The Seattle Times’ editorial board is talking vaguely about reforms without ever explaining how much money (if any) they actually save, let alone what they’ll do to the people working in government. And even after mentioning that many of the so called reforms they want have already passed, they seem to get angrier. This is bad enough, and I considered a more general critique of it. But the opening paragraphs are what really pissed me off.
DEMOCRATS who take cheer from business leaders’ support for a tax increase should make sure they are hearing the whole statement: taxes and reforms.
That is what Jim Albaugh, CEO of Boeing Commercial Airplanes, said last week. Add to his voice that of Microsoft’s general counsel, Brad Smith: “It’s important reforms are approved along with revenues.”
Phew, I was worried that an attorney for Microsoft and the CEO of Boeing might not have a space to push their preferred policy. Thank goodness The Seattle Times editorial board will act as stenographers for them!
Now, perhaps I’m being unfair here. I mean those tax policy changes affect those companies. Well the editorial goes on to mention some of the reforms they want: “formulas for pensions, pay increases, medical reimbursements, benefits, etc.”* Oddly, they don’t quote anyone who will be hurt by those things. People losing a good deal of their pensions and pay over the long haul, or who’ll have worse medical care maybe deserve as much time as a CEO of a Chicago company.
* Yes, they say “etc.” instead of just ending the list.
Hey, at least they sorta kinda laid out what “reforms” means.
That last sentence is pure BS, btw.
Seems like there has been a bit of “reform”
http://www.rosshunter.info/201.....4.facebook
“will act as stenographers for them”
Pop Rabbit (RIP, sniffle) was a journalist, and I was a journalist before I became a lawyer, so I know what I’m talking about: Any self-respecting journalist who had that said about him would have to commit hara-kiri! I have swords available for any ST editorial writers who wish to do the honorable thing.
“those tax policy changes effect those companies”
I’m pretty sure that should be “affect,” Carl. I know this sounds like nitpicking, but we want the other guys to be the illiterati here, don’t we? So, I hope you don’t mind me posting this correction.
Subsidies We Don’t Need Dep’t
Speaking of gummint reforms, a $6 billion-a-year tax credit for corn-based ethanol is going bye-bye. Good riddance:
“‘Corn ethanol is extremely dirty,’ Michal Rosenoer, biofuels manager for Friends of the Earth, said …. ‘It leads to more climate pollution than conventional gasoline, and it causes deforestation as well as agricultural runoff that pollutes our water.’ Opponents also see corn ethanol, which now takes a larger share of the U.S. corn crop than cattle, hogs and poultry, as a factor in driving food prices higher.”
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_n.....heres-more
Roger Rabbit Commentary: In addition to lowering the deficit by six big ones, maybe we’ll see some easing of the horrific food inflation the gummint tells us doesn’t exist.
” … the editorial goes on to mention some of the reforms they want: ‘formulas for pensions, pay increases, medical reimbursements, benefits, etc.'”
Yeah, screw lowly state workers even more, as if they aren’t already sufficiently underpaid! Republicans and their lackey newspaper supporters never met a budgetary problem that couldn’t be solved by making workers live off food banks.
Being a former state employee myself, I know lots of public workers, and to a person they’re retiring as soon as they can. That should tell you something about how luscious the pay and perks of public employment are. This talent drain ultimately will cost taxpayers big books in recruiting and training costs, higher error rates due to less experienced workers, and higher labor costs due to lower efficiency.
@5,
Fixed, thanks.
If Owebama and the Democrats confiscated ALL of the assets from the Forbes 500 list, they would net about 1.5 Trillion. This would hardly cover the 1.2 Trillion dollar Deficit spending spree going on today, so your tax the rich notion is pure BS.
@9
Um… No one said anything about confiscating the assets from the Forbes 500. What’s BS is your argument.
Point being if you taxed them even 100% it WOULD NOT SOLVE YOUR SPENDING SPREE PROBLEM!
@11
Maybe you should take that somewhere where someone’s actually suggesting we do that.
