@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:
I didn't forecast a Republican majority in the Senate - I think a Republican gain of about six of the ten needed seats is the most likely outcome at this point. However, the gain of ten seats is a realizable possibility now, and it wasn't just six months ago.
What I wrote was (as you can see for yourself) that the Democrat majorities in both Houses of the Congress are in jeapordy. That is observably the case.
How can you think that the Democratic majority in the senate be in "serious jeopardy" if you don't believe the GOP will pick up more than six seats in November? Since 6 < 10, I just can't get the math to work the way you have it working, unless, of course, you have a different definition of "serious jeopardy." Perhaps you define it as "no danger whatsoever." That would make sense.
But now that you've downgraded the "serious jeopardy" to "realizable possibility," perhaps you'd care to explain how that possibility could be realized. What are the ten seats that are currently held by Democrats for which there is a realizable possibility of a GOP take-away in November?
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:
How can you think that the Democratic majority in the senate be in "serious jeopardy" if you don't believe the GOP will pick up more than six seats in November? Since 6 < 10, I just can't get the math to work the way you have it working, unless, of course, you have a different definition of "serious jeopardy." Perhaps you define it as "no danger whatsoever." That would make sense.
You are quibbling over entirely subjective interpretations of the meaning of words. However, you are a ******* lawyer, so perhaps that is to be expected.
Let me put it this way: the realizable possibility of a Republican majority in the Senate is now an observable part of the political discourse on the part of the (largely self-appointed) cognoscenti of the political media. That was not the case just six months ago. That this is a now a part of the political conversation is indeed a significant change.
Democrats have lost a formerly "safe" seat in Massachusetts. Others are in serious jeapordy in Delaware, Illinois, North Dakota, Arkansas, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Nevada, and Colorado. One can hope for additional gains in California and New York. About three currently Republican senate seats could go either way.
The momentum is currently with the Republicans and it is reasonable to expect continued marginal improvements in the odds for them.
@mysteryman,
Could it be that the rich, as well as almost everyone else, is moving to the South (e.g., the Carolinas and Georgia) for its low taxes and pleasant climate. The Carolinas are just loaded with former NJ residents.
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:You are quibbling over entirely subjective interpretations of the meaning of words. However, you are a ******* lawyer, so perhaps that is to be expected.
It's no quibble. Maybe you think it's unreasonable to hold you to the meaning of the words that you use. I don't. But then I suppose that's the real difference between being a ******* lawyer and being a ******* retired government employee.
georgeob1 wrote:Let me put it this way: the realizable possibility of a Republican majority in the Senate is now an observable part of the political discourse on the part of the (largely self-appointed) cognoscenti of the political media. That was not the case just six months ago. That this is a now a part of the political conversation is indeed a significant change.
Or, in other words, when you said that the Democrats were in "serious jeopardy" of losing their majority in the senate, you were talking out of your ass. As usual.
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:
I can (and have) invested money in other countries, where I can get a better, and more relaible return than here.
There's nothing wrong with investing money in any other country at all, and it has nothing to do with what we are talking about - as Parados pointed out.
Quote:People are leaving NJ and California for lower tax states ... you are merely quibbling.
No, I'm not quibbling. You are using terms too loosely and modify them to suit your argument.
Quote:How do you differentiate between the greed of those whom you don't wish to support and the greed those who wish the government to tax others for their benefit, whom you apparently do support?
The second one isn't greed. There's nothing greedy at all about wanting our government to provide services to it's citizens and desiring for those services to be paid for by taxation. Are you sure you understand what the word 'greed' means?
Quote:As long as we have freedom, greed and self interest will guide human choices. Would you like to suppress freedom?
Greed isn't Good. Your philosophy is the Lowest common denominator - the idea that others cannot be trusted to act out of any motivation other then greed. I think that you and most Republicans believe this, because you can't conceive of another motivator for your own actions. However, these are neither the only nor the best values which could guide us as a people and a society.
Cycloptichorn
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:
Below is reposted for Cyclo's benefit;
Cycloptichorn wrote:
I like Gallup -
http://www.gallup.com/poll/politics.aspx
They are consistent and have a long track record. And they peg the current approval ratings exactly as I listed them: Obama above 50%, the Dems in Congress next, and the Republicans in Congress in the toilet. Feel free to check for yourself.
I checked, but don't see the same rosy picture you implied. Obama at 51% is above 50% as you said, but lower by far than most presidents at this point.
I don't believe that is true, that Obama is 'lower then other presidents at this point.' I think this is a trope which floats around right-wing sites. Or perhaps you have some evidence for this contention?
Quote:Moreover the 5% decline in approval which gallup says is typical in the second year does not bode well for the November Congressional elections.
Gallup reports about the same preferences among registered voters for Democrat & Republican "generic" Congressional candidates.
