Search






Jeff's Amazon.com Wish List

Archive Calendar

November 2024
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Archives

progressive tax cutting and the theater of the absurd (or, Jabberwocky incarnate)

`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

From the WSJ, “Obama Talks Nonsense on Tax Cuts”:

Now we know: 95% of Americans will get a “tax cut” under Barack Obama after all. Those on the receiving end of a check will include the estimated 44% of Americans who will owe no federal income taxes under his plan.

In most parts of America, getting money back on taxes you haven’t paid sounds a lot like welfare. Ah, say the Obama people, you forget: Even those who pay no income taxes pay payroll taxes for Social Security. Under the Obama plan, they say, these Americans would get an income tax credit up to $500 based on what they are paying into Social Security.

Just two little questions: If people are going to get a tax refund based on what they pay into Social Security, then we’re not really talking about income tax relief, are we? And if what we’re really talking about is payroll tax relief, doesn’t that mean billions of dollars in lost revenue for a Social Security trust fund that is already badly underfinanced?

Austan Goolsbee, the University of Chicago economic professor who serves as one of Sen. Obama’s top advisers, discussed these issues during a recent appearance on Fox News. There he stated that the answer to the first question is that these Americans are getting an income tax rebate. And the answer to the second is that the money would not actually come out of Social Security.

“You can’t just cut the payroll tax because that’s what funds Social Security,” Mr. Goolsbee told Fox’s Shepard Smith. “So if you tried to do that, you would undermine the Social Security Trust Fund.”

Now, if you have been following this so far, you have learned that people who pay no income tax will get an income tax refund. You have also learned that this check will represent relief for the payroll taxes these people do pay. And you have been assured that this rebate check won’t actually come out of payroll taxes, lest we harm Social Security.

You have to admire the audacity. With one touch of the Obama magic, what otherwise would be described as taking money from Peter to pay Paul is now transformed into Paul’s tax relief. Where a tax cut for payroll taxes paid will not in fact come from payroll taxes. And where all these plans come together under the rhetorical umbrella of “Making Work Pay.”

Not everyone is persuaded. Andrew Biggs is a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and a former Social Security Administration official who has written a great deal about Mr. Obama’s plans on his blog (AndrewGBiggs.blogspot.com). He notes that to understand the unintended consequences, it helps to remember that while people at the bottom pay a higher percentage of their income in payroll taxes, they are accruing benefits in excess of what they pay in.

“It’s interesting that Mr. Obama calls his plan ‘Making Work Pay,'” says Mr. Biggs, “because the incentives are just the opposite. By expanding benefits for people whose benefits exceed their taxes, you’re increasing their disincentive for work. And you’re doing the same at the top of the income scale, where you are raising their taxes so you can distribute the revenue to others.”

Even more interesting is what Mr. Obama’s “tax cuts” do to Social Security financing. As Mr. Biggs notes, had Mr. Obama proposed to pay for payroll tax relief out of, well, payroll taxes, his plan would never have a chance in Congress. Most members would look at a plan that defunded a trust fund that seniors are counting on for their retirement as political suicide.

And that leads us to the heart of this problem. If the government is going to give tax cuts to 44% of American based on their Social Security taxes — without actually refunding to them the money they are paying into Social Security — Mr. Obama will have to get the funds elsewhere. And this is where “general revenues” turns out to be a more agreeable way of saying “Other People’s Money.”

Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!”

He took his vorpal sword in hand:
Long time the manxome foe he sought —
So rested he by the Tumtum tree,
And stood awhile in thought.

And, as in uffish thought he stood,
The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
And burbled as it came!
:

Barack Obama says he plans to cut taxes for 95 percent of American workers. That sounds terrific, but there are three problems. One, it is meant to draw attention from the real core of the Obama tax plan: proposed increases in every major federal tax. Two, the structure of the cuts will create perverse incentives. And three, many of the people receiving “tax cuts” don’t pay taxes to begin with, meaning they’ll be in effect getting welfare.

The first point requires but a simple list. Obama proposes to raise the top two individual income tax rates by 25 percent or more, through both explicit rate increases and the phaseout of personal exemptions and all itemized deductions for upper-income earners. He’ll increase the capital-gains tax rate by 33 percent, the tax rate on dividends by 33 percent, and the top payroll-tax rate by 16 to 32 percent. He’ll create a new payroll tax for national health insurance, estimated at 7 percent. He’ll reinstate the death/inheritance tax, which is being phased out under current law, with a new top marginal rate of 45 percent. He’ll increase the corporate tax burden by 25 percent “by closing corporate loopholes and tax havens.” He’ll even increase tariffs through his protectionist trade policies.

