home

Tax Cuts For The Rich, Nothing For The Jobless

Ezra Klein writes:

[I]magine if Congress is able to extend the deficit-busting Bush tax cuts but not unemployment benefits. But that, of course, is what most people think they're going to do. This will be a test for any politician who claims to care about the deficit. If they're willing to let the tax cuts expire -- a tough decision, given the politics of taxes -- it's good evidence that they're serious about cutting the debt. If they're not willing to let the cuts expire, it's irrefutable evidence that they're not.

(Emphasis supplied.) A test for everyone, not just the pols. The most famous "deficit hawk" is Peter J. Peterson. Does anyone think he will be opposing a tax cut for the rich? You think he'll have David Walker out there beating the drums against a tax cut for the rich? Me neither.

Speaking for me only

< Thursday Morning Open Thread | A Real Life Marshall McLuhan Moment >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    or maybe they will (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 11:56:41 AM EST
    follow Hatch and drug test people for unemployment benefits.

    if they would drug test the rich to determine eligibility for the tax cuts I might not mind.


    Yeah (none / 0) (#2)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 12:03:45 PM EST
    Hilarious, and really sad if you think it through. The $$, saved by cutting out benifits to those who may have used drugs, is $$ exponentially spent on drug testing. Corporate welfare, rather than money to those who need it to eat.

    I am sure that the GOP and drug companies are downing a few shots of expensive booze, to each toast over the deal.

    Mean spirited hypocrites.

    Parent

    Too bad... (none / 0) (#21)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 01:41:05 PM EST
    there is no test to gauge the amount of self-righteous authoritarianism pumping through someone's veins, eh?  

    Hatch does realize workers pay for their own unemployment bennies during the time they are employed via payroll tax deduction, right?  And then get taxed on the bennies.

    Parent

    Unemployment insurance (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by me only on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 02:18:12 PM EST
    is not a payroll tax deduction.  It is paid by the employer and the rate depends on several factors.

    Parent
    It really is a paycheck deduction (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 03:11:09 PM EST
    because employers essentially deduct it from the pay they would give to employees to give it to the government, instead.

    So we really all pay for our own unemployment comp by getting less in our paychecks.

    I wish that Congress would get that, I wish that I could assign them to read the works of the great John Commons.  I wish that many people would get that -- I get angry when unemployment comp is talked about as "welfare."  The hardworking folks for long years who got the short end of the stick in this fat-cat economic mess are not on welfare; they are collecting on what they, with their de facto paycheck deductions, paid into and saved all these years for exactly this time, these needs to survive now.

    And may the employers -- like the one who laid off my daughter -- who did not keep up with their unemployment comp payments, and who also tried to screw up COBRA setups . . . may they burn in h*ll.  They pocketed those payments, they paid out less in paychecks, for years.

    Parent

    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 05:11:20 PM EST
    When I ran a small landscaping business it was hard not to consider it part of the employee pay.  As a business owner I tended to do that when I was paying that in.  Everyone was going to be unemployed for three months in the winter because it was Northern WY.  There is only snow shoveling to do then, no landscaping.  I did rely on a skilled work force too.  We didn't mow lawns.  We built irrigation systems and planted all the shrubbery and trees, did rock work and built retaining walls, gazebos, decks.  When I was making those payments in though, in my mind it was more employee pay. I think you are dead on.

    Parent
    Sort of, but (none / 0) (#57)
    by me only on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 03:19:06 PM EST
    The rate goes up and down depending on whether anyone claims unemployment.  Companies do not then raise your compensation when the cost their unemployment insurance goes down.  They also don't immediately cut your pay when it goes up.

    The hardworking folks for long years who got the short end of the stick in this fat-cat economic mess are not on welfare; they are collecting on what they, with their de facto paycheck deductions, paid into and saved all these years for exactly this time, these needs to survive now.

    The argument is about the extensions, which are not paid by the employee/employer.  They are being paid by the government.

    Parent

    Technically not correct (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by coast on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 03:24:45 PM EST
    "The argument is about the extensions, which are not paid by the employee/employer.  They are being paid by the government."

    Since the government does not actually earn revenues, employee/employers do (or at least will through increased taxes) pay these benefits.

    Parent

    The government is going to hand the money (none / 0) (#60)
    by me only on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 03:32:46 PM EST
    out.  To pay for it, they will sell Treasury bonds.  The money will not come from increasing unemployment taxes.  It will not pay for itself in taxation.

    Parent
    Didn't say they would raise unemployment (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by coast on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 03:45:58 PM EST
    taxes.  They will raise taxes in general.  Issuance of bonds does not "earn" the government anything either.  The interest and redemption of those bonds is paid for by us as well.

    The government distributes alot of things.  Its all paid for by us.

    Parent

    Unemployment insurance (none / 0) (#100)
    by me only on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 09:35:56 PM EST
    is not a federal tax.  It is a state feature and the rules are not the same in all states.  The extension benefits are not being paid for with money that funds the unemployment insurance.  It is general fund money from the federal government.

    If you wish to continue this then your only logical position is that companies do not pay taxes.  They automatically pass the tax onto the consumer.  Therefore we should not tax businesses.

    Parent

    "If I wish to continue this"? (none / 0) (#103)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 10:20:18 PM EST
    Cut the pomposity.  It's not only counterproductive, it's creepy.

    Parent
    I allocate... (none / 0) (#88)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 06:07:55 PM EST
    my 4 large to an unemployment benefits extension!

