Fuck its silent in here.......

[PenPho]

DPD.  Actually, in all seriousness, I think somebody who could get their hands on a sufficiently large quantity of Westvleteren XII probably could get themselves elected President.

As an undecided voter in one of the more important swing states, I would totally vote for this person.

Liar!

Also, I got my mail-in ballot yesterday and while I don't have a photo of it, one of my choices for President was Roseanne Barr and Cindy Sheehan (who sounds vaguely familiar as an anti-war protestor, something about losing her son if I'm thinking of the right person)

Is this for real? 

I don't remember what party.

I'm sure I could look it up in 1/10 of the time it took me to post this, but I prefer the illusion that it's some kind joke just for me.

DPD for WTF, AMERICA??

I bet Old Man PenFoe punches the wrong button and triggers a recount.

I blame the kids on his lawn with their TVs and their hair.

I thought that the "PenFoe is old" meme died when I moved, no?

Maybe when CT goes to London?

You moved?

Jeez, Pen, the least you could have done was make at least one passing reference to this on Facebook.

DEFRIEND!~!~!~~

[Gilgamesh]

This has to be tailor-made for Morph to work his BC magic, no?

[J. Walter Weatherman]

This has to be tailor-made for Morph to work his BC magic, no?

Are we sure that's not already Future BC, back from the future?

[J. Walter Weatherman]

Caveats:

a) It's the liberal paper in the relatively liberal capital of one of the most conservative states in the country, and the competitor to the LDS-owned Deseret News.

b) They endorsed Obama in 2008. Then again, before that they'd endorsed Bush in both 2000 and 2004.

Still...

The Salt Lake Tribune:

Obama has earned another term

[Wheezer]

Caveats:

a) It's the liberal paper in the relatively liberal capital of one of the most conservative states in the country, and the competitor to the LDS-owned Deseret News.

b) They endorsed Obama in 2008. Then again, before that they'd endorsed Bush in both 2000 and 2004.

Still...

The Salt Lake Tribune:

Obama has earned another term

Keep in mind that Utah is Ground Zero of Big Suppla and PPACA represents a potential bull's-eye.

[morpheus]

This has to be tailor-made for Morph to work his BC magic, no?

Are we sure that's not already Future BC, back from the future?

[Wheezer]

This has to be tailor-made for Morph to work his BC magic, no?

Are we sure that's not already Future BC, back from the future?

I suggest the heuristic of counting the light bulbs in scaling. And putting the arm where it belongs. For crying out loud, why isn't there a wireframe model at this point?

[J. Walter Weatherman]

The Congressional Research Service...

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/news/business/0915taxesandeconomy.pdf

Advocates of lower tax rates argue that reduced rates would increase economic growth, increase saving and investment, and boost productivity (increase the economic pie). Proponents of higher tax rates argue that higher tax revenues are necessary for debt reduction, that tax rates on the rich are too low (i.e., they violate the Buffett rule), and that higher tax rates on the rich would moderate increasing income inequality (change how the economic pie is distributed). This report attempts to clarify whether or not there is an association between the tax rates of the highest income taxpayers and economic growth. Data is analyzed to illustrate the association between the tax rates of the highest income taxpayers and measures of economic growth. For an overview of the broader issues of these relationships see CRS Report R42111, Tax Rates and Economic Growth, by Jane G. Gravelle and Donald J. Marples.

Throughout the late-1940s and 1950s, the top marginal tax rate was typically above 90%; today it is 35%. Additionally, the top capital gains tax rate was 25% in the 1950s and 1960s, 35% in the 1970s; today it is 15%. The real GDP growth rate averaged 4.2% and real per capita GDP increased annually by 2.4% in the 1950s. In the 2000s, the average real GDP growth rate was 1.7% and real per capita GDP increased annually by less than 1%. There is not conclusive evidence, however, to substantiate a clear relationship between the 65-year steady reduction in the top tax rates and economic growth. Analysis of such data suggests the reduction in the top tax rates have had little association with saving, investment, or productivity growth. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution. The share of income accruing to the top 0.1% of U.S. families increased from 4.2% in 1945 to 12.3% by 2007 before falling to 9.2% due to the 2007-2009 recession. The evidence does not suggest necessarily a relationship between tax policy with regard to the top tax rates and the size of the economic pie, but there may be a relationship to how the economic pie is sliced.

