Pangloss

This is a great start, because if I'm reading you right I think what you're saying here is that just because 894,000 "businesses" are "affected" by the effective increase in taxes (if that number is correct, and if that's what they are) doesn't mean that all 894,000 of them will be severely or even adversely affected, so it doesn't logically translate to 894,000 businesses laying off several workers each. I agree that this stands to reason based on what we see here. One hesitation I had is that the FactCheck article is over two years old, and the TPC's changing assessments were more recent. But I didn't see anything specific about it that I could say was incorrect. Of course there's a gray area here, because we're talking about actions of congress that haven't even taken place yet (and in fact the odds are pretty darn good that they won't even act). But none of that seems to change your point (if I've read it right). I'll continue to follow this, but I'm not quite as concerned as I was a week ago.

We're looking for businesses to expand. Expansion is a speculative affair, based on growth that's hoped-for, which means that additional cost is being incurred in the short term. But even setting aside expansion, actual employment probably never precisely matches output with 100% efficiency, because the variables aren't calculable (sick days, for example). This would seem to match the familiar meme about workforce cutbacks forcing remaining employees to work harder and for longer hours. (Do we actually pay taxes based on profit, btw? I thought it was based on total revenue.) -------- Regarding Krugman, I'm not interested in debating the effect of the full tax cuts posed as a rebuttal to the president's plan, because that isn't the president's plan. However, if you're just saying that the full tax cuts benefit the wealthy more than the middle class, consider it said.

I don't know what that's supposed to mean either. Didn't you want to talk about this? It's your thread, man.

It's the job of a democratic government to balance wealth between the rich and the poor? Kinda hard to decrease from zero. Almost half of all Americans pay no income tax at all. (source) In fact, since the burden has been moved beyond the null point, you can't really say that it's a matter of "balancing" anything anymore. It's just a matter of taking money from people who, according to some arbitrary line that may be moved tomorrow, have it. That's actually a bad thing for your hypothesis of desired control, since you don't have a bar you can move up or down for that income bracket. It's just... off. Kinda like the problem the Fed has with interest rates -- they're already effectively zero, so they can't lower them any more. But hey, you can always go after sales tax, fees, and union dues. And if that's not enough to accomplish the goal (whatever the goal is, which I'm not real clear on), there's always free food, free health care, and of course you gotta have free entertainment to keep them happy, right?

Sure, I agree that the majority of businesses are unaffected, I'm simply pointing out two things: The effect extends well below the level of wealthy people and right into the middle class, and the president's proposal could have an extremely adverse effect on the recovery. Experts have been touting the effect of his proposal as negligible and unimportant, but here we are seeing serious evidence to the contrary. But I'm keeping an open mind about it. I'm concerned, I'm not passing judgment. I will say this, though: While I'm not claiming this is the goal, I can't help but observe the fact that eliminating small businesses that are run in this manner is a wonderful, holy-grail-level dream of the progressive movement. Union labor no iron in this fire presently, but what a wonderful opportunity for expansion that would be if they could get everyone employed by giant mega-corps that are all at least partly owned and tremendously regulated by the federal government. Keep going in that direction and I may have to start attending a few Glenn Beck rallies myself.

