A Shot in the Arm?

A collegue recently commented on the difficulty or the desire to be objective.  This nails perspectivism on the head, or is it the cross?  From neo-perspectivism through neo-nuanced and neo-platonic we do have a dynamic*** of global balance.  More sorting later*.    Thus spoke Niche?

* 1-9-12  correction (not two Chinas: two perspectives.)
BTW:  Thus spoke Adam Smith.
D'Ribble[!] Which came first the crossroad or the chicken?**
Henwood/More?  More's the Pity?

[On the other arm, a nemesis may have stubbed a tow(sic) on the plank the nail sticks out of.]

[Speaking of Ice, Thom Hartmann is in Iceland and provides some of the neo-perspectivism.]

** 1-10-12 link added (plural)
*** also maybe plural(see Hartmann/neo-relativism?) dynamics?
[edit notes: Ctrl F "the cart"]
[Also Ctrl F "Descartes" and the four horsemen?]

[Note: I have been lax in my boldness of links as an aid to navigation or sense of the thread.  In that regard I finally bolded two.< now 3(!) >  Also my asterisks and [brackets] are time relative or sensitive. i.e. to flow of the read. Now I will also note the relative flow of neo-platonic, neo-perspectivism, neo-liberal, neo-con, neo-nuanced and neo-relativism, not to end with six, name names or Ctrl F.  BTW:  Excuse me if I don't go to the trouble of flip-flopping the tetrahedron, that is the point.(Ctrl F "the people" and "the constitution".)]
[Speaking of a4 or timing, my 4a brought me another F, if not CF.(Note grammar, numbers, shapes, timing, etc.) F is TBA. Not to mention ? Nor Kidding. In closing (?)(!) Or too close to the 4close or Bane?]
[Third Bane's a charm? i.e. convention, congress, cain ? ]
[Speaking of Bane and Try Angles or Flip Romney and flopping it.
BTW: Under the Flip link there is an accounting or statistical trick that is not unknown to the debate.  I won't play upon it, but it involves the "average tax cut" versus "the middle-income American."  It is mathematical hyperbole as well as reasonable, where reality is even more confusing.  It is more accurate to say that the richest are paying a lesser per cent of their gross (actual tax rate) than any other income category after the  standard deductions and other taxes are accounted for.]

> previous post <

...promote the general...

Welfare(the 29th word in the Constitution).



Pre-Obama^, starker contrast.

And this is^^^ pre-Romney's Rough Road on MSNBC.
Jobs First? But not foremost.  Running from politics. 
His best defense is his cuff and hope he is phoney and fisher of men.
(I won't go there.) But the map is looking familiar. 
Fixing News(pun on breaking news): Carney(Obama "we are in this together").

Ari Melber is almost there where I haven't gotten yet. That is, what is actually taken from the paychecks of the middle class.  Payroll tax. NOW Alex Wagner is almost there.  Not only do the top 4%* get the same tax deductions and breaks as the bottom brackets(a. how many %) they get a break from the payroll tax from a second and third point. (b. over $97,500  c. capital gains ) 






[Now please take no offense at the significance of any Cretans.]

* 96% should be the Obama "entitle" R's [!]**

NOTE: Charts are being filled out here. See PAGES (right column)
NOTE: Charts of Sorts.( Tetra Heed Rons, and Wedges & Corny Copy Yeah)

** rough math but look at the right side of the second chart and see on the left that $250,000 -- and now John Sununu is doing the W'rithatic on Andrea Mitchell, but it goes to the arithmatic that is wrong -- it should be clear that the middle class is well below what Romney thinks it is and the President is for the bottom 96% well more than the 47% Romney thinks supports Obama.

^ missing link as to how I stumbled on this one (but there is a mixing of metaphors for horses and Teddy(Obama^^) Bulls. 
^^

^^^ inserted post charts et al
[Last Word ? Yeah right ! Or Left ! Re: Cycle ? R ! Not !]
[Brilliance of Democracy.]

[Strategic Pause: News Nation: No, Time is not a-side ! ]

[What the heck is the point?  It is the process and the purpose.]

Everything is on the Table!

That's right!  Everything is on the individual's table, but that does not mean how.

Robert Reich counts
 8 Principles to Guide Democrats in the Fiscal Cliff Showdown.*

ONE: HOLD YOUR GROUND.

 

TWO: NO DEAL IS BETTER THAN A BAD DEAL.

 

THREE: MAKE REPUBLICANS VOTE ON EXTENDING THE TAX CUTS JUST FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS.

 

FOUR: DEMAND HIGHER TAX RATES ON WEALTHY, NOT JUST LIMITS ON DEDUCTIONS.

 

FIVE: DON'T CUT SAFETY NETS.

 

SIX: DON'T CUT INVESTMENTS IN OUR FUTURE PRODUCTIVITY.

 

SEVEN: CUT SPENDING ON MILITARY AND CORPORATE WELFARE.

