This predictable crap, from Nanny Hillary!, just tires me out.
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton said that if she became president, the federal government would take a more active role in the economy to address what she called the excesses of the market and of the Bush administration.
In one of her most extensive interviews about how she would approach the economy, Mrs. Clinton laid out a view of economic policy that differed in some ways from that of her husband, Bill Clinton. Mr. Clinton campaigned on his centrist views, and as president, he championed deficit reduction and trade agreements.
Reflecting what her aides said were very different conditions today, Mrs. Clinton put her emphasis on issues like inequality and the role of institutions like government, rather than market forces, in addressing them.
She said that economic excesses  including executive-pay packages she characterized as often “offensive†and “wrong†and a tax code that had become “so far out of whack†in favoring the wealthy  were holding down middle-class living standards.
Oh yes, right next to Beserker Murdering Vets we have Rapacious Bizness Execs as the scourges of Middle America.
John McCain feels the same way about Big Pharma(tm).
Though anyone else tired of the perfidious class warfare angle will note with irony Hillary!s (McCain’s/Edwards’) omission of sports figures’ or movie stars’ “offensive” and “out-of-whack” compensations.
For these publicly professed Church-going candidates, the Tenth Commandment is suspended during campaign season.
Comment by Pablo on 1/21 @ 5:29 pm #
BOOOOOSSSSH!!!!! and that stupid economy that’s propelled us to World’s Sole Hyperpower status. That’s just gotta stop.
Vote Hillary! We’ll be just like Bangladesh in no time!
Comment by Pablo on 1/21 @ 5:33 pm #
Yeah, how dare the top 25% of earners get to pay 83.9% of the taxes collected!?! Those bastards!
Comment by happyfeet on 1/21 @ 5:40 pm #
Wow. She’s gonna manage the economy. Cause of the really believing. I think the first thing she’ll realize is that it’s easier to manage an economy when it’s smaller and just go from there.
Comment by happyfeet on 1/21 @ 5:43 pm #
I hope she knows excel.
Comment by JohnAnnArbor on 1/21 @ 5:45 pm #
It’s rare for the eagerness for raw power to show through so clearly.
Comment by JHoward on 1/21 @ 5:48 pm #
Even rarer for it to be lapped up so blindly…
Comment by JHoward on 1/21 @ 5:48 pm #
Unless I’m wrong.
I’m wrong.
Comment by Slartibartfast on 1/21 @ 5:54 pm #
Yeah, but they own, like, 127% of the wealth in America, so they ought to pay. AND PAY BIG!
Comment by Hillary Clinton on 1/21 @ 5:57 pm #
“The American dream is premised on a growing economy where people are in a meritocracy and, if they’re willing to work hard, they will realize the fruits of their labor.â€Â
Unless they work too hard, then that shit is mine.
Comment by MarkJ on 1/21 @ 6:01 pm #
Great. Now all Hillary needs to do is sit in a wheelchair, stick a cigarette-holder in her mouth, and piously screech, “We have nothing to fee-ahr, but fee-ahr itself!” as a gospel choir behind her harmonizes “The Union Maid.”
Just what America needs more than ever: Hillary Delano Clintovelt.
Comment by dicentra on 1/21 @ 6:08 pm #
Where’s Ayn Rand to deliver a righteous smack-down when you need her? Maybe she could accidentally knock Hillary into a vat of molten Rearden steel or run her over with her a Taggart engine.
Comment by alppuccino on 1/21 @ 6:09 pm #
So if I understand correctly, Hill is going to start some road projects to create jobs. When the wealthy see the Clintaxes coming, they’re going to be throwing off some major ballast in the form of labor, so there will be even more people available to work on Hillary’s new highway system.
How about a road from Michael Moore’s living room to the refrigerator? 4 lanes and well tamped I would presume. Out where I live there’s a road about every 1/2 mile. I guess things would be easier if at every 100 ft interval you would have an opportunity to make a turn. Less mowing too.
