RomneyRyan 2012!

[Aimless]

I suspect it may be more common than you think. It is not unusual for two people who work the same job to meet through work, fall in love and become a family. Say two teachers for example? Either way though even if not identical wages any full time two-income pair above minimum wage would typically earn more than the 40% threshold for one income.

I suspect you'll find some of the greatest gender wage gaps of all the enlightened European countries in the UK, and that nearly half of all women who work in the UK work part-time rather than full-time. Now the question is how the numbers would look if there were even stronger disincentives for eg. married womens' participation in the workforce.

[RandBlade]

I suspect you'll find some of the greatest gender wage gaps of all the enlightened European countries in the UK, and that nearly half of all women who work in the UK work part-time rather than full-time. Now the question is how the numbers would look if there were even stronger disincentives for eg. married womens' participation in the workforce.

So you're saying its an unmittigatingly bad thing if a woman chooses to work part time in order to be flexible about both working and choosing to look after children? That the tax system should be used to force women to choose to work instead by treating different family choices unequally?

I didn't realise that part time was such a bad thing. Or that having all women work full time was an objective of "enlightened" governments?

[Ominous Gamer]

I love how, in the same thread, we have a poster at one end attacking the president for "ramming" stuff through congress, while at the same time we have a poster attacking him for not pushing stuff through congress.

[RandBlade]

I love how, in the same thread, we have a poster at one end attacking the president for "ramming" stuff through congress, while at the same time we have a poster attacking him for not pushing stuff through congress.

No, we have a poster criticising him for his priorities he rammed through and choosing to ignore an issue until it was too late as being considered "responsible".

Obama knew full well that under his policies the debt ceiling would be reached, but rather than choose to deal with it he waited and prevaricated then demanded an increase from Congress after Congress changed hands. How Congress responded was entirely within their right.

EDIT: Not sure how it got here but the "weird logic in reverse" bit a few posts ago was meant to go in the Wisconsin thread.

[Aimless]

So you're saying its an unmittigatingly bad thing if a woman chooses to work part time in order to be flexible about both working and choosing to look after children? That the tax system should be used to force women to choose to work instead by treating different family choices unequally?

I didn't realise that part time was such a bad thing. Or that having all women work full time was an objective of "enlightened" governments?

Women are free to work part-time if they want to and can, the point is that there is a legitimate social argument for not further discouraging them from working. If I'm reading your post correctly you're now implying that separate taxation somehow forces women to choose full-time work over family or some such nonsense and I'm not sure I see how you've managed to arrive at that conclusion separate taxation allows for more flexibility. Re. "enlightened governments" you'll note that was in reference to the gender wage gap in general, not simply to part-time work in particular.

Now I'd love to work part-time in the future, but if I do end up doing that I'd still be getting a doctor's salary. Most people who work part-time jobs aren't going to get that kind of a salary, and by working part-time they'll also be financially worse-off than if they'd been working full-time. Most of those people are probably also going to be women.

[LittleFuzzy]

Many laws are deemed to be okay with the constitution provided that there is a rational basis for them and provided they don't directly violate the constitution. You mentioned the "equal protection clause" so I assumed you were specifically interested in legal--esp. constitutional--perspectives rather than eg. moral/ethical ones. I may be wrong but in that case no doubt Fuzzy will be along to clarify

Rational basis is kinda like a burden of proof requirement. SCOTUS generally assumes the government has a rational basis for legislating a certain way and does not require them to justify it. Ideally this assumption would always exist and we wouldn't need a term for it. Unfortunately, the Warren Court eventually found it necessary to develop the "strict scrutiny" standard, wherein they did require the government to justify legislation and by default assumed that any legislative on a particular subject was unconstitutional because they got so fed up with efforts to undermine or just flat-out ignore the court's rulings on civil rights issues like desegregation. The strict scrutiny standard only applies where and when SCOTUS has explicity said it will. While that has often been the case when the equal protection clause is being addressed and there is at this point almost the assumption that it applies when discrimination is being codified in some manner, I am at a loss as to why it or rational basis are being brought up on this discussion tangent.

[Dreadnaught]

I'm really loving how Obama's campaign message has devolved into "The Republicans wouldn't pass a bill I advocated called the Jobs Act. Thus, the Republicans are anti-jobs."

Yeah, just like people who opposed the Patriot Act are un-patriotic.

