|
Radbot posted:I mean, if we only care about the children of the poor (as you apparently do, I don't agree) - why do we even give the credit to all income levels? Because means testing is a near surefire way to put something on the chopping block.
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 23:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 15:25 |
|
|
Radbot posted:OK, and your point is? Do we not want to incentivize people to take good care of their children in two parent households that have a financial cushion? Wait, why do you think I just care about the children of the poor? We should give the benefit at all levels because we want to give parents more financial "cap space" for kids. Your issue seemed to be with the argument that kids whose parents have less (overall or on a per kid basis, even if they have less because of lovely decisionmaking) should get more. Looking at tax and benefit policy as a deserving/behavior judgment is really unfortunate, especially when it comes to policies designed to benefit children, who have no say in who their parents are. As to "incentivize people to take good care of their children in two parent households that have a financial cushion," yeah, sure that's great, but it's pretty unconscionable when those incentives translate into giving less to children who need more. Plus, the two parent household thing has some problems. I mean, we can reenact the marriage incentives argument from the West Wing but I warn you, I don't look nearly as good as Mary-Louise Parker. The Warszawa fucked around with this message at 23:35 on Jan 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 23:29
|
|
|
Another wrinkle in the child tax break debate: the older the mother is, the higher the probability of birth defects. If a woman over 35 gets pregnant, it's considered a "geriatric pregnancy." A just society would put incentives in place for couples to have children at a younger age, not just for the above reason but also because the parents are more likely to survive before the child comes of age. Saving money to have more children comes at a price.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 23:41
|
|
|
We should probably put incentives in for smaller families, as well, but unfortunately there are quite a few issues that we would run into there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 00:00
|
|
|
Merlot, she wrote.quote:Ebola, evil voices and the devil.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 00:07
|
|
|
420DD Butts posted:We should probably put incentives in for smaller families, as well, but unfortunately there are quite a few issues that we would run into there. What already do, through diminishing returns on existing credits
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 00:09
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:What already do, through diminishing returns on existing credits That only really works as an incentive (or disincentive, really) for the poor and fringe middle-class, though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 00:15
|
|
|
Radbot posted:I mean, if we only care about the children of the poor (as you apparently do, I don't agree) - why do we even give the credit to all income levels? We don't. The CTC and EITC both phase out. E: also, by giving tax credits to parents we allow responsible parents to not have to save as much before they can have kids, so shut up already, it helps responsible people just as much as irresponsible people.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 01:21
|
|
|
This is why FOX News needs to specify when they blame everything on colored people.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 01:25
|
|
|
"bartender poisoning" isn't the clinical term for cirrhosis you orange gently caress (I know it's an actual crazy person making threats)
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 01:30
|
|
|
 Authorities still lacking information on who is breaking into the Boehner household at night and tanning them as they sleep.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 01:34
|
|
|
Look, it was one thing when Boehner was being mean to a guy at a country club, but when he invented Ebola, he went too far, in my opinion.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 01:37
|
|
|
OK, I perhaps rightly was criticised for failing to address the Earned Income Tax Credit. However your $150 from the state I will not apologize for, since the top of my post clearly says "Federal".  Let's have a look at this awesome free cash! The IRS posted:Last year, the average credit was $2,300. 2014 Tax Year Earned Income and adjusted gross income (AGI) must each be less than: $46,997 ($52,427 married filing jointly) with three or more qualifying children $43,756 ($49,186 married filing jointly) with two qualifying children $38,511 ($43,941 married filing jointly) with one qualifying child $14,590 ($20,020 married filing jointly) with no qualifying children Tax Year 2014 Maximum Credit: $6,143 with three or more qualifying children $5,460 with two qualifying children $3,305 with one qualifying child $496 with no qualifying children So let's say you are married filing jointly and have one kid and your combined household income is a swanky high-rolling $45k. Whoops, no EITC for you!