Or! Or! How about a road from every house straight to WalMart? Cool. Costco I mean.
Comment by Kevin on 1/21 @ 6:18 pm #
“Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton said that if she became president, the federal government would take a more active role in the economy to address what she called the excesses of the market and of the Bush administration.”
I saw someone note this, and then notice that world markets immediately crashed :).
Comment by alppuccino on 1/21 @ 6:22 pm #
Picture the whole country as one big road, and you just tie old tires to the sides of your hybrid.
h/t Gallagher
Comment by JHoward on 1/21 @ 6:25 pm #
I wouldn’t worry too much. It’s not like she’s gonna disenfranchise the other sex or anything.
Comment by rickinstl on 1/21 @ 6:28 pm #
“the Tenth Commandment is suspended”
Is that the one about lying out your ass nonstop so’s the media can shovel it chop-chop to the eyeglazed masses?
Comment by rickinstl on 1/21 @ 6:28 pm #
And getting filthy rich through whatever means necessary in the process?
Comment by McGehee on 1/21 @ 6:30 pm #
Bite your tongue. That road you’re talking about is very close to being my driveway.
Comment by AJB on 1/21 @ 6:37 pm #
Why is it only “class warfare” when people who aren’t among the wealthiest one percent do it?
Comment by happyfeet on 1/21 @ 6:41 pm #
Mr. Buffett owns See’s Candies and they refuse to make any white chocolate. Fuck him and his secretary.
Comment by Rob Crawford on 1/21 @ 6:42 pm #
Dude, the guys who maintain the crawler-transporter’s road would throw their hands up in dismay over that.
AJB — so why didn’t Buffet just chip in enough cash to make up the difference? Or, hell, pay his secretary more? Why does his discomfort with the tax rate structure have to translate into my paying more? Because that’s what it would come down to.
Don’t forget politicians and civil servants.
Comment by JHoward on 1/21 @ 6:42 pm #
“If you’re in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent.†said Buffet.
And if not, heaven help you because government will — and must, dammit — help itself.
Comment by JHoward on 1/21 @ 6:45 pm #
And if/when Buffet campaigns for Hilary, does that make him a serial liar too?
Comment by alppuccino on 1/21 @ 7:18 pm #
“Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent.”
He could pay her in stock options and then she wouldn’t have to pay taxes. Then he could just set her up like his wife and provide room and board. He sure makes it sound she’s gettin’ fucked on his dime anyway.
Comment by charles austin on 1/21 @ 7:26 pm #
It is disappointing that Mr. Buffett chooses to present partial information and then let it be taken at face value. Not having seen Mr. Buffett’s tax return, I can only guess that either much of his income is free of federal taxes, he had significant capital gains or significant paper or carryover losses, or maybe all of the above. A big chunk of the difference between the relative rates for he and his secretry is also directly attributable to FICA being capped at an income level that Mr. Buffett keeps as spare change — Social Security is the biggest ripoff and most regressive tax imaginable. (Thanks Mr. Roosevelt!) Finally, there can be a great deal of regressive activity driven by state and local taxes as well, though we are provided no information here.
This is the sleaziest of dishonest tactics when trying to have an honest discussion about taxation. It would take too long to explain here, but you really don’t want to raise tax rates on capital gains. Further, there is nothing, repeat, nothing that prevents Warren Buffett from paying more taxes if he feels that strongly about it. There may be abuses that Mr Buffett is taking advantage of, and far be it from me to suggest that the tax code is a paragon of virtue, but the implication that because he isn’t being taxed enough that I need to be taxed more is reprehensible and doesn’t stand up to the rules of logic.
Comment by Darleen on 1/21 @ 7:43 pm #
People like Buffett, or Edwards, or tehy-REA-zhah Heinz-occassionally-Kerry, don’t mind higher marginal rates on those families who dare make $250,000.90/year is that they themselves won’t ever pay it. Infact, the higher marginal rates make it more difficult for any of the hoi polloi from breaking into the Coupon Clipper Club.
