http://www.nashvillescene.com/pitw/archives/2012/12/07/moderation-is-apparently-a-disability Comments On: Moderation Is Apparently a Disability by Bruce Barry en-us Copyright 2013 Nashville Scene. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, Nashville Scene readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact Nashville Scene. wil@desert.net (Nashville Scene Webmaster) Sat, 25 May 2013 00:00:01 -0500 Sat, 25 May 2013 09:15:00 -0500 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Posted by Gilbert Martin]]> Tue, 11 Dec 2012 16:17:49 -0600 Nashville Scene
"bush tax cuts disproportionate" = 260,000 hits

"The majority of the Bush tax cuts were for the rich" = No results found for "The majority of the Bush tax cuts were for the rich".

And I read the post--it's a blog from Reason.
Posted by AnglRdr]]> Tue, 11 Dec 2012 14:37:36 -0600 Nashville Scene
It's not the truth.



"Prove it."

I already have. You 're just too stupid to read the post.
Posted by Gilbert Martin]]> Tue, 11 Dec 2012 14:29:45 -0600 Nashville Scene
"It certainly does. It perfectly describles which group of people got to keep more of their own money as an absolute percentage of total tax cut dollars."

Prove it.
Posted by AnglRdr]]> Tue, 11 Dec 2012 14:11:11 -0600 Nashville Scene
No you were simply trying to change the subject and/or obfuscate the issue. It's never worked for you before and it's not working now.


"Who said that the "majority of the Bush tax cuts" were for the rich?"

All those liberal Democrats who have been yapping about "tax cuts for the rich" for about a decade or so.

"Because "majority of the cuts" doesn't make any sense, in that it doesn't effectively describe anything.
Posted by Gilbert Martin]]> Tue, 11 Dec 2012 14:03:03 -0600 Nashville Scene
You use language interestingly, Gilbert, I'll say that.
Posted by AnglRdr]]> Tue, 11 Dec 2012 13:18:22 -0600 Nashville Scene http://reason.com/archives/2012/11/28/geor…


"As a result, The Joint Committee on Taxation says extending the middle- class tax cuts will shave $2.7 trillion in revenue over 10 years. The White House says ending the tax cuts for the richest 2 percent would raise $849 billion over a decade.
Posted by Gilbert Martin]]> Tue, 11 Dec 2012 13:08:51 -0600 Nashville Scene
I'm not conflating anything.

The majority of the Bush tax cuts that the liberal Dems claimed were "for the rich" actually went to the middle class and the progressivity of income taxes paid was steeper after it was enacted than it was beforehand.
Posted by Gilbert Martin]]> Tue, 11 Dec 2012 13:05:08 -0600 Nashville Scene
Back then when Republicans were pushing tax cuts to spur the economy {in my opinion, a mistake at the time for several reasons} the Democrats talked as if across the board tax cuts were robbing the government of revenue. When Democrats call for tax cuts, it is because of the economic benefits.
Posted by Mark Rogers]]> Tue, 11 Dec 2012 12:37:18 -0600 Nashville Scene
You're conflating the Bush tax cuts and the Obama payroll tax cut, both of which expire at the same time.
Posted by AnglRdr]]> Tue, 11 Dec 2012 12:36:34 -0600 Nashville Scene
Strange.

http://reason.com/blog/2012/12/11/the-poli…


"Where’s Joe Biden? Like most Democrats at the time, he voted against the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003.Today, with control of the White House and Senate, Democrats want to keep the Bush tax cuts, they say, for 98 percent of taxpayers—the tax cuts so many of them voted against the first time around, often citing its impact on the deficit as a reason.
Posted by Gilbert Martin]]> Tue, 11 Dec 2012 12:22:01 -0600 Nashville Scene www.motherjones.com, "Bob Corker Doesn't Really Matter": "Whether the tea party caucus in the House is willing to swallow tax increases—and whether John Boehner can make a deal without them if he needs to—are the only real questions at issue right now... (That's on the Republican side, of course.
Posted by Zombie Ronald Reagan]]> Mon, 10 Dec 2012 14:23:47 -0600 Nashville Scene
So, the benefit of signing the treaty is that at makes us look like a good guy.
Posted by AnglRdr]]> Mon, 10 Dec 2012 12:02:21 -0600 Nashville Scene
Yes, I know that. Hence my comment:

"And why does the US need to sign on to a treaty that grants the disabled rights that they already have in America?"