@11 Further point being that if George W. Bush hadn’t borrowed half of the debt accumulated during our country’s entire 230-year history and if Republicans hadn’t run the economy into the dirt we wouldn’t need to raise taxes on anyone. But I suppose I should also mention the rich are now paying the lowest tax rates since World War 2, so how is letting the Bush tax cuts expire for the ultra-rich “confiscating” the assets of the wealthy?
@ 11
You mean the spending sprees we had in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Phillipines, the TSA, the patriot act, or perhaps the unfunded “No Child Left Behind Act”, which foisted the entire cost onto the States and gave the Bush/Koch Fascists a perfect excuse to reduce federal funding support for schools at all levels in every state.
George Bush’s spending sprees cost us nearly everything. The current economy is just a reflection of that. Those billionaires need to be back at the 90% tax rate, where they were before. Fuck them, they can afford it, and they’re the people that caused this mess in the first place. They’re fucking thieves. Just because they did it with bribes, graft, and flim flam, doesn’t make them any less so. Fuck the thieves. They can pay for the mess they made. Why should we eat shit so they can afford another 150 foot private cruise ship?
OK so add 10% more tax to all their assets, incomes etc and what would you net? 200b 300b against a 1.2 trillion dollar deficit…
It’s a spending problem, not a taxing probleim Stupid!
@8 I’ll bet the Republican Times editorial writers are too chicken to take the nightly vocabulary quiz and they sure as hell can’t get near my score (“RR”).
http://www.merriam-webster.com/quiz/index.htm
@15 You’ve already been told nobody is talking about taxing their assets. Can’t you fucking read??
@14 Right now I’ll settle for billionaires paying the same tax rates as the rest of us. Some of them don’t pay anything at all. Aren’t Republicans going around crowing the virtues of a flat-rate tax? Well, here’s their chance!
@15 No, it’s not actually a spending problem, it’s pretty much a taxing problem. People want the stuff government provides. For example, I want my Social Security checks; and why shouldn’t I get them? After all, I paid Social Security taxes for over 40 years. The federal budget was balanced when George W. Bush, a Republican, took office in 2001. We have deficits because he tripled the rate of growth in federal spending and slashed federal revenues to a historic low of about 15%. You can’t cut taxes and raise spending at the same time, and not have deficits. Republicans seem to think they can wish that into existence, but 2 + 2 has equaled 4 since the time of the Pharaohs and before, and still does.
So my question is, where are you going to get 1.2 Trillion, by just taxing the rich?
yd
Isn’t it silly to insist on others defending a position only you support?
Tell you what. you suggest we tax no one and provide no gumming services. OK?
Now you tell me how that is going to begin? Since we do owe a few trillions jointly, shall we just reneg on that debt?
No I would suggest we realize that the lowering of credit ratings, and the massive deficit and debt of this government, has no other outcome than our European partners.
If one cannot learn from others, they are lost!
The Washington Huskies lost to Baylor in the Alamo Bowl tonight — in the highest-scoring bowl game in college football history. Baylor topped the Dawgs by a score of 67 – 56.
@20 “by just taxing the rich?”
That’s your argument for defending a system under which millionaires pay lower tax rates than working-class people — and sometimes none at all?
Nobody has ever suggested “just taxing the rich,” numbskull. Quit sleeping in class, get the wax out of your ears, and pay attention. The suggestion is that the rich pay the same taxes as the rest of us. Got that? Nah, you don’t get it — you don’t get anything.
And now let’s hear from the wealthy??
How about this dumbass-
Nancy Pelosi, wanna getaway? Sure, the House Minority leader said, “God bless the 99 percent,” but perhaps she should have added, “God forbid, if I’ll ever vacation like them.”
The former House Speaker is enjoying her holiday at a posh Hawaiian resort in a suite that costs $10,000 a night, while most vacationing Americans don’t come close to spending that in a year.
Nancy Pelosi is certainly not a member of the 99% she so publicly admires, and she doesn’t want to be. For the second Christmas in a row, Pelosi is staying at the luxurious Four Seasons Resort Hualalai at Historic Ka’upulehu in Kona, reports the Hawaii Reporter. According to the report, Nancy Pelosi has been escorted by local police during her two visits, at a cost of $34,000 to local taxpayers each visit, i.e. the 99 percent.