Comment by cynn on 1/21 @ 7:46 pm #
Why do I mentally read the above in the voice of Monty Woolley?
Comment by cynn on 1/21 @ 7:55 pm #
Sorry, I meant that for Mr. Chas “Harrumph” Austin, not Darleen. The cigar smoke is killing me. The richies will always find a way to keep their dough. Taxes are for the dwindling middle-class slogs.
Comment by happyfeet on 1/21 @ 7:58 pm #
Do hybrids have to pass emissions tests?
Comment by Great Mencken's Ghost on 1/21 @ 8:02 pm #
Yes! It’s CHANGE! Change back to Jimmy Carter! Enjoy your double-digit inflation, Democrats!
Comment by Darleen on 1/21 @ 8:04 pm #
hey cynn
define “middle class”
I keep hearing Barry Obama talk about taxbreaks for the “working class” and he won’t stop to define it.
Color me highly suspicious.
Comment by Mike C. on 1/21 @ 8:07 pm #
Let’s see…Dems want gov’t subsidized health insurance for poor children made available to those with incomes up to $82,000. And the fiscal stimulus tax rebates unavailable to the rich, which in this case is defined as over $85,000. So the middle class is thus defined as those in the income range between $82,000 to $85,000. No wonder it’s disappearing, they’ve defined it away.
Comment by cynn on 1/21 @ 8:17 pm #
Well, by that rubric I must be living in the gutter, because I make less than $55,000 for a family of 2. I always find the argument for the supply side shit to be just that.
Comment by Darleen on 1/21 @ 8:49 pm #
cynn
what hubby and I make combined is much higher than yours
but we live in So Cal and if anyone wants to classify us as “rich”, I’ll personally bitch slap ‘em.
Comment by Hillary Clinton on 1/21 @ 8:49 pm #
what I want to know: if Buffet really believes he should be paying more, but is so petty and morally corrupt that he won’t do it unless forced by the government, why should I value or even believe anything he says?
And cynn is partially correct about the middle class paying the bulk of the taxes, all taxes are essentially paid by consumers, the only issue is how it is collected. Corporate and income taxes are paid indirectly, but the cost it passed on to the consumer just like any other business expense. That is why government types hate sales taxes, it makes it too obvious who is paying how much, and it limits there ability to shape and control society through hidden taxation.
Comment by B Moe on 1/21 @ 8:50 pm #
Oops, that was me.
Comment by N. O'Brain on 1/21 @ 9:37 pm #
“Comment by happyfeet on 1/21 @ 7:58 pm #
Do hybrids have to pass emissions tests?”
Yeah, sometimes they emit too much smug.
Comment by N. O'Brain on 1/21 @ 9:39 pm #
And if you mised it, this is for you, HF:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwj8t-wcvtw
Comment by Spies, Brigands, and Pirates on 1/21 @ 9:44 pm #
I think we need to put confiscatory retroactive taxes (complete with fines and penalties) on commodities traders and Arkansas land deals.
Comment by Spies, Brigands, and Pirates on 1/21 @ 9:45 pm #
BTW, what’s up with a secretary for a heavy-hitter like Warren Buffett only making $60K? I’m pretty sure that the senior secretaries where I work make more than that.
Comment by RTO Trainer on 1/21 @ 9:51 pm #
Maybe 60K is just her taxable income.
Comment by thor on 1/21 @ 9:54 pm #
Doth demand too much supply. Gutters are a scarce resource.
Comment by N. O'Brain on 1/21 @ 9:58 pm #
So Warren paid, $8,142,000 in taxes.
His secretary paid $18,000.
Hmmmmm.
Comment by N. O'Brain on 1/21 @ 10:00 pm #
“I always find the argument for the supply side shit to be just that.”
So, you believe that the government owns everything you make, cynn?
Comment by daleyrocks on 1/21 @ 10:04 pm #
“Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton said that if she became president, the federal government would take a more active role in the economy to address what she called the excesses of the market and of the Bush administration.”
