Comments on FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: BREAKING: Press Corps Incredulous That Obama Budge...

The survey found that consumer 3G wholesale china ...

2009-10-15T02:19:31.879-04:00

The survey found that consumer 3G wholesale china from the crowd of view, the buyer 25 to 40 years old mainly white-collar workers, accounting for about 40%, followed by consumer groups of students, accounting for about three into. According to statistics, 3G wholesale products in sales, compared with a 2G mobile phone sales are still a wide gap between, but since June has been, 3G mobile phones increase in the average monthly buy products for more than 50%, "11" period due to holiday business, the increase of more than 150%. Pk that the "11" after the peak sales of 3G handsets likely to usher in more stable growth.

By comparing the traditional Internet users, Inter...

2009-10-15T02:18:37.262-04:00

By comparing the traditional Internet users, Internet users to iResearch found that the traditional white-collar-based, cell phones wholesale, corporate general staff accounted for 18.9%, higher than the 5.6% of the wholesale cell phones users accounting; and discount cell phones users in the years students and blue-collar workers accounted for significantly more than the traditional Internet users, respectively, accounting for 19.5% and 18.9%, higher than the traditional Internet users Students and blue-collar workers accounted for 7.8% and 5.1% respectively.

From cell phones users to see the specific situati...

2009-10-15T02:18:22.822-04:00

From cell phones users to see the specific situation of occupational segmentation in 2009, accounting for 19.5% of students dropped 21.2 percent over last year, other types of occupations than those last year, the proportion of Internet users cheap cell phones increase. White collar crowd from last year's 29.2% increase to 38.9% this year, accounting for 9.7 percentage points up to replace the student groups cellphone users as one of the biggest occupational hierarchy; blue-collar crowd from last year's 13.9% to 18.9% this year, accounting for rose by 5.0 percentage points, showing that mobile phones users by a group of students to the occupational groups a significant trend in the development. Ereli advice that, cheap cell phones and mobile phone users Internet users monthly income distribution of age, education, occupational distribution has strong correlation with high spending capacity of white-collar workers and some students in the crowd will be a huge cell phone china online potential consumer groups.

酒店經紀人, 菲梵酒店經紀, 酒店經紀, 禮服酒店上班, 酒店小姐兼職, 便服酒店經紀, ...

2009-10-10T03:59:48.851-04:00

酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,

キャッシング網頁設計クレジットカード　現金化ダンボール留学水　通販ウィークリ...

2009-07-22T04:32:36.605-04:00

キャッシング
網頁設計
クレジットカード　現金化
ダンボール
留学
水　通販
ウィークリーマンション
障害者
有料老人ホーム
看板　製作
レーザー脱毛
フランチャイズ

情趣精品情趣商品情趣促銷飛機杯情趣購物女人天堂情趣跳蛋男人天堂充器娃娃男女共用情趣禮物玩具情趣聖品成...

2009-04-23T07:43:00.000-04:00

情趣精品
情趣商品
情趣促銷
飛機杯
情趣購物
女人天堂
情趣跳蛋
男人天堂
充器娃娃
男女共用
情趣禮物玩具
情趣聖品
成人玩具
跳蛋
按摩棒
潤滑液
自慰套
威而柔
FleshLight
Nexus
G點
性感內衣
情趣內衣
角色扮演
情趣用品
情趣精品
情趣商品
情趣網站
情趣精品
成人玩具
情趣商店
跳蛋
充氣娃娃
按摩棒
自慰套
威而柔
潤滑液
FleshLight
Nexus
G點
性感內衣
情趣內衣
角色扮演
飛機杯
情趣用品

能與你互說我們的心願能跟你一起走過滄海桑田

2009-03-13T04:56:00.000-04:00

能與你互說我們的心願能跟你一起走過滄海桑田

Ho about a list of all the White house reporters a...

2009-03-02T21:23:00.000-05:00

Ho about a list of all the White house reporters and their annual incomes on a website. That will keep the bastards honets. ;)

Hey I have an idea...give me $250K a year and tax ...

2009-03-02T10:08:00.000-05:00

Hey I have an idea...give me $250K a year and tax me at 50%. I promise I would come out better than I am now. I would probably even start a business and hire two people. One would be my wife, though, because that's how you do it.

