Scozzafava backs Owens

[Oddball]

Actually, she's a Moderate and Hoffman is a Neocon. So of course she's going to support the Democrat. It has nothing to do with a third party.

With this backing, Owens will win now as I previously predicted.

She's a moderate like I'm Hubert Humphrey.

Interesting thing here is that all the party men came in to support her, only to have her throw the party overboard when it became clear that she was going to end up in 3rd place.

 

[Meister]

I can imagine it happening and for a pretty simple reason: it happened earlier this year. ARRA included significant amounts of tax relief (additional deduction against payroll taxes for earners making up to 75k, expansion of the child tax credit, increased the earned income tax credit).

To get at the fundamental argument being made though (that a Democrat today wouldn't favor across the board reduction of the brackets), I would agree. The issue is the circumstances aren't comparable. The top marginal tax rate when Kennedy took office was 91 percent. The top marginal tax rate today is 35 percent. Even when the Bush tax cuts expire, the top marginal rate will be 39.6 percent. That's not even half of where it was then.

I guess I need to be more specific with you...I was referring to across the board tax cuts, like what JFK did.

Now we get into the sliding scale. First it was tax cuts, now it's a particular kind of tax cuts.

Polk, you start ranting your tripe in the middle of a few posts, and not knowing what the **** your talking about. Let me TRY and help you out on your shortcomings. Maple was talking about JFK...are you with me so far? She was talking about JFK's cross the board tax cut that he signed. Do you get it yet? I expounded on what she was saying about the cross the board tax cuts. There was no sliding scale, Polk, just your ineptness on following the thread.Polk, if your going to evesdrop, do it with competence, for the love of God.

 

[Polk]

I guess I need to be more specific with you...I was referring to across the board tax cuts, like what JFK did.

Now we get into the sliding scale. First it was tax cuts, now it's a particular kind of tax cuts.

Polk, you start ranting your tripe in the middle of a few posts, and not knowing what the **** your talking about. Let me TRY and help you out on your shortcomings. Maple was talking about JFK...are you with me so far? She was talking about JFK's cross the board tax cut that he signed. Do you get it yet? I expounded on what she was saying about the cross the board tax cuts. There was no sliding scale, Polk, just your ineptness on following the thread.Polk, if your going to evesdrop, do it with competence, for the love of God.

You guys have made your position clear. Tax cuts only count if they're a kind you like. Otherwise, you pretend like they don't exist.

 

[JW Frogen]

Scozzafavia should have used my campaign slogan "Scozza me, vote for Fava beans and a nice Chiante."

 

[Terry]

Election day!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[ayiakri]

Which particular brand of idiot would propose "across the board" tax-cuts right now? As Polk pointed out, the top-marginal tax-rate was already cut from 39.5% to 35%, resulting in an immediate drop in revenues collected by the IRS.

Even accounting for state taxes, Americans are taxed less than, I think, any other OECD country with the exception of Japan - a country which is also, not coincidentally, servicing a public debt even bigger than our own (relative to GDP).

We need to a combination of spending cuts and increased taxes until the government is able to (over any arbitrary number of years, say, ten) balance revenues and spending. The last time that happened were the last two years of the Clinton administration.

Neither Republicans nor Democrats have shown any ability to reign in spending in the past decade - in Bush's first 6 years in office, he never once vetoed a spending bill - all 6 of which had built-in massive, record deficits. President Obama came into office in the middle of the worst recession since the great depression, and continued a lot of Bush's policies (eg, bailing out large companies - Bush approved the largest nationalization of a private company in living memory, when he approved some $150 Billion to save AIG).

Most economists, whether you believe they have a clue or not, credit stimulus spending with averting a financial catastrophe, and a repeat of the 1930s. So in the short-term, it's hard to blame the Democrats for spending. It remains to be seen what they do about the budget after the "real" economy has recovered somewhat, maybe in 2011.

Either way - raising taxes, or at least letting Bush's ill-guided tax-cuts expire, is in the cards. George H. W. Bush was so maligned when he raised taxes during his single term, but he was trying to avoid the sorts of deficits that his son rang up. Even Ronald Reagan approved massive "tax-increases", in the form of undoing many of the tax-cuts he campaigned on, when he saw the resulting deficits.

Those who chant, "starve the beast" have been completely unsuccessful in electing politicians who actually are willing to cut spending in response to less revenue, so either we continue borrowing heavily - and it's no longer sustainable for more than a decade or so - or we begin to close tax-loopholes, raise the top marginal tax rates, and re-evaluate the total amount we spend on defense (which, with DoD and DHS spending, is hovering around $700 Billion per year).

This stupid mantra of "cut taxes, cut taxes" begs the question: what is the "right" level of taxation? We're already far below historical norms. Should there be ZERO taxes? Should we have an "across the board" tax-cut of 70%? 80%? 90%? 99%? What, exactly, do you propose the 'right' tax rates should be?

Just saying "cut taxes across the board" isn't a solution, if you don't even acknowledge both the enormous overspending that both parties have done, the gap between spending and revenue from taxes, and the already-low tax rates that a vocal minority constantly ***** about.