Sounds like centralized planning to me. Didn’t that go out with the fall of the Soviet Union?
Do you think she’ll have the balls to propose the traditional Soviet five year plans or will stick to four year plans?
Comment by cynn on 1/21 @ 10:11 pm #
No, unless I am mistaken, supply side means that the richest get huge tax cuts on the expectation that we little people get some drift-down detritus. It’s more philosophy than application.
Comment by N. O'Brain on 1/21 @ 10:16 pm #
“Comment by cynn on 1/21 @ 10:11 pm #
No, unless I am mistaken, supply side means that the richest get huge tax cuts on the expectation that we little people get some drift-down detritus. It’s more philosophy than application.”
That’d be wrong.
Comment by B Moe on 1/21 @ 10:18 pm #
It is common sense, cynn. You allow the best farmers to keep more seed corn, they are going to grow more corn in return. It is obvious.
Comment by cynn on 1/21 @ 10:25 pm #
eB.Moe: Your biblical allusions lead me to this: people who are fertile get to have more kids, right?
NoBrain: OK, whatever.
Comment by B Moe on 1/21 @ 10:50 pm #
“Your biblical allusions lead me to this: people who are fertile get to have more kids, right?”
Biblical allusions? It is personal experience, cynn, and I ain’t that old.
Comment by RTO Trainer on 1/21 @ 10:51 pm #
Cynn,
Have you never heard of supply and demand?
Supply-side economics emphasizes the supply over the demand. You reduce costs by producing more–incereasing supply. Also, though more transparently, you manage inflation by controlling the money supply.
The much maligned and misunderstood “trickle-down” is what happens when employers find that they are spending less on goods/supplies/materials, they can afford to pay more for higher productivity. That’s increasing wages. In addition more production means more jobs. More people working and earning more also translates into higher tax revenues for the government, never mind the Laffer curve.
This also makes overseas sales more attractive regardless of the strength or weakness of the dollar.
Comment by Darleen on 1/21 @ 10:52 pm #
No, unless I am mistaken, supply side means that the richest get huge tax cuts on the expectation that we little people get some drift-down detritus.
Geez, cynn, maybe you missed this
That covetedness thing can really be a bummer.
Comment by RTO Trainer on 1/21 @ 10:54 pm #
That’s essentially right Cynn. Those who are NOT fertile have NO children. And, unless controlled by conscious means, those who are more foecund will have more children.
You can demand a good all you want, if there are none you will get none. In addition, if you have no income to spend, you will experience a similar yield.
Comment by Mike C. on 1/21 @ 10:57 pm #
Another way that Buffet’s not being totally above board with his comparison is that his “income” and that of his secretary are not really the same at all. Every two weeks she gets a check at which time she has approximately $2,000 more than she had the day before. That is income.
Not so with him. Say he bought a stock 5 years ago for $10 million. He sold it last year for $15 million and used that $15 million to buy shares of another stock. The $5 million increase in the value of the stock is considered “income” for tax purposes, even though he never really sees any of it. It is essentially in the same place it was before yet he has made “income” of $5 million.
Comment by Mike C. on 1/21 @ 10:59 pm #
And Cynn, supply-side has more to do with tax rates than tax cuts.
Comment by cynn on 1/21 @ 11:43 pm #
Yeah, Mike C. That totally puts it into perspective. Your pigbag perspective.
Comment by J. Peden on 1/21 @ 11:52 pm #
In one of her most extensive interviews about how she would approach the economy….
That was an interview? Not without Victory Gin coursing our veins, Comrades! …..Comrades?
Comment by Jeff aka Alcyoneus on 1/22 @ 1:11 am #
I agree with Darleen’s unusually honest point. Half of a smaller pie is smaller in absolute terms than half of a larger pie. So what?