    Parent
    Thanks... (none / 0) (#36)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 02:25:30 PM EST
    the employer pays it as part of an employee's compensation package...I stand corrected.

    But the greater point stands I think...it's not welfare, which is what I shoulda just said:)

    Parent

    Well, that is matter of debate (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by me only on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 02:28:18 PM EST
    the extensions are government money.

    Parent
    If the unemployed... (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 02:52:01 PM EST
    just incorporated and called themselves banks we wouldn't be having this discussion...whatever ya need!

    Parent
    Good one! (none / 0) (#52)
    by Untold Story on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 02:56:41 PM EST
    I think that it may depend on what state you are (none / 0) (#87)
    by esmense on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 06:06:33 PM EST
    employed in. When I worked in California (many years ago) there was both an employer contribution and an employee contribution (a deduction taken from your paycheck and stated on your pay stub). I don't know if that is still the case, and, if it isn't, I don't know how long it's been since they changed it. I haven't worked in California since 1973. Perhaps I'm just an old fogey remembering something that is no longer done anywhere -- does anyone posting here have unemployment taken from their paycheck?

    In Washington state only the employer contributes. I run a business in Washington and we pay a rate based on our type of business and the historical rate of unemployment in our industry (some industries have more layoffs than others) as well as the history of claims made against our specific business. We have never had an employee make a claim, but it is my understanding that a higher rate of claims results in a higher rate of tax.

    I've also worked in New York State, New Jersey and Arizona, but I no longer remember whether or not those states required an employee deduction for unemployment benefits.

    Parent

    By the way, the possibility that an employer's (none / 0) (#90)
    by esmense on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 06:13:11 PM EST
    unemployment tax rate will increase when former employees make claims provides an incentive for employers to fight any and all claims. Does anyone know if this is how it works in most states?

    Parent
    Most employers do fight the claims for (none / 0) (#101)
    by me only on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 09:40:56 PM EST
    this reason.  However, in order for the company to prevail the employer must show either a) the employee quit, or b) the employee was terminated for cause.  So companies don't fight unemployment when they just lay off workers.

    Parent
    Pennsylvania (none / 0) (#114)
    by ding7777 on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 07:02:06 AM EST
    also has an employee "contribution" to  Unemployment Compensation Insurance Fund (0.08% in 2010)

    all employers are required to withhold employee contributions at the time wages are paid, [... which are then] remitted to the Department of Labor & Industry with quarterly contribution reports

    Up to three months of "free money" earning money interest for employers

    Parent

    So, I'm sitting in the surgeon's office*... (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by goldberry on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 03:57:34 PM EST
    ... Selling more ipads for Steve J, and Being forced to listen to fox news.  Finally had to ask the receptionist to turn it down. I thinkmi have a clue why there will be reststence to  letting the Bush tax cuts expire: Fox is making it sound lime they are "middle class tax cuts".  

    There's a good reason why good policy gets shelved.  The fox news crap is absolutely everywhere spreading propaganda and misinformation. Funny, tho, they don't seem too negative on Obama. Go figure.

    * gallstones, thanks for asking.  Elective surgery. That means I can put it off for a long time.

    I would have asked her to change the channel to (none / 0) (#67)
    by DFLer on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 04:11:05 PM EST
    MSNBC.

    Customer is ALWAYS right.

    Parent

    I asked about that (none / 0) (#69)
    by goldberry on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 04:17:55 PM EST
    They refused. Besides, there were a bunch of seniors in the waiting room who looked like they might use their walking assistance devices on me. I definitely got some hostile looks.  

    Parent
    yeesh! (none / 0) (#78)
    by DFLer on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 05:04:46 PM EST
    Man! (none / 0) (#84)
    by NYShooter on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 05:47:43 PM EST
    I just got back from the Post Office where I had to send out a bunch of mail of the "registered, overnight, receipt requested" type. It was getting close to 5:00, closing time, and I'm writing like a mad man, all unfamiliar names, addresses, zip codes, etc. Blaring over the speakers was, not nice, soft, "elevator music," but a local radio station where the generic, Lunatic, screeching, "host" was imploring us to visit some particular eatery.

    As I'm frantically filling out the forms, this idiot is screaming out the menu, the prices, the addresses. I swear, I felt like I was in a Woody Allen movie, as I kept getting screwed up trying to write addresses as he's spewing out all these other numbers. One after another, I'm crossing out, crumpling up, throwing out, as the other patrons are pointing me out to their children with that "don't get too close to him" look on their faces.

    Bring back Guy Lombardo!


    Parent

    Boo Hoo! (none / 0) (#98)
    by desertswine on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 09:30:47 PM EST
    You've got me crying for you...

    Thank you Carmen.

    Parent

    Happy foxy. (none / 0) (#110)
    by lentinel on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 05:20:39 AM EST
    Funny, tho, they don't seem too negative on Obama. Go figure.

    Why should they be?
    What haven't they gotten that they wanted?
    Wars.
    Gitmo.
    No public option.
    Tax cuts for the rich in place.
    Unemployment benefits cut.

    It's a full life.

    Parent

    I'm sorry. I've missed something (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by masslib on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 05:36:28 PM EST
    somewhere along the way...there's serious talk of extending the Bush tax cuts?  That's not true is it?

    I haven't heard (none / 0) (#91)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 06:26:36 PM EST
    them discuss this recently either.

    Although after a tough election in November, the Dems may do just that.

    So, we would have the worst of both worlds--not enough fiscal spending, and more profligate tax cuts to make the deficit into an ever-widening maw.