Also, I wouldn't complain about my tax rate in public because I would be embarrassed to admit that I was making so much money. These lousy reporters making 300-400K aren't worth 50K a year. They just got a couple lucky breaks. Very few of them are worth their salts...you can tell by the questions they ask...

You'd think it would be obvious by now, in any cas...

2009-03-01T22:43:00.000-05:00

You'd think it would be obvious by now, in any case, that the only thing that happens when you rig the tax code to make the rich richer is that the rich get richer. Period.

Regarding top marginal tax rates, a little historical background (something scored by the "we make our own reality" crowd) puts the proposed changes into perspective:
"By 1918, the top rate of the income tax was increased to 77% (on income over $1,000,000) to finance World War I. The top marginal tax rate was reduced to 58% in 1922, to 25% in 1925, and finally to 24% in 1929. In 1932 the top marginal tax rate was increased to 63% during the Great Depression and steadily increased, reaching 94% (on all income over $200,000) in 1945. During World War II, Congress introduced payroll withholding and quarterly tax payments. Top marginal tax rates stayed near or above 90% until 1964 when the top marginal tax rate was lowered to 70%. The top marginal tax rate was lowered to 50% in 1982 and eventually to 28% in 1988. However, in the intervening years Congress subsequently increased the top marginal tax rate to 35% (the top marginal tax rate as of 2007)."

(From Wikipedia's article on Taxation in the United States; the whole thing can be viewed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_the_United_States).

A Media Matters column last October 3 noted the re...

2009-03-01T18:51:00.000-05:00

A Media Matters column last October 3 noted the remarkably shoddy quality of reporting on the Obama and McCain tax policies, when there was any focus on policy at all.

As of that date, not a single story gave readers a clear idea of the total cost of each candidate's plan, nor what would be the size of the cut or increase for people at specific income levels (except, classically, for an article in the Washington Post KidsPost section!).

So it's no surprise that reporters are acting as if Obama's tax proposals are brand new. They literally stopped their ears and brains during the campaign, too focused on utter crap to hear what was in every stump speech, prominent on the website and the campaign literature. Did any of the political reporters so much as glance at the leaflets that millions of voters were receiving when they opened their doors to Obama volunteers?

I'm not Robert Gibbs' biggest fan, but I can certainly see how his experience during the campaign didn't build up a big reservoir of respect for the press corps.

The top 1% have paid more than the bottom 90% for ...

2009-03-01T16:01:00.000-05:00

The top 1% have paid more than the bottom 90% for years. Now Obama is getting credit for a progressive tax?

How about the fact that 80% of economists- even th...

2009-03-01T14:09:00.000-05:00

How about the fact that 80% of economists- even those free marketeers- agree with a progressive tax like the one Obama is implementing now?

The press is just sour that they're being taxed now. Pricks.

The reason the housing market collapsed is because...

2009-03-01T00:18:00.000-05:00

The reason the housing market collapsed is because Clinton passed initiatives making it too easy for poor people to buy houses they could not afford.

That, people, is compassionate conservatism.

It wasn't predatory and deceptive practices to lure people into mortgages they couldn't afford then the packaging of those bad mortgages into toxic, overrated "vehicles", it was because the lowest 10th of US citizenry were greedy and stupid enough to want a house and believe they could have part of the American Dream!

Of course! It couldn't be more simple!

@markymark:It IS fair that the wealthy pay more. W...

2009-02-28T09:29:00.000-05:00

@markymark:

It IS fair that the wealthy pay more. Why would anyone think it was not?

Outside of the relative pain of taxation issues that I think are most compelling, here is the other reason:

The wealthy use more of the government's resources. They rely more heavily on banking regulation to protect their assets. They rely more heavily on the Securities and Exchange Commmission to prevent companies from cooking the books. They rely more heavily on the police force to protect their greater amount of property. They rely more heavily on the FBI to protect them from kidnapping and extortion threats. They rely more on the FAA to keep airplanes safe and regulate inspection protocols. Those that earn money through business rely more heavily on the postal system and road system and court systems, to deliver products or advertisements and enforce contracts. They rely far more on state certification tests and procedures, for accountants, lawyers, engineers, architects and other professionals.