I'm not really interested in the 'generic' ballot. It has a poor history of predicting electoral outcomes. Indeed, I didn't mention the upcoming election data on that page at all, but instead current perceptions of Congress.
Quote: In addition a significantly higher enthusiasm about voting among Republicans and a generally low approval of Congress among all voters, particularly Republicans and Independents. This directly contradicts your description above.
No, it doesn't. You mis-read my post above.
Quote:Indeed the Gallup Poll data you posted suggests the Democrats are in very serious jeapordy of losing control of Congress in the November election - more or less as I described it.
No, it doesn't. I think you may have a basic misunderstanding of the political situation, and what the Republicans would have to do to take control of either house. Joe has already pointed out that you somehow think the Republicans will pick up the Senate with a 6-seat victory....
Cycloptichorn
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:
Or, in other words, when you said that the Democrats were in "serious jeopardy" of losing their majority in the senate, you were talking out of your ass. As usual.
No, you appear to be merely irritated that your assumed overbearing authority has been questioned, and are descending to childish attempts at slurs. ("******* lawyer" is a time honored part of the language
... and that's what we called them in the Navy).
Jeopardy means "risk of loss" . Serious jeopard means serious risk of loss. That there is a serious risk of loss of Democrat control of the Senate, and that this risk is already a part of the continuing political discorse is an observable fact.
You can of course deny it. But then you'd be using your lawyerly orfice again.
BTW... I wasn't a government employee... I was a Naval Aviator. I merely used the government.
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:
The point here is that high U.S. taxes can cause U.S. capital to be invested in more favorable places, thereby reducing investment in this country.
Actually, my point was the opposite - that
you aren't going to move to a low-tax country, like most rich Americans will not. Nobody cares where you invest your money and there's no reason they should. After all, we ask other countries to invest in American business - why should our citizens not do the same?
This is the failure of the 'going Galt' argument; you've got
nowhere to go. There is no other country with a standard of living comparable to the US where you will pay lower taxes. Sure, you can live like a king in some shitty country; but who wants that?
Cycloptichorn
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:Please go back a couple of pages to the Cyclo comment to which I was responding.
My response was based on the Gallup Poll data that he cited to "prove" his prejudicial points. It turns out that that data suggested quite the opposite of what he asserted. My description of the Gallup data was entirely accurate.
I've been kinda following along, but I'm not particularly interested in a discussion about whether an approval rating of roughly 50% suggests overwhelming public support or abysmal failure on part of the President. That said, I found it amusing that you both managed to agree on labelling okie an ideologue. Not that I would disagree with that.
However, when you're referring to historical polling data to make your case, one would hope that you'd use actual data.
georgeob1 wrote:I'n not a Nimh-like follower of polls: one can waste a lot of time and mental energy pursuing them.
True. However, I don't think that the alternative is to make up numbers in order to support an argument.
@old europe,
old europe wrote:
georgeob1 wrote:I'n not a Nimh-like follower of polls: one can waste a lot of time and mental energy pursuing them.
True. However, I don't think that the alternative is to make up numbers in order to support an argument.
I didn't make up any numbers. I merely used those listed in the Gallup poll data that Cyclo (mis)cited as "proof" of his prejudices
@Cycloptichorn,
You are wrong. I recently purchased a property in southwest Ireland (a bargain in today's market), not far from my parents former homes. Taxes there are relatively modest, particularly on investment income. I'll spend some time there each year, and indeed will consider more.
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:
old europe wrote:
georgeob1 wrote:I'n not a Nimh-like follower of polls: one can waste a lot of time and mental energy pursuing them.
True. However, I don't think that the alternative is to make up numbers in order to support an argument.
I didn't make up any numbers. I merely used those listed in the Gallup poll data that Cyclo (mis)cited as "proof" of his prejudices
Something about the 'lower approval then most presidents at this point' line doesn't seem too, yaknow, accurate.
Cycloptichorn
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:
You are wrong. I recently purchased a property in southwest Ireland (a bargain in today's market), not far from my parents former homes. Taxes there are relatively modest, particularly on investment income. I'll spend some time there each year, and indeed will consider more.
Well, unless you move there, it doesn't really matter what the taxes are on investment income, does it?
I'll believe it when I see the thread announcing your permanent move to Ireland.
My contention stands firm: there is no exodus of American rich coming any time soon, and no evidence that there will be. We are already in the lowest-tax environment that America has seen in a century; the idea that people are going to flee the country in such an environment is ludicrous. However, this argument never fails to come forth when Republicans are looking for ways to justify saving more of their own personal money on taxes.
Cycloptichorn
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:No, you appear to be merely irritated that your assumed overbearing authority has been questioned, and are descending to childish attempts at slurs.
I merely asked a question. I'm not irritated that you were unable to answer it. You, on the other hand, appear particularly irritated that somebody called you on your subsequent denials.
georgeob1 wrote:("******* lawyer" is a time honored part of the language
... and that's what we called them in the Navy).