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 01:41
|
|
|
Rep. Bob Latta (R-Ohio) released a press release that he is introducing legislation to stop the FCC from re-classifying ISPs as common carrier. http://latta.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=397923 Is this likely to pass? Edit: Looks like he introduced this a year before and it died a quiet death. I assume that same will happen this time. Raccooon fucked around with this message at 01:47 on Jan 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 01:42
|
|
|
Probably won't pass. That said, there's yet another problem with reclassification - if broadband becomes a Title II service, the FTC loses jurisdiction over broadband services. (Reclassification is a bad idea and Wheelers original proposal would be way better.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 02:01
|
|
|
NoEyedSquareGuy posted:
He's just trying to raise awareness for the American Society of Carotenemia and Lycopenemia
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 02:04
|
|
|
Deadulus posted:Rep. Bob Latta (R-Ohio) released a press release that he is introducing legislation to stop the FCC from re-classifying ISPs as common carrier. Obama's certain to veto any such bill if it reaches him since he's been pushing for changes to them and I'd be stunned if anywhere close to enough Democrats would cross the isle to to override him.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 02:06
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Obama's certain to veto any such bill if it reaches him since he's been pushing for changes to them and I'd be stunned if anywhere close to enough Democrats would cross the isle to to override him. Charlie Rangel has already done so, so the bill is technically bipartisan. But you're right that there are few Democrats who would support it. Fewer still in the Senate.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 02:14
|
|
|
And Charlie Rangel is kind of a piece of poo poo. Not that it makes his vote worth any less when it comes time to count.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 02:17
|
|
|
Deadulus posted:Edit: Looks like he introduced this a year before and it died a quiet death. I assume that same will happen this time. It died a quiet death because the FCC didn't actually make moves toward making changes. Wouldn't be surprised if it sails through. Wouldn't be surprised if it picks up more than a bit of Democratic support too if they get it in before the FCC change (and resulting drawing of popular political divisions on the issue.) The simple fact is that all of the money on this issue is on one side AND that a lot of the companies that stand to lose a lot on it are Democratic donors.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 02:22
|
|
|
NoEyedSquareGuy posted:
Is Mrs. Boehner like Joe Biden's first cousin or something? Is it just the eyes/teeth/laugh lines?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 02:31
|
|
|
Cliff Racer posted:It died a quiet death because the FCC didn't actually make moves toward making changes. Wouldn't be surprised if it sails through. Wouldn't be surprised if it picks up more than a bit of Democratic support too if they get it in before the FCC change (and resulting drawing of popular political divisions on the issue.) The simple fact is that all of the money on this issue is on one side AND that a lot of the companies that stand to lose a lot on it are Democratic donors. Isn't that actually not true, and high profile, pretty big donors like google folks and such are strongly on the other side?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 02:36
|
|
|
silvergoose posted:Isn't that actually not true, and high profile, pretty big donors like google folks and such are strongly on the other side? The status quo is what's the most profitable for all involved, and the FCC ruling will essentially mandate that the status quo stays that way.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 02:38
|
|
|
Post 9-11 User posted:Oh, he was trying to claim the opposite of what I was pointing out. Now that they're completely out of the game, they claim they're going to change things for the better. By, "torpedoes" you mean, "grasps at straws instead of responds in a meaningful way," I take it. Here's what you said: Post 9-11 User posted:Right on schedule: as soon as Democrats lose legislative control they declare We're Going To Do It! More theatrics, more useless bluster from the donkey half of The Party. You tried to be super edgy and cynical and instead said something colossally loving stupid, and are now scrambling to try and claim you said something else. Which doesn't work to well when we can press the little question mark under your profile and see what you did say. Post 9-11 User posted:Did Democrats prosecute any war criminals or pass meaningful legislation before 2010? We were presented of years of, "Democrats reach across the aisle!" when the publicly announced policy of the national GOP is, "no compromise." Keep moving those goal posts to try and pretend Post 9-11 User posted:Right on schedule: as soon as Democrats lose legislative control they declare We're Going To Do It! More theatrics, more useless bluster from the donkey half of The Party. was not completely ignorant of history.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 02:44
