Meh.
Post-debate analysis and open thread
Meh.
Can’t Bring Yourself to Type the Word “Ass”?
Eager to share our brilliant political commentary and blunt media criticism, but too genteel to link to horsesass.org? Well, good news, ladies: we also answer to HASeattle.com, because, you know, whatever. You're welcome!
We doing this again tomorrow? I doubt I’ll be up for it.
I can do it if there really is interest. It’ll be at 6:00AM.
Anyone really want liveblogging from 6-8AM?
6.00AM? I’m out.
Michael @ 3,
Thank you! :)
I’d rather read post-debate (if you can call it that) transcripts and analysis. And yes, thank you!
The Saints played the Repricans. Saints won.
Darryl’s shortest post ever.
Okay, so Governless Gregoire is dodging real tax reform again, and pushing a sales tax increase to dodge education cuts that would get the executive and legislature in trouble with the state constitution and judicial branch.
I’ve been saying for years on this blog that nothing is possible in terms of public services without tax reform. Without tax reform, increasing tax rates on those least able to pay will simply accelerate tax avoidance behavior by strapped consumers and shrinkage of the tax base. After all the starch has been squeezed from a potato, you just can’t get more starch from the potato! You have to squeeze a different potato (e.g., the undertaxed upper 20% who have plenty of money and are contributing almost nothing to support education and state government.) But our Gutless Governor (TM) has always been afraid to argue to voters that the rich should pay their fair share.
Even though Washington citizens have received billions of dollars of actual sales tax cuts in the last few years, launching the sales tax rate into double-digit orbit isn’t fair, wise, or helpful because it hits the people still paying sales taxes, and will encourage — if not force — them to cut their sales tax bill the same way the nonpayers did: They’ll stop buying stuff, or will buy it in Oregon, or on the internet. You don’t get people who don’t buy new cars now because of high sales taxes to buy more new cars by raising the sales tax on new cars.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: Until we get politicians with the spine and political savvy to push through tax reform, the future of public services in Washington State will remain an ever-shrinking pie.
Oops, I forgot the link:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.c.....on08m.html
I think the problem is nobody wants this to turn into another California with a high sales tax AND an income tax. If some politician had some guts he or she would propose a bill that would replace the sales tax with an income tax. A bill that by its passage would prohibit sales tax. It’s not like we trust politicians, the change must be in unequivocal terms.
Are Newsmax Readers Really This Stupid?
Their writers are, to wit: “In one recent year alone . . . 46.9% of those earning $250,000 (or more) paid zero taxes. Now if these individuals allowed Uncle Sam to fleece them at their 35% tax bracket, they should have a paid a minimum of $87,500.”
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfro...../id/423021
Roger Rabbit Commentary: The tax system doesn’t work this way, and everyone who pays taxes knows it, so anyone who believes this must not be paying any taxes. Which suggests this Newsmax article will fail in its objective of selling a book about how to pay zero taxes.
If you’re making $250,000 a year, you don’t pay the top tax rate on the whole $250,000! The article doesn’t specific a tax year, it vaguely refers to “one recent year” (which, by itself, is suspect), but let’s use 2011 for illustration purposes.
If you made $250,000 in 2011, and took only the personal exemption and standard deduction, and assuming you’re single with no kids, and it’s all ordinary income, you’d owe 10% on the first $8,350 of taxable income, 15% on the next $25,600, 25% on the next $48,300, 28% on the next $89,300, and 33% on the rest. With only $250,000 of taxable ordinary income, you wouldn’t hit the 35% at all, which begins at $372,951 of taxable ordinary income.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T.....ted_States
But don’t try to tell a Newsmax reader this, because if he read it in Newsmax it must be true, even if you show him it’s not.
@10 The Locke-era Gates Commission suggested replacing the state sales tax AND business and occupation tax with a state income tax. You’d still pay local sales taxes, but the 6.5% sales tax would go away so you’d be left with a much more moderate sales tax rate of 3% to 3.4% depending on where you live.
A state income tax could be made revenue neutral. It wouldn’t have to raise taxes at all, as its primary purpose is to distribute the tax burden among income groups in a fairer and more balanced way. And that being so, the vast majority of Washingtonians would get a tax cut — without further impairing public services.