    Parent

    Extending the tax cuts (none / 0) (#99)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 09:32:15 PM EST
    to appeal to the wealthy may get the Dems election $ but may well not get them the votes they need.  You can fool some of the people some of the time, but ....

    Parent
    Party collapse (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 09:51:24 PM EST
    I realize that a lot of Democrats in DC have been sold this bill of goods about the "new" Democratic party. There's even those that were belittling the unions on the Senate floor. Others have demanded the party become pro life. The over all majority believed that bailing out corporate America was more important than aid to the working class.

    It will be interesting to see how this new party fares in November. I would have thought that the defeat in Mass. would have opened a few eyes. So far they still seem blind to reality.

    If Democrats go along with maintaining the tax cuts, while screaming about the deficit, (and talking of cuts in Medicare and Social Security) they'll be lucky if they hold on to any of the contested seats. I think you'll see a major revolt within the party.

    I (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by lentinel on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 05:17:14 AM EST
    don't know about a revolt in the democratic party, but I know that I am revolted. I guess that's something.

    Parent
    I'm prepared to see something like (none / 0) (#107)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 12:39:03 AM EST
    that go down.  Has the nation ever been in this great of need of real Democrats since the Great Depression?  And few want to be one because it isn't in vogue.  Like vogue is going to be around much longer :)

    Parent
    Tax Cuts For The Rich, Nothing For The Jobless (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by lentinel on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 05:14:53 AM EST
    Not exactly the slogan that the democrats ran on in 2008.

    comment deleted for (none / 0) (#3)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 12:11:15 PM EST
    drug names that will attract spammers, sorry.

    Drug testing (none / 0) (#4)
    by Untold Story on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 12:18:06 PM EST
    We need to distinguish between soft and hard drugs and implement laws accordingly.

    Prescription drugs should not be advertised on tv, projecting the image of taking something the equivalent of a Bayer aspirin.  

    Perhaps anyone qualified for a tax cut should be similarly drug tested as those who find themselves unemployed.

    Hard Drugs? (none / 0) (#5)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 12:20:07 PM EST
    Like alcohol? It is abuse not the "drug" use that makes for problems.

    Parent
    Don't consider alcohol a hard drug (none / 0) (#8)
    by Untold Story on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 12:42:52 PM EST
    Alcohol is legalized.  What I am speaking about, in particular is marijuana.  Prisons are overflowing with offenders with minimal amounts of marijuana - kids getting multiple years in prison.

    So, in an effort to curtail expenses, perhaps legalizing all soft drinks, in addition to alcohol, should be considered legal.  Hard drugs such as heroin, etc., remain illegal.

    Parent

    You've maybe (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 01:47:12 PM EST
    You've maybe never experienced an alcoholic?  My father was one.

    Alcohol is NOT a soft drug.  If you're illegalizing hard drugs, then alcohol should be included.

    If alcohol is legal, then no drug should be illegal.  The focus should be on treatment and use prevention.  But making drugs illegal only increases the crime rate and the costs of imprisoning.

    Parent

    Haven't heard recently of multi-murderers (none / 0) (#31)
    by Untold Story on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 02:10:19 PM EST
    involving trafficking of say, Johnny Walker.

    Yes, absolutely agree, if someone is predeposed to addiction, it is going to be a life long fight for them to not be involved in an array of substance abuses as well as behavioral abuses.

    Yes, absolutely agree that treatment and on-going treatment is necessary to maintain stability.

    Parent

    trafficking (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by CST on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 02:16:53 PM EST
    has nothing to do with the "hard"ness of the drug.  It has to do with the legality.  See prohibition for Exhibit A.

    Parent
    You beat me (none / 0) (#40)
    by Zorba on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 02:31:42 PM EST
    by 13+ minutes, CST, and much more succinctly.  ;-)

    Parent
    Do you consider alcohol a hard drug? (none / 0) (#44)
    by Untold Story on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 02:36:08 PM EST
    Prohibition brought with it violent crime elements, rum-running, organized crime, and many social problems.

    Think of today, doesn't prohibition of all drugs, except alcohol, establish the same pattern?

    If soft drugs, such as marijuana, were legalized (in personal amounts), would that not cut down on the expenses associated with imprisonment of thousands of offenders?  And, hence, provide money for those unemployed in today's environment or for providing the help required to help those addicted to substance abuse?

    In Muslim countries, for the most part, alcoholic beverages are forbidden - do you feel the US would be better off following the same rules?

    Parent

    I don't think alchohol should be (none / 0) (#51)
    by CST on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 02:55:55 PM EST
    illegal.

    I do think it is comparable to those drugs that are illegal today (which I also don't think should be illegal).  And I don't just limit that statement to pot.  I know (or have known) people who are addicted to just about every drug under the sun.  There is no difference in the "hardness" or in the severity of the addiction in my mind between those addicted to alchohol and those addicted to illegal drugs such as heroin or cocaine or pot or whatever.  All can be killers, but all can also be used in some moderation without forming an addiction (some are worse than others in that regard).  But I mean, I've known someone who has used just about every drug under the sun, and was able to quit them all except for booze - which has become a problem.

    The way those addictions are expressed might be different, but a violent alchoholic is surely one of the worst (although clearly not all alchoholics are violent).

    Parent

    If a person is predisposed to (none / 0) (#59)
    by Untold Story on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 03:28:12 PM EST
    a violent behavior, a drug of any sort would augment it - therefore, the cure might be in helping the predisposed with addictive tendencies rather than imprisoning them within the revolving doors of the criminal system after violent crimes have been committed as a result.