 

[Chris]

Which particular brand of idiot would propose "across the board" tax-cuts right now? As Polk pointed out, the top-marginal tax-rate was already cut from 39.5% to 35%, resulting in an immediate drop in revenues collected by the IRS.

Even accounting for state taxes, Americans are taxed less than, I think, any other OECD country with the exception of Japan - a country which is also, not coincidentally, servicing a public debt even bigger than our own (relative to GDP).

We need to a combination of spending cuts and increased taxes until the government is able to (over any arbitrary number of years, say, ten) balance revenues and spending. The last time that happened were the last two years of the Clinton administration.

Neither Republicans nor Democrats have shown any ability to reign in spending in the past decade - in Bush's first 6 years in office, he never once vetoed a spending bill - all 6 of which had built-in massive, record deficits. President Obama came into office in the middle of the worst recession since the great depression, and continued a lot of Bush's policies (eg, bailing out large companies - Bush approved the largest nationalization of a private company in living memory, when he approved some $150 Billion to save AIG).

Most economists, whether you believe they have a clue or not, credit stimulus spending with averting a financial catastrophe, and a repeat of the 1930s. So in the short-term, it's hard to blame the Democrats for spending. It remains to be seen what they do about the budget after the "real" economy has recovered somewhat, maybe in 2011.

Either way - raising taxes, or at least letting Bush's ill-guided tax-cuts expire, is in the cards. George H. W. Bush was so maligned when he raised taxes during his single term, but he was trying to avoid the sorts of deficits that his son rang up. Even Ronald Reagan approved massive "tax-increases", in the form of undoing many of the tax-cuts he campaigned on, when he saw the resulting deficits.

Those who chant, "starve the beast" have been completely unsuccessful in electing politicians who actually are willing to cut spending in response to less revenue, so either we continue borrowing heavily - and it's no longer sustainable for more than a decade or so - or we begin to close tax-loopholes, raise the top marginal tax rates, and re-evaluate the total amount we spend on defense (which, with DoD and DHS spending, is hovering around $700 Billion per year).

This stupid mantra of "cut taxes, cut taxes" begs the question: what is the "right" level of taxation? We're already far below historical norms. Should there be ZERO taxes? Should we have an "across the board" tax-cut of 70%? 80%? 90%? 99%? What, exactly, do you propose the 'right' tax rates should be?

Just saying "cut taxes across the board" isn't a solution, if you don't even acknowledge both the enormous overspending that both parties have done, the gap between spending and revenue from taxes, and the already-low tax rates that a vocal minority constantly ***** about.

Outstanding post.

Republicans are whinny little bitches.

The government provides services that have to be paid for, and there is nothing wrong with paying taxes.

 

[bodecea]

Actually, she's a Moderate and Hoffman is a Neocon. So of course she's going to support the Democrat. It has nothing to do with a third party.

With this backing, Owens will win now as I previously predicted.

She's a moderate like I'm Hubert Humphrey.

Interesting thing here is that all the party men came in to support her, only to have her throw the party overboard when it became clear that she was going to end up in 3rd place.

FIrst of all, she was obviously pissed. Second of all, she is just behaving as all politicians do when they find out they've been kicked to the curb....see Leiberman.

 

[Liability]

Actually, she's a Moderate and Hoffman is a Neocon. So of course she's going to support the Democrat. It has nothing to do with a third party.

With this backing, Owens will win now as I previously predicted.

She's a moderate like I'm Hubert Humphrey.

Interesting thing here is that all the party men came in to support her, only to have her throw the party overboard when it became clear that she was going to end up in 3rd place.

And Hoffman is not a "neocon" either.

The folks making that claim have zero comprehension of what the term even means.

Hoffman is going to win. Thankfully.

 

[saveliberty]

Liberals are talking about spending.

Conservatives are talking about saving.

Note: It is all talk to this point.

 

[Meister]

Now we get into the sliding scale. First it was tax cuts, now it's a particular kind of tax cuts.

Polk, you start ranting your tripe in the middle of a few posts, and not knowing what the **** your talking about. Let me TRY and help you out on your shortcomings. Maple was talking about JFK...are you with me so far? She was talking about JFK's cross the board tax cut that he signed. Do you get it yet? I expounded on what she was saying about the cross the board tax cuts. There was no sliding scale, Polk, just your ineptness on following the thread.Polk, if your going to evesdrop, do it with competence, for the love of God.

You guys have made your position clear. Tax cuts only count if they're a kind you like. Otherwise, you pretend like they don't exist.

Polk, your comprehension skills just suck. You still don't have the ability to follow a conversation. You missed the point of the conversation. I doubt you will understand this post, either.

 

[saveliberty]

American Mainstream Is Looking More Like Republican Mainstream - Mary Kate Cary (usnews.com)

"Democrats can read the polls: Independent swing voters are moving toward the right, and the Republican base. The wide American mainstream is broadening to include fiscal conservatives—yes, some of whom have all sorts of opinions on social issues—but they are united in their concern about the growing size and scope of government. Wasn't that the lesson of August's tea parties—that people of all stripes are concerned about massive government growth? Isn't that what's really threatening the left?"