You have to wonder how nurturing their lives were if it eventually leads to this.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....92280.html
http://www.ajc.com/news/man-ki.....91019.html
http://www.miamiherald.com/201.....ghter.html
I’d love for Rick Scrotum to answer that question.
I guess the NBC-Facebook debate wasn’t important enough to schedule it for a time when voters (especially West Coast voters) are actually out of bed, awake, and sentient. I’ll bet virtually no one on the West Coast watched it.
@13 Sounds like the guy has an anger management problem.
@13 (continued) Oh, and the guy was licensed to carry the handgun, even though people with anger management problems arguably shouldn’t have access to guns of any type.
@13 (continued) The hosptial waiting room was full of people, but fortunately the guy with anger problems shot only his wife and mother-in-law. It could have been worse; at least he didn’t go in there with one of these:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m225CyqeEAs
P.S., Wisconsin’s GOP legislators think anyone should be able to buy a gun without a background check and carry it anywhere without a permit.
@15 – guys, 3 separate incidents. Maybe you only read the one article, I amended my post with the two additional articles after the initial post.
@11 So by running the numbers, and assuming they claim single zero, their actual federal income tax would be slightly under 66,000 a for the year. That is just under 26.4%. Their Social Security tax rate would be just 1.8% for 2011 instead of the 4.2% rate most of us pay. My heart bleeds for them.
@12 I don’t think that will fly with the citizens of WA. The voters have been quite clear on having both — and just recently. I think the local sales tax also has to be replaced with some type of surtax paid as a part of the income tax.
One idea would be a base rate with an added local rate. If you live in an area where the sales tax is 9.5% (the state part being 6.5%) then your total (state + local) income tax would be the state base tax times 1.46 (95/65.) City and county governments would be asking for a small increase in the local surtax instead of the local sales tax.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvw_ZRDKu2M If Jesus was armed with a automatic assault rifle would he have used it in self defense against the invasion of the moneychangers?
A bill that by its passage would prohibit sales tax. the change must be in unequivocal terms.
That is the only way I would support it. To be like Oregon. I love that Oregon has no sales tax.
@10
Exactly!
@10
We’d still have county and local sales taxes. But yep, you want an income tax in Washington State, you need to do away with the state sales tax on everything other than booze, smokes, and gas.
@15 – I hear what your saying, these heterosexuals seem to be very angry people, after all they weren’t gay.
You are saying not your. iPhone can’t correct.
Gas prices will trend higher because of oil sanctions against Iran. Now watch Republicans blame Obama for high gas prices — and criticize him for not being tougher on Iran!
Why People Hate Banks (And Should) Dep’t
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/nbc.....5#45903895
Roger Rabbit Commentary: The moral of this story is simple: When a bank overreaches, sic the news media on ’em.
@28
The big banks need to be broken up. Unfortunately, Jon Huntsman’s about the only political type calling for that, so it doesn’t stand a chance.
@27 Of course. Everybody knows that any good thing that happens is because the Rethuglicans made it so, and every bad thing that happens was caused by the Democrats. It’s just common (R) sense.
I’m sure the Rethuglicans are responsible for the current drop in the unemployment rate, while the Democrats are responsible for the banking collapse that happened while Bush was in the Oval Office.
Gas prices could get a whole lot more interesting after today’s announcement that a second Iranian uranium enrichment site — one hardened against military attack and defended by anti-aircraft guns — is nearly operational. Thank the Great Mother Rabbit Spirit I don’t need to drive and own Chevron stock.
GOPers Threaten To Shut Down Banking System
Last spring, Republicans said they would block the confirmation of any director of the new federal consumer protection agency, because they oppose protecting consumers from greedy banks. So, President Obama made a recess appointment (a procedure Bush used dozens of times) so the agency carry out its legally mandated duties.
Now, Republicans are threatening to retaliate by blocking appointments to the Federal Reserve, FDIC, and Comptroller of the Currency — which could imperil the functioning of the U.S. banking system — without regard to the qualifications or merits of the individual appointees.
My question is, why do Republicans hate America?
http://www.businessweek.com/ne.....tment.html
In debates and on the campaign trail, Republican Presidential candidates continue to make false or misleading statements which go unchallenged by the media (MSM).