Obama argues that only higher-income workers and rich corporations will suffer these tax increases, and they can afford it. But tax and economic policy is not about who “can afford it.” Increasing these marginal tax rates greatly harms the economy — when more of the money earned goes to the government, there’s less incentive for “the rich” to work, save, invest, and create and expand businesses. This affects people trying to start businesses with investment money from wealthy folks. Not to mention people looking for jobs, which usually come from businesspeople with money.

This isn’t just a theory. Ireland adopted a 12.5 percent corporate tax rate 20 years ago, when it suffered the second-lowest per capita GDP in the European Union (EU). Its economy boomed as a result, and today Ireland enjoys the second highest per-capita GDP in the EU. Ireland, with its 12.5-percent rate, raises 50 percent more corporate-tax revenue as a percent of GDP than the U.S. does with its 35 percent rate. Yet Barack Obama laughs at McCain’s proposal to reduce that corporate rate to 25 percent, the minimum needed to restore international competitiveness for U.S. companies and employers, mocking it as still more tax cuts for rich corporate fat cats.

One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back.

“And, has thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!’
He chortled in his joy.

Obama’s tax plan is exactly the opposite of the supply-side economics that Reagan adopted, which produced the astounding boom of the 1980s. That boom, in fact, lasted 25 years, from 1982 to 2007, as Art Laffer and Steve Moore discuss in their new book, The End of Prosperity. Laffer and Moore explain that more wealth was produced during those 25 years than in the previous 200 years of American history.

Obama’s tax plan is also exactly the opposite of President Kennedy’s, which produced another astounding boom in the 1960s. Pursuing the exact opposite policies from Kennedy and Reagan will produce exactly the opposite results.

[…]

Finally, Obama’s “tax cut,” if he follows through with it, will often be a simple giveaway. As it stands right now, roughly one-third of income earners pay no federal income taxes. Many actually receive payments from the income-tax system — these payments total 3.8 percent of all federal taxes paid. Simple arithmetic holds that if one-third of earners don’t pay income tax, it’s impossible to cut taxes for 95 percent of earners.

Obama’s “tax cut” is, in reality, a $500-per-worker refundable income-tax credit for workers making up to $75,000 per year, and for families making up to $150,000. The term “refundable” means that if the worker does not have enough tax liability to take advantage of the credit, the government sends the worker a check to cover the full amount of the credit anyway. It is like George McGovern’s 1972 promise of a $1,000 check for everyone, which the American people rejected as a crass vote-buying scheme.

Besides the $500-per-worker credit, Obama proposes a slew of income-tax credits targeted toward low- and moderate-income people, also refundable. Obama proposes such tax credits for child care, education, housing, retirement, health care, welfare, etc.

Though the people receiving these credits will spend the money, the programs will probably hurt the economy on net, because the credits will be phased out at higher income levels. This, in effect, constitutes yet another marginal tax on high-income earners, and thus another blow to their incentives to be productive.

These programs alone would cost $1.3 trillion over ten years. I call it The New Tax Welfare.

`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe…

243 Replies to “progressive tax cutting and the theater of the absurd (or, Jabberwocky incarnate)”

  1. happyfeet says:

    There will be a generated crisis.

  2. Sdferr says:

    Wherein they will be poor and deserving of it, for it will be what they have chosen, though forewarned.

  3. urthshu says:

    Scary!

  4. Rusty says:

    Yer preachin’ to the choir here, Jff, but I’d like to hear thors pained and twisted justification for the “O’s tax program.

  5. twolaneflash says:

    Neal Cavuto on FOX News this evening had Democrat strategist Malia Lazu embracing the words “redistribute the wealth”, stating that the rich made their wealth “off the backs of working class people”, and that, further, “when someone becomes rich, it means that other people will be poor.”. Someone should YouTube Obama strategist Malia Lazu explaining the non-Joe explanation of Obamanomics. Socialism! It’s what’s for dinner!

  6. Old Dad says:

    Jeff, Jeff, Jeff…we simply don’t get it. Sure the One’s math would embarass a third grader. Sure his policies will lead to huge deficits and economic collapse. Sure, we’re on the brink of socialism. But what we don’t get is this–the One is “magic.”

    Facts–meh–math–pshaw-reality–not on the One’s watch. Besides, we’re not thinking enough about Michelle’s kids.

    And by the way, a certain blogger at a certain posh DC based magazine has questions about the paternity of Michelle’s kids. Oh wait, never mind.

  7. Dash Rendar says:

    Except the individual family’s portion of the national wealth is greater than their share of the national debt.

