Here's what I don't get.
Lieberman is a Senator from a very blue state and he is a conservative Democrat.
He will likely be replaced by another Democrat, but this time, that Democrat will be far more leftwing than Lieberman.
Why would Republicans make any effort to unseat Lieberman?
If anything, the man often votes with the GOP. This Lamont fellow is unlikely to do that.
The GOP should be covertly supporting Lieberman!
They know that a Republican can't win in that state, so why would they work to unseat a man who is 75% with them?
BTW, I don't think Lieberman actually plans to run as an independent if he loses the primary. He would have to spend virtually all of his political and $$ capital to win and it just wouldn't be worth it.
He'd probably just move to a Red state and hope to win a primary by being the centrist Democrat candidate.
PeakOil is You
THE Joe Lieberman Thread (merged)
Re: Joe Lieberman may be history
by Tyler_JC » Fri 04 Aug 2006, 17:50:54
"www.peakoil.com is the Myspace of the Apocalypse."
- Tyler_JC
- Expert
- Posts: 5438
- Joined: Sat 25 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Boston, MA
Re: Joe Lieberman may be history
by fireplaceguy » Fri 04 Aug 2006, 21:26:11
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('greenworm', 'Y')ou know there are other candidates: Independent
I never vote for repocrats, only because they don't usually have my best interests at heart. This guy at least wants to redistribute the tax burden away from workers to the corporations as their slice of the burden becomes less and less every year. I don't know his views on the Lebanon/Israel conflict, but I am sure you can find out if ya ask him.
Shift the tax burden away from workers?? Quit being such a sucker. It's impossible to shift the tax burden - the consumer pays for everything.
I never vote for repocrats, only because they don't usually have my best interests at heart. This guy at least wants to redistribute the tax burden away from workers to the corporations as their slice of the burden becomes less and less every year. I don't know his views on the Lebanon/Israel conflict, but I am sure you can find out if ya ask him.
Here's how it works: Suppose you utopians manage to elect this walking orifice and he successfully raises taxes on corporations - since I'm sure you'd love to screw them we'll use General Motors as a sample victim of your thinking, ok? GM has to pay this new tax burden or they go out of business...
Just to hold this illustration to round numbers let's say the increased tax burden is one biillion dollars a year. To bring in money, GM builds cars. To keep things simple let's say they build ten million cars a year. How does GM raise the extra billion they need to fork over? Easy. Divide the billion dollars due by the number of units built to arrive at the price increase per unit needed to cover the cost.
Then, you sucker, when you buy the car, you pay the dealer's markup on the hidden tax and then you finance the whole ball of wax and pay non-deductible interest on the loan. Then, just to prove how utterly clueless you are, you complain about the price of cars going up....
(Don't drive a car? That's ok, we can pack this tax burden into the price of your next bicycle, too. As more people go without cars, that's just more tax on bicycles... Gotcha!)
What Barnum missed is that people like you don't even need fooling - you will fool yourselves for us given the chance!
You're an economic illiterate. You don't know enough to have your own best interests at heart, so don't you dare criticise politicians. The way you think, you deserve to be screwed wiith hidden taxes. The only problem is that when people like you get your way, we all get screwed.
Do I sound a little unkind? Perhaps YOU should stop guiding THEIR hands into OUR pockets...
-
fireplaceguy - Lignite
- Posts: 305
- Joined: Thu 04 May 2006, 03:00:00
Re: Joe Lieberman may be history
by Tyler_JC » Fri 04 Aug 2006, 22:28:00
fireplaceguy,
What about if you move the tax burden from low-middle income earners and raise taxes on those in the top 1%.
Even just raising the top income bracket back to the level it was in the 1990's would put a big dent in the budget deficit.
Personally, I'd prefer massive spending cuts. But we don't need to change the corporate tax rates to shift the tax burden away from workers.
What about if you move the tax burden from low-middle income earners and raise taxes on those in the top 1%.
Even just raising the top income bracket back to the level it was in the 1990's would put a big dent in the budget deficit.
Personally, I'd prefer massive spending cuts. But we don't need to change the corporate tax rates to shift the tax burden away from workers.
"www.peakoil.com is the Myspace of the Apocalypse."
- Tyler_JC
- Expert
- Posts: 5438
- Joined: Sat 25 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Boston, MA
Re: Joe Lieberman may be history
by fireplaceguy » Sat 05 Aug 2006, 17:38:12
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tyler_JC', 'f')ireplaceguy,
What about if you move the tax burden from low-middle income earners and raise taxes on those in the top 1%.
Even just raising the top income bracket back to the level it was in the 1990's would put a big dent in the budget deficit.
Personally, I'd prefer massive spending cuts. But we don't need to change the corporate tax rates to shift the tax burden away from workers.
It is utterly immoral to take more from any citizen whenever our corrupt government can't stop using the money drug. If I can find the time I will track down the figures for you, but the top 1% are already taxed far out of proportion to their numbers, and a lot of your low income workers already pay little or nothing.
What about if you move the tax burden from low-middle income earners and raise taxes on those in the top 1%.
Even just raising the top income bracket back to the level it was in the 1990's would put a big dent in the budget deficit.
Personally, I'd prefer massive spending cuts. But we don't need to change the corporate tax rates to shift the tax burden away from workers.
You quickly reach a point of diminishing returns by robbing the wealthy, because in economics, things really do trickle down. I'll give you an example, based on real world people I know:
Suppose you get your way and soak the top 1% for a lot more taxes. All that wealth disappears into the black hole called Washington DC and there's still a deficit - perhaps even a bigger one - because you have actually ENABLED the corrupt bastards...