The wealthy use far more of the resources provided by government, while the working middle class rely on relatively few. That proportion of use is not the same as a flat percentage of income, like a flat tax would suggest.

A fair distribution of the cost of government is more like 30/70, and that suggests the rich pay, proportionately, about 2.3 times what the middle class pays.

So, I doubt the flat tax proposal of 17% would actually be enough, but say for the moment it would. It hides the unfair charges with a facade of equality. A fair charge would be 10% tax at the median income ($50K) rising to 24% by the top 2% (about $250K), with a standard exemption of twice the poverty level for the given household (that would be $33K on the typical three-person household). No other income exemptions, such as mortgage interest or whatever.

It is fair for the wealthy to pay more for government; they need it more, use it more, and have more to lose if it doesn't do its job.

I am seriously starting to think that the only thi...

2009-02-28T09:07:00.000-05:00

I am seriously starting to think that the only thing Obama is good at is giving speeches.

RT
www.privacy-center.pro.tc

@jonathan:I'd like to see that multiple, but not a...

2009-02-28T08:48:00.000-05:00

@jonathan:

I'd like to see that multiple, but not a particular number. What I would like to see is regulation that stockholders of public companies can approve by majority vote a specific cap on all executive compensation, say tri-annually. So they can approve $100M if they want; but if they only approve $5M, that is really the maximum any executive can earn in any form as payment from the company.

The salary question should be put explicitly into the hands of the owners, not the board, and the owner vote should include the option of TERMINATION for any executive.

I believe there is a wider point to be made about entrepreneurs. The R idea that rich are more productive is BS. Certain ideas are simply worth millions or billions or trillions of dollars.

Not over any time span, just instantaneously worth that much. The person or team that had the idea, develops it and brings it to reality deserve the money.

I don't think Gates or Jobs or Bezos are worth billions because of any particular hourly worth, they are worth billions because at some point, they each had ideas worth billions to hundreds of billions and traded shares in their idea to get it realized.

It was the idea that was worth the money. The idea and all the money it generates rightly belongs to the inventor (whether man or team), but that doesn't mean they are worth more per hour than any other worker.

Not even for the chance they will have another epiphany. If they do they should be allowed to cash in on it with a separate company, or let it add to the value of their current company. Executive compensation above about $500K a year should be tied to relative performance and approved by a majority of stockholders.

+Look, you guys gotta quit with this veiled social...

2009-02-27T20:40:00.000-05:00

+Look, you guys gotta quit with this veiled socialist speak. This is exactly the model that the hard core Commies wanted....doesn't matter if you're a janitor or nuclear physicist, you both get X amount per year.

There's a reason a janitor makes $6/hour and a reason nuclear physicists make considerably more.+

Absolutely. There should be a range, but society needs janitors and truck drivers. If janitors and truck drivers can't make a living and raise a family, society suffers - it doesn't prosper.

There ought to be a multiple of something like 40-50 between the highest wage earners and the lowest in our society (excepting actual entrepreneurs who go out and create new and important things). Instead our multiple is on the order of 400 or more. It's not sustainable, it's not workable, and it's always been a disaster waiting to happen.

The disaster's unfolding before our eyes.

As someone who falls near the magic 250K per year ...

2009-02-27T18:58:00.000-05:00

As someone who falls near the magic 250K per year per family (some years above and some years below), I don't mind paying a marginally increased tax rate. I want to see us end a senseless war, find Osama bin Laden, get healthcare for more people, have safer highways and bridges and dams, and a cleaner environment. Since those things cost money, I am happy to help out. The simple fact that President Obama included the cost of the wars in the budget makes me smile. I am happier today than I was one year ago, four years ago, and eight years ago. I'll call it the happy tax.

'How would you respond to the idea that this is we...

2009-02-27T17:48:00.000-05:00

'How would you respond to the idea that this is wealth distribution?'

'America could do with a little wealth distribution.'
---------------------------------

One of the reasons that this line of attack won't work is that the $250,000 line puts most Americans, by a long way, below it. And I think actually they think, many of them at least, that it is fair that the well off Americans pay more in taxation.