Now I will concede a point to the anti-supply-siders: there is a pro-corporate bias to Republican Party politics. It results from an irrational view that corporations are businesses and workers aren’t. Abuse of the H-1b program is a good example. In truth, workers are just little businesses selling their services to the highest bidder on the open market. Workers suffer more regulation than corporations: the employment market is the most over-regulated market in the country, perhaps in the world. Republican Party policies focus too much on benefit to big businesses (Before you flame me, please that I didn’t write Big Business ™ ).
But compared to Democratic Party policies that seek to regulate everything, Republicans look like free traders even though they aren’t. I’ll concede a point to you cynn, but by relative comparison the Republican Party is much, much better.
Comment by Donald on 1/22 @ 6:06 am #
Cynn is what is known as a non-acheiver who hates acheivers. Cynn is a class warfare whore. Cynn, memorized texts in high school to graduate.
Comment by Rusty on 1/22 @ 6:08 am #
Actually, Cynn,The top 10 percent of taxpayers, the richest, pay disproportionately more taxes than the the middle 50 percent.
Once again; Individuals are creators of wealth. Government bodies are consumers of wealth.
Comment by B Moe on 1/22 @ 6:27 am #
“Workers suffer more regulation than corporations: the employment market is the most over-regulated market in the country, perhaps in the world. Republican Party policies focus too much on benefit to big businesses”
So the first step in deregulation would be defunding government Unemployment Offices and abolishing unions? Good luck campaigning on that.
Comment by andy on 1/22 @ 6:59 am #
“Workers suffer more regulation than corporations: the employment market is the most over-regulated market in the country, perhaps in the world”
Not to mentionthat free trade is for business, not workers.
Comment by Big Bang (pumping you up.) on 1/22 @ 7:05 am #
- People who abdurently refuse to kearn even the rudiments of human nature, as applied to any planetary enterprise that matters, are piss poor candidates for discussing economic systems. Start with “there is no free lunch”. Such systems are essentially monatorial representations of human nature, top to bottom. Liberals are perpetually umhappy, because they ignore this small piece of truthiness. Arguing economics with a SecProg is like arguing brain surgery with an Orangatang.
Comment by B Moe on 1/22 @ 7:17 am #
“Not to mentionthat free trade is for business, not workers.”
Uh, no andy. Proponents of free trade would love to see the deregulation of labor.
Comment by N. O'Brain on 1/22 @ 7:28 am #
“Comment by Rusty on 1/22 @ 6:08 am #
Actually, Cynn,The top 10 percent of taxpayers, the richest, pay disproportionately more taxes than the the middle 50 percent.”
And how fair is that?
Comment by Pablo on 1/22 @ 7:28 am #
As a worker, I’m not obligated to do anything. I can opt out any time I like, without repucussion or regulatory hassles. Though probably not in actus’ world.
Comment by Darleen on 1/22 @ 8:12 am #
free trade is for business, not workers.
Tell that to the millions of illegal aliens who take advantage of their power to negotiate the underground, cash economy while getting all the welfare goodies (free education, free medical, etc).
Comment by otcconan on 1/22 @ 8:34 am #
I would no sooner trust Hillary Clinton with the economy of this country than I would Stalin or Fidel.
Governmental control over the economy is a Fascist idea. Jonah Goldberg is right.
Comment by Big Bang (pumping you up.) on 1/22 @ 9:01 am #
- All Socialists are Fascist by nature.
Comment by Donald on 1/22 @ 9:31 am #
By the way, I’ve got a guy who works for me who is grumbling about how I run my business. He thinks I am rich and am “getting over”. Friday is his last day. Georgia, a right to work state. I got your recession right here.
Comment by Mike C. on 1/22 @ 9:46 am #
Re: #56 cynn
Your rhetorical wizardry has, like, totally won me over! Now I realize the reason I don’t have more is because those bastards at the top have it! It’s not, like, incentives that drive an economy. It’s equality! I’m, like, so excited about this epiphany (I had to look that word up, I can’t believe there’s no “f” in it!) I had after you set me straight. If everybody makes the same no matter how much work they do, imagine how much more productive everyone will be. I even figured out how we could implement it in our company and I’ve prepared a PowerPoint I’m presenting to my boss. He’s gonna love it! And if he doesn’t I’ll just make sure Hillary wins so that we can take all the excess money he makes and spread it out among the rest of us, who are much more deserving of it.