[Aimless]

I'm really loving how Obama's campaign message has devolved into "The Republicans wouldn't pass a bill I advocated called the Jobs Act. Thus, the Republicans are anti-jobs."

Link please

[Dreadnaught]

Obama's Facebook page captures the gist of it and the talking points circulating in the media.



Meanwhile, the left's newspaper columnists rile the base with more explicit accusations:

Think of it as a two-part strategy. First, obstruct any and all efforts to strengthen the economy, then exploit the economy’s weakness for political gain. If this strategy sounds cynical, that’s because it is. Yet it’s the G.O.P.’s best chance for victory in November.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/10/op...d-exploit.html

[Flixy]

I'm really loving how Obama's campaign message has devolved into "The Republicans wouldn't pass a bill I advocated called the Jobs Act. Thus, the Republicans are anti-jobs."

Yeah, just like people who opposed the Patriot Act are un-patriotic.

That is of course why they are named like that, and all politicians do that there, not just Obama. I always found the names you guys give to laws quite hilarious, to be honest.

[RandBlade]

Did Obama ever say how he was going to pay for that plan? Or was it just more on the credit card that's mortgaging the future?

[GGT]

The jobs plan was mostly an infrastructure plan, using the cheapest borrowing rates (practically negative) from monetary policy. The need to invest in those things doesn't go away with recessions, but can actually be done cheaper and save some federal dollars during recessions.

But Obama did propose tax increases by letting the Bush Tax Cuts expire (at first entirely via Bowles-Simpson, then for upper income quintiles only) but house (R) rejected that. Because they'd all signed the Grover Norquist pledge.

[Loki]

Obama's plan to let a portion (not all) of the Bush Tax Cut lapse would bring in $800 billion over 10 years. That wouldn't be enough to plug the deficit for this year alone.

[GGT]

And no one claimed it would.

[Loki]

I.E. You and others like you are happy to spend, spend, spend, and then pretend that you're paying for it by increasing taxes by a gigantic $80 billion a year.

[Ominous Gamer]

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...ate-fundraiser



yet another face of Romney

[GGT]

I.E. You and others like you are happy to spend, spend, spend, and then pretend that you're paying for it by increasing taxes by a gigantic $80 billion a year.

No, but I appreciate the honesty of "Tax and Spend" vs "Spend and Borrow".

[Loki]

yet another face of Romney

You attack politicians when they lie and now you attack Romney because he told the truth? You know, you really should try to get the DNC to pay you considering how you consistently parrot its talking points.

No, but I appreciate the honesty of "Tax and Spend" vs "Spend and Borrow".

So do the people of Greece. And Italy. And Spain. And Ireland. And Portugal.

[GGT]

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...ate-fundraiser

yet another face of Romney

Yeah, and he said he didn't wanna play class warfare or divide the nation, either. He says a lot of things. Pretty much anything written by his handlers and advisors. For a "successful business manager", he sure has managed to surround himself with a questionable group of "experts", and run a pretty crappy campaign.

[Ominous Gamer]

You attack politicians when they lie and now you attack Romney because he told the truth? You know, you really should try to get the DNC to pay you considering how you consistently parrot its talking points.

Lets see if we can follow Loki's logic. Pointing out when politicians lie is bad because its not really lying, its a customized message. Pointing out when they finally slip out the truth is bad because...pointing out when they lie is bad. How is linking to a youtube video, thats on the front page of CNN, a DNC talking point? It consist solely of only Romney speaking.

I'm not attacking Romney for being honest in his views of American citizens. I'll make fun of the fact that it took this long for his rather obvious position to finally be recorded, and I'll attack him for considering 47% of our population worthless. But attacking him for the sole act of being honest? No. Him being honest would have ended this election weeks ago, and no one here would have to deal with your shortened to nonexistent fuse and immediately hostile behavior when something gets posted that you don't view in a favorable light.

[Loki]

Erm, where does he say 47% is worthless? He says that 47% is highly dependent on government benefits and it would be against their interests to vote Romney. If anything, he assumes that people are rational and self-interested. How shameful. You think Obama doesn't make the same calculation? So it comes down to whether your entire problem is that Romney stated his strategy publicly, instead of the typical practice of politicians only providing useless sound bites.

[GGT]

Romney is part of that 47% "highly dependent on government" --- for its tax loopholes and tax shelters --- that allow him to avoid paying as much income tax as possible.