Romney insists that Obama raised federal income taxes on businesses. The reality is that federal corporate tax revenue have dropped by 50% in the past three years even as the US GDP grew by 10%. http://thebottom99percent.com/.....and-taxes/
Perry claims “Government spending is out of control” and that we need to reduce the number of federal workers and departments. The reality is that the federal government has 297,000 fewer employees than under Ronald Reagan and now serves 25% more Americans. As the population continues to grow the government is shrinking. http://thebottom99percent.com/.....-spending/
Republicans always stick to a tight script of talking points that are misleading, or worse plain out lies.
Fight the status quo – Get the facts for yourself. Check out our full DebateWatch coverage here – http://thebottom99percent.com/.....p-debates/
@32 – You can’t explain a bunch of heterosexual men. They do odd things.
Take that you heathen sinner Pittsburgh Steelers.
amazing how all this can be blamed on Gay Marriage – Heterosexual’s escape goat.
When all else fails, blame it on Gay Marriage.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....95188.html
Gman,
“Hetersexual escapes [sic] goat”?!?
You mean “Homophobe scape goat.” Last I checked, almost no heterosexuals blame anything on gay marriage.
Why the ugly, ignorant hate speech?
Darryl – who are homophobes? Aren’t they Heterosexuals, or at least those that proclaim to be heterosexual. I’m not saying every heterosexual is a homophobe, but that every homophobe is or proclaims to be a heterosexual. Although you may not be a homophobe, you, as a heterosexual, if you are one, should answer for all heterosexuals. Just like homophobes hold every gay person responsible for the action of every other gay person. And to answer your question who is blaming gay marriage for society’s ill’s, I think the Pope and Rick Scrutom and the rest of the Republican field do. I even think I added a link to one of my posts, that you deleted, that had a message from the Pope saying so.
Gman,
“who are homophobes?”
Those who are homophobic?
“Aren’t they Heterosexuals, or at least those that proclaim to be heterosexual.”
Some of them are. Some are self-loathing homosexuals or bisexuals, or asexual.
“I’m not saying every heterosexual is a homophobe.”
Your rhetoric certainly does suggest you are implying this. As I have pointed out repeatedly, your comments are ignorant and bigoted precisely because they attribute to an entire group the behaviors of a small number of the members of that group.
“but that every homophobe is or proclaims to be a heterosexual.”
First, that is false–I think we can agree that Ted Haggard spent some portion of his life as a bisexual homophobe.
Second, it is stupid: “proclaims to be a heterosexual” means that you are blaming all heterosexuals for the actions of people who are not heterosexuals!
Thirdly, you statement is philosophically bankrupt. Even if it were true (and it most certainl is) that “all homophobes are heterosexual”, that does not imply that “all heterosexuals are homophobes”. You are committing an elementary error of logic by your suggestion that the later is true.
“Although you may not be a homophobe, you, as a heterosexual, if you are one, should answer for all heterosexuals.”
Where the fuck does that come from? No. I don’t answer for any group.
“Just like homophobes hold every gay person responsible for the action of every other gay person.”
More nonsense. That may be true of some homophobes. But even among homophobes, some are just fearful of homosexuality, without additional negative attributes. Once again, you seem to stereotype a group of people (homophobes) inaccurately based on the actions of a minority of that group (homophobes who blame homosexuals for society’s ills). Just stop it. It is ignorant.
“And to answer your question who is blaming gay marriage for society’s ill’s, I think the Pope and Rick Scrutom and the rest of the Republican field do.”
Yes…but the pope isn’t a heterosexual, now, is he?
And Rick Santorum is not representative of all heterosexuals. Not even close. So what you seem to be doing is disparaging all “heterosexuals” for something that you blame on a non-heterosexual and on one particular heterosexual. Doing so is committing an act of dishonesty and bigotry. Try to rise about that shit.
“I even think I added a link to one of my posts, that you deleted, that had a message from the Pope saying so.”
I judged that comment to be sloganeering (i.e. no different than spam). If you continue to engage in sloganeering, I’ll be forced to have your comments held for moderation, which I really hate to do.
Just to be clear, at this point, you violate the comment thread when you engage in sloganeering–i.e. repetitive slogans outside the context of anything going on in the thread. That is really just spam, and will be deleted. At this point, it is not so much about your hate-speech in your comments (although it could–the very first troll to be banned by Goldy was JCH, who engaged in hate speech to an extreme.)