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Quote of the day, "I now realize that the use of Hitler invokes pain and emotional trauma for those affected by the atrocities of the Holocaust and victims of anti-Semitism and hate." ~ Randy Weber (R-TX). Amazing how this is "I forgot Hitler was bad" rather than at any point "I'm sorry I said the President was as bad as Hitler". It's an "apology" that still carries his core point of "Obama = Hitler" Though the guy couldn't spell "Adolf" correctly, so I guess that says something Anyways, let's remember this great Randy Weber tweet from about a year ago: On floor of house waitin on "Kommandant-In-Chef"... the Socialistic dictator who's been feeding US a line or is it "A-Lying?" I believe that was while waiting for the SotU to begin ComradeCosmobot posted:And in today's edition of D&D schadenfreude, Rep. Bob Latta (R-OH) has submitted a bill previously introduced in the 113th to strip reclassification power from the FCC. Charlie Rangel has co-sponsored this "bipartisan" bill. Reuter's is reporting that Obama is going to call for an end to laws that bar broadband service competition (presumably in the SotU) so let's see if this gets energized by the "we are for whatever Obama is against" position that has defined the GOP for the past few years. Though a right wing PAC called "Conservative War Chest" is buying 120 second ads in presidential swing states against the Comcast/Time Warner merger on the grounds of the usual "Mainstream Media!" narrative so who knows. Maybe it will end up the usual bullshit infighting In other link dump stuff that wasn't covered by you two already today... Here is an entertaining review of Marco Rubio's new book by Jeb Lund Rand Paul has tapped a campaign manager He picked Chip Englander, who just squeaked out the Rauner victory. Interesting choice given how that race went down and the relative circles that Rauner and Paul would move in. Clinton grabbed a chief strategist and a media adviser in case there was any doubt she is running. John Podesta has also left the Obama team to join her Romney is sitting down with the RNC leadership later this week about his run, Jeb will not be meeting with them. I'm not sure if that is a sign of Jeb strength (they are going to tell Romney he's out), Mett strength (he's got the in with power brokers while Jeb doesn't) or it is just the usual horserace bullshit that will ultimately be meaningless (probably this) The NYPD slowdown is ending, Pat Lynch continues to be about the same level of sanity we've seen from him During this there was a plane flying over NYC with a tail banner about how DeBlasio smokes pot and they support the NYPD. A soldier at Ft Hood died under unknown circumstances after returning from West Africa, he was self monitoring for ebola; after 5 hours the test came back saying he was negative for it, but it still spawned a mini right wing feeding frenzy that I doubt the truth will penetrate Expect to see the usual facebook memes and crap about it. In blocking his appointment, Elizabeth Warren cost Antonio Weiss $20 million, personal. One more reason to love her, and one more reason to laugh at how transparent Wall Street is at buying the government. Though if you want to read a supremely petulant piece where the finance tools cry over her blocking this rear end in a top hat here you go Some highlights: quote:“One key thing that’s changed with Warren is that it used to be that the philosophical piece mattered—if you could demonstrate you’re committed to the president’s economic agenda, that’s what mattered,” says Ben LaBolt, a former Obama official. “She’s established a new litmus test that you can’t have worked anywhere near Wall Street if you’re going to a regulatory agency or even an agency that touches on economic policy.” quote:Weiss’s nomination was a critical fight for the White House, not just because a loss would further empower Warren, their nemesis, but because Weiss had spent years (and plenty of money) positioning himself for the job, and had made himself a near-perfect candidate in traditional terms. quote:Friends and allies of Weiss and Warren say the Lazard banker began eyeing a high-level government job several years ago and deftly positioned himself to land one. The firm’s long lineage of senior partners who have served in top government positions (Felix Rohatyn, Steven Rattner) gave him no shortage of patrons and advisers. Weiss donated money to the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, which enabled him to burnish his policy credentials by appearing alongside Democratic luminaries such as Robert Rubin and Larry Summers as a co-author of a 2012 white paper on tax reform. He became a major donor and fundraising bundler for Obama. He’s publisher of the Paris Review—a useful credential to deter liberal intellectuals in politics and journalism who might otherwise be inclined to criticize him. quote:Weiss was able to summon a small army of Wall Street heavyweights to make private calls to lawmakers on his behalf. They included Treasury Secretary Jack Lew, former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, and politically connected bankers of both parties from Goldman Sachs, Lazard, and elsewhere. The appeal to Republicans was based on the idea that Warren’s holding effective veto power over nominations hurt their interests, too. As one of those advocates, former George W. Bush Treasury and White House official Tony Fratto, told Politico after Weiss’s withdrawal, “It’s really a shame. It’s embarrassing for the Obama Administration. Terrible for Treasury — including the eventual under secretary, who will have the preferred nominee in the building. It’s terrible for Weiss, to leave his career behind and not get the job. The things we put nominees through only to be upended by ill-informed, myopic demagoguery. The White House should have fought for him.” "But he had all these Wall Street guys and the Bush guys who wee owned by Wall Street pushing for him! They made