Bring It On!

It’s All in the Attitude

April 17th, 2008 | by Jet Netwal |

A-Minus-Minus

If you were waiting for the MSM to wake up have the revelation that real journalism is good, it’s obvious by the bitch slappin’ ABC is taking that this may still be a bit into the future.

I’m not advocating shipping bobcats, but you might want to share your disgust here. Of course, with over 15,000 pissed off people commenting, load times may make shipping a bobcat seem semi-plausible.

Updated to add:: Or, better yet, via Instaputz:


Express yourself!

Cartoon courtesy of xkcd

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google
  • e-mail
  • YahooMyWeb
Sphere: Related Content

  1. 15 Responses to “It’s All in the Attitude”

  2. By steve on Apr 17, 2008 | Reply

    xkcd is one of my favorite sites… I could spend all day reading the cartoons.

  3. By Jet Netwal on Apr 17, 2008 | Reply

    It’s always a hoot!

  4. By Jet Netwal on Apr 17, 2008 | Reply

    I’ve sent my email:

    There are a lot of people in this country who are facing very difficult times directly caused by the housing crash, lost jobs, high prices on everything from gas to groceries, and other hard truths.

    What you two did yesterday was to mock them, and treat the rest of us like drooling morons who don’t understand we’re on fire because the TV’s on. Supremely insulting. These debates are important. They aren’t a ratings show. Sweet Jesus, we’re trying to elect the leader of the free world here. Get a grip.

    Beyond that, it’s obvious to me, and I’m sure many others, that having a moderator who worked for one of the two candidates is not impartial. After seeing the line of questioning, that line of reasoning was well born out.

    I hope the DNC denies ABC access to future debates. You’ve certainly lost the respect of the country, if the outrage expressed on your website is any indicator. A loss of respect, I’ll stress, that was earned.

  5. By Cranky Liberal on Apr 17, 2008 | Reply

    That’s perfect. Mickey Mouse operation!

  6. By Craig R. Harmon on Apr 18, 2008 | Reply

    I didn’t watch the debate but, from my reading, it must have been a very entertaining evening. I’m sorry I missed it.

    My favorite part was where it was explained to Obama, twice, that raising the capital gains tax historically means lower revenues and it didn’t seem to phase Obama a bit. Apparently, for Barak, raising tax percentages is an end in itself, rather than a means to the only rational reason for raising a tax rate: increasing the revenues from said tax. That’s entertainment. Educational, too!

    As Hillary once put it: “We’re going to take stuff away from you…” because, well, dammit, you’ve just got too damn much stuff and that’s going to stop the minute I or Obama take office.

    Okay, I paraphrased a bit but honestly, that’s what it comes down to, it seems to me.

  7. By Cranky Liberal on Apr 18, 2008 | Reply

    Craig it is my understanding that changing the capital gains tax does have a short term effect on revenue collection. If you know the rate is going to go up next year, you sell this year. If you know it’s going to go down next year, you wait. Overall though the impact of change is short lived. Factcheck.org has more information if you are interested. Charlie Gibson also took Obama out of context when he tried to beat Obama up by insisting that he would nearly double the capitol gains tax. Read for yourself

    “And I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton, which was the 28 percent. I would – and my guess would be it would be significantly lower than that.”

    Funny how that last little bit changed the scenario completely.

    The main point that Obama was trying to make is that wealthy people who get “stock” instead of paychecks and then cash them in for huge profits (often in sweetheart deals) should not pay less in taxes on that money than the average secretary. It is the same stance that Warren Buffet takes - and I think he knows just a tiny bit about making money.

  8. By Craig R. Harmon on Apr 18, 2008 | Reply

    Cranky,

    Not to be too cranky or pedantic but Charlie decidedly did not “insist” that Obama would nearly double the cap-gains tax. He said, and I quote:

    As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, “I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton,” which was 28 percent. It’s now 15 percent. That’s almost a doubling, if you went to 28 percent.