    Parent
    UnTrue (none / 0) (#61)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 03:34:50 PM EST
    If a person is predisposed to a violent behavior, a drug of any sort would augment it -

    Hard to believe anyone could say this. For one MJ does appear to tame the savage beast. not to mention that there is a panoply of both legal and illegal drugs that have a sedative effect on those predisposed to violent behavior.

    In fact, many of those so predisposed self medicate themselves with illegal drugs, in order to alleviate themselves from their various predispositions. Those hooked into the Pharmaceutical Industry get prescriptions to alleviate their various predispositions.

    Parent

    Self medication (none / 0) (#76)
    by Untold Story on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 04:57:11 PM EST
    is one of the reasons many find themselves in trouble, especially with the law.

    If I had used 'may' or 'could' - still unacceptable to you?

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#77)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 05:01:15 PM EST
    But I would agree that people who self medicate often find themselves in trouble with the law, almost always because they get busted for using illegal drugs.

    IOW if these drugs were legal our prisons would lose 40% of the inmates.


    Parent

    While under the influence (none / 0) (#80)
    by Untold Story on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 05:19:35 PM EST
    of a particular drug it may well have a sedentary effect, however, the problem comes, imo, with withdrawal.  The chemistry changes with withdrawal could augment violent behavior if one is so prone to begin with.

    Prescription medicine is routinely filled in accordance with follow-ups by physican.  However, this can be abused as well.  

    Parent

    Drug Addiction (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 05:35:47 PM EST
    Drug addiction, and abuse is a medical problem, not a criminal problem, imo. If drugs were legal there would be no problem for addicts who need drugs. No more than there for prescription drugs and alcohol.

    Typically when drugs are legalized, and the medical community takes over, drug use goes down.

    Parent

    Why didn't you say all that in the first place? (none / 0) (#86)
    by Untold Story on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 05:59:25 PM EST
    Totally agree with you - but to start with they will never legalize all drugs - it will be spoonful at a time type thing.

    Crime on the borders, drug trafficking, drug wars, and all of the society ills associated with prohibition could be eradicated - and, perhaps they could even extend unemployment for those who find themselves unemployed, and have enough left over to start helping the mentally ill rather than throwing them in jail.

    Parent

    Probably a higher percentage (none / 0) (#81)
    by Untold Story on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 05:22:55 PM EST
    are mentally ill and if that were addressed properly the number of incarcerated would be greatly reduced and we could all live in a safer society.

    Parent
    There were, in fact, (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Zorba on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 02:30:08 PM EST
    multiple murders during Prohibition, because of bootlegging and gang warfare to control that bootlegging.  The Mafia, the Irish Mob in Boston, the North Side Mob and the Outfit in Chicago, and others.  When alcohol was legalized again, the mobs still existed, but they were no longer killing people due to alcohol.  Johnie Walker is now legal- there's no need to traffic in it, and therefore no need to kill anyone over its sale.  Unlike drugs. Street drugs now are in a position similar to alcohol during Prohibition.

    Parent
    this is exactly right (none / 0) (#85)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 05:53:13 PM EST
    the violence nearly always is in the marketing of the ILLEGAL substance and the protection of those markets.  
    if you take away the illegality you pull the props out from under a multibillion dollar a year industry.
    not to mention all the kickbacks and seizure loot the cops are getting.
     

    Parent
    Sorry, soft drugs (not drinks, altho at the rate (none / 0) (#9)
    by Untold Story on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 12:44:56 PM EST
    we're heading they might be next!)

    Parent
    Not necessarily true (none / 0) (#11)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 01:03:09 PM EST
    With some drugs, using only one time can create very big problems.

    Parent
    The same can be said for (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Untold Story on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 01:13:19 PM EST
    prescription drugs.

    Parent
    Alcohol (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 01:39:23 PM EST
    Alcohol is one of those drugs....

    Parent
    A case in Iowa City (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Raskolnikov on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 04:17:35 PM EST
    a few years ago involved a younger man, unused to drinking (it was his first time) who got blackout drunk, entered a home he thought was his, and killed the occupant.  Very sad case, all around.  Arguably without such a prohibitive drinking culture he would be more used to how it affected him personally.  Certainly demonstrates, regardless, that alcohol can be very dangerous from the first drop.

    Parent
    Another Case (none / 0) (#72)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 04:35:00 PM EST
    A man who lived in the building across from my back window, 4 the floor, evidentially lost his keys, came home very drunk, climbed the fire escape and broke into his own apartment by breaking the window.

    I did not see that part, but what I saw were about 10 police on the roof and fire escape and also must have been at his door. They rushed in simultaneously, breaking down the door and climbing through the fire escape window, guns drawn only to find my neighbor passed out on his couch. He started screaming at them to get the f' out of his place, and was lucky he either did not have a gun or did not have time to get it, because he would have been dead.

    I vouched for the guy, in handcuffs, screaming across a 15' alleyway 'yes, let him go, he lives there, I swear..'

    pretty funny in retrospect, I did not know the guy personally, just a wave, and little chat, from time to time out the window... he was a medical examiner for NYC... He told me that he was scared sh*tless, and almost killed. He said that he was woken (out of a drunken stupor) to six guns pointing right in his face.

    They roughed him up, even though I verified he lived there.

    Yes, the stories of drunken people getting killed, or in deep trouble are endless.
     