personal calls!" quote:But Warren and her allies were able to broaden the list of politically inexpiable financial sins to include tax inversions, which doomed Weiss. As she put it last November, “One of the biggest and most public corporate inversions last summer was the deal cut by Burger King to slash its tax bill by purchasing the Canadian company Tim Hortons and then ‘inverting’ the American company to Canadian ownership. And Weiss was right there, working on Burger King’s tax deal. Weiss’ work wasn’t unusual for Lazard.” Have a nice wonk piece How Medicaid for Children Recoups Much of Its Cost in the Long Run Short version of it is that kids on Medicaid get access to health care. This improves their life overall through a whole myriad of ways that basically come down to "having medical care, particularly when you are still growing and developing, helps you in life." This translates into higher performance and productivity later, which , means higher earnings, which which then get taxed. poo poo like this is why I'm on what is nominally the "left" side of the spectrum. I don't want these social programs and social justice because I have a particularly deep understanding of a nuanced philosophy that calls for it. I want it because on a simple cost:benefit analysis treating people well has a huge payoff for the whole of society. Anyways, here is your moment of zen/photoshop battle fodder:  John McCain discovers glass
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 02:45
|
|
|
Cliff Racer posted:It died a quiet death because the FCC didn't actually make moves toward making changes. Wouldn't be surprised if it sails through. Wouldn't be surprised if it picks up more than a bit of Democratic support too if they get it in before the FCC change (and resulting drawing of popular political divisions on the issue.) The simple fact is that all of the money on this issue is on one side AND that a lot of the companies that stand to lose a lot on it are Democratic donors. Google and Facebook. Two companies known to be poor. Also poor: Netflix, Amazon, and Apple. Nintendo Kid posted:The status quo is what's the most profitable for all involved, and the FCC ruling will essentially mandate that the status quo stays that way. Except Google's alright chimed in stating how internet being a utility means they get access to poles and infrastructure currently not available to them and that's huge for Google fiber and others
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 02:46
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Except Google's alright chimed in stating how internet being a utility means they get access to poles and infrastructure currently not available to them and that's huge for Google fiber and others Google also endorsed Verizon successfully getting cell carriers allowed to meet far less stringent "neutrality" requirements than wired providers not long ago. Also Google isn't going to bother rolling out fiber all over the country "utility" rulings or not.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 02:52
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Google and Facebook. Two companies known to be poor. Also poor: Netflix, Amazon, and Apple. Also two companies known to do loving awful at getting their way in Washington. As compared to, you know, Comcast and its friends.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 03:12
|
|
|
Duke Igthorn posted:This is why FOX News needs to specify when they blame everything on colored people. This joke was a good joke and I am going to steal it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 04:13
|
|
|
Cliff Racer posted:Also two companies known to do loving awful at getting their way in Washington. As compared to, you know, Comcast and its friends. Netflix is actually incredibly effective in Washington, far more so than Comcast. Apple and Google were mediocre but are getting a lot better - it wasn't so much that they were bad as that their issues simply didn't see legislation often enough to justify building the kind of longstanding presence that Comcast has. As they've gotten more involved and built relationships with staff, they've become far more effective lobbyists, certainly on a par with the Comcasts of the world. (As an aside, Fried Chicken, a lot of major nominees hire or acquire some kind of strategic response team because the nominations process is kind of awful on the nominee these days and they need the support staff. Bundling and donating to try and get a post is sketchy; trying to build your resume to look like a good candidate and hiring the kind of strategy team that Weiss hired aren't buying anything, they're the bare minimum for nominees these days.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 04:25
|
|
|
Kalman posted:(As an aside, Fried Chicken, a lot of major nominees hire or acquire some kind of strategic response team because the nominations process is kind of awful on the nominee these days and they need the support staff. Bundling and donating to try and get a post is sketchy; trying to build your resume to look like a good candidate and hiring the kind of strategy team that Weiss hired aren't buying anything, they're the bare minimum for nominees these days.) He didn't bring on the staff to help with the media circus after he was nominated though. He did all that before so he could get nominated in the first place. That's what makes it trying to buy the job.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 04:37
|
|
|
eviltastic posted:This joke was a good joke and I am going to steal it. #OITNB
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 04:57