By the way, what would you want me to do about a commenter who repetitively (and almost exclusively) left comments claiming, say, all gay men are pedophiles? Over and over again? And should I treat that hate speech any different from your hate speech?
Gman is one of two things:
1. A heterophobe
2. He hates the fact thehe isn’t a heterosexual. He longs to be what he cannot be. He hates all heterosexuals, because he isn’t one of them, even though he wishes he was
Nailed it.
Counseling…..
I didn’t know that the Pope isn’t a heterosexual, thanks for the update. Sounds like any notion that heterosexuals are more violent people is a sensitive issue to you and you are not open to any evidence as such. Seems like you would rather hear the hypocritical rhetoric of Faith, Family and Freedom.
Gman,
“I didn’t know that the Pope isn’t a heterosexual”
In Catholic theology, the Pope is “married” to God and is asexual. Therefore the Pope is neither a practicing heterosexual or homosexual. Whether the pope is innately (psychologically) a heterosexual or homosexual is unclear.
“Sounds like any notion that heterosexuals are more violent people is a sensitive issue to you and you are not open to any evidence as such.”
Violence isn’t a “sensitive” issue for me at all. My problem is with ignorance and bigotry in general. Violence is a general human trait that does not seem to segregate by sexual preference. It DOES segregate by sex and age. Females, overall, have a much lower prevalence of violence than males. And there is an age range (from about 15 to 30) when males have higher prevalence of being involved in violence. There is not good scientific evidence (that I am aware of anyway) that prevalence differs by sexual preference, once sex and age are considered.
“Seems like you would rather hear the hypocritical rhetoric of Faith, Family and Freedom.”
Sorry, asshole, it isn’t a choice between your bullshit and their bullshit. I don’t want to here ignorant, bigoted bullshit from ANYONE.
@40 being gay is a choice, remember. Kind of like man contributing towards Global Warming is a hoax.
And if bigots are correct that most gay people are feminine then that would make them less violent as you said yourself.
@42 where is your evidence that violence doesn’t segregate by sexual preference?
Gman @ 44,
“And if bigots are correct that most gay people are feminine then that would make them less violent as you said yourself.”
First: As a bigot yourself, it’s amusing that you are now making statements on behalf of all bigots!
Second: It doesn’t seem to work that way. Male violent behavior seems to be highly correlated with, if not mediated by testosterone (T). Now, as it happens, there were studies in the 1970s that suggested gay men had higher levels of T than straight men. I believe those findings don’t hold today (or there was some kind of bias in how gay men were recruited–I don’t recall the details). The point is, gay men and straight men are, as far as anyone knows, susceptible in the same way to T-mediated violent behavior.
Gman,
“where is your evidence that violence doesn’t segregate by sexual preference?”
WTF?!? Proving a negative?
One cannot PROVE that unicorns don’t exist. The burden of proof is on the person claiming to have evidence for unicorns.
You are making a claim that there is evidence for a higher prevalence of violence by heterosexuals. If you are aware of such studies (and let’s keep it real—it should be published in the contemporary scientific peer-reviewed literature), please do divulge.
Otherwise, it’s time to reassess your hate speech.
@46 – yeah we know that there are gangs of gay guys out there doing destructive work. Evey day you hear about it, it’s an epidemic.
@47 – i give you articles every day of married, one man and one woman, couples that are killing each other every day or killing thier own kids. Not scientific research but very telling, even for an idiot.
@47 that’s why include the kinks of the articles, I’m not making this shut up, although I know you would wish that I am.
Roger Rabit likes to blame it on the lack of gun control, I like to blame it on the violence of heterosexuals.
Gman @ 50,
Ummmm…picking out anecdotes from newspapers is not sufficient to demonstrate your claims.
Here is an example of a recent scientific study of one particular type of violence. It doesn’t particularly support your claims:
The same findings may well not hold for other types of violence, but if you are so sure your ideas are correct, you should be able to search for and find a well conducted, peer-reviewed study to support them.
Of course there there is another problem with sterotyping: inter-group differences don’t necessarily hold for all (or most) individuals.
For example, it is true that men are, on average, taller than women. Yet, making a blanket statement that all women are shorter than men is, objectively, absurd.