But forget that for a moment and look at what happens out on the street - your once well heeled customers curtail their spending. Businesses start to feel the pinch. First, a local furniture store lays off a saleswoman and then a delivery driver. The furniture store owner decides he can serve his shrinking market from his existing space and never leases the larger space next door. That space stays vacant, and the leasing agent, a father of three, drastically cuts spending on vacations, clothes and gifts for his family, and keeps his old car. The furniiture saleswoman, a single parent, can only find work as a cashier and has to go on food stamps to feed her kids. Tte delivery driver loses his apartment and moves in with a friend. The saleswoman, her kids and the ex deliveryman are all without health insurance now...
Down the street, Ferrari's and Bentleys have stopped selling. So what, you say, nobody needs such an artifact and the dealer deserves it for selling those gas hogs in the first place?
Well, you're entitled to your worldview, but the dealer lays off a salesman and a mechanic anyway, and decides not to build the new house he had been dreaming of. There goes two more full time jobs with benefits along with months of work for all sorts of people in the construction trades. The general contractor listens with disappointment to the cancelled home order (one of many lately) and decides not to build any more spec homes either, since things are getting much worse in the real etate market. People just don't seem to have the money they used to.
Besides, he's in the 1% and he's tired of taking such huge risks only to have over half of what he makes disappear in taxes. When the risks have increased and the diminished returns are taken from him...
There goes even more work for the construction trades.
Then, existing owners of Ferrari's and Bentleys curtail their driving in order to postpone expensive maintenance. So what, you say, saves gas those people shouldn't be wasting? Well, the dealer has to lay off another mechanic who's never even heard of Jevon's Paradox, and the car wash and the tire store have less work, too...
Since far fewer homes are being built, and so many mechanics and construction workers are out of work, my store's sales of stoves, fireplces, solar and high efficiency appliances drops dramatically. I lay off my outside rep and take over my dwindling builder accounts myself. I lay off an installation crew and don't purchase the new truck they were needing. The Ferrari dealer, the general contractor, several other local businesses and quite a few construction tradesmen don't buy new trucks either, so the commercial truck salesman (whose business is down 40% in the last three years since that income tax thing pased) files for bankruptcy. And while the Feds are raking it in, think of all the sales taxes and registration fees the county will never collect...
I could go on and on, but you should be getting the principle by now - things really do trickle down!
Every time you hit an economically succesful person in the wallet, they change their behavior. They may not suffer greatly, but you clearly destroy several little guys for every "rich" person you stick it to.
Net impact on society? Conspicuously negative. (And watch your back, sport, lest all those out of work people find out where you live...)
As I pointed out earlier, the only REAL problem remains. That would be our government, which has devolved into a single party system with two hopelessly corrupt banking branches - and you have given them even more of that which they're addicted to - OUR money. All you've done is encourage them!!!
Until something is done about the entire corrupt federal bureaucracy and we free our nation from the shackles of the Fed, there's no hope.
None.
If you aren't up to fighting that fight, I understand - but for God's sake stop kidding yourself that there are any other solutions.
-
fireplaceguy - Lignite
- Posts: 305
- Joined: Thu 04 May 2006, 03:00:00
Re: Joe Lieberman may be history
by greenworm » Sat 05 Aug 2006, 18:46:11
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')hen, you sucker, when you buy the car, you pay the dealer's markup on the hidden tax and then you finance the whole ball of wax and pay non-deductible interest on the loan. Then, just to prove how utterly clueless you are, you complain about the price of cars going up....
I don't complain about the price of cars, I don't really want to own one, I don't really pay for anything in life except taxes on my house. Now if you are in my position, I am not being a sucker at all. In fact, I am defending myself against extortion, which to some degree, I think you may agree with. It seems to me that consumers get hurt in your scenario, I am hardly that. But I got a sneaky suspicion, you might be overly consumptious.
-
greenworm - Tar Sands
- Posts: 862
- Joined: Fri 27 Jan 2006, 04:00:00
Re: Joe Lieberman may be history
by fireplaceguy » Sun 06 Aug 2006, 11:35:46
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('greenworm', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')hen, you sucker, when you buy the car, you pay the dealer's markup on the hidden tax and then you finance the whole ball of wax and pay non-deductible interest on the loan. Then, just to prove how utterly clueless you are, you complain about the price of cars going up....
I don't complain about the price of cars, I don't really want to own one, I don't really pay for anything in life except taxes on my house. Now if you are in my position, I am not being a sucker at all. In fact, I am defending myself against extortion, which to some degree, I think you may agree with. It seems to me that consumers get hurt in your scenario, I am hardly that. But I got a sneaky suspicion, you might be overly consumptious.
You're deluding yourself if you think you have a good defense going there. The problem is bad government, which you've done NOTHING to change. What you propose is just a temporary arrangement for others to suffer the consequences. So I was wrong - you're not a sucker - weasel is more like it.
You sound pretty smug about not being a ccnsumer, yet I notice you own a house. Hmmm... seems you'd need insurance for it, and maintenance and utilities (or a bunch of expensive gadgets if you're off-grid). I'd wager you don't wear clothes you made yourself from fibers grown in your back yard, and I also can't help but notice you're posting on the net, so you must own a computer and probably pay for access.
Even if you've found someone to mooch all this off of, you sound a lot like a consumer to me...
Whatever. In the end you shouldn't sleep too well - that which harms society ultimately harms you, and since you haven't addressed the actual cancer, it'll be back to claim you too...
-
fireplaceguy - Lignite
- Posts: 305
- Joined: Thu 04 May 2006, 03:00:00