    And meya and ST assume that tax revenue will somehow pay off the national debt whilst damaging the economy, laffer curve people, effing incredible. And otherwise, does anyone in the known universe think O! will use more tax revenue to pay off the national debt or fund every asshole social program the dems come up with?

  8. Dash Rendar says:

    O!: “A national civilian corp with funding and resources matching the military” -$500 Billion

    O!: Global Poverty Act, ~$1 Trillion over ~decade

    + whatever Pelosi/Reid send down the pipe, Hello deficit spending!

  9. Jeff G. says:

    The Outstanding Public Debt as of 21 Oct 2008 at 10:59:49 PM GMT is:

    $10,468,801,420,125.72

    This basically amounts to tax payments that have been deferred.

    Or necessary cuts to spending waiting to happen.

    Funny you ignored the Ireland example offered in the piece, though — or the relationship between corporate tax rate cuts and tax revenue.

  10. dre says:

    “Yeah, and the Clinton years were a nightmare.”

    They were if you think terrorists attacks against America are nightmares.

  11. dre says:

    “That balanced budget almost destroyed our economy forever.”

    Thank Mr. Newt Speaker of the House where spending bills originate for that.

  12. Dash Rendar says:

    “Yeah, and the Clinton years were a nightmare.”

    Contract with America, asshole. Progs tend to overlook Congress when it suits them, sort of like since 2006.

  13. meya says:

    “And meya and ST assume that tax revenue will somehow pay off the national debt whilst damaging the economy, laffer curve people, effing incredible. And otherwise, does anyone in the known universe think O! will use more tax revenue to pay off the national debt or fund every asshole social program the dems come up with?”

    If he acts like hoover, he’ll pay debt and balance budgets and cut spending. But in depression times you want to be running deficits and spending spending spending…. Good thing we saved up in the good times like responsible citizens!

  14. dre says:

    “And how exactly did the GOP cut spending during six years of absolute control?”

    They didn’t. But here’s the future under Demorat control:

    “”I think at this point there needs to be a focus on an immediate increase in spending, and I think this is a time when deficit fear has to take a second seat,” [Barney]Frank said.

    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78660

  15. Sdferr says:

    Six years of dreamy Absolute Control. Oh, how we long for all those non-existent filibuster proof majorities, we do.

  16. dre says:

    “But in depression times you want to be running deficits and spending spending spending…”

    You fools want to repeat the failures of St. FDR.

  17. MarkJ says:

    Neal Cavuto on FOX News this evening had Democrat strategist Malia Lazu embracing the words “redistribute the wealth”, stating that the rich made their wealth “off the backs of working class people”, and that, further, “when someone becomes rich, it means that other people will be poor.”. Someone should YouTube Obama strategist Malia Lazu explaining the non-Joe explanation of Obamanomics. Socialism! It’s what’s for dinner!

    Malia Lazu is a “strategist?” She obviously hasn’t been to “strategist school” where the first two commandments learned by students are:

    1. Always keep your mouth shut.

    and

    2. Don’t tip your hand.

    Jeez, I’ll bet Obama is already thinking there ain’t enough duct tape in the world to slap over all the flapping pie-holes in his campaign.

  18. dre says:

    “And how exactly did the GOP cut spending during six years of absolute control?”

    That is another thing about you clowns that I despise. You idiots act like the filibuster just disappeared when the GOP was in charge.

  19. Spies, Brigands, and Pirates says:

    Yeah, and the Clinton years were a nightmare.

    No, it was like a really great, no-holds barred party.

    The hangover kinda sucked, though. As did the realization that the dude in charge had spent all the insurance money on that last keg.

    That aside, I’d much rather that Billary was at the head of the Dem ticket than Obama. I know the country can survive four years of the Clintons.

    And how exactly did the GOP cut spending during six years of absolute control?

    Oh, there was plenty of pork handed out during those years, you betcha.

    Are you under the impression that most people here are doctrinaire Republicans?

    Hint: you’re wrong.

  20. ducktrapper says:

    You’re just going to love Canadian style taxation! I voted for Conservative P.M. Harper because he’s the only Canadian party leader who said he wouldn’t raise taxes. The catch? As if they aren’t already high enough.

  21. Makewi says:

    It is of course laughable that the Democrats will cut spending. They will however increase taxes and increase the number of people who don’t pay taxes at all, and instead get welfare from the rest of the population. I’m sure nothing bad can come of this.

  22. dicentra says:

    ST, you frumious Bandersnatch. Don’t you get it?

    George Bush is a “compassionate conservative,” which means that he spends like a drunken sailor at a slightly slower rate than the Dems.