That's funny, we lawyers have a similar attitude toward former government employees -- like yourself.
georgeob1 wrote:Jeopardy means "risk of loss" . Serious jeopard means serious risk of loss. That there is a serious risk of loss of Democrat control of the Senate, and that this risk is already a part of the continuing political discorse is an observable fact.
In the words of Ronald Reagan: "there you go again." You say that there's a "serious risk" that the Democrats will lose control of the senate, but the best that you've been able to come up with is predicting that they might lose six seats -- which would not cause them to lose control of the senate. So how is it a "serious risk" if it's not a risk at all?
georgeob1 wrote:You can of course deny it. But then you'd be using your lawyerly orfice again.
You navy men and your orifice fixations.
georgeob1 wrote:BTW... I wasn't a government employee... I was a Naval Aviator. I merely used the government.
Spoken like a true government employee.
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:
georgeob1 wrote:No, you appear to be merely irritated that your assumed overbearing authority has been questioned, and are descending to childish attempts at slurs.
I merely asked a question. I'm not irritated that you were unable to answer it. You, on the other hand, appear particularly irritated that somebody called you on your subsequent denials.
Good defensive move.
joefromchicago wrote:
georgeob1 wrote:("******* lawyer" is a time honored part of the language
... and that's what we called them in the Navy).
That's funny, we lawyers have a similar attitude toward former government employees -- like yourself.
Not quite so good this time.
Believe it or not I had three lawyers (and 9 doctors) on my ship. Torturing the doctors was more fun because of their greater sense of autonomy, but the lawyers were occasionally amusing too ... and you have demonstrated why.
joefromchicago wrote:
In the words of Ronald Reagan: "there you go again." You say that there's a "serious risk" that the Democrats will lose control of the senate, but the best that you've been able to come up with is predicting that they might lose six seats -- which would not cause them to lose control of the senate. So how is it a "serious risk" if it's not a risk at all?
I listed ten democrat senate seats that plausibly could become Republican, at least eight of them very likely. There are a couple of others as well. I also acknowledged that about three currently Republican seats are in play. I made no assertions about the binomial probability distribution implied by all of this.
joefromchicago wrote:
georgeob1 wrote:You can of course deny it. But then you'd be using your lawyerly orfice again.
You navy men and your orifice fixations.
Well, "any port in a storm" is an old Navy saying.
joefromchicago wrote:georgeob1 wrote:BTW... I wasn't a government employee... I was a Naval Aviator. I merely used the government.
Spoken like a true government employee.
Nah, the "sand crabs" (as we called them) were real, believing place holders: we weren't - but you'd have to experience it to understand.
@georgeob1,
Quote:Jeopardy means "risk of loss" . Serious jeopard means serious risk of loss. That there is a serious risk of loss of Democrat control of the Senate, and that this risk is already a part of the continuing political discorse is an observable fact.
I don't think anyone was quibbling with your meaning of risk of loss or serious but rather your use of "Democrat control of the Senate".
As was already pointed out control requires only 51.
The way you talk out of your ass george I guess I could say you are in serious jeopardy of losing your virginity and then ignore the meaning of "virginity" to argue what jeopardy and serious mean.
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
georgeob1 wrote:
You are wrong. I recently purchased a property in southwest Ireland (a bargain in today's market), not far from my parents former homes. Taxes there are relatively modest, particularly on investment income. I'll spend some time there each year, and indeed will consider more.
Well, unless you move there, it doesn't really matter what the taxes are on investment income, does it?
I'll believe it when I see the thread announcing your permanent move to Ireland.
My contention stands firm: there is no exodus of American rich coming any time soon, and no evidence that there will be. We are already in the lowest-tax environment that America has seen in a century; the idea that people are going to flee the country in such an environment is ludicrous. However, this argument never fails to come forth when Republicans are looking for ways to justify saving more of their own personal money on taxes.
Cycloptichorn
Not only move there; but also denounce his USA citizenship. You see, the USA is one of the only nations that taxes it's citizens when they are living abroad.
So if you move to Ireland, and do not denounce your citizenship, you'll end up paying Ireland taxes AND USA taxes.
Cyclops is right on this point, higher taxes in the USA are not going to drive millionares out of the country (at least in large numbers).
@maporsche,
Well, you've got me there ! I'll have to do some more planning.
@parados,
parados wrote:
I don't think anyone was quibbling with your meaning of risk of loss or serious but rather your use of "Democrat control of the Senate".
No, only the most pedantic nitpickers - such as yourself - expressed any concern over that point.
However, if it amuses you, that is OK with me.