How the word "only" gets to be at the front of that quote is beyond me. There are "only" ~14.5 million Americans presently unemployed. Economists point out that when we "only" add 40-70k jobs in a month we're not keeping up with population growth, and that we have to add hundreds of thousands of jobs per month to return to where we were. So I appreciate the second source, and I wonder why it would make sense to anyone to hurt 900,000 businesses during a stalled recovery. The TPC is using a weak argument here. That's an average of only ~$444,444 in income per business (400B/900k), and presumably on a curve with most of them down towards the bottom nearer to that 250k minimum mark. These are small businesses. Sure, they're a little bigger than the typical shopping mall kiosk, or even a small, hole-in-the-wall restaurant, but not much bigger than that. (I think Marat meant over 250k.) The thing you guys are missing is that these are still small companies. These are local businesses with 20-60 employees. The company earns more than $250,000 per year. This is a very common scenario and it's how companies get started -- in fact it's the traditional American "family business" model. My wife's family's business is a perfect example. She has a subset of their employees organized into a sub-chapter S, which is what we're talking about -- a company that looks and acts (for tax purposes) like an individual. The "company" earns a little over Obama's 250k mark, but her take-home is only a fraction of that (I don't want to get into personal income here, but let's just say that it's well under six figures and leave it at that). And I'm just a college instructor, so as a family she and I together will bring in less than Obama's "wealth" mark. But because of the way this is phrased we'll see a huge increase in taxes because of the amount of money that her company brings in. That will have a direct impact on hiring and firing. How can it not? We certainly can't absorb the increase. And as I say, this is how American business at the low end is typically done. Just look at that figure -- 900 thousand businesses will be affected by this. That means that if the average number of employees is 20 (I'm just guessing here, but remember, they have to earn more than 250k, so they're going to typically have at least a couple dozen employees), then something like 18 million Americans work for a company that will be affected by this tax increase. I don't mean to suggest that that many people would be laid off, but is it really that far-fetched to speculate that this will lead to, say, tens of thousands of layoffs, given these numbers? I spent most of a 20-year career in IT consulting working with companies like this. I know how these people think and how close to the line they tend to run. IMO Obama's playing with real fire here.

Rofl! Yeah maybe we should try that, just throw all the rascals out for a while and see what happens. (lol)

I agree; that seems likely.

ABC News' Jonathan Karl (a reporter with no known bias that I'm aware of) says is that the Tax Policy Center says that 2.5% of small businesses, or 894,000 of them, will be adversely affected by the administration's proposal. You have not addressed that point, except to declare it invalid based on a partisan assessment that ignores obvious factors (see below). You've instead raised a discussion about what the impact of the full tax cuts has been and may be in the future. And supported it with an ad hominem attack on my intelligence. I don't care to discuss that issue with you on those terms. Nor will I allow you to last-word me with a straw-man subject change. THAT I'll address. I can support that by simply pointing out that the reason the Obama administration is giving for its support for extending the tax cuts for families earning under $200,000 is so that they won't get hit with an effective tax increase during our ongoing economic crisis. Quoting President Obama from a speech he gave just yesterday: In other words, those Americans saw great benefit from the tax cuts, and he wants them to keep those benefits. Source: http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2010/09/transcript_of_president_obamas_1.html (It's about halfway down the page.)

Well the good news is that the pastor has decided to cancel "burn a Koran day". Which I suppose is the best counter-argument to my point that I can think of -- showing that sometimes media attention CAN help. (lol)

Intolerance and hatred is not the basis for the majority's objection to the facility. Of course those polls mean something special -- it means we have a lot of work to do. As you point out, the goal in 1963 was passing a law. That's not the goal here. The goal here is winning hearts and minds. Do you think that goal is more easily achieved through rigid ideological posturing and the mischaracterization of those who have made the judgmental error, or through equitable discussion, mutual respect, and the finding of common ground?

I think the best way is to engage. Support centrist and moderate candidates, avoid ideological generalizations, spread information, and plead for a return to sanity. Avoid fear, intimidation and ridicule as motivations, and focus on laughter and congenial discussion. All of these things we do here (with the occasional, human slip); the trick is to elevate the discussion out in the general public. And that includes not just bake sales and boy scout meetings in the flyover states. It includes science communities, computer user groups, and big city coffee shops, too.

No, I think you're right, there's no way you can come up with anything conclusive. But what about general trends? What if someone just whipped up a little filter that scanned for instance of the word "sick" in Facebook posts, and then sorted them by time and location, and then compared that data with statistics over the time domain from the CEC, etc? If there was a correlation, that might suggest that the tool could be useful for seeing general spread patterns. I mean, we are talking about half a billion people. Seems like that potential data pool ought to be useful for something. (grin) It also occurs to me that one could offer a Facebook application that allowed participants to opt in to an epidemiological study. The app could have them report their health status on a weekly basis, and report immediately if they contract something. Of course that would be a much smaller number of people, and with still no way to confirm the reporting, but that would address the automation problem.

