Two Points !

( reframing of Them and Us[!] )

 Two Points [!]   

Physiks?** (FP1)
(i.e.) If businesses are persons, we need equal representation and taxation under the law.  That might imply that a flat tax(or flatter tax) might work if there were basic tax exemptions applied equally and without targeting. (potential FP to sort)(FP2) 
The catch is the will of the reformers. (Or avoiding the Tax Reform Trap.)
(There may also be a democracy trap [!])

Note: tax expenditures(aka tax breaks)

*Re: Cycle asterisks (FP!)***

*(second instance)
** Physiks ((spell checked/scroll click/blog searches)
*** Re-visiting headings (FP?)

Memorial Day.

Light at the end of the tunnel?
If nothing is on the table, everything is on the table.

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.]

Not so simple.

Romney and Santorum on gum-mint funding.

It might not be so simple for us to blame Republicans for taking Federal funds. It can easily be said that they just want their money back. This is aside from their insanity about cutting taxes and spending. But it does seem that they will spend it as long as they don't have to take responsibility for taxing for it.

Pay Dirt / Tax Mud

Rachel Maddow rakes over Senator Kyl for his not intending to make "factual statements" shovel.*
He never actually said X, but effectively and economically, Y is the same thing. Except when it is for the 99%. Tax cuts for the 1% do not need to be paid for. Also not extending the Bush tax cuts, is a tax increase. But tax cuts for the 99%, those need to be paid for, and not extending them are not a tax increase.

I think the slogan "NO NEW TAXES" is very Democratic, give us the old taxes. And a new Texas might not hurt.



*12-1-11 bold and link added: X-mass L[!] & Google** of the day***.
** if capitalized, I give credit where due, if not, then it is like clean-X, or ex-finity? And there is always the upper-L search box.
***LSM Clinton[/](Lewinsky)Scandal MoveOn (Truly[*iv] Never Never Land)
*iv: see 3 minutes in till you google, Republicans say raise taxes(po lls ).
[* Follow-up]

[X= "I have never said that all tax cuts always pay for themselves."
Y= "You should never have to off-set the cost of a deliberate decision to reduce tax rates on Americans..."
Senator Kyl is not lying about what he has never said, literally, but see chart, and how tax cuts pay for themselves. But there is a two fold problem here. One, following my words in the equation. Two, following the chart. But it seems to me that actually, in the Permanent Tax Cuts category, it would be even harder to say. But it does seem to show a relative benefit to old tax rates mixed with Obama tax rates, and flip-flopping the Republican tax policy, as we have virtual mud from the trickle-down. And we even have pun with the bank and the cave.]

XIV: allegory of the cave (a,b,c,d,e)
or singular(a,b, c ,d,e,f,g,h,i,j)

[hint C.3: MoveOn / GPS]
[Last UL Search (a,b,c,d)]
Speaking of mud. RM Glitch host.

Occupy Wall Street has won.

I just can't remember what the sign was, or the source. The crack involves some Republican or other mess age monger, breaking with the no taxes position. If I recall, I will source it here *. Oh yeah, it might have been the New Hampshire Union Leader endorsement of Newt Gingrich because he is not Mitt, who is the 1%.

* Still not primary source [thanks to Rachel Maddow: not the source, just the reminder, See Bob Herbert.]

[11-28-11 MoveOn [?]
Looking Up?
Tax Buts.
Mess Age Monger[]
Alter Net?]

Way[!]

Not Exactly [!] (Sarcasm aside !)
[Important to reads: Doing What Works, not Lean Six Sigma, but* Try Angles!]

*also Taleb link (too update)

[Earlier con/text

Go at it!

That will be the challenge.
Close enough to Bring 'Em On?

Iron Knee?

Or I Ron Knee?
My first instinct was based on, this can't be right, could it? I guess it can. But the Immelt to Jobs is like a Nixon to China ploy. Unfortunately, that foreign policy reference may have backfired a bit, military friction has become economic friction. But a better word would be competition. Or would it?
But really, I am conflating two fields into one, or is it a third? The Tax Code. While it is not all about who's at fault, tax cuts or spending, or economic or foreign policy, having the biggest con(I mean beneficiary of tax policy and foreign policy) pushing for an overhaul, we just may eliminate many loopholes and level the playing field a bit. And as for contrast, Obama to Libya is NOT the Bush to Iraq or Cheesehead to Wisconsin moment.
[On another line: Democrats can hold the line and compromise, as long as there is a line that some Republicans will greet.

Mis Ledes

Or relatively grammatically correct?

Bloomberg is definitely on the Whine List or is it running for the Tea Party or just sweeping things under the Astroturf?

[Catapulting the Propaganda? A refudiation. With a sense of irony and con text, I mean validation.]