    Parent

    Isn't that the risk with everything though? (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 01:42:08 PM EST
    I don't want to encourage willful ignorance and zero laws or regulations, but isn't that risk a sort of fact of being a fragile living thing?  I'm starting to think that I killed Joshua's bird with a purchased food change.

    Parent
    Yes it is MT... (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 01:46:24 PM EST
    living can cause problems...go figure:)

    Don't beat yourself up over the bird...the number one cause of death is life.

    Parent

    I do think I found another one (none / 0) (#29)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 01:51:38 PM EST
    Two babies close by, phoned this a.m.  We will try again.

    Parent
    That's a drug war... (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Romberry on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 02:32:25 PM EST
    ...myth, if by "can create problems" you mean "instant addiction." (There is no such thing as instant addiction. Not with heroin. Not with cocaine, regardless of form. Not with anything.)

    Parent
    I was thinking more (none / 0) (#111)
    by jbindc on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 05:56:49 AM EST
    of things like LSD - which can cause irreparable harm or death with only one use.

    Parent
    Crossing the street... (none / 0) (#115)
    by kdog on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 08:16:29 AM EST
    can cause irreparable harm or death the first time you do that too jb...but we do it because we've got places to go and things to see...which ain't that far off from the reason some people use LSD, magical places to go and bugged out things to see:)

    Parent
    More drug war myths. (none / 0) (#116)
    by Romberry on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 08:45:04 AM EST
    LSD has close to no known practical LD-50 in humans. You literally almost can't overdose on it and kill yourself with any practical amount of the drug. LD-50 for a 70 kg human is estimated to be around 12,000 µg...which when it comes to LSD is an enormous, enormous amount of the drug.

    Clinical Management of Poisoning and Drug Overdose
    by Haddad Winchester
    page 459:
    "No well-documented human deaths resulting directly from the toxic effects of LSD itself have occurred, though LSD has been implicated in accidental deaths, suicides, and homicides. LD50 (That's lethal dose in 50% of those who ingest this much) determinations vary widely with species, begin 46 mg/kg in mice, 16.5 mg/kg in rats, 0.3 mg/kg in rabbits and 0.1 mg/kg in elephants. In monkeys, the LD100 is 5 mg/kg. Death in these animals is the result of respiratory failure, preceded in the rabbit by marked hyperthermia. Human data are manifestly lacking, and predictions of the average lethal dose for humans have ranged from 0.2 mg/kg to more than 1 mg/kg, administered orally.

    Pharmacotheon by Ott
    by Jonathon Ott
    p.139
    "I must emphasize that there is no danger of death or injury from overdose of LSD, which must have about the highest therapeutic index of any drug known (the ratio of fatal dose to effective dose is unknown since no human being has ever died from an overdose of LSD, but must be very high, as individuals have mistakenly ingested hundreds of doses at a sitting; this is a way of saying that the drug is not at all toxic)."

    Psychedelics Encyclopedia
    Peter Stafford
    p.70
    "For those concerned about immediate medical hazards in ingesting LSD...Abram Hoffer has estimated, on the basis of animal studies, that the half-lethal human dose--meaning half would die--would be about 14,000 [ug]. But one person who took 40,000 ug survived. In the only case of death reportedly caused by overdose (Journal of the Kentucky Medical Association), the quantity of LSD in the blood indicated that 320,000 ug had been injected intravenously."

    Also check this old message board thread at The Straight Dope. (The Straight Dope isn't a drug site. You'll see.)

    Don't get me wrong. LSD is a drug with very strong effects when it comes to alteration of perception. But your statement ("- which can cause irreparable harm or death with only one use") is just another drug war distortion/myth.

    BTW, a LOT of drugs can cause irreparable harm or death with just one dose. Aspirin. Penicillin. Tylenol. Or get away from drugs and onto food and think peanuts and shellfish.

    Parent

    The GOP (none / 0) (#6)
    by DancingOpossum on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 12:30:57 PM EST
    I am sure that the GOP and drug companies are downing a few shots of expensive booze, to each toast over the deal.

    Don't leave Obama and the Democrats out. They are primarily responsible for this fiasco and as deserving of blame as the GOP, if not more. Peterson is Obama's man--actually I think it's the other way around. They own this.

    Ummm (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 12:45:16 PM EST
    As much as you are dying to get your punches in about Obama's evil ways, this story is about Orrin Hatch and GOP 101.

    Yeah, I know that Obama is a hitler loving muslim fascist commie, black separatist, who eats little white children, but no need to point that out when we are talking about Orin Hatch's drug testing as a measure for unemployment.

    And by the way, was your comment does resemble that of a GOP apologist blame it on Clinton. For a good laugh, if you have not seen it already, digby posts a great John Stewart clip on the subject of it is all Clintons (the Dems) fault.

    Parent

    It is not the Dems fault (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by waldenpond on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 01:05:48 PM EST
    Hey, the Dems have the House, the Senate and the Presidency.  You can't hang an extension of Bush's tax cuts on the Dems.

    Parent
    Really? (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 01:13:23 PM EST
    It does appear that in this day and age, we do not have the house and the senate. But why not use hyperbole to make a case that Obama is a failure, it appears to sell seats here at TL.

    Now if we had 62 democrats in the Senate, got rid of Lieberman, Nelson, etc, and replaced them with Dems in the mold of Kennedy or Feingold, did the same with the blue dogs in the House, you would have made an excellent point.

    Parent

    in fairness (none / 0) (#15)
    by CST on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 01:24:12 PM EST
    there is a big difference between needing votes to pass legislation and needing votes to kill legislation.