    The word “if” in “if you went to 28 percent”, indicates a conditional sentence, not a statement of objective fact. Obama had said that he would not go above 28% and only guessed that it would be significantly lower than that. By what Obama himself said, under his presidency, it COULD go as high as 28%, though no higher. And Charlie was right in that if it did go that high, it would be nearly twice as high as at present.

    So then, I agree that Charlie should have added that last part of Obama’s quote, the part where he guessed it would be significantly lower but there was no insisting that Obama would double the capital gains tax by Charlie or by anyone else.

    But it isn’t just the very rich that have capital gains. Lots of workers get stock options. The rich, of course, can afford to hold onto those stocks until the cap-gains rate is lowered again, which will have two effects: 1) only those who cannot afford to hang onto their investments until that time will be hurt by the raise in the cap-gains tax and the revenues will once more be boosted when the rate is lowered again and the rich take advantage of the lower rate by selling their investments at the more advantageous rate.

    Of course, admittedly, I’m no Warren Buffet.

    Nor do I have a dog in the fight since I have no investments or capital to post gains.

  9. By Craig R. Harmon on Apr 18, 2008 | Reply

    Let’s try this again:

    1) only those who cannot afford to hang onto their investments until the rate is lowered again, will be hurt by the raise in the cap-gains tax and 2) the revenues will once more be boosted when the rate is lowered again and the rich take advantage of the lower rate by selling their investments at the more advantageous rate. The rich, by definition, can usually wait. Those who aren’t, can’t. So not only does raising the cap-gains tax not gather more revenue, it doesn’t hurt the rich, either, for Obama to redistribute their wealth to the poor. Respect to Buffet but I think Charlie’s on to something.

  10. By manapp99 on Apr 18, 2008 | Reply

    Also about the capital gains tax, Obama and Clinton said earlier that they would promise to not raise taxes on people earning less than 250k a year and then both said they would raise the capital gains tax. Anyone owning stocks would therefore see a capital gains tax increase. Many people earning less than 250k own stocks. Both Obama and Clinton are simply playing the hatred of the rich card and were called on it. Fact is that no matter which Dem if elected they would raise taxes and not just on the rich. The sooner the voting public understands this the better.

  11. By Tom Baker on Apr 18, 2008 | Reply

    OK but Charlie’s point is revenue increases every time they lower the rates and that is a hugely debatable point for anything other than very short term analysis. Long term, people sell what they need to sell and buy what they need to buy. The bump comes from making a choice to hold off or sale now. While that may hurt a person (rich or not-rich) that isn’t the point of the argument - the argument is about tax revenue.

    If we wanted to make it fair we would exempt all capitol gains from anyone who isn’t rich, but hey that just makes sense.

  12. By Tom Baker on Apr 18, 2008 | Reply

    Oh so mannap the alternative is to cut taxes and spend more money? Go deeper in debt?

    And really your grasping at straws here. Yes cap gains are going to go back up - that’s the law the Republicans past quite frankly so they are the ones raising your taxes - but the minimal amount of money that the average person makes via cap gains will be offset by other middle class tax cuts. Yes SOME middle class folks may pay more in taxes on their stock sale but on whole taxes for the middle class will go down.

    And I seriously doubt a family that raked in over 100 million dollars hate the rich. What we want are for the rich people to pay a fair share of their INCOME. Don’t talk to me about dollar amounts. If I pay 33% of my income in taxes so should a billionair. If he earns his money on stock options (which Craig, sorry to say very very few working people get) instead of paychecks, he should have to pay it anyhow. Why should I get screwed over because I can’t tell my company how to pay me and he can?

    You know what, I think all this hate the rich is a scam. What I think is people like you slavish love the rich and think they are so beautiful and wonderful they should be able to skate by just because they have lots of money. You worship these people. It’s the only thing that makes sense. We’re talking about being fair, you’re talking like a schoolboy in love with a girl.

  13. By Steve O on Apr 18, 2008 | Reply

    OK. Simple. How many fucking Americans are worried about the capital gains tax? Really? Seriously? No, really?

    Do a majority of Americans make enough to worry about it? Do I really know what the fuck I’m talking about? No.

    Taxes are taxes. They have to be there. End of story.

    We can do better as a society if we all agree on how to better utilize the taxes we are already collecting.