Yes, the right promoted and elevated the controversy on the mosque, just like the left drummed up controversy on the Koran-burning. That was the point of this thread, to show that there's more than one participant in this unfortunate process.

Yes, and he's wrong to say that that's limited (even mostly limit) to a tiny group of people, because every single taxpayer saw a benefit from the tax cuts on their bottom line. You have done absolutely nothing to refute Jonathan Karl's (not PANGLOSS'S) point that the Tax Policy Center ITSELF says that 894,000 businesses would be adversely affected BY THE ADMINISTRATION'S PROPOSAL, which is NOT to preserve all the tax cuts. So raising what would happen if the ENTIRE tax cuts are preserved IS A STRAW MAN. The rest of your post is just repetition and insults. Why the heck you'd think anyone would want to engage you when you behave like this is beyond me.

So you were just being sarcastic, and don't think their claim is warranted? It's just a case of NIMBY, their health problems are not real, and they shouldn't be asking for change?

That's not my "framing", it's the statement of the non-partisan Tax Policy Center, which supports allowing them to expire on the most expensive earners, extending them only for middle-income earners (i.e. they support President Obama's and Democrats' plan). This is supported by the link I provided. But even if it were a smaller number, could we really afford to let half a million businesses face three-percent tax increases leading to (as claimed by two examples in that story) 2, 3, 4 or more layoffs per company? Do you have any evidence to suggest that the number is less than, say, 100,000, which would only produce, say, 200,000 job losses? Or that it might be an even smaller number? Because that claim by the Tax Policy Center seems to be what's informing the Democrats' main party line, so it doesn't sound like they have any such evidence. BTW, it's utterly bat-spit crazy that Krugman is saying that the government gave $680 billion to 1,000 people. Every single taxpayer in this country saw a benefit from the tax cuts -- even you. And certainly the Tax Policy Center considers it incorrect. I can't imagine why you would see that as "more informed". That's why the Obama administration doesn't support letting them all expire. They want to extend the ones that affect middle-income Americans. But Krugman, in talking about $680 billion, is promoting the expiration of ALL the tax cuts. And his lack of data is notably contradicted by, as I say, the Tax Policy Center, which (unlike Krugman) is clearly non-partisan (because they support the President's plan). Again I'll just point out that you're arguing with President Obama and the Democratic Party and leave it at that.

I'm a bit confused by the opinion that they have a right to pursue this, but that it's also a case of NIMBY, which is a pejorative. But sure, I agree that they have the right to pursue it. If the evidence is scientifically sound then changes should take place. As I understand it coal power can be quite dirty, and if output is falling on residents and inadequate precautions are being taken then that needs to be addressed.

I thought I answered that question above? Did I miss something?

ABC News' Jonathan Karl ran an interesting piece counter to the conventional wisdom tonight about the impact of the Bush tax cuts. Most observers lately have seemed to come down on the side of minor impact on small business if any, focusing on an assessment by the Tax Policy Center that less than 2% of small businesses would be affected (source). But Karl asked the TPC for more info, and found that they've recently upgraded that estimate to 2.5%. Intrigued, Karl asked how many businesses that would be, and the answer he got was a staggering 894,000! There are about 15 million Americans presently unemployed. Can we really afford to unemploy another million or two? That actually seems like a good idea to somebody? Bear in mind that while that would be the effect of current Democratic planning, the party does want to extend part of the Bush tax cuts. But they're going to have a fight on their hands to do that, because Republicans would probably rather see them all expire than to compromise because Democrats would receive most of the blame for that, having stood so tall on that issue on so many campaign trails. Here's a link to the ABC News piece, which presents the figures cited above at about the 1:35 mark. What do you all think? http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/fact-checking-tax-cut-debate-rich-wealthy-extend-small-business-concerns-unemployment-11588336

We're talking about perceptions, here. It doesn't really matter whether it's sensationalism in the media accidentally feeding secular-progressives, or liberalism in the media deliberately feeding secular-progressives. Either way a major secular-progressive talking point has been fed a massive feast. Do you agree or disagree that this is counter-productive to convincing red-state Americans to become more moderate, if that's one's goal?