Among that 47% are the retired, who draw on benefits they helped fund with their own payroll deductions. And middle class families whose child deductions doubled under Bush tax cuts.

In Romney's world, if you're rich enough to rely on accountants and lobbyists, tax avoidance is money management. If you're dirt poor, tax exempt, and rely on food assistance, it's a character flaw.

[Ominous Gamer]

Erm, where does he say 47% is worthless?

43 seconds in, when he claims these people lack personal responsibility and won't care for their own lives. The part of the video he just had to do a press conference about to back track on.

[RandBlade]

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...ate-fundraiser



yet another face of Romney

Very well said, accurate, honest and thoughtful.

Cant be having that in a politician.

[Aimless]

Okay so what percentage of people who pay income tax are likely to vote for Obama?

[Aimless]

Wait, just so we're clear... he's bringing up the issue of people not paying federal income tax due to exemptions and deductions, yes?

[Loki]

He's bringing up people who don't make enough money to pay income tax.

[Aimless]

He's bringing up people who don't make enough money to pay income tax.

Surely he was only referring to half of those 47% in that case, as the remainder avoid the terrible curse of federal income taxes through deductions.

[Loki]

For the most part, deductions will only get you so far. And I'm pretty sure to get anywhere near the "half" you speak of, you'd have to include people right over the threshold who have kids or are paying a mortgage.

[EyeKhan]

Romney may or may not have been speaking honestly about his own cynical beliefs concerning those too poor to qualify for income taxes. But whether he knows it or not, he was not being honest about the actual nature of those people - that they are all lazy, irresponsible slackers. Maybe he just doesn't understand what puts and keeps people in poverty, maybe it's easier to deal with feelings of personal guilt if he blames them for their own situation, or maybe he's just pandering to what he thinks his wealthy donors want to hear. That misconception of Americans Who Don't Pay Income Tax is so absolutley and obviously false it is incredible to me that he really believes it. Lots of people do, unfortunately, but I thought he was more intelligent and experienced than that.



Here's some commentary about it... The irony is like candy.

Romney's Wrong And Right About The '47 Percent'


by Mark Memmott


Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney told supporters that "there are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what" because they are "dependent upon government ... believe that they are victims ... believe the government has a responsibility to care for them ... these are people pay no income tax."

Nicholas Kamm /AFP/Getty Images Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney talking to reporters Monday in Costa Mesa, Calif.


Who was he talking about?

Well, as The New York Times' Economix blog writes, "Mr. Romney is absolutely correct that about half of American households do not pay federal income tax."

The non-partisan Tax Policy Center, and others, have many times pointed out that a little less than half of Americans pay no federal income taxes. But as TPC also noted last year, "many of those who don't pay income tax do pay other taxes — federal payroll and excise taxes as well as state and local income, sales, and property taxes." And why do so many not pay income taxes? According to TPC:

— "About half of people who don't owe income tax are off the rolls not because they take advantage of tax breaks but rather because they have low incomes."

— Of the rest in that group, 75 percent "pay no income tax because of provisions that benefit senior citizens and low-income working families with children."

To imply that most of those who don't pay income taxes are getting away with something, however, raises questions. "Put bluntly," Economix writes, "these are not households shirking their tax liabilities. The pool consists mostly of the poor, of relatively low-income working families and of old people. The tax code is specifically designed to reduce the burden on them."

So what about the "truthiness" of Romney's comments?

By grouping those who don't pay income taxes together with those who he says are "dependent upon government" and therefore support President Obama, Romney has earned "three Pinocchios" from The Washington Post's The Fact Checker. It writes that:

"Romney appears to conflate a few things — Obama's approval rating, the percentage of people who do not pay income taxes and people who rely on government assistance.

"There may be some overlap between these groups but they really are not the same thing."


In fact, while Romney seemed to say that the president will draw most of his support from those who pay no income taxes, a Tax Foundation map highlighting the 10 states with the highest percentages of "non-payers" shows most are Republican territories:

— Alabama
— Arkansas
— Florida
— Georgia
— Idaho
— Louisiana
— Mississippi
— New Mexico
— South Carolina
— Texas

The liberal news outlet Mother Jones has been breaking the news about Romney's remarks, which were secretly videotaped during a May fundraiser he held in Florida. The candidate himself has stood by his comments, though he's conceded they were "not elegantly stated."