    The dems should be able to kill this legislation (tax cut extension) easily.  They don't even need the whole caucus on board.

    Parent

    Obama can veto (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 01:31:41 PM EST
    Good Point (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 01:48:06 PM EST
    And as you pointed out during the Iraq military appropriations bill, there are many strategies. Of course I think that these guys are wimps, corporate sellouts, etc.

    my point, to waldenpond, was that having the house senate and POTUS, in this case anyway, does not mean passing desired legislation is automatic, ergo my claims about hyperbole.

    Parent

    Running out of excuses (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 04:39:37 PM EST
    If the Democrats are unable to pass legislation with having the Senate, The House along with the WH, they need to get a spine transplant. Look at what Bush rammed through in his two term.

    During that time of distruction we were told by the Democrats that they couldn't stop him because they were the minority.

    Now they can't do anything because the minority blocks them.

    Somewhere along the line Democrats are going to have to come up with a better excuse. (Either that or just admit that they're in it for the buck and really don't care about anything other than lining their own pockets).

    Parent

    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 04:48:18 PM EST
    Here is some mighty fine spine:

    On the Senate floor, Republican Jim DeMint blocked a move to bring up a Democrat-sponsored bill that would have granted subpoena power to the White House oil spill commission. A similar measure passed the House last week by a vote of 420-1.

    A spokesman for DeMint said the South Carolina senator himself does not object to giving the commission subpoena power, but was acting on behalf of "members of the Republican conference."

    I'm fairly sure that this is known in political science circles as "having your cake and eating it too."

    Issa gets to pretend that Republicans are crusaders for truth, justice and the American Way rooting out out corruption wherever they find it, while the teabagging Jim DeMint, with a conveniently unelectable opponent about to deliver him six safe more years, comes through for their corporate bosses. Many birds killed with that one stone.

    digby

    While it is true that the Dems seem to be like a herd of cats, not particularly using their collective strength, and Obama seems to just look on, the GOP is focused on obstructing to the point of bringing down America. But hey, they did that when they were in charge too, only more, and yeilding more damage.

    Parent

    No doubt (none / 0) (#94)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 08:47:06 PM EST
    I don't question that the Republicans are worse. (The economic conditions we're dealing with are proof enough).

    What I do question is why Obama and the Democrats continue to try to appease them. As we've seen from the beginning, Republican compromise translates to "My way or the highway".

    As disgusting as I found GWB, I will give him credit for telling Congress what he would or would not accept on a bill. And 99% of the time, he got his way.

    Parent

    Bush Nostalgia (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 10:35:30 PM EST
    Sort of reminds me of this song.

    And good thing that the neocon wet dream came to fruition.

    "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event--like a new Pearl Harbor"

    9/11 Made Bush the envy of every fascist that ever lived.

    And 99% of the time, he got his way.



    Parent
    Not quite (none / 0) (#105)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 10:59:13 PM EST
    Just a yearning for Democratic leadership and a sadness in seeing my party abandoning their principles on order to become a wing of the moderate Republican party.

    The last election offered so many possibilities. I would never have believed that the Democrats could have squandered it all away in less than two years.

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 12:13:12 AM EST
    Not sure where you have been, but this is the Democratic party, not so different from Clinton days.

    I think your nostalgia is getting the better of you.

    Parent

    Where have I been? (none / 0) (#113)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 06:07:14 AM EST
     I've been sitting here powerless to stop the continuing sell off of the party that I've supported for over 40 years.

    What I am lamenting over of is a Democratic Party  that's decided to abandon the core principles of the party.

    Obama and the Democratic Party were given a clear mandate by the American people. 70% of us were dissatisified with Republican leadership. Rather than taking advantage of this, Democrats (not just Obama)have allowed themselves to be reduced to simpering wimps.

    It's the same game that Republicans have played for 30 years. They come to power and drain the national treasure and then when they're out of power they scream deficit. And each time Democrats fall right in line. It's like Lucy and Charlie Brown with the football.

    Only life isn't a humorous comic strip and millions of lives are at stake with this game.

    Parent

    Core Principals? (none / 0) (#118)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 10:15:16 AM EST
    What may those be? Seems to me that in a Democracy, the majority of voters cast votes for representatives. If the Representatives do not do what the public wants they get voted out of office.

    Rather than say that there are core principals for the Democratic party, I would say that the Democratic party reflects the sum of core principals of those who choose to identify with the party.

    It is true that I live on a small island off the coast of america and may be out of touch with the mainstream, but it appears to me that the Democratic party does reflect its constituents.

    Just because your core principals do not match up with the party you have supported for 40 years does not mean that the majority of people belonging to the party today feel the same way.

    Or maybe, because the party in a Democracy is the lowest common denominator, most members feel as if the party does not reflect their personal core values, but realize that in order to get representation that comes close to representing their core values, they must accept compromise.

    But being an activist means screaming loud enough that enough people decide to join your cause and move the center (compromise) closer to where you stand regarding core principals.

    As has been pointed out here endless times, Politicians reflect the core principals of their constituents. IOW they are a reflection of many views, and can only succeed by putting aside their own core principals in order to reflect a variety of core principals of their voters. A juggling game for sure. The more homogenous their constituents are the less variety they have in the core principals they promise to fight for.

    Parent

    Really (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 11:02:33 AM EST
    If you truly believe that we're getting the representation we want, you must be living on an island. We're getting the best government money can buy.