By the way, Congresswoman Pelosi’s colleague and fellow Democrat, President Obama, who is enjoying a 17-day vacation in Hawaii, is also racking up the charges. The Reporter says his trip is costing around 4 million of the 99 percent’s hard earned dollars.
So how rich is Nancy Pelosi? According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the San Francisco democrat is the ninth wealthiest member of Congress and has a colossal net worth of $196,299,990. To quote Pelosi during a recent speech about economic inequality: “Something is wrong with this picture.
And now let’s hear from the wealthy??
How about this dumbass-
Nancy Pelosi, wanna getaway? Sure, the House Minority leader said, “God bless the 99 percent,” but perhaps she should have added, “God forbid, if I’ll ever vacation like them.”
The former House Speaker is enjoying her holiday at a posh Hawaiian resort in a suite that costs $10,000 a night, while most vacationing Americans don’t come close to spending that in a year.
Nancy Pelosi is certainly not a member of the 99% she so publicly admires, and she doesn’t want to be. For the second Christmas in a row, Pelosi is staying at the luxurious Four Seasons Resort Hualalai at Historic Ka’upulehu in Kona, reports the Hawaii Reporter. According to the report, Nancy Pelosi has been escorted by local police during her two visits, at a cost of $34,000 to local taxpayers each visit, i.e. the 99 percent.
By the way, Congresswoman Pelosi’s colleague and fellow Democrat, President Obama, who is enjoying a 17-day vacation in Hawaii, is also racking up the charges. The Reporter says his trip is costing around 4 million of the 99 percent’s hard earned dollars.
So how rich is Nancy Pelosi? According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the San Francisco democrat is the ninth wealthiest member of Congress and has a colossal net worth of $196,299,990. To quote Pelosi during a recent speech about economic inequality: “Something is wrong with this picture.
And now let’s hear from the wealthy??
How about this dumbass-
Nancy Pelosi, wanna getaway? Sure, the House Minority leader said, “God bless the 99 percent,” but perhaps she should have added, “God forbid, if I’ll ever vacation like them.”
The former House Speaker is enjoying her holiday at a posh Hawaiian resort in a suite that costs $10,000 a night, while most vacationing Americans don’t come close to spending that in a year.
Nancy Pelosi is certainly not a member of the 99% she so publicly admires, and she doesn’t want to be. For the second Christmas in a row, Pelosi is staying at the luxurious Four Seasons Resort Hualalai at Historic Ka’upulehu in Kona, reports the Hawaii Reporter. According to the report, Nancy Pelosi has been escorted by local police during her two visits, at a cost of $34,000 to local taxpayers each visit, i.e. the 99 percent.
By the way, Congresswoman Pelosi’s colleague and fellow Democrat, President Obama, who is enjoying a 17-day vacation in Hawaii, is also racking up the charges. The Reporter says his trip is costing around 4 million of the 99 percent’s hard earned dollars.
So how rich is Nancy Pelosi? According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the San Francisco democrat is the ninth wealthiest member of Congress and has a colossal net worth of $196,299,990. To quote Pelosi during a recent speech about economic inequality: “Something is wrong with this picture.
And now let’s hear from the wealthy??
How about this dumbass-
Nancy Pelosi, wanna getaway? Sure, the House Minority leader said, “God bless the 99 percent,” but perhaps she should have added, “God forbid, if I’ll ever vacation like them.”
The former House Speaker is enjoying her holiday at a posh Hawaiian resort in a suite that costs $10,000 a night, while most vacationing Americans don’t come close to spending that in a year.
Nancy Pelosi is certainly not a member of the 99% she so publicly admires, and she doesn’t want to be. For the second Christmas in a row, Pelosi is staying at the luxurious Four Seasons Resort Hualalai at Historic Ka’upulehu in Kona, reports the Hawaii Reporter. According to the report, Nancy Pelosi has been escorted by local police during her two visits, at a cost of $34,000 to local taxpayers each visit, i.e. the 99 percent.