I love the disingenuous "wealth redistribution" ar...

2009-02-27T17:37:00.000-05:00

I love the disingenuous "wealth redistribution" argument.

I agree, lets not have any. And by the way that means that every State that gets more than a dollar in Federal WEALTH DISTRIBUTION aid for each dollar paid to the Federal govt in taxes gets only a dollar back from now on.

IN fact, of the top 25 States that get more than a dollar in Fed aid than taxes spent, 18 are red republican. (Noting that Virginia and Iowa are counted as Blue while being red in previous elections otherwise it would be 20 out of 25.)

Of all the States that get LESS than a dollar in Fed aid, that is those states that have their WEALTH REDISTRIBUTED away from them, there are 16 of these States, only one Texas is republican.

@Russett Shadows:Berkeley Bear said it better than...

2009-02-27T17:35:00.000-05:00

@Russett Shadows:

Berkeley Bear said it better than I could about earlier times.

Your whole premise of "punishing the successful" for "government overspending" is flawed. That isn't the reason for raising taxes, and isn't the reason for raising taxes on the rich, or lowering taxes on the rich.

The government is not some adversary. It is there for two purposes; one is to protect citizens from bullies and criminals (which is why we have an army, police, FDA, SEC, OSHA and court system), and the other is to do the jobs the majority of citizens don't want done for a profit motive (schools, licensing of doctors or drivers, building and health inspections, police protection and tax collection, prosecutions, water treatment, road building, etc.)

Society doesn't exist without it. We raise taxes when costs increase; that is not "government overspending," it is a consensus view that the government should beef up existing tasks (better oversight of the financial industry), or take on new ones (helping to eliminate the profit motives in medical care and medicine, or being an employer or lender of last resort in order to prevent a domino effect economic collapse).

We tax the rich more than the poor because the impact on the rich is less. Not in dollars, not in percentages, but in pain experienced. I remember twenty years ago and earning $50K. My discretionary income was maybe $10K a year, after housing, cars, and other bills. Somebody earning $250K probably has ten or fifteen times the discretionary income as somebody earning $50K. What is "fair" is not equal dollar amounts, it is not equal percentages, it is equal pain, and to the first approximation that is equal percentages of discretionary income, not total income.

You guys are disgusting to be arguing to tax the h...

2009-02-27T17:16:00.000-05:00

You guys are disgusting to be arguing to tax the hell out of the people who actually contribute to society, under the guise and euphemism of "tax fairness".

If you guys were truly interested in tax fairness, rather than just growing your pool of government dependents, you would raise ALL tax brackets back to the way they were under Clinton, since he was sooo....fair.

Under the Obama plan, it would be TWO tax cuts for low end earners (the new one from Obama AND the original one from Bush) and NO tax cuts for the producers/small businesses, since 2001.

@Mad:And now who is it that cannot refute my state...

2009-02-27T17:11:00.000-05:00

@Mad:

And now who is it that cannot refute my statements, and just makes snide remarks?

Should I assume you will be disappointed when we succeed? No, of course not, you will do what R's always do, latch on to some trivial item and claim it did all the work, or just deny that it worked at all. I imagine you will say then that the recovery was inevitable and actually delayed by the very investments that brought it about!

The difference between me and Republicans is I am a scientist that deals in real world solutions that actually work in practice, and they are incapable of cogent analysis and substitute an endless supply of hypocritical bullshit with no basis in empirical fact or experiment.

"Mad" is a good name for you; you seem like an emotional wreck lashing out at precisely the help you need. But you will get the help anyway, if rational minds prevail as I hope they do.

To clarify my comments about lawyers, doctors and ...

2009-02-27T17:04:00.000-05:00

To clarify my comments about lawyers, doctors and money, only a tiny subset of either profession makes 250k a year. In law, they basically are at big law firms with large corporate clients (which is what I was doing) or p.i. lawyers (the guys on everyone's phonebook) who have a really good year. The vast majority don't make near that, and yet their law degrees were no less expensive and they are no less "productive". In fact, many of the ones making a lot less do as much or more to stimulate the economy because they spend a lot more time and money (as a percentage of income) on advertising and contract services.

