MOBILE USERS: m.isthmus.com
Connect with Isthmus on Twitter · Facebook · Flickr · Newsletters · Instagram 
Thursday, September 18, 2014 |  Madison, WI: 51.0° F  Fog/Mist
Collapse Photo Bar

Waz up with Woodward?

Races for the Senate, U.S. House, etc. and other issues of national importance.

Re: Waz up with Woodward?

Postby Talon Newsman » Sun Mar 03, 2013 1:43 pm

Meade wrote:Did you mean: "The lady doth protest too much methinks."

Merde, did you mean: "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
Talon Newsman
Forum Addict
 
Posts: 478
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 6:28 pm

Re: Waz up with Woodward?

Postby snoqueen » Sun Mar 03, 2013 2:15 pm

Leroy Gates wrote:
snoqueen wrote:And Leroy, when California goes bankrupt then we can discuss it.


Spoken like a true Liberal. Don't let affordability influence your decision. The rest of us can bail California out, right Snoqueen?


That's leftist, to you.

I don't answer hypothetical questions like those. California is not about to go bankrupt. When did a state last go bankrupt?

Actually, there are major obstacles to a state filing for bankruptcy, not the least being what court would have jurisdiction. Here's an interesting discussion;
http://www.thedeal.com/magazine/ID/0384 ... nkrupt.php

And a quote, which I will not box for clarity:
"What if a state refuses to pay a bondholder? The bondholder puts those assets in a limited liability company and declares bankruptcy. Could a federal bankruptcy judge order the state to pay what it owes as part of a bankruptcy proceeding? Would the state lose its sovereign immunity? Would the judge have enforcement powers? If it sounds like a constitutional mess, it probably is."
snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 11498
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: Waz up with Woodward?

Postby kurt_w » Sun Mar 03, 2013 7:33 pm

Leroy Gates wrote:The rest of us can bail California out, right Snoqueen?


Over the past 20 years, California (like most blue states) has paid more in taxes to the federal government than it's gotten back in spending. The same is decidedly not true of almost all the red states. If we're going to talk about the federal government bailing out states, let's start there.
kurt_w
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 5083
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 3:11 pm

Re: Waz up with Woodward?

Postby Sandi » Sun Mar 03, 2013 7:49 pm

kurt_w wrote:Over the past 20 years, California (like most blue states) has paid more in taxes to the federal government than it's gotten back in spending. The same is decidedly not true of almost all the red states. If we're going to talk about the federal government bailing out states, let's start there.


Not exactly. You have to take into consideration that the blue states are by far the most wealthy. In coastal states or areas with large railway hubs. Either way they are some of the oldest cities that have forever been in shipping and commerce.

Yes blue states pay more in taxes, because they are in higher income brackets: not only in dollar amounts but a higher percentage of their income. This, I thought, is what liberals and progressive both want.
Sandi
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1552
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 11:31 pm

Re: Waz up with Woodward?

Postby Steve Vokers » Sun Mar 03, 2013 8:04 pm

I guess you could say the blue states are makers, and red states are takers.
Steve Vokers
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1120
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2003 11:58 am

Re: Waz up with Woodward?

Postby Mad Howler » Sun Mar 03, 2013 9:12 pm

Sandi wrote:snoqueen, What the hell had transportation, auto or rail, have to do with Woodward? Besides thread jacking....


It has been busy here.

But Sandi(nista), you work it so hard I can't tell if you are the kettle or the pot.
Mad Howler
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1349
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2012 8:36 pm

Re: Waz up with Woodward?

Postby Mad Howler » Sun Mar 03, 2013 9:21 pm

Meade wrote:
Mad Howler wrote:"The lady doth protest too much me thinks." Google it.

Did you mean: "The lady doth protest too much methinks."


Hey, thanks for reading through the thread and pointing out an irrelevant error. I find your interest interesting.
Mad Howler
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1349
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2012 8:36 pm

Re: Waz up with Woodward?

Postby DCB » Sun Mar 03, 2013 10:33 pm

Sandi wrote:
kurt_w wrote:Over the past 20 years, California (like most blue states) has paid more in taxes to the federal government than it's gotten back in spending. The same is decidedly not true of almost all the red states. If we're going to talk about the federal government bailing out states, let's start there.


Not exactly.

Yes, it is exactly as Kurt said.

Now, you may be correct that this because the 'maker' states are generally more affluent, and due to progressive taxation pay a higher share of their income than the losers in the 'taker' states.

But that's just a restatement of the facts: blue states rule, red states drool.

Or rather, hippies are the ones supporting rednecks' copenhagen habit.

p.s. http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/eco ... eir-taxes-
Last edited by DCB on Sun Mar 03, 2013 10:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
DCB
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2648
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 5:08 pm

Re: Waz up with Woodward?

Postby Sandi » Sun Mar 03, 2013 10:39 pm

DCB wrote:Now, you may be correct that this because the 'maker' states are generally more affluent, and due to progressive taxation pay a higher share of their income that the losers in the 'taker' states.