    The battle cry of the GoP has lately been “vote for us, the other guys are worse.”

    Not. Inspirational.

    Now maybe put that straw man back on your front porch where it belongs, next to the punkins.

    And get educated on Senate procedures: the GoP didn’t have 60 seats, so they didn’t have Absolute Control.

    Geez, ST. You leftie trolls are no fun at all.

  23. Dash Rendar says:

    @ 26

    again, you think that those here aren’t critical of Bush. The prevailing wisdom on our side is that Bush sacrificed large parts of his domestic agenda (lower spending among other things) to insure that his foreign policy would be unmolested by the defeatist assholes in your party.

  24. dre says:

    “Your WorldNutDaily link doesn’t seem to be working, but I have a feeling that quote exists in the same contextual continuum as that of the noted socialist George W. Bush.”

    “Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) says that it’s time for “a very important kind of dose of Keynesianism” and that he would recommend to a President Obama that he not fear deficits now but spend, spend, spend. The money, says Frank, can always be recovered later by taxing the rich.”

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/023591.html

  25. dre says:

    “Funny, I seem to recall W getting pretty much every thing he wanted. The Hammer saw to it.”

    The hammer been out of business for the last 3 years dolt. And Social Security didn’t get the W reform.

  26. Rick Smith says:

    I’m getting tired of hearing about the Clinton surplus. First of all the balanced budget was forced on Clinton by Newt Gingrich and the Republican’ Contract with America. Clinton vetoed it before finally accepting. Second the surplus was a myth. It was based on future collections that failed to happen after the dot.com bubble burst and receipts from capital gains were retarded. Their has never been a Democrat administration with any fiscal respnsibilty and there will never be. They buy votes with taxpayer money. Pandering to the poor and the middle class when they can. Obamas tax plan is a collectivist scam. He is not only proposing a continuation of progressive taxation, he is proposing a regressive plan that would directly give handouts to one segment of our society and take from others. There is not even the normal Democratic smoke screen involved in this plan. He has made it plain that he wants to make it punitive in the name of fairness. This is explicitly a plan to punish those that have attained a certain amount of success. He has admitted that he wants to do that even if it costs the government tax revenues. This is unfortunanely an easy sale in the US today, when the tax burden is falling primarily on a very small percentage of our population. Obviously, I don’t like our current tax system, but I dislike the propensity of our politicans to piss other peoples money away even more. Both parties are guilty of this, but the Democrats revel in it.

  27. SDN says:

    meya, when you can prove you understand the fundamental difference between a tax cut (GOP) and a tax credit (Demorats), you might have something to say.

    Hint: tax cuts only benefit you if you actually pay taxes. Tax credits send you a piece of the government’s stolen goods whether you contributed to the size of the haul or not.

  28. SDN says:

    Oh, and the six years absolute control is also a lie; anyone remember Jumpin’ Jim Jeffords in 2001-2002?

  29. dre says:

    “STdicentra – cite one instance where a Demorat Republican effort to cut spending was foiled by obstructionism in the Senate during those years.”

  30. Sdferr says:

    Hey, dicentra, quick, name all the proposals that weren’t undertaken because their proponents knew that without a filibuster proof majority there was no hope of getting their bills through the Senate. Oh, snap ST. You’ve got her there don’t you?

  31. Makewi says:

    This is a fun game and all, but the O! heads are just being obtuse. While it is true that the GOP spent like drunken sailors, it is also true that Obama is on record as promising to increase spending.

  32. TmjUtah says:

    Obama Economic Agenda:

    Bread , meet Circus.

    Any questions?

  33. Makewi says:

    Right you are ST, the GOP did that (with help from the Democrats). So Obama’s solution? Spend More.

    So what exactly is your argument then?

  34. dre says:

    “Rebublican president has spent an amount of public money that would make FDR blush.”

    Let’s see the inflation adjusted figures for 1940-45 vs 2001-2008.

  35. Sdferr says:

    I am not whining ST, though it doesn’t surprise me that you might think I am and attribute outright falsehoods to me. But then, you have at times seemed to me to be a mendacious sort of fellow. I have never written that Pres. Bush has done well in everything he’s done (or spent), but then I’ve never written that everything he’s done — including many of the Federal expenditures he has encouraged and otherwise sanctioned — have all been wrong either.

    Who has said anything about un-American in this thread, other than you of course? Not I at any rate.

    I don’t much cotton to other people putting falsehoods in my mouth, thanks very much.

