saw its biggest increase in recent history with Jimmy (I-was-better-than-Obama) Carter and the legacy of economic disaster he handed to Reagan?
"Thereafter it remained mostly higher than 13 percent. In 1993 it reached a new high of 15.1 percent, and then began to fall slowly."
So, the rise of poverty stopped under Reagan and remained in a band between 13-15% for 10 years. Not sure how the author sees 15.1% as a 'new high' when he stated the rate was 15.2% two sentences earlier, but I digress.
"In 2000, 31 million people were poor (11.3 percent of the population)."
So. 1994-2001 we saw an improvement that certainly had nothing to do with the 104th Congress lead by Newt Gingrich? I'm sure it was all Bill Clinton since his party controlled congress, wait, they only did for 2 years.
"In 2001 the number of poor and the poverty rate both rose as economic difficulties moved into recession, and the rate continued to rise; in 2003, 35.8 million people were poor by the official measure of poverty. By 2005, the number had risen to 37 million people (12.6 percent of the population)."
Again, all GWB's fault. Dot-com bubble never burst and 911 never happened.
"After a slight decline in 2006, in 2007, 37.3 million people were poor (12.5 percent of the population). In 2009, the number of people in poverty rose to 46.3 million, and the poverty rate (14.3 percent of the population) was the highest since 1994."
So, the Dems get control of Congress and Obama gets elected and 9 million people get added to the ranks of the poor. Bravo! Encore!
Thanks for enlightening us, Esten. Esten and Moveon are right. I have seen the light, hallelujah, amen, thank you lord, thank you Jebus!
Esten, Moreon,
You never answer the question.
If handing people money for doing nothing is a way to motivate them to become more productive and move up out of poverty then why are we in the 45th+ year of Welfare and other federal assistance programs?
If this were true then Johnson's "Great Society" would have been a resounding success and would have ended 25 or 30 years ago as all the "poor" would have been sufficiently motivated and moved up into the middle class.
The assumption is false now as it was then. People are not motivated in the same manner or to the same extent. You could give the "poor" a onetime lump sum distribution to raise them to the middle class and the majority of them would be poor again in a year or less.
Don't believe it? I can give you an example. Research the number of lottery / mega-milliions / powerball winners since these games were first offered. Look at the winners of $3 to $10 million dollars and the vast majority of these winners are now poor again.
Liberals / progressives never heard of "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink'.
Liberals / progressives believe you CAN lead a horse to water and CAN MAKE him drink – it only takes three to do this.
Two hold the horse's head in the water trough and the third one sucks on the horse's ass assuming if you draw enough vacuum at one end the horse will have to drink on the other.
Question – which one of you is the third guy?
[QUOTE=Doppelganger; 415489]If handing people money for doing nothing is a way to motivate them to become more productive and move up out of poverty then why are we in the 45th+ year of Welfare and other federal assistance programs?
If this were true then Johnson's "Great Society" would have been a resounding success and would have ended 25 or 30 years ago as all the "poor" would have been sufficiently motivated and moved up into the middle class.
The assumption is false now as it was then. People are not motivated in the same manner or to the same extent. You could give the "poor" a onetime lump sum distribution to raise them to the middle class and the majority of them would be poor again in a year or less.
Don't believe it? I can give you an example. Research the number of lottery / mega-milliions / powerball winners since these games were first offered. Look at the winners of $3 to $10 million dollars and the vast majority of these winners are now poor again.[/QUOTE][b][i]Liberal policies will always fail because they are based on manifestly inaccurate models of human behavior. [/i][/b]
Thanks,
Jackson
Never let the truth get in the way of promoting your ideology. The truth is contrary to just about everything Esten and Moreon (thanks Dopple) post. This is particularly evident in Esten's blathering on the subject of poverty and taxes. Below you will find data showing the Top Marginal Tax Rate (TMTR) and the US National Poverty rate going back to 1959. There is no plausible argument that lowering marginal tax rates increases poverty. In fact, just the opposite is true. Lowering marginal tax rates and the resulting economic activity reduces poverty. End of story.
Year TMTR Poverty Rate.
1959 91% 22.4%
1964 77% 19.0%
1965 70% 17.3%
1982 50% 15.0%
1987 32. 5% 13.4%
1988 28% 13.0%
1991 31% 14.2%
1993 39. 6% 15.1%
2001 39.1% 11.7%
2002 38.5% 12.1%
2003 35% 12.5%
2010 35% 14.3%
[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;415491]Never let the truth get in the way of promoting your ideology. Lowering marginal tax rates and the resulting economic activity reduces poverty. End of story.[/QUOTE]WW is to economics as Sarah Plain is to logic. The link between marginal tax rates and poverty is as strong as the link between the smile on the chicas face at the bar and her performance in the rack. All the university economics programs around the globe should close forthwith, WW will explain it all in his inimitable way. Too fucking funny!