Argue against this idea at your own party's peril.

 

[bodecea]

Liberals are talking about spending.

Conservatives are talking about saving.

Note: It is all talk to this point.

Who is?

 

[Ravi]

 

[Old Rocks]

Actually, she's a Moderate and Hoffman is a Neocon. So of course she's going to support the Democrat. It has nothing to do with a third party.

With this backing, Owens will win now as I previously predicted.

She's a moderate like I'm Hubert Humphrey.

Interesting thing here is that all the party men came in to support her, only to have her throw the party overboard when it became clear that she was going to end up in 3rd place.

And Hoffman is not a "neocon" either.

The folks making that claim have zero comprehension of what the term even means.

Hoffman is going to win. Thankfully.

You Betcha!!!!

 

[Modbert]

And Hoffman is not a "neocon" either.

The folks making that claim have zero comprehension of what the term even means.

Hoffman is going to win. Thankfully.

You betcha! I'm sure that phone call to Owens was just to make sure the lines were working.

 

[Oddball]

Actually, she's a Moderate and Hoffman is a Neocon. So of course she's going to support the Democrat. It has nothing to do with a third party.

With this backing, Owens will win now as I previously predicted.

She's a moderate like I'm Hubert Humphrey.

Interesting thing here is that all the party men came in to support her, only to have her throw the party overboard when it became clear that she was going to end up in 3rd place.

FIrst of all, she was obviously pissed. Second of all, she is just behaving as all politicians do when they find out they've been kicked to the curb....see Leiberman.

What she has done is show us what party insiders do when punked by a party outsider....Throw their support behind the party insider.

Nope, not a dime's worth.........

 

[Intense]

N.Y. The Empire State. Wasn't NY the only Colony to vote against Independence? Hmmm...... N.Y.....State of The Privileged and those who serve them. N.Y. State of Siege.... Welcome to N.Y. State of Fines, Fee's, Penalties, and Surcharges. What is the difference between Republicans and Democrats here? How far to the Left you will bend to have your cake and eat it tooo. Congratulations on your victory!!! I move that We make Our New State Emblem the Traffic Ticket Camera$$$$$$$.


ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) - Democrat Bill Owens has captured the special election for a New York congressional seat that became a fight over the identity of the Republican Party.
Owens defeated Conservative Doug Hoffman and Republican Dierdre Scozzafava (skoh-zuh-FAH'-vuh) in the heavily Republican 23rd congressional District in rural northern New York. Scozzafava abruptly withdrew Saturday and supported Owens.

Hoffman has conceded the race.

With 88 percent of the precincts reporting, Owens had 49 percent of the vote to 46 percent for Hoffman. Scozzafava had 6 percent.

The race has been getting national attention, with some calling it a referendum on President Barack Obama and others saying it could help Republicans focus their message to attract more people to the party.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.

ALBANY, N.Y. (AP)—A Democrat running in a Republican stronghold held a narrow lead Tuesday in a special congressional election that exposed a battle between moderates and conservatives for control of the GOP.

With 87 percent of the precincts reporting, lawyer and retired Air Force Capt. Bill Owens had a lead of 49 percent to 45 percent over businessman Doug Hoffman, the Conservative Party candidate.

Dierdre Scozzafava, a moderate Republican, withdrew from the race Saturday under pressure from the party's right wing because of her support of abortion rights and same-sex marriage. She had still picked up 5 percent of the vote.

Hoffman started at a distant third and was viewed as a spoiler at best, cutting away at Scozzafava and opening the door for Owens. But prominent Republicans such as former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin and Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty endorsed Hoffman instead of the party-picked Scozzafava.

An Owens victory could signal renewed strength among Democrats, or at least reassure them of Republicans' perceived weakness. The seat has been strongly Republican for decades and is one of only three in the state's 29-seat delegation held by the party. Republican John McHugh vacated the seat in September to become Army secretary.

Democrat wins House seat in heavily GOP area in NY

 

[Liability]

And Hoffman is not a "neocon" either.

The folks making that claim have zero comprehension of what the term even means.

Hoffman is going to win. Thankfully.

You betcha! I'm sure that phone call to Owens was just to make sure the lines were working.

That's cute. A humorous way to rub my face in the fact that my prediction was wrong.

Here. Let me help.

My prediction was wrong.

Not the first time.

I also thought Sen. Thompson had a good shot in being the Republican Presidential nominee. I got mocked furiously for that prediction even BEFORE Fred went down in ******* flames.

Yep.

I was wrong about Hoffman and about Fred.

America's loss in BOTH cases.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The crosstabs from the last Siena poll, the one that played a role in Scozzafava getting out:

http://www.siena.edu/uploadedfiles/...ity_Page/SRI/SNY_Poll/CD23Final Crosstabs.pdf

Her supporters have a slightly more favorable view of Owens over Hoffman.

The undecideds in this poll give President Obama a 62% approval rating.

As you see, the outcome was in the fine print of the polls. The NY23 undecideds were not going to go to Hoffman. They were not conservatives.