  36. Rick Smith says:

    ST

    FDR never blushed about spending other peoples money. What even leads you to believe this might be true? Yes, Bush committed tax payer money to Medicaid, two wars, and an increase in foreign aid to country’s in need due to natural disasters and disease. He also spent tax payer monies to help the gulf coast after Katrina, the most expensive storm in our history. Which of these do you object to? Let me guess. The war in Iraq. Right? Different arguement, probably different opinions. Oh by the way, Congress spends the money, the President only administers the expenditures as dictated by the budget which Congress presents to him. The budget is the most contentious piece of legislation every year and it is time restricted, often for advantage politically. Jesus Christ, this partisan bickering needs to have some semblance of knowledge about the way our political system works.

  37. the ghost of Jeffrey Dahmer says:

    American children, by all accounts, are too fatty. Better to eat a European kid, or better an African. After you fuck them of course.

  38. ducktrapper says:

    You folks barely even know what taxes are. Canadian “Liberals” crow that they were able to balance the budget. As Mark Steyn opined, if you can’t balance the budget on Canadian level taxes, it will never be balanced. Try it, you’ll like it. Well, it won’t kill you outright, anyway.

  39. JHoward says:

    ST, you stupid partisan bastard, Pelosi just called for another 300B in bailouts. The Dems were all hot for the first 700B, so much so they tried including a half billion a year for ACORN.

    Don’t even try that crap about fiscally-responsible socialists blowing the entitlement budgets through the roof while slashing defense, the one justified duty of national government.

    You want to chat the debt, start with monetary policy. Start with the M3. Start with the entitlement wedge. Start with government running a very rapid, linear expansion of ownership while the private sector goes inversely broke.

    You’re an idiot, proving daily the adage about a little knowledge.

  40. Rusty says:

    #40
    Comment by ST on 10/21 @ 6:08 pm #

    Sdferr – you can whine all you want. The fact is that for over eight years, a Rebublican president has spent an amount of public money that would make FDR blush.

    And the beauty of it is, there seems to be this opinion that worrying about that fact is somehow un-American.

    No. Worrying about it is fine. But the way to raise federal revenues is not to beggar the people who pay the freight.And you most certainly do not increase taxes going into a recession. The most certain way to raise federal revenues is to decrease taxes and get more money into circulation. Low taxes are an incentive for people to use their resources to create wealth and thus provide more tax revenue. Really. This is very basic economics. it shouldn’t be too hard to grasp.

    #45
    Cleo. You are so mind numbingly, teeth grindingly, bone fuckingly stupid that the vast wasteland that exists between your ears should be taxed at the highest possible rate, if for no other reason than to keep you from breeding and imposing the utter agony of future generations ever having to experience your demonically insipid drivel.Please. Do the rest of the world a favor and take up drugs, or skydiving.

  41. JHoward says:

    Miss Clio, you were completely wrong about Reagan the last time you floated that myth and I proved it. Do we really have to go through this all over again or are you just dropping your drawers again because you like the attention?

  42. Jonas Sedlar says:

    yes indeed. And who do ya think is responsible for this economic mess we’re in?

    Reagan, Bush I and Bush II, Fuck Bush III!!!!

    See, here’s what you “progressives” have done to American governance during the past century: You have established as gospel a set of premises that weren’t supposed to apply. You have elevated and empowered the role of the presidency far beyond its intended status, thus making it possible for someone to actually state — with a straight face — that some single human being is “responsible” for the economy.

    You guys won this fight a long time ago. Your FDRs and Kennedys, and the emotionally charged followings they elicited, have turned the presidency into something it was never supposed to be. Your ideology made its headway during the 20th century, and is now about to enjoy its ultimate triumph: the coronation of an American king. All this stuff about Bush-did-this, nuh-uh-Clinton-did-that, is just hair-splitting. These guys all operated within the paradigm you created, where the presidency has a singular power it wasn’t intended to have. And now you’re getting the president who really fills the bill, custom made for the Super-Duper Magical Omnipotent Ruling Leading Boss Guy presidency that you have created for us.

    You loused up the American experiment, the one that was supposed to combine individual liberty and limited government and the rule of law to see how things went. You cut it off in midflight. We didn’t get a chance to finish it. Thanks a whole bunch, and you suck.

  43. dre says:

    “yes indeed. And who do ya think is responsible for this economic mess we’re in?”

    FDR, Johnson, Carter, Clinton, Schumer, Frank, Dodd, Pelosi, Raines, Johnson, Rangel, Murtha et al

  44. Sdferr says:

    And the so called “lines crossing problem”, just what are we to do about that, pray tell?

  45. JHoward says:

    ST, dicentra’s link is the final nail in your rhetorical coffin. Admit it.