Fundamentally, suggesting that making a large amount of income is somehow evidence of "earning" anything is just silly. PhDs are a lot harder to get than JDs, and just as pricey, yet most PhDs will never make what a decent lawyer does. People who get Master's Degrees in Education spend just as much time and money to get them, but will never sniff 150k in income.

Let me try to put the disconnect between "earning" it and salaries in some perspective. My first year out of law school, associates at my firm were paid 65k to start. Eight years later that number was up over 100k. They hadn't gotten much smarter or more productive than I was at the same point in my career, yet they were paid 50% more. Did they "earn" this extra money? Nope, they just graduated at the right time. See, the firm had to raise salaries because even bigger firms on the coasts and in Chicago had gone up even more to avoid losing people (first to .coms, then to each other). Everyone covered the hit by raising rates (conveniently enough, the partners also jacked up their own rates).

Now that the economy is bad, those same firms are not hiring as many new lawyers and firing some junior people. What they aren't typically doing (at least yet) is lowering the rates or income for partners. That step typically is only taken as a last resort in swings like this. When they start hiring again, they'll try to do it at reduced salaries if they can, I'm sure. Now did the people graduating law school this year "earn" the crappy market they are entering? Did the folks who are already partners really "earn" the right to keep their wages artificially high at the expense of employment of others? Or was it all just, in large part, a crapshoot that some won and others lost?

RShadows - the 1950s had much higher tax rates (as detailed above) and the country made massive investments in infrastructure (the Interstate Highway system), defense (cold war related, mainly) and education. The 1870s and 1880s were plagued by bank failures, monopolists, robber barons who treated workers like cattle and rampant government corruption (not to mention tenements, deadly epidemics, rampant child labor and overt racism in hiring and treatment of everyone except WASPS). The 1820s saw massive fights over creating a centralized bank, the national debt and rampant bank failures that wiped people out all over the country (not to mention ongoing hostilities with Mexico and England, Indian wars, the "Trail of Tears" and many other situations that you would never wish on your worst enemy). People "got by" - those who didn't die in childbirth, from rampant disease, or industrial accidents, or untreated cancer, etc. - but you should consider yourself incredibly lucky to be living at this time, for all its faults.

Libertarianism is a sop to people who can't admit wer'e all in this together.

Comments on FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: BREAKING: Press Corps Incredulous That Obama Budge...

The survey found that consumer 3G wholesale china ...

By comparing the traditional Internet users, Inter...

From cell phones users to see the specific situati...

酒店經紀人, 菲梵酒店經紀, 酒店經紀, 禮服酒店上班, 酒店小姐兼職, 便服酒店經紀, ...

キャッシング 網頁設計 クレジットカード 現金化 ダンボール 留学 水 通販 ウィークリ...

情趣精品情趣商品情趣促銷飛機杯情趣購物女人天堂情趣跳蛋男人天堂充器娃娃男女共用情趣禮物玩具情趣聖品成...

能 與 你 互 說 我 們 的 心 願 能 跟 你 一 起 走 過 滄 海 桑 田

Ho about a list of all the White house reporters a...

Hey I have an idea...give me $250K a year and tax ...

You'd think it would be obvious by now, in any cas...

A Media Matters column last October 3 noted the re...

The top 1% have paid more than the bottom 90% for ...

How about the fact that 80% of economists- even th...

The reason the housing market collapsed is because...

@markymark:It IS fair that the wealthy pay more. W...

I am seriously starting to think that the only thi...

@jonathan:I'd like to see that multiple, but not a...

+Look, you guys gotta quit with this veiled social...

As someone who falls near the magic 250K per year ...

'How would you respond to the idea that this is we...

I love the disingenuous "wealth redistribution" ar...

@Russett Shadows:Berkeley Bear said it better than...

You guys are disgusting to be arguing to tax the h...

@Mad:And now who is it that cannot refute my state...

To clarify my comments about lawyers, doctors and ...

キャッシング網頁設計クレジットカード　現金化ダンボール留学水　通販ウィークリ...

能與你互說我們的心願能跟你一起走過滄海桑田