By the way, Congresswoman Pelosi’s colleague and fellow Democrat, President Obama, who is enjoying a 17-day vacation in Hawaii, is also racking up the charges. The Reporter says his trip is costing around 4 million of the 99 percent’s hard earned dollars.
So how rich is Nancy Pelosi? According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the San Francisco democrat is the ninth wealthiest member of Congress and has a colossal net worth of $196,299,990. To quote Pelosi during a recent speech about economic inequality: “Something is wrong with this picture.
http://www.theatlantic.com/nat.....ss/250564/
Finland? You mean the country with some of the highest test scores in the world? Whose kids don’t cram like the east asians do and do much less homework. NO PRIVATE SCHOOLS. No joke vouchers I can see for that matter.
“The Wealthy”, “The Poor”
Subjetive terms that don’t mean a thing.
I bet there aren’t two people on HA who would define wealthy and poor the same way…
They don’t even mean ONE thing???
Yet more knee-jerk, right wing bullshit..
Of course definition vary. I think wealthy meaning all your basic needs are met to point where you have virtually unlimited leisure time and you have the means to fill that leisure time almost any way you’d like.
Poor meaning you have a hard time of meeting even basic needs and all your time is spent stuggling to meet those needs.
How’s that for a start?
Is sitting in the basement all day “living off the net” a basc need?
Some people work hard for a living, and the some people like ylb live off the hard work from others via govt support and handouts. Sitting on your ass all day surfing wackjob websites, posting on blogs, and updating the datubayze sure is paying well when you get supported by the rest of us…
Loser….
32 – All your needs are met for damn sure. All you ever needed was to recite the same old ignorant, bigoted, racist right wing bullshit you’ve vomited here for over the last two years and you’ll keep doing it indefinitely because it’s all you’ve EVER been about.
Lather, rinse, repeat. ad nauseam..
asshat.
Awwww….the cheap and lazy one has his feelings hurt…how come all you ows gimmegimmegimme types have one thing in common? You always expect others to carry your burden?
Example: how much mone does ylb have saved up for his kids college tuition? Answer: none. Because ylb thinks other people should pay his kids way. So heleaves it up to responsible tax payers like me, who have saved, invested, and sacrificed in order to pay for our kids college, to pick up his slack so his 2.2 gpa kids can get in as part of some silly ass diversity program…its thelazy gimmegimmegimme progressive way. Always make others pay, so you c,an lay around and surf political wacko sites and blog all day.
I got your number pegged asshole. I see your type all the time. You think you deserve shit, or are owed things when you have not worked or risked a fucking thing.
You should be spit on, not supported by everyone else.
Game…set..match…
Oh, and fuck your labels and accusations…your opinion doesn’t mean shit, because you are a lazy nobody.
34 – zzzzzZZZZzzz More ignorant blather from the racist maximus asshat.
“Cheap” that’s a new one. WTF does that mean? Don’t bother answering. Cheap is for money obsessed right wingers – Wal-Mart for shopping and the Home Depot for day labor. Frugal is for anyone with a brain..
And that’s NOT you..
Pegged? I imagine a fat wooden peg drilled into your thick skull.. Last time you ever had a sentient thought.
What else?? Oh shit am I freaking GLAD I don’t see YOUR TYPE all the time. Fuck it’s almost enough to make me believe in Guardian Angels.
Nice try asshat.. Keep it up.. We’ll be going round and round at this for years.
Count on it.
@30
Yea, pretty much.
There’s also people like me, who don’t make much money, but don’t have much in the way of needs so we do alright and there’s people who make 100K a year and blow though every penny of it and then some. Who’s better off, me or them?
“Who’s better off, me or them?”
Well that’s easy, you are.
I pity the poor souls who are addicted to expensive lifestyles. As for me, I’d rather own a big stock portfolio than a big house. Much more practical.
re 25: Sounds like sour grapes on your part. You’re just jealous of Pelosi because she’s more successful than you are.
@37
That, thankfully, seems to be moderating a little bit in the last year or two.
Money…
you can’t take it with you and your survivors will spend it on things that you would never approve of.