    Speaking of Keynesianism, I suggest you pay a little more attention to the track of the annual rate of change in fiat currency between the years marking Reagan’s presidency and those ending Clinton’s — it’s but one indicator but it’s a doozey. I mean since presidents run the Fed and all. We’ll call this the m-o-n-e-y s-u-p-p-l-y.

    http://nowandfutures.com/images/m3b_long_term.png

    Or for that matter, entitlement spending, a Democrat specialty.

    http://mwhodges.home.att.net/fedcomp.gif

    And finally, when did Reaganomics start? Under Carter:

    http://home.att.net/~mwhodges/debt.gif

    So give up already with the partisan rubbish. All this is simply systemic.

  46. Sdferr says:

    Bush offered to try to solve the easiest part of the lines crossing, namely, Social Security and in a magnificent gesture of reaching across the aisles, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid took a baseball bat to him. Super! And we’re on our way!

  47. Carin says:

    I see Cleo’s gone off his rocker …

  48. JHoward says:

    ST is simply immune to the entire comment at #55. It then stands to reason that ST would be consistent and vote for a Socialist for the balanced budgets.

  49. Makewi says:

    One possible reason could be that taxing and spending responsibly, rather than borrowing and spending like there’s no tomorrow isn’t such a wacky idea after all.

    Sure, perhaps, if that is what Obama was proposing. Of course, what we are hearing is that he plans to increase spending and cut taxes (on 95% of Americans). Perhaps “nominal conservatives” are just willing to buy whatever bullshit is being peddled to get to be “part of history”. I’m not entirely unsympathetic to that line of thought, but let’s not pretend that Obama is going to be fiscally responsible.

  50. Makewi says:

    He didn’t fail. He protected the United States against enemies foreign and domestic. It isn’t a popularity contest, despite what many wish to make it.

  51. happyfeet says:

    Free enterprise is exciting and fun. Socialism is suffocating and a denigration of the individual. Baracky is suffocating and a denigration of the individual. I hate him more than I hate Kenny and I hate Kenny’s stupid socialist face a lot.

  52. happyfeet says:

    What will the official socialism magazine be? I bet it’s Time. Newsweek will wanna play too but without the socialist man of the year franchise I don’t see it happening for them and there can be only one voice really.

  53. JHoward says:

    Miss Clio is indeed off her nut:

    The only measure of proof you’ve offered is your slavish insistence on the merits of Reaganomics, sans substantiation.

    Ooh. Wrong. Fail. Bzzt. Maybe you missed this next part then, Clio. It’s days old.

    https://proteinwisdom.com/?p=13467#comment-565366

    Or maybe you’re dishonest. I guess we’ll never know, as craftily as you’ve disguised yourself.

    That isn’t proof. It’s an engineer’s Right-brain atrophy.

    Because economics statistics old factual stuff is such a mysterious, intuitive, feminine thing. Actually, I usually find this easy stuff playing some Billie while swirling port in front of my O’Keefe collection in candelight, Clio, preferably during power outages. Then it just comes to me.

    You?

  54. JHoward says:

    dre’s link, ST. You go, boy!

  55. TmjUtah says:

    This Bush administration accomplished three great things:

    1. It enacted a long-term, effective strategy to counter Islamic terrorism world wide, based on the classic priniciples of self government and publica and unabashed faith in the potential for humanity to improve itself under freedom.

    2. The initial legislative agenda of the administration, most notably the efforts to improve federal education policy and the (in my opinion) misdirected prescription drug entitlement were marked by sincere and public efforts on the part of the president to establish a “new tone”, as he had proposed in his first campaign. Senator Kennedy did in fact write much of the key elements of NCLB; wrote it to sabotage the impact, but Bush allowed the legislation to move forward to establish a record of bipartisanship.

    And he got paid back for (1) and (2) by being fucked dry for the last eight years.

    Three is my favortite:

    (3) Ended the Clinton narcissism/media enabling PR blitz that ensured that turning on any TV to any channel at any time during the after 1991 would become an even chance to see the First Horndog in his latest drama.

    For that, Mr. Bush, America thanks you.

    Candidates for the presidency have been telling me that the debt, the deficit, entitlements, and especially Social Security will destroy us… since the 1970’s.

    It’s not entitlements that are the problem. It’s bread and circuses incumbent politicians – Republicans out of laziness and corruption, Democrats by definition and design, that is the threat.

    I’m not interested in bipartisanship any more. Not in the least. Not until at least two thirds of the sitting incumbents in Congress are ejected.

    And you know what? We’ll be seeing quite a bit of bipartisanship in the next little bit, and exactly for that reason: the bums will band together when we begin to throw them out.