So the wealthy are fine, but lower income are losers...

Thanks for sharing.
Sandi
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1552
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 11:31 pm

Re: Waz up with Woodward?

Postby Mad Howler » Mon Mar 04, 2013 12:00 am

That is an interesting thing you grabbed onto Sandi. When I was looking at red to blue shifts in voting results around the country side by side with maps of poverty rates last November they were directly proportional to my eye (particularily in areas of Geogia and Southeast Texas). I do not think that this has been missed by those who make a living looking at such things.

On a side note, did you catch the Mitt & Ann show this weekend? I did not but I caught a clip of her saying something like 'we'll be fine, but it is America we worry about'. Whose America do you think she was talking about?
Last edited by Mad Howler on Mon Mar 04, 2013 1:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
Mad Howler
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1349
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2012 8:36 pm

Re: Waz up with Woodward?

Postby DCB » Mon Mar 04, 2013 12:04 am

Sandi wrote:
So the wealthy are fine, but lower income are losers...

Thanks for sharing.

Typical conservative response, playing the victim. Why not take responsibilty for your situation? Ditch your defective ideology and you too can be a wealthy liberal.
DCB
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2648
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 5:08 pm

Re: Waz up with Woodward?

Postby Sandi » Mon Mar 04, 2013 12:50 am

DCB wrote:Typical conservative response, playing the victim. Why not take responsibilty for your situation? Ditch your defective ideology and you too can be a wealthy liberal.


I am not, and have never considered myself a victim. Your really funny. I am responsible for myself: unlike the left who always wants to take responsibility for everyone but themselves.

You know nothing about me, except that I am conservative on some things. If you paid attention you would know that I am liberal on others.

Please pay attention.
Sandi
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1552
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 11:31 pm

Re: Waz up with Woodward?

Postby DCB » Mon Mar 04, 2013 10:58 am

Sandi wrote:I am not, and have never considered myself a victim.

Sorry, that's the vibe I was picking up from
Sandi wrote:So the wealthy are fine, but lower income are losers...

Thanks for sharing.


But thanks for stating the conservative position so succinctly .

I think most of us progresso-lefto-libs would agree that under any form of capitalism, there will be wealth inequality. We just think that extreme inequality, such as we've seen over the last the 30 years or so, is immoral and degrading to human dignity, not something to be celebrated. That we should make efforts to ameliorate the worst excesses of that inequality, and that doing so makes us a better people. Its not something to be feared.
Sandi wrote:As for safety net, that is a scarey code-word that can mean many many things.


Let's review: this thread begins with Woodward's revisionist op-ed about "moving the goalposts". When the Whitehouse called him on his bullshit, he tried to change the subject to "they're picking on me".

But facts are facts. The sequester was always framed as a "thing to be replaced". The President has been calling for a "balanced approach" to deficit reduction - much to the dismay of many liberals, he has embraced granny starving. But he also campaigned quite openly on asking the wealth to "contribute a little bit more".

And facts are facts: the deal that was supposed to replace the sequester would have been the third round of deficit reduction deals. And so far those deals resulted in 70% spending cuts, and only 30% new revenues: Image
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plu ... one-chart/

The spending cuts hurt the poor, and tax hikes hurt the rich. And by 'hurt the rich', I mean 'they might have to put off getting that second yacht'.

So moderates and liberals should agree that a "balanced approach" should include higher taxes, particularly on the very wealthy. But the Republicans insist on "no new revenues". Because they believe:

Sandi wrote:So the wealthy are fine, but lower income are losers...

and they want to keep it that way.
DCB
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2648
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 5:08 pm

Re: Waz up with Woodward?

Postby Stella_Guru » Mon Mar 04, 2013 12:44 pm

[quote="DCB"] The President has been calling for a "balanced approach" to deficit reduction - much to the dismay of many liberals, he has embraced granny starving. /quote]
There is no balanced approach here. The notion that deficits are the number one problem, and the logic of austerity and attacks on entitlements are the solution, President Obama has embraced ideas that have been long associated with the Republican Right.
Stella_Guru
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1216
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2008 7:08 pm

Re: Waz up with Woodward?

Postby Sandi » Mon Mar 04, 2013 12:49 pm

Let's review: this thread begins with Woodward's revisionist op-ed about "moving the goalposts". When the Whitehouse called him on his bullshit, he tried to change the subject to "they're picking on me".


How can you review when you don't have the facts to begin with?

1) The sequester was Obama's idea as Jay Carney has verified, and it was about cuts only.

2) Only after Obama saw the sequester wouldn't be stopped did attempt to add tax reform to it. That is moving the goal post.

It would be nice if I didn't have to explain the obvious.
Sandi
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1552
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 11:31 pm

PreviousNext

Return to National Politics & Government

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

moviesmusiceats
Select a Movie
Select a Theater


commentsViewedForum
  ISTHMUS FLICKR

cron
Promotions Contact us Privacy Policy Jobs Newsletters RSS
Collapse Photo Bar