    Parent
    OK (none / 0) (#120)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 12:02:57 PM EST
    Well, I am glad that you think that most americans are like you, personally I believe that my views are in the minority by no small amount.

    You must be for drilling, weak on environmental controls, for lower taxes, cheaper gas and oil, for the WOT, tough on crime and for locking more people up... etc.

    My state senator Schumer, is for all those things, he is very popular and my state is supposedly hard core blue.

    Oh, and in case you did not know America is a big country and the Democrats are about 35%, the liberals about half of that.

    Social liberals (modern liberals) and progressives constitute roughly half of the Democratic voter base. Liberals thereby form the largest united typological demographic within the Democratic base. According to the 2008 exit poll results, liberals constituted 22% of the electorate, and 89% of American liberals favored the candidate of the Democratic Party.[

    WiKi

    Parent

    Final Comment (none / 0) (#121)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 02:00:34 PM EST
    I made a fatal mistake in reponding to your comment. I apologize and you can be assured it won't happen again. I refuse to get involved in the condescending food fights that seem to please you so much.


    Parent
    Condescending? (none / 0) (#122)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 02:57:46 PM EST
    You are claiming to be representative the Democrats core values, and are lamenting that the leadership no longer reflects those values.  I point out that the Democrats have no intrinsic core values because they shift all the time reflecting the voters. The reasonable answer to your complaint is that you do not represent the majority of the Democrats core values.

    Sorry, that you took offense. I was attempting to help you see that your core values are not shared by the Democratic majority. I have long ago adjusted my expectations, so that I am not so disappointed all the time.

    This seems so obvious to me, so sorry if my tone went to condescending, as I assume most intelligent people like you get it.

    Parent

    But would he veto it, (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by me only on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 02:24:45 PM EST
    if the bill that comes to him includes the continuing AMT fix and unemployment extension?

    Really, the problem with most of this is the AMT.  It gets fixed over and over again.  It almost has to.  Attaching additional provisions to the AMT fix is going be just too much temptation for many.

    Parent

    I know (none / 0) (#17)
    by CST on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 01:35:03 PM EST
    see my comment #7.

    Although for those in Congress, it really shouldn't get that far.

    Parent

    And he will, (none / 0) (#24)
    by Untold Story on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 01:42:40 PM EST
    if it should come to that.

    Parent
    1/3 of Dems to pass wealth cuts (none / 0) (#22)
    by waldenpond on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 01:41:18 PM EST
    That was weird.  It would take 40 Repubs plus only 20 Dems needed to pass tax cuts for the wealthy.

    ONLY.

    Your point that only 20 is irrelevant is laughable.

    Parent

    Who cracks the whip in the Dem (none / 0) (#25)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 01:44:37 PM EST
    party right now?  Obama.  Who can make your election funds begin to dry up?  Obama.  

    Parent
    Who can make Obama's election (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 02:09:56 PM EST
    funds dry up?  The wealthy.

    Parent
    Obama will do right by the people (none / 0) (#34)
    by Untold Story on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 02:19:05 PM EST
    He has had a full plate to deal with during threateous times.  His core is solid.  Although, at times, he may appear to waiver in the wind, but down the long stretch he will come through, you can count on it!

    Parent
    A very good friend who was a very (none / 0) (#47)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 02:48:19 PM EST
    strong supporter of Barack Obama from the beginning of the primaries actually criticized his lack of "spine" last night.  Really surprised me.

    Parent
    The economy is all (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 04:10:46 PM EST
    If the June unemployment numbers are as bad as advertised, then the decision to make half the stimulus consist of tax cuts will look worse.

    FDR fell into the same trap--curtailing New Deal spending too soon--and unemployment went way up in 1937.   But we had the benefit of that experience in 2009, and should have known and done better.

    Parent

    Obama's demeanor is terrible these (none / 0) (#50)
    by observed on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 02:54:33 PM EST
    days, IMO.
    He looks serious and seriously unhappy.


    Parent
    Have you seen recent polls? (none / 0) (#97)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 09:27:00 PM EST
    Looking pretty bad.  

    All sorts of issues.  Handling of BP oil spill seen as inept as handling of Katrina, etc.

    Link

    Parent

    From the beginning . . . (none / 0) (#54)
    by Untold Story on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 03:01:41 PM EST
    without much of a chance - in a living room setting he presented himself and I was hooked also by his intelligence and his sincerity!  

    Parent
    Really? (none / 0) (#112)
    by jbindc on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 05:58:53 AM EST
    Obama is a pol, and like all pols, will look out for himself and his re-election.  If some good gets done along the way, then that's just serendipity.

    Parent
    This is why we need to (none / 0) (#117)
    by Untold Story on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 09:00:24 AM EST
    have campaign financing reform and term limits.

    Only in that why can people like Obama be able to work together with other elected officials in a meaningful way.  As it is now, most have been embedded with special interests and have a harpoon stuck in Obama's side to follow their self-interests and self-financing in order for them, and for Obama, to be re-elected to office.  If term limits applied the emphasis, imo, would be on actually getting the job done!

    Why do we need career politicans?

    Media is now able to finance candidates and we need to change the involvement of money in electing our government officials.

    Just my opinions and thoughts.

    Parent

    He could earn small donation from us (none / 0) (#53)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 03:01:00 PM EST
    But that is too much work I guess

    Parent
    sounds like as good a use as any (none / 0) (#7)
    by CST on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 12:37:07 PM EST
    for the presidential veto...

    Obama - I'm talking to you.