Gross GOP Hypocrisy
Playing Both Sides of the Stimulus
Yesterday marked the one-year anniversary of the day that President Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA, i.e. the stimulus) into law. "One year later, it is largely thanks to the Recovery Act that a second depression is no longer a possibility," said Obama. "So far, the Recovery Act is responsible for the jobs of about 2 million Americans who would otherwise be unemployed. These aren't just our numbers; these are the estimates of independent, nonpartisan economists across the spectrum." Indeed, as the New York Times' David Leonhardt detailed, "perhaps the best-known economic research firms are IHS Global Insight, Macroeconomic Advisers and Moody's Economy.com. They all estimate that the bill has added 1.6 million to 1.8 million jobs so far and that its ultimate impact will be roughly 2.5 million jobs." The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, meanwhile, estimates that the stimulus saved or created between 800,000 and 2.4 million jobs. The gross domestic product also grew at an inflation-adjusted annual rate of 5.7 percent last quarter, much of which can be attributed to the stimulus package. "The economy has shed some three million jobs over the past year, but it would have lost closer to five million without stimulus," said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Economy.com and former < a href="http://app.mx3.americanprogressaction.org/e/er.aspx?s=785&lid=42051&elq=7340cfdd72504b538a8c3fb64083d751">adviser to Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) presidential campaign. "The economy is still struggling, but it would have been much worse without stimulus." However, Republicans are using the Recovery Act's anniversary as an opportunity to continue making false claims and clouding public perception regarding its effectiveness.
GOP HYPOCRISY: "One year later, one thing is clear: the stimulus bill has failed," said Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN), while Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) added, "This was not the plan Americans asked for or the results they were promised." However, Republicans are not so down on the stimulus when it comes to trumpeting money in their home states and districts. A new report by The Progress Report released yesterday documents 110 Republicans -- more than half of the GOP caucus -- who are "guilty of stimulus hypocrisy," as they voted against the act b ut have since claimed credit for its benefits or asked for more funding. For instance, McConnell has returned to Kentucky to brag about money for the Blue Grass Army Depot; Rep. Steve King (R-IA) "issued an upbeat statement" about stimulus dollars dedicated to widening U.S. Highway 20 in Iowa; and Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) has hosted multiple job fairs populated by stimulus recipient s looking to hire. Plus, the Wall Street Journal reported that "more than a dozen Republican lawmakers supported stimulus-funding requests submitted to the Department of Labor, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Forest Service." As MSNBC's Rachel Maddow put it, "[O]n policy terms, [Republicans] have been caught bragging on the stimulus as good policy." However, Republicans are steadfastly refusing to concede that their actions are hypocritical, with Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) writing that there is nothing wrong with trying to claim stimulus money if Democrats are "hellbent to spend the money anyway."
GUBERNATORIAL GAMES: Congressional Republicans aren't the only ones taking advantage of Recovery Act money after criticizing the bill that provided it. For instance, Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R-MN) has said that it is "ludicrous" to claim that the recovery act boosted the economy, while characterizing stimulus money as "misdirected" and "largely wasted." He recently added that "just sending some cash out as a Band-Aid is not going to solve the problem." However, this week, Pawlenty released his proposal to balance his state's budget, and as the Minneapolis Star-Tribune reported, "nearly one-third of the governor's budget fix would rely on $387 million in federal stimulus money." Gov. Bob McDonnell (R-VA), meanwhile, thanked Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius this week for $24 billion in money to upgrade health care information that came from the recovery act. McDonnell said in a statement that "the federal funding awarded to Virginia will...provide our physicians with the technological tools they need to provide the highest quality service possible." However, McConnell has previously criticized the stimulus as "massive new federal spending" that "is not going to be good long-term for America" (though he also added that Virginia should "collect its share" anyway).
IMPERILED SENATE JOBS BILL: Yesterday, Obama said, "If we're honest, part of the controversy [regarding the stimulus] also is that despite the extraordinary work that has been done through the Recovery Act, millions of Americans are still without jobs." Indeed, the recovery act is doing what analysts expected it would, but in an economy that is weaker than anticipated. Currently, due to conservative misinformation, only 6 percent of the public believes the stimulus created any jobs and additional jobs legislation, though necessary, is imperiled in the Senate. Late last year, the House of Representatives passed a $154 billion jobs package, but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said that he doesn't have the votes to even begin debate on a very scaled down $15 billion bill. As the Center for American Progress' David Madland wrote, "To give a sense of how big this jobs hole is, we would need to create 350,000 jobs per month for the next 24 months just to recover what we have lost since the recession began, and that's not even compensating for population increases." Still, Senate Republicans have said that, in order for them to consider a jobs package, it has to include various non-jobs related tax extenders and a promise to consider cutting the estate tax, providing a huge tax break to the heirs of multi-millionaires. Republicans even criticized Reid for removing billions of dollars in tax breaks from the proposed legislation that they admitted wouldn't have created any jobs.
--americanprogressaction.org