And who do you think is responsible for the rise of Fox News? Rupert Murdoch just made the machine, he doesn't manufacture its ratings. But sure, Fox News is part of the problem too. The right's answer to the media frenzy is... more media frenzy? What kind of sense is that? The right hasn't yet woken up to the fact that this only exacerbates the problem. None of which excuses the left's behavior. Fox News is a reaction. It's just not a very good one.

While walking down the street one day a US senator is tragically hit by a truck and dies. The Senator's soul arrives in heaven and is met by St. Peter at the entrance. "Welcome to heaven," says St. Peter. "Before you settle in, it seems there is a problem. We seldom see a high official around these parts, you see, so we're not sure what to do with you." "No problem, just let me in," says the Senator. St. Peter says, "Well, I'd like to, but I have orders from higher up. What we'll do is have you spend one day in hell and one in heaven. Then you can choose where to spend eternity." "Really, I've made up my mind. I want to be in heaven," says the Senator. "I'm sorry, but we have our rules", replies St.Peter. And with that, St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down, down to hell. The doors open and he finds himself in the middle of a green golf course. In the distance is a clubhouse and standing in front of it are all his friends and other politicians who had worked with him. Everyone is very happy and in evening dress. They run to greet him, shake his hand, and reminisce about the good times they had while getting rich at the expense of the people. They play a friendly game of golf and then dine on lobster, caviar and champagne. Also present is the Devil, who really is a very friendly guy who has a good time dancing and telling jokes. They are having such a good time that before he realizes it, it is time to go. Everyone gives him a hearty farewell and waves while the elevator rises. The elevator goes up, up, up and the door reopens on heaven where St. Peter is waiting for him. "Now it's time to visit heaven," St Peter says. So, 24 hours pass with the Senator joining a group of contented souls moving from cloud to cloud, playing the harp and singing. They have a good time and the 24 hours in heaven passes by and St. Peter returns. "Well, you've spent a day in hell and another in heaven. Now which will you choose for your eternity?" St Peter asks. The Senator reflects for a minute, then he answers, "Well, I never would have thought it before, I mean heaven has been delightful, but I think I would be happier and better off .. In hell." So St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down, down to hell. Now the doors of the elevator open and he's in the middle of a barren land covered with waste and garbage. He sees all his friends, dressed in rags, picking up the trash and putting it in black bags as more trash falls from above. The Devil comes over to him and puts his arm around his shoulder. "I don't understand," stammers the Senator. "Yesterday I was here and there was a golf course and clubhouse, and we ate lobster and caviar, drank champagne, and danced and had a great time. Now there's just a wasteland full of garbage and my friends look miserable. What happened?" The Devil looks at him, smiles and says, "Yesterday we were campaigning.. Today .. You voted."

Can your robot army patrol the border?

The liberal side of the media loves this story and has played it up like the Second Coming. And it's payed off for them, producing world-wide reaction. This guy's a two-bit loser from a congregation that's lucky to produce THIRTY people for a typical service (filmed by ABC News last night), and yet the media play he's been given has produced VIOLENT RIOTS in Afghanistan, and even a response from the POPE. Well duh -- how do they think the Afghans and the Pope found out about this guy? Because THEY TOLD THEM! This is exactly what frustrates main-street, red-state Americans about the left. The feeling is that the left generates the controversy in the first place and then produces the reaction it wants from the politically-correct centers of world politics. And then they wonder why conservative Americans have such a negative reaction to these things! Duh! Some stories: Vatican Condemns Koran-Burning Impact on Politics of Afghanistan