 

EIGHT: PUT JOBS BEFORE DEFICIT REDUCTION.

 

Number Five puts the Safety Net on the table. As in: DON'T CUT IT!
But it is not that simple. Medicare and Social Security do not need to be on the table at this time. That does not mean they need to be cut in the future. Addressing them is not just in the form of cutting them. Even so, if they address the top end or the bottom line, changes could be balanced in the tax code, not to hit those that need the safety net and even address the income gap.

 

* BOLDLY ENUMERATED taken directly from his post.

[Follow-down...I wouldn't go that far.  Despite quibbles with the terms of B.S. or F. C.  this is the kernel of the matter: 

Former Sen. Alan Simpson says ‘‘you have to have a blend’’ of revenue increases and spending cuts to achieve a deal to avoid the cliff.

Especially the bold below:

Simpson tells NBC’s ‘‘Today’’ show it’s ridiculous for Democrats and Republicans to speculate on which party would suffer more if no compromise agreement were achieved. He says, quote, ‘‘That’s like betting your country. There’s stupidity in that. This is big-time stuff.’’

I do not believe his "arithmatic" though.(in bold)

Speaking of Congress, Simpson says, in his words, ‘‘If you gave 90 percent of them a profit-loss statement in one hand and a balance sheet in the other, they wouldn’t know how to read it.’’

 It could not be that bad.]

Nailed It! T-point Oh!

Tangent or Tetrahedron:

Not T-Rx or Too point Oh, but my segue from Jon Stewart and the T-Party to the Peas** Party, or the adult in the White House, also is symbolized in the 3* part response that is just the beginning of the Iron Chef.

*by 3, I mean, the joint session, the follow up and the long term, as represented in presentations of the Obama plan
** or Broccoli[!]

[Another T: Tangent or Tax issue see ** there ]
[BTW: It's MAD, I mean "math", but it is this simple. From T-boned to L-boned(an accidental vehicle metaphor) the Lincoln Labor / Capital reference is pertinent in a "fair and balanced" tax structure -- i.e. treat capital gains as income.]

[Not to make light of food or metaphors, but there may be something to the Cain and able of 9-9-9. The number may not be important or that it is the flip-flop of 6-6-6. but that there is nothing wrong with a flat tax, if there are flat, and sufficient but limited deductions and exemptions, as well as a sufficient safety net. Note no mention of capital gains which I read as considered income.]

Speaking of on the wall

Or Off it.
I drop two links here for pre-reference:

Everyone Should Pay Income Taxes:
It's bad for our democracy to exempt half the country. by Ari Fleischer / Wall Street Journal Or as The Week put it "Then more people would want less government spending."

And Tea Parties Forever by Paul Krugman / New York Times

Or Just Verses Not? OK they are both spin and I think I have spun it only slightly if at all hear here re: the weak.
My last crack might be off kilter but I am implying I know the spin on these verses and might support the latter over the former. It would only be fair not necessarily balanced to read them.
[OK, I am dizzy only glancing at the first few Ari paragraphs, (which I had previously not seen) as they were just about the spin and the flip-flop, so bingo and kudos to me. And a closer look at Krugman's Tea Parties Forever nails the MoveOn advice.]
[Some are fond of saying that you cannot tax corporations since costs will be passed bown, well deductions are also passed up, so I think that the balance has been (only) slightly struck. Nonetheless some points may be drawn from both pieces but not without more striking out into how work only trickles up and maybe money should not be treated as capital let alone a product or the point.]
[Not to mention the Triplex of Hitchens, Hartmann and Hedges or the rational middle? It is more likely the tri-pod of progress, or heart, hedge and hitch.]

[Update: 12-16-11 As The Week put it, link corrected. And Triplex amended.]

Nailed it[!]

Jon Stewart roasts Wolf Blitzer's Network.
CAUTION: Cable News Network R. rated [?]

Or mabye Un-Rated is the proper rating for Comedy Central. As I was lost in pun, I transposed the networks. I had to Wiki CNN to sort its acronym. Is it still C for cable, or conservative?

Speaking of mixed messages or ratings, the T-party could have a whole new spin. Now I may have transposed my spin. Don't ask how that works. (except noting links: but that is another Tangent)

[BTW: if anyone can help me flip-flop a character[?], till that time [!] must suffice for sarcasm punctuation. BINGO! Not yet.]

[Speaking of nailing it. The president right now*, is probably eliciting some expletives. And I don't mean Geez U.S. (My apologies for the rhetorical/satirical escalation: it's a culture war**!)]

* inserted later
** now then regarding CW: also "class warfare card" almost simultaneously but... in regards to "Federal Income taxes" or "nothing", the rich are paying exactly the same as the poor on their first few dollars, as I am fairly certain that the rich are allowed the same deductions and exemptions in determining tax brackets. If they are not then that is a matter that could be adjusted.