Comment by RTO Trainer on 1/22 @ 9:48 am #
Well, no.
They are evils from opposite ends of the political spectrum. They LOOK similiar because the means of human oppression are identical.
Comment by MarkD on 1/22 @ 10:09 am #
If the government were a business, it would be in Chapter 7 Bankrupcy. It never meets its budget. Nothing is ever cut. OK, I lied – they actually did stop the telephone excise tax enacted to fund the Spanish American war. Social Security is a Ponzi scheme that would land any business executive in prison.
This is what we want taking a more active role in the economy? Led by someone who has never managed any sort of budget. This has to be a joke.
Comment by JHoward on 1/22 @ 10:32 am #
If the government were a business, fiscally it’d be the mob, MarkD.
Comment by JHoward on 1/22 @ 10:36 am #
Is it settled? Has cynn admitted expecting her government to legalize and enforce her envy?
Comment by Cowboy is a compliment on 1/22 @ 10:40 am #
[i]They are evils from opposite ends of the political spectrum. They LOOK similiar because the means of human oppression are identical.[/i]
I disagree. Nationalist Socialists (fascists), Soviet Socialists (communists), etc. are all on the same end of the political spectrum. It is in the lefts interest to pretend that the Nazis are right wing. The extreme right wing is no-control Libertarian types.
Comment by Carin on 1/22 @ 10:42 am #
I believe – I’m only on chapter two of the book – that Goldberg would say the opposite: that all fascists are socialist by nature.
Comment by charles austin on 1/22 @ 10:57 am #
Try to have a serious discussion and all you get in response are unresponsive know-nothing partisan hacks flinging one flaming bag of feces after another. Jeez…
Comment by daleyrocks on 1/22 @ 11:07 am #
Hillary: All your incomes are belong to me. I’m looking at you workers and businesses.
Comment by RTO Trainer on 1/22 @ 11:59 am #
Nazism is extreme right wing. The name “National Socialist” is not descriptive–it is an accidnert of history and the organization’s development. It bears no more resemblance to reality than any of the various “People’s Democratic Republics” do.
Bear in mind to that when someone points out that Nazis are right wing–that’s right wing on the total political spectrum. The entirety of US political ideology inhabits a vanishingly small portion of that spectrum on the left wing side–democracy, republicanism and constitutionalism are all left wing.
Comment by Old Texas Turkey on 1/22 @ 12:09 pm #
by stocks today. no recession.
OT/off
Comment by Big Bang (pumping you up.) on 1/22 @ 4:12 pm #
- Whenever you send someone out to do labor, and when they get done producing you say. “Ok, you’ve done all that work while I sat here and thought of all sorts of cool ways I could spend your money, and you better “share” or I’ll get the gpvernment on your ass, because I’m entitled, and iots fair just because I said so, so fork it over sucka”. Then you have yourself a Fascism, and I don’t care how the fuck you try to gussy it up, or what you want to call it. Anytime you take (steal) the fruits of another persons labor using a corrupted government to cover your sneaky ass, its Fascism. Even worse, when you base an entire party (cult) based around that most Fascist of ideas.
Trackback by free casino bonus on 6/27 @ 5:03 am #
juegos poker descarga gratis…
Tarif poker en casino ringtones converter slot machines spielen giochi roulette gratis free casino bonus…
Trackback by world poker tours on 6/27 @ 1:21 pm #
stip poker gratuites…
IndiesemFall gagner au video poker bonus forum casino770 play wize poker poker casino gratuites gioca a poker on line…
Comment by directory on 11/12 @ 9:56 am #
de, – Sunday, February 22, 2004 at 11:47:29 (PST)