Hey Rocky! Watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat!

It's a real filibuster too, not one of those namby-pamby efforts that pass for filibusters these days. Good for Bernie...you can always count on a socialist to do the heavy lifting.

My bad. Jones made his comments earlier this year but this article is new. Carry on.

Rob...have you just read the Daily Mail article recently or did you pick up on this somewhere else? Just curious.

That 2% will be useful to those who can't have personal retirement accounts. I agree it's not a lot but it's something.

Pretty fair deal all things considered.

I recall that many at SA adamantly opposed a free press when it came to reporters during the Iraq war. I can't remember what Rob's position was but I agree with his position here as I agreed with that position then.

If the Founders intended that the States have the power to nullify Federal laws then why wasn't that power included in the Constitution? It seems to me that your vision of American government is reflected more in the Articles of Confederation than in the Constitution as subsequently adopted...am I wrong on this?

FWIW, I also think it would be easier to repeal the 17th than to enact a new Amendment.

I figured that was a slip. I'm not sure what you mean by "propaganda" and "manufactured crisis". The tax cuts were designed to expire and while Obama has consistently promoted a tax cut for the middle and working classes, I have little doubt that his intention was always to let the cut for the highest earners expire. The Democrats should have dealt with this earlier but they obviously have difficulty passing legislation in the face of a cohesive and determined Republican opposition.

If the Democrats had half a clue about governing, they would have been working on a big tax cut plan for the last few months. That way they could let the Bush era cuts expire and bring in their own legislation in early 2011 thus earning their own credit. They really are incompetent when it comes to parliamentary strategy.

I was responding to what r108 said...I think he probably mispoke but whatever. I agree that we don't work to pay taxes but I also think that it's possible to overstate the effect that the level of taxation has on the quantity and quality of work performed. Intuitively it sounds like you're right and people do move their residence to more tax friendly regimes but I wonder how many people voluntarily cap or reduce their earnings in order to avoid paying more taxes. It's something to think about as I don't have a definitive answer.

I'll also note that if you asked a guy making $500k per year if he would like a tax cut on the first $250K that he would say yes. I know he'd like the cut on the whole thing but would he think that a break on the $250K is better than nothing? I don't see that question asked very often because the Republicans have been more effective in framing the issue...as they are on most issues quite frankly.