Again, you ignore the issue.
Posted by Mark Rogers]]> Mon, 10 Dec 2012 11:53:22 -0600 Nashville Scene
Mark, you do know this treaty is modeled on US law, right (of course you do, because it was mentioned before)?

Your abortion red herring is particularly eye roll-inducing.
Posted by AnglRdr]]> Mon, 10 Dec 2012 10:59:47 -0600 Nashville Scene
And why does the US need to sign on to a treaty that grants the disabled rights that they already have in America?

The only result of this treaty would be to hand over more authority in shaping public policy to international governing bodies that are dominated by nations that seek our downfall as a means to greater power for themselves.
Posted by Mark Rogers]]> Sat, 08 Dec 2012 12:15:28 -0600 Nashville Scene
You write:

"Earth to Bob and Lamar: Insisting that significant entitlement reform accompany the fiscal adjustments needed to avert the so-called cliff isn't reasonable or moderate; it's an alternative route to the great state of delusion. With just three and a half pre-cliff weeks on the calendar, the labyrinthine policy webs of Medicare and Medicaid are not going to be seriously pondered, much less reformed."

Well maybe not.

From 'The Hill'

"Democrats warm to Medicare change that Kennedy opposed
By Elise Viebeck - 12/08/12 11:30 AM ET

"Democrats in Congress are changing their tune on means testing in Medicare, an idea the late Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) resisted for decades.

"Leading Democratic lawmakers have suggested that raising premiums for wealthy Medicare beneficiaries could be a matter of common ground with Republicans in the ongoing deficit-reduction talks."

More available at: http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/medic…

Now in this context, saving additional tens of billions of dollars in entitlement reforms before we go cliff-diving seems far less unreasonable.
Posted by Mark Rogers]]> Sat, 08 Dec 2012 12:07:44 -0600 Nashville Scene >You "The UN is evil" people are a special slice of stupid.<<

And YOU should go live in many of those UN countries & see how well YOU get treated as a lesbian half-black female. I'd give you about 3-4 days in many of your beloved UN countries.
Posted by bobsguns]]> Sat, 08 Dec 2012 09:28:23 -0600 Nashville Scene
Corker is attempting some leadership and suggestions that make sense in the negotiations although the White House is out to lunch on the subject.
Posted by NeverFear]]> Sat, 08 Dec 2012 08:16:06 -0600 Nashville Scene Posted by Zombie Ronald Reagan]]> Sat, 08 Dec 2012 07:06:25 -0600 Nashville Scene
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/334…
Posted by xray]]> Fri, 07 Dec 2012 23:54:46 -0600 Nashville Scene Posted by Gilbert Jr.]]> Fri, 07 Dec 2012 21:08:07 -0600 Nashville Scene
Or to put it differently:

The GOP colleagues see no reason to consider letting the mouth foamy Obama and the equally foamy Congressional democrats get away with their class warfare grandstanding that has no meaningfull effect on solving the deficit or national debt problem.

Brucie isn't the least bit capabe of proving his characterization of it is one iota more accurate than mine is.
Posted by Gilbert Martin]]> Fri, 07 Dec 2012 15:15:08 -0600 Nashville Scene
Then we should, by all means, follow their lead since their history on human rights is so enviable...NOT!"

Nations that use capital punishment also include China, Iran, and Syria. By your reasoning, the USA should abolish the death penalty, a stance that I seriously doubt you endorse.

Emmett, prove that you're not a prize idiot or a troll, and either admit your logic is wrong, or that your argument is wrong.
Posted by Ben P]]> Fri, 07 Dec 2012 14:15:54 -0600 Nashville Scene Posted by Totheleft]]> Fri, 07 Dec 2012 13:49:41 -0600 Nashville Scene