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:He didn't bring on the staff to help with the media circus after he was nominated though. He did all that before so he could get nominated in the first place. That's what makes it trying to buy the job. Pretty sure he hired them after the nomination. http://www.wsj.com/articles/treasury-picks-wall-street-ties-split-democrats-1418261680
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 05:08
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Pretty sure he hired them after the nomination. http://www.wsj.com/articles/treasury-picks-wall-street-ties-split-democrats-1418261680 Want to quote the relevant bit for those of us stuck behind the paywall?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 05:11
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Want to quote the relevant bit for those of us stuck behind the paywall? Here's the whole thing. It doesn't offer any more of a timeline on the hiring than the previous article. In fact it is worse because it suggests the hiring was a quid pro quo to get him access to former players rather than just grabbing a good law firm to aid with the vetting. But beyond just the hires there is the rest of it that the above article went into, about his picking his donations to give him an edge, picking his connections to get patrons, and the rest. "It's how the game is played" doesn't change the fact that the game is rigged. edit: strike that - the vetting comes before the nomination doesn't it? That means he hired them prior to the nomination. quote:WASHINGTON—Five years after President Barack Obama decried “fat cat bankers on Wall Street,” he is being pilloried by fellow Democrats for nominating a Wall Street banker to a senior Treasury Department post. Fried Chicken fucked around with this message at 05:23 on Jan 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 05:16
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:Here's the whole thing. It doesn't offer any more of a timeline on the hiring than the previous article. In fact it is worse because it suggests the hiring was a quid pro quo to get him access to former players rather than just grabbing a good law firm to aid with the vetting. But beyond just the hires there is the rest of it that the above article went into, about his picking his donations to give him an edge, picking his connections to get patrons, and the rest. "It's how the game is played" doesn't change the fact that the game is rigged. You hire vetting attorneys when someone tells you you're being seriously considered for a nomination, or just after the nomination is made. Vetting done by the nominator's attorneys occurs prior to that contact, but your own vetting attorneys are there to help you deal with anything turned up once you're official and opposition starts researching you and to generally deal with media (since nominees generally don't) and help navigate the Senate confirmation process. I've literally never heard of a nominee hiring a vetting counsel to try and get nominated, and I worked on nominations. I'm not saying there isn't tons of shady poo poo that Weiss did do - just that hiring the Perkins guys isn't part of it. Also, you can't "grab a good law firm to vet you" and not wind up hiring people with connections because good law firms are smart enough to staff their strategic response/government relations/government investigations/whatever they call the group of lawyers you hire when the government is looking at you in detail for one reason or another with people with serious connections because they are much, much better at the job. If it had been another firm you'd hear about their former FBI director, their former White House counsel, their former solicitor general (not for Obama nominees since none of his are in private practice), their former Senators, etc. At Perkins right now, it's White House advisors. (Which is funny because Weiss almost certainly hired them more for their Senate connections - both were staff to Daschle and have a lot of insight into how to deal with a lot of the more powerful Senators - than for their White House connections.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 06:34
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Right, I guess it just kinda sucks being literally the only group of people in the US that doesn't get their taxes lowered ever (middle income single/childless renters). It's hard not to feel singled out when tax policy is delicately carved to include everyone but you. If the gov really wanted to encourage the birthrate they'd sponsor mixers and ladies nights at bars.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 09:29
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Nomination This was informative and cool. Do the nominees generally foot this bill themselves? Does this practice this kind of limit nominees to people who can afford to retain top lawyers for months at a time?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 11:45
|
|
|
Mitt Romney would like to be President so he can continue LBJ's War on Poverty.quote:One of Romney’s core arguments for running in 2012 — as a business executive who could step in as Economic Mr. Fix It — would be harder to make with a vastly improved economy. Romney, in his recent private conversations, has asserted he can make long-term structural changes in the economy to help the middle class.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 13:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 15:25 |
|
|
If Romney were president, by golly, every single impossible challenge the United States faces wouldn't just be solved, they would never have occurred at all
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 13:47
|
|