Random News Observations

[SAM_Hard8 50]

I make bacon brownies. They're pretty damn good.

[mrdannyg 274]

TPIUWR

[Balloon guy 158]

I make bacon brownies. They're pretty damn good.

I've had chocolate covered bacon at the Minn state fair, the bacon had to be cool in order to prevent the chocolate to harden, but it was pretty good.

[Balloon guy 158]

TPIUWR

This Post Is Useless When Read?

[DJ Vu 176]

Recipes

[mrdannyg 274]

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/This guy is pretty much smarter than anyone. His super-brilliant model is predicting an Obama win, but I'd guess the likelihood and margin he's predicting is a lot smaller than some people would guess.

[DJ Vu 176]

I almost posted that article, but even he admits that a lot can change from now until the election. It's funny to me how these national elections really just come down to a handful of states. Like the more we know about how elections are won, the less people we might see actually going out and voting. At least until voting can be done by smart phone.

[mrdannyg 274]

I almost posted that article, but even he admits that a lot can change from now until the election. It's funny to me how these national elections really just come down to a handful of states. Like the more we know about how elections are won, the less people we might see actually going out and voting. At least until voting can be done by smart phone.

I don't know how much his model accounts for the potential for actual events to effect in one direction, or how much he just lets variability be a 50/50 proposition, which in turn would have a smoothing effect on whoever is leading. While I'd normally assume the latter for any model, he gets so many rep points for his model from very smart people that I could believe it is the former.Even if we just talk about top-line numbers, the suggestion that the race is close enough, and there is enough potential for volatility, that Obamama (why has no one used this one yet?) is only a 3:2 favourite certainly surprised me, and I'm guessing would surprise a lot of other smug lefties as well.

[Balloon guy 158]

Time magazine thinks Obama needs to face up to the reality that he can lose.

With five months until Election Day, Barack Obama faces a grim new reality: Republicans now believe Mitt Romney can win, and Democrats believe Obama can lose ... Last week's anemic job-creation and economic-growth data was sandwiched between two Bill Clinton specials: in one television interview, the 42nd President lauded Romney's business record as "sterling"; in another, he veered from the Obama line on the extension of Bush-era tax cuts ... The failure to unseat Wisconsin's Republican governor Scott Walker in a recall election was another bad sign for Democrats since it will rev up conservatives nationwide, including the kind of millionaires who gave big bucks to Walker's effort ... Veteran Democratic strategists from previous presidential bids and on Capitol Hill now wonder if the Obama re-election crew is working with the right message ... The White House remains on a rough political trajectory, with a potentially adverse Supreme Court decision on the Obama health care law looming, additional bad economic news from Europe coming and more worrisome polling pending ...

[mrdannyg 274]

Pinnacle is a betting site that can generally be counted on to have the most accurate odds. They have odds on the winning party - odds on the democrat have fluctuated between 1.5-1.7 most of the last few months. Currently, odds are 1.73 on the Dems, 2.24 on the R's, which translates to about a 63% chance of the Dems winning. Like I said above, the words from my Dem friends and my general impression of the Dem party (which may just be me projecting) do not imply they think they have a 37% chance of losing the upcoming election. That is a very tiny discrepancy.To give you an idea how fast that could change, the Canadian government just made their regular announcement on interest rates. No change, for the millionth time in a row, but their comments were a little more negative as results continue to disappoint. As a result, the markets were previously pricing in the likelihood of a rate increase in the next 3 meetings at 65% - it is now closer to 25%. Though it is incredibly dumb, I don't see how the R's chances don't continue to improve if economic results continue to disappoint, which could easily continue, even given our already very low expectations in the current environment.

[Balloon guy 158]

Pinnacle is a lousy golf ball.What did they have on the Walker recall?

[mrdannyg 274]

Pinnacle is a lousy golf ball.What did they have on the Walker recall?

Didn't have it. They do sports stuff really, they'll just have the occasional non-sports thing. There are other 'market' and wagering sites that have similar odds on the presidency. I'm sure those places had odds on the recall, but I have no idea what they were/

[InternetExplorer 2,609]

pinnacle is the sportsbetting site everyone uses to arb lines on smaller, slower books.

[Balloon guy 158]

So what is the deal with California?They banned Foie Gras?

[hblask 1]

The rich don't pay enough taxes.How can we get these people to "pay their share"?

[FCP Bob 1,312]

The rich don't pay enough taxes.How can we get these people to "pay their share"?

The "American Dream" Is Now A MythYour link is more a result of the above than because the historially low top tax rates are such a burden on the super rich.

One of the most distressing aspects of the state of the US economy is the decrease in social mobility.It is much, much harder now than it used to be for Americans to improve their circumstances.In other words, if Americans are born poor, they're overwhelmingly likely to stay poor.Similarly, if Americans are born rich, they have a much better chance of staying rich than someone born poor or middle class.No one minds inequality as long as one's station in life is a function of one's own decisions and effort.When inequality becomes the luck of the draw, however, if becomes much more profoundly unfair.America's social mobility is now not only one of the lowest in the country's history--it's one of the lowest in the first world.Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-american-dream-is-now-a-myth-2012-6#ixzz1xRwGTsCE

[hblask 1]

The "American Dream" Is Now A MythYour link is more a result of the above than because the historially low top tax rates are such a burden on the super rich.