    The tax cuts need to end now (none / 0) (#18)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 01:37:51 PM EST
    Why isn't anyone educated the population out there on this?  Or perhaps they are, I'm not exactly living in a media epicenter.

    Oops....educating the public (none / 0) (#19)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 01:38:46 PM EST
    Oh they are... (none / 0) (#70)
    by Raskolnikov on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 04:19:24 PM EST
    "The Democrats plan to raise taxes on all Americans!"

    Parent
    My taxes are already raising (none / 0) (#74)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 04:47:09 PM EST
    My property tax is going AGAIN.  It went up four months ago, and now my house is worth more AGAIN in this economy.  It is so bizarre.  Now I must challenge the tax estimate that keeps going up and up and up.  I suppose if you can't afford a new appraisal, you'll just have to take it.

    Parent
    What about increased taxed on (none / 0) (#89)
    by Untold Story on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 06:11:19 PM EST
    second, third, etc. - homeowners.  Isn't there a loophole where interest on such additional homes is still deductible? - (Perhaps McCain can answer since he couldn't remember how many homes they own!)

    Parent
    Only primary residence and second home (none / 0) (#92)
    by coast on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 06:54:09 PM EST
    interest is deductible.  And is limited to the interest on $1M of acquisition debt.

    Parent
    Thanks (none / 0) (#93)
    by Untold Story on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 06:59:14 PM EST
    I'm at a loss on this one. (none / 0) (#37)
    by coast on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 02:25:52 PM EST
    Pelosie on unemployment benefits, "It creates jobs faster than almost any other initiative you can name."  Huh?

    If that is true, rather than putting all that money toward "shovel ready projects", which was suppose to create a bunch of jobs, why didn't they just increase benefits to your prior full wage and extend the benefits from two years to four.  Seems like we should just be pumping cash into the program if it creates so many jobs.

    If someone has no money (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by CST on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 02:32:30 PM EST
    they can't spend it.  But the more money you have, the less you have to spend as a % of income and the more you can save.  It's the money you spend that helps the economy.  So giving the money to the people who have none does more for the economy than giving more money to people who already have some (which is what increasing benefits to full wage would do).

    That being said, it's an indirect way to "increase jobs" so I have no idea as to the validity of the statement which sounds like it might be overkill (she is a politician).  That doesn't mean it's not still the right thing to do though.

    Parent

    Kind of the same idea as my (none / 0) (#45)
    by ruffian on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 02:36:56 PM EST
    75% serious alternative to TAPR. Just give the 800 billion to the people to pay off their mortgages. Everybody wins, except the moral hazard police.

    Parent
    Who would you have given the money to? (none / 0) (#46)
    by me only on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 02:47:36 PM EST
    The US mortgage market is over $10 Trillion.

    Parent
    Actually the money would really have gone to the (none / 0) (#48)
    by ruffian on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 02:50:22 PM EST
    banks, in the name of the homeowners they should not have loaned money to in the first place. The mountain of bad debt that is still weighing down the  economy nearly 2 yrs later.

    Parent
    Go check out Orange today (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by me only on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 03:08:09 PM EST
    someone there related her effort to get Social Services in Buffalo to help now that she doesn't have employment.  The difficulty in the application process is part and parcel of the reason that we bailed the banks out instead of the homeowners.  The injection at the time was needed quickly.  It is easy to figure out 1,000 entities.  Deciding who should and who should not have gotten a loan was much harder.

    Additionally, most of the TARP money will be paid back (not Fannie, not Freddie, NOT GM), but most of the rest.  Giving it to people who overbought and then not asking for it back would be really, really insulting to people bought within their means, then lost a job and then lost their house, while their neighbor got the mortgage paid for.

    Parent

    We bought this house very carefully (none / 0) (#62)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 03:36:28 PM EST
    Made certain we could afford it under all sorts of conditions.  Qualified for the VA loan, had a down payment.  My spouse says if they screw us, he will walk out on this house and fight out the discrimination in court if they want to.  People who bought what they couldn't afford should not end up with more assets in the end than we do being responsible.  We are being penalized and screwed over for being aware of economic realities and for acting the way the rest of America should have been acting but didn't want to.  This is all going to get real ugly in many ways.

    Parent
    You could put all kinds of strings on it (none / 0) (#95)
    by ruffian on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 09:02:18 PM EST
    Have them pay it back at 0 interest, do community service, etc.

    My point is that if the goal had been to really get the economy started again as opposed to helping the banks, we would have been a lot more creative with the solutions.

    Parent

    Instead, we are putting the fate (none / 0) (#96)
    by ruffian on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 09:10:43 PM EST
    of a huge part of the economy, consumer confidence and spending, on the bet that people who could not really afford their mortgages in the best of times will stick to them in their underwater houses, and still somehow have some extra money to spend. Not gonna happen.

    Parent
    Still like mine better.... (none / 0) (#63)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 03:38:02 PM EST
    800 billion divided by 310 million Americans equals 25 hundo and change for each of us:)

    Parent
    Time to change the 'politics of taxes', no? (none / 0) (#43)
    by ruffian on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 02:34:56 PM EST
    If they're willing to let the tax cuts expire -- a tough decision, given the politics of taxes

    Really depressing that a 'media darling' Dem pres and Dem congress can't begin to change this dynamic.

    Being a (none / 0) (#71)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 04:30:30 PM EST
    "media darling" apparently is worth a warm bucket of spit. Anyway with MoDo now going after him does he still get to be a "media darling"

    Parent