    Remember people, it is our money, not theirs.

    I like my roads, I like schools, I like my police and fire department. I do not like a military that does not protect my roads or schools. I do not like politicians that do not like protecting my schools or my roads.

    Yes, they are MINE. I payed for them.

  14. By Craig R. Harmon on Apr 18, 2008 | Reply

    I do not like a military that does not protect my roads or schools.

    Are your roads and schools under some sort of military attack that you want a different kind of military, Steve O?

    And the thing about the taxes isn’t about whether there should or should not be taxes but the perception that Barak doesn’t seem to understand how this one particular tax operates. For myself, yes, I have, in the past, owned investments, have cashed them in, paid capital gains tax on them. No, Steve, I’ve never been rich. These were investments that I got on a job for JC Penney’s, working in the stock-room for just a little over minimum wage so the issue about the rate at which those are taxed is not just of concern to the wealthy. Anyone with a 401k or other form of investment based retirement fund needs to be concerned, particularly if it should happen that they need to cash in some or all of their investments. It is not the wealthy that are primarily concerned about the capital gains tax. They can afford to wait out cashing in investments until the tax burden of doing so is at a minimum. The people most effected and affected by them are the middle-class worker who has investments.

  15. By manapp99 on Apr 18, 2008 | Reply

    “Oh so mannap the alternative is to cut taxes and spend more money? Go deeper in debt?”

    No, the alternative is for the government to be responsible with the money they take from us and cut out the massive waste and fraud. This should be the number one issue as out of control spending is affecting each of us. Rich or poor. We as people need to put aside our partisan differences and realize that when it comes to spending our money it is not us against each other, it is us against them. Special interest whether they be the teachers union or “big oil” are not entitled to our money. The amount of money spent by lobbyist to get a larger share of the public pie is a great indicator of how much there is to give away.

    I recommend looking at this website as some examples of waste and fraud.

    http://www.heritage.org/research/budget/bg1840.cfm

    Much of the waste is just carelessness and duplication, however there is much fraud as well. Why are not more congress people hammering on this? Because it is not their money. Do you really think that if any of these elected officials ran a company they would be as careless with the money? Hell no. They would fire anyone that did any of the things that are commonly done today. The MSM should be spotlighting big spenders in congress every night so they would either be held accountable or be voted out of office.

    The reality as was demonstrated by the GOP congress most recently is that neither party have proven to be good stewarts of our tax dollars. This is the change we should be clamoring for, not more wasteful programs.

    This is the law of unintended consequences. Good ideas like feeding the poor become cesspools for greedy opportunists. Look at this from the article:

    “Medicare wastes more money than any other federal program, yet its strong public support leaves lawmakers hesitant to address program effi­ciencies, which cost taxpayers and Medicare recip­ients billions of dollars annually.

    For example, Medicare pays as much as eight times what other federal agencies pay for the same drugs and medical supplies.[6] The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recently com­pared the prices paid by Medicare and the Depart­ment of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care program for 16 types of medical equipment and supplies, which account for one-quarter of Medicare’s equip­ment and supplies purchases. The evidence showed that Medicare paid an average of more than double what the VA paid for the same items. The largest difference was for saline solution, with Medicare paying $8.26 per liter compared to the $1.02 paid by the VA.[7] (See Table 1.)”

    How the hell does this help anyone? Less people are helped for more money. Unless the system is fundamentally changed any new government program will fall to the same devices. If you really want government health care we could probably do so without raising taxes if we could just get the feds to use what they are given wisely. I have heard only one candidate even address this issue and that is the only candidate that did not request a single earmark last year, John McCain. However I am not kidding myself that a President McCain will make this problem go away either. One of the biggest telling points about how corrupt the system has become is the number of rich men and women that spend millions of dollars to get congressional jobs that pay less than 200k a year.

  16. By Lisa on Apr 18, 2008 | Reply

    Everyone seems to have “Barack” fever and no matter what he says will and already has been defended and twisted to make everyhting he says seem rational.
    Praise God! I mean Praise Obama!

Post a Comment

Fish.Travel