Likewise, your claim that all heterosexuals are violent (which I take to mean are somehow more violent than homosexuals) is absurd.
Gman,
“Roger Rabit likes to blame it on the lack of gun control, I like to blame it on the violence of heterosexuals.”
The difference between the statements is one is an opinion about a political policy. Your statement is false, bigoted, hate speech. In fact, you might carefully review the comment policy about repeatedly making false statements. …
@52 – how come you hardly or never hear about homosexual ipv as news like you hear about heterosexuals on an hourly basis. Why is it so mainstream with heteros? Also, you never responded about where all the violent gay gangs area. And your article did it come from some right wing group?
I didn’t say ALL heterosexuals are violent. I’m saying heteros are more violent than homosexuals.
Gman,
“how come you hardly or never hear about homosexual ipv as news like you hear about heterosexuals on an hourly basis.”
Several reasons: (1) there are far fewer homosexual couples than hetersexual couples. So, to hear about it as often, homosexuals would have to have 10 times the rate of IPV. (2) because homosexual IPV is frequently not reported as such…rather it is just reported as violence. There is a whole thread on this particular bias in the aggression research community.
“Why is it so mainstream with heteros?”
It’s not. The research suggests it may be the opposite. There is a bias in reporting, however.
“Also, you never responded about where all the violent gay gangs area.”
That is because your premise is retarded. Rarely do we know the sexual orientation of any gang member, bank robber, auto thief, etc.
“And your article did it come from some right wing group?”
I pasted the source, you moron. It comes from a top journal in the field of aggression research.
@53 isn’t that a matter of opinion that what I say is a false statement?
Gman @ 57,
“isn’t that a matter of opinion that what I say is a false statement?”
Not really. When you attribute an attribute to all members of a group, and the objective fact is that all members of a group don’t have that attribute, then the statement is false.
The comment policy explicitly singles out comments that perpetuate false statements. I just don’t want you to be surprised if I start enforcing that clause of the policy….
Darryl,
As much as I give you shit, you really do not need to lower yourself to the pond-scum level of gleeman.
the guy is a fucking loon…let him wallow in his own self loathing.
If you want an interesting thing to study, ask gman how it came to be that he is gay. how often does a child(gleeman) follow in his gay fathers footsteps when it comes to sexuality? he is obviously the product of some messed up child rearing…
seems out of the ordinary to me…seems more likely a product of late night bedroom visits from daddy have fucked up his psyche…
Gman,
Counseling…lawyer…press charges….in that order.
keepin real to the feel…
grandmaster flash,
Well…we agree on a couple of things:
1. Gman seems to have some kind of self-loathing thing going on that makes him irrationally attack a large group of humans, the vast majority who bear no ill will to gay people.
2. He likely suffers from some type of psychopathology, and would benefit from some professional help.
@60 talk about loons, you and maxipad. Most people have no I’ll will towards gay people, mow that’s a joke. Maybe no I’ll will but they defiantly love to ridicule, but what would the supreme being of a heterosexual know. Like racism doesn’t exist either, what are you smoking? I hear the word nigger every day and you think people or the masses don’t have a problem with gays, you got to be joking. I see it every day, bit close your eyes Darryl, just like you close them to all the murders and raped by you know who.
Max calls me pond scum – you know he isn’t applying that to just me, that’s the way he probably feels about all gay people, and you play right into.
@62
Yo freak…….if I was refering to all gay people, I would have said as such.
I was refering specificaly to you.
Gman,
“I see it every day, bit close your eyes Darryl, just like you close them to all the murders and raped by you know who.”
What the fuck are you babbling about? You seem to be making claims on my behalf that I don’t make. Where have I said there is no racial discrimination? Where have I claimed there is no homophobia? I haven’t.
What I do see, however, is you repeatedly making false sweeping claims about one group of people.
Stop it…it makes you look foolish and ignorant. You feed the hate and stereotypes of the haters, and give ’em fodder to use against you. It’s a stupid thing to do.
Gman @ 62,
“Max calls me pond scum – you know he isn’t applying that to just me, that’s the way he probably feels about all gay people, and you play right into.”
No…I don’t “know” that. And, empirically, I can observe that he doesn’t repeatedly make false claims that all gays are, say, more violent, or less intelligent, or pedophiles, etc. If he had, he wouldn’t be freely commenting on the blog.