Yep, as govt gorws, the rich get more benefit than the poor, so it becomes harder for the poor to move up. Yet another reason this "tax the rich" mentality is just retarded. If you take more from the rich but give them 10X as much in handouts, that harms the poor. Yeah, reality matters.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

Yep, as govt gorws, the rich get more benefit than the poor, so it becomes harder for the poor to move up. Yet another reason this "tax the rich" mentality is just retarded. If you take more from the rich but give them 10X as much in handouts, that harms the poor.Yeah, reality matters.

What about the Swedish reality.High government spending. High income equality, One of the most competitive economies in the World.

[CaneBrain 95]

The rich don't pay enough taxes.How can we get these people to "pay their share"?

81,000,000,000 divided by 400ppl = $202,500,000 avg income per filer........subtract (avg tax burden for this group $40,250,000) = 162 million roughly take home per filer1,000,000,000,000 divided by 69,000,000ppl = $14,492 avg income per filer......subtract (avg tax burden for this group $282.60) = $14,200 roughly take home per filer.Yeah, I'm fine that the group of 400 is paying a similar amount of taxes as the 69 million. And I'm fine asking that 400 as a group to pay more. Because the average one of the 400 is making 161.86 million dollars more than the average person in the bottom 50%. When you do the math, it doesn't seem quite so "unfair" to ask this group to get by on $155 million per year since any deficit reduction that cuts benefits to Medicare, Medicaid or SS is going to disproportionately impact the poor and lower middle class who comprise that bottom 50%.Also, the effective tax rate of the top 400 people is apparently just under 20% unless my math is off. This article, imo, proves exactly the opposite of what you intended. How the **** do I pay the same effective tax rate as people making 202 million dollars per year? How is that "fair"? That's ridiculous.

[Balloon guy 158]

No where are you entitled to pay less than a rich person. And tax laws are available for you to lower your exposure. Just because the rich find ways to write off their income by investing and buying things that benefit the economy doesn't mean they are bad.The notion that anyone should be allowed to tell someone in this country that they are not allowed to keep more money than someone else thinks is fair is almost as un-American as the democrat party has been for the last decade.Almost.

[hblask 1]

What about the Swedish reality.High government spending. High income equality, One of the most competitive economies in the World.

They have extremely free markets and a decentralized government. As always, it's not one-dimensional, but all else being equal, if your rights are up for sale, the rich will have more rights than the poor -- and that is why the inequality in the US is growing.

[hblask 1]

81,000,000,000 divided by 400ppl = $202,500,000 avg income per filer........subtract (avg tax burden for this group $40,250,000) = 162 million roughly take home per filer1,000,000,000,000 divided by 69,000,000ppl = $14,492 avg income per filer......subtract (avg tax burden for this group $282.60) = $14,200 roughly take home per filer.Yeah, I'm fine that the group of 400 is paying a similar amount of taxes as the 69 million. And I'm fine asking that 400 as a group to pay more. Because the average one of the 400 is making 161.86 million dollars more than the average person in the bottom 50%. When you do the math, it doesn't seem quite so "unfair" to ask this group to get by on $155 million per year since any deficit reduction that cuts benefits to Medicare, Medicaid or SS is going to disproportionately impact the poor and lower middle class who comprise that bottom 50%.Also, the effective tax rate of the top 400 people is apparently just under 20% unless my math is off. This article, imo, proves exactly the opposite of what you intended. How the **** do I pay the same effective tax rate as people making 202 million dollars per year? How is that "fair"? That's ridiculous.

So you don't think it should be related to, you know, services, or fairness, or common sense? You think it should just be "they have more than me, let's gouge them?And the fact that they pay more probably just means the treasury has more money for them to loot... that doesn't bother you any? There's a reason corporate cronyists like Buffet want higher taxes -- because they know with their connections they will ALWAYS come out ahead in this game.

[CaneBrain 95]

Yes, I think my effective tax rate should be lower than people making 202 million dollars per year and I don't think that makes me a commie or someone in favor of gouging the ultra-rich. Nor do I think that is unfair. At all.Your article was supposed to be about how unfair we are being to the top 400 but I think the fact that their effective tax rate is equal to mine and lower than my father's rate shows that is completely and utterly false. The stuff about Buffet and looting the treasury is panicky BS, trying to save a lost argument. If that nonsense were true, everyone in the top 400 would be clamoring for higher taxes, not just Warren Buffet.

[Balloon guy 158]

What about the fact that much of the ultra rich money is made with post tax dollars being invested in vehicles that the government has determined to be lower taxed because of its inherent value to the overall economy? Like tax free municipal bonds, and capital gains from buying stocks from a company and leaving the money there for a while which gives the company a better ability to grow?You act like your money from a paycheck is equal to a person who can lose money if he invests in a stupid company like a solar company and is not a democrat donor who will get all his money back if it fails thanks to the Obama administration's willingness to act like a Chicago politician.

[CaneBrain 95]

I'm thinking it is unlikely that people making 202 million per year on average are losing money on too many investments. I mean, these numbers are from 2009, the year after a severe financial collapse. Imagine how well they do in a "good" year.And, yes, I do believe that income is income and we should treat it all the same. I think the idea that the money rich people make is "better" than the money a doctor or a teacher makes is gross.