...

The top income tax rates have changed considerably since the end of World War II. Throughout the late-1940s and 1950s, the top marginal tax rate was typically above 90%; today it is 35%. Additionally, the top capital gains tax rate was 25% in the 1950s and 1960s, 35% in the 1970s; today it is 15%. The average tax rate faced by the top 0.01% of taxpayers was above 40% until the mid-1980s; today it is below 25%. Tax rates affecting taxpayers at the top of the income distribution are currently at their lowest levels since the end of the second World War.

The results of the analysis suggest that changes over the past 65 years in the top marginal tax rate and the top capital gains tax rate do not appear correlated with economic growth. The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment, and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie.

However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution. As measured by IRS data, the share of income accruing to the top 0.1% of U.S. families increased from 4.2% in 1945 to 12.3% by 2007 before falling to 9.2% due to the 2007-2009 recession. At the same time, the average tax rate paid by the top 0.1% fell from over 50% in 1945 to about 25% in 2009. Tax policy could have a relation to how the economic pie is sliced—lower top tax rates may be associated with greater income disparities.

[J. Walter Weatherman]

As a side note, I found this interesting...

Tax policy affects after-tax income. Since the U.S. individual income tax is a progressive tax system, after-tax incomes tend to be more equally distributed than before-tax income.³⁸ Changes in tax policy would change the distribution of after-tax income. Research has demonstrated that tax policy has a less equalizing effect now than it did in the mid-1990s and in 1979.³⁹

The results suggest that pre-tax incomes tend to be more equally distributed and labor's share of income larger when the top tax rates are higher. Two related explanations have been offered that are consistent with these results. Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson argue that some public policies benefit the few high-income families rather than middle- and low-income families.⁴⁰ In a related explanation, Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez, and Stefanie Stantcheva argue that high top tax rates were part of the institutional structure that restrained top income by reducing gains from bargaining or rent extraction by CEOs and managers.⁴¹ For example, a CEO has less incentive to bargain hard over additional compensation when he keeps 9 cents of every additional dollar (a 91% top tax rate) than when he keeps 65 cents of every additional dollar (a 35% top tax rate). A recent study by Jon Bakija, Adam Cole, and Bradley Heim provides additional support for this mechanism—60% of taxpayers in the top 0.1% are in occupations that provide some bargaining power over compensation (executives, managers, supervisors, and financial professions).<sup>42


38</sup> CBO, Trends in the Distribution of Household Income Between 1979 and 2007, October 2011.
³⁹ CBO, Trends in the Distribution of Household Income Between 1979 and 2007, October 2011; and CRS Report R42131, Changes in the Distribution of Income Among Tax Filers Between 1996 and 2006: The Role of Labor Income, Capital Income, and Tax Policy, by Thomas L. Hungerford.
⁴⁰ Hacker and Pierson argue that "public officials have rewritten the rules of American politics and the American economy in ways that have benefited the few at the expense of the many." Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson, Winner-Take-All Politics (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2010).
⁴¹ Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez, and Stefanie Stantcheva, Optimal Taxation of Top Labor Incomes: A Tale of Three Elasticities, National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper 17616, November 2011.
⁴² Jon Bakija, Adam Cole, and Bradley T. Heim, Jobs and Income Growth of Top Earners and the Causes of Changing Income Inequality: Evidence from U.S. Tax Return Data, Williams College, working paper, November 2010.

[Wheezer]

Well, that was a shitacular.

[morpheus]

This has to be tailor-made for Morph to work his BC magic, no?

Are we sure that's not already Future BC, back from the future?

I suggest the heuristic of counting the light bulbs in scaling. And putting the arm where it belongs. For crying out loud, why isn't there a wireframe model at this point?

He's standing in front of the lights.  And, he's much bigger (wider) than the guy in the original.  If you're going to criticize, at least make it legitimate.

[Chuck to Chuck]

If you're going to criticize, at least make it legitimate.

Thus, this entire thread, nay, our country's entire political problem, is wrapped up.

[morpheus]

When I start putting in extra limbs or googly eyes, come talk to me.

[Bort]

When I start putting in extra limbs or googly eyes, come talk to me.

[Gilgamesh]

I was shocked to learn last night that Iran would use Syria as its access to the sea.



Yes, yes, I'm sure the Governor meant to say "Mediterranean."