  56. Spies, Brigands, and Pirates says:

    ST’s entire “argument”, summarized:

    Because Republicans did some stuff you might not like, you should vote for my guy, who promises much more of the same.

    Do you really think anyone is going to be swayed by that “argument”, ST?

    Really?

    Weren’t you taking us to task a little while ago for being “anti-intellectual”?

    Funny, in my backward hick school, they taught us that this technique of pseudo-argumentation was called the tu quoque fallacy.

    Oh, if only I’d gone to a more progressive school!

  57. Spies, Brigands, and Pirates says:

    Decided to declare victory and run away, eh, ST? Probably a wise decision at this stage.

  58. happyfeet says:

    NPR says it’s over and polls change sometimes but not this time cause America is gonna goddamn well have its socialism and fucking like it bitches. But the cell phones. Ha ha bitches. Teh CELl PHoNeS!!! nightmare scenario.

  59. dicentra says:

    dicentra – cite one instance where a Republican effort to cut spending was foiled by obstructionism in the Senate during those years.

    Oh, for the sake of Pete, ST. Engage your brain first, then read what I said, then snark off if I deserve it.

    How many times do I have to say that THE GOP HAVE BEEN SPENDING MONEY LIKE DRUNKEN SAILORS and that’s why we let them lose in 2006?

    Ten?

    And the beauty of it is, there seems to be this opinion that worrying about that fact is somehow un-American.

    Twenty?

    Seriously, I warned you to put that straw man back on the porch, but NO, you had to go and light a match.

    You’re under 30, aren’t you? It shows…

  60. Sdferr says:

    It’s called fiscal responsibility.

    Aw heck, just when I was beginning to believe you were on to something and might go a little further to start answering that nagging lines crossing problem with us, if not the simpler “where to cut the discretionary budget?”, now you’re going to bug out for a lousy video game? Hang it all, as they say.

  61. happyfeet says:

    Is it gay to want to have Orson Scott Card’s baby?

  62. Makewi says:

    Nah. It’s only gay if you try. NTTAWWT.

  63. Ric Locke says:

    JHoward and others, give it up.

    Semanticleo, like thor, is an elitist bigot. (You might, for a moment, contemplate the distinction between “elite” and “elitist”.) George Bush should have turned out roughly equivalent to, say, John Kerry. Instead he went off and started associated with the damned nasty Texans. Semanticleo isn’t complaining about a politician. She is raging at an apostate. Like Lemiel Swarkop, she marvels to see a decent elitist in such a plight.

    ST, meya, and several others are not “progressives” in any sense of the word that could be described as rational. They are reactionaries who have rejected the central discovery that made it possible to feed them: that wealth is produced. They don’t believe that. Wealth just happens, and since they’ve rejected the concept of a Creator as well it has to be strictly by chance — and since the wealthy person at best has gotten it without effort, and at worst has stolen it from someone else, it’s perfectly fair to relieve Teh Rich of their ill-gotten gains.

    It is the mentality of the hunter-gatherer-scavenger. Sometimes you find food, sometimes you don’t, and it’s all by chance or the work of the Gods; human effort has nothing to do with it. The human race lived that life for 99% of its existence, the concepts are bred in our bones, and it takes intellectual effort to overcome them. Those who are unwilling to exert that effort will always revert, by ten millenia or so, to that lifestyle.

    YOU WILL NEVER CONVINCE THEM that the word “production” means anything, and attempting to do so simply annoys the pigs. In the past there have been mechanisms for suppressing them; those mechanisms have now broken down, and the result is more or less inevitable. The hunter-gatherer-scavenger lifestyle will not support a large population, and won’t support a small population in any sort of luxury. By insisting that it is The Only Fair Way, they are demanding a return to depending on the lions to kill a wildebeest so that some of them may have a bit of meat. They have no intention of smashing anything; but by treating any concentration of wealth as occurring by chance and demanding “their fair share”, they inevitably destroy it, and are deeply puzzled when that happens — they had no such intention.

    The difference between an agricultural society and an industrial one is that, in the former, land upon which to grow crops fits the hunter-gatherer-scavenger ethos: there is only so much of it, it occurs where it occurs without human intervention, and controlling it means somebody else is deprived; whereas in an industrial economy, the basis of wealth — the means of production — must itself be produced, and that requires removing resources from the rest of the population to, e.g., build factories with. When a hunter-gatherer-scavenger band falls upon a farm and treats it as a windfall of discovered food, the farmer is ruined but the land remains; when they fall upon “capital” and treat it as a windfall, the factory goes away and is not replaced. They will starve to death (except for their Maximum Leader(s), who will seize the remnants on the ground that it isn’t fair anyone should have more) before they ever, ever understand the least bit of that.

    Which wouldn’t bother me in the least if it didn’t mean that I starve, too.

    Regards,
    Ric

  64. ducktrapper says:

    Happyfeet – Um, yes, I’d say it would be pretty gay. Not that anything’s wrong with it.

  65. happyfeet says:

    But… I love him.*

  66. ducktrapper says:

    Ric – Intelligent and concise. Thanks, I’ll be using some heaping helpings of that against my “liberal” pals.

  67. David says:

    Guess that there is a downside for using your childern as props:

    AP INVESTIGATION: Alaska funded Palin kids’ travel

    ANCHORAGE, Alaska – Gov. Sarah Palin charged the state for her children to travel with her, including to events where they were not invited, and later amended expense reports to specify that they were on official business.

    The charges included costs for hotel and commercial flights for three daughters to join Palin to watch their father in a snowmobile race, and a trip to New York, where the governor attended a five-hour conference and stayed with 17-year-old Bristol for five days and four nights in a luxury hotel.

    In all, Palin has charged the state $21,012 for her three daughters’ 64 one-way and 12 round-trip commercial flights since she took office in December 2006. In some other cases, she has charged the state for hotel rooms for the girls.

    But, but… she’s got great hair!

  68. dre says:

    I just wonder if the the guy in “The Sting” has pushed the button? Man we are f###ed!!!

  69. Spies, Brigands, and Pirates says:

    David Axelrod?

  70. Mark A. Flacy says:

    Why do you think so many nominal conservatives have endorsed Obama?

    Well, I should think that “nominal” would explain such a thing.

  71. ducktrapper says:

    David – You’re kidding right? You don’t care if Obama actually eats those late term live birth abortions but you get all hard over Palin’s travelling with her family? I’m wondering if you have any hair, if you catch my drift. What are you, anyway, 15?

  72. Spies, Brigands, and Pirates says:

    David is a copy-paste bot.

  73. David says:

    RNC appears to shell out $150K for Palin fashion
    By JEANNE CUMMINGS | 10/21/08 7:47 PM EDT
    Text Size:
    Sarah Palin waves in Colorado.
    Sarah Palin, in a red leather jacket, waves as she steps on stage before a crowd at a baseball field in Grand Junction, Colo., on Monday.
    Photo: AP
    Previous Image 1 of 5 Next Image

    The Republican National Committee appears to have spent more than $150,000 to clothe and accessorize vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin and her family since her surprise pick by John McCain in late August.

    According to financial disclosure records, the accessorizing began in early September and included bills from Saks Fifth Avenue in St. Louis and New York for a combined $49,425.74.

    The records also document a couple of big-time shopping trips to Neiman Marcus in Minneapolis, including one $75,062.63 spree in early September.

  74. Mark A. Flacy says:

    In all, Palin has charged the state $21,012 for her three daughters’ 64 one-way and 12 round-trip commercial flights since she took office in December 2006. In some other cases, she has charged the state for hotel rooms for the girls.

    Even more amazing is that nobody reviews her travel documents! Zounds!

  75. Jack Klompus says:

    I’m sure Cleo will offer you an algebra lesson. CHEAP!

  76. Mark A. Flacy says:

    The Republican National Committee appears to have spent more than $150,000 to clothe and accessorize vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin and her family since her surprise pick by John McCain in late August.
    So? Am I supposed to be upset by this? Or care?

  77. David says:

    Sarah Stalin… she’s one of us.

  78. JHoward says:

    Rick, frankly, I don’t buy it, not as a universal explanation. This history of collectivism isn’t an instinctive throwback, it s an amorality of envy and lust, theft and power. We can reduce those behaviors to instinct but to do so absolves one of the self-governors absolutely required of participants in an experiment in freedom, especially those who would self-profess to be the intellectual, as you say, elitists.

    No, this is willful, intended, malicious. This is power-madness, not mere primitiveness. If it were, we’d have no means to gage morality at all, and certainly not to deal with it’s violation.

    Probably I miss something, but it’s late and I’m rushing this reply. Remember that O! is a liar and a calculating one. His hordes are no less, at least at some level, whether conscious or otherwise.

  79. dicentra says:

    8:07pm – SPB sez, “David is a copy-paste bot.”

    8:08pm – David copies and pastes.

    LULZ!

  80. dre says:

    Racist and Rednecks and White Trash for McCain/Palin

  81. Makewi says:

    I’m wondering if this is David’s contribution to the Kos mandate to totally demoralize us. I’m sure that the AP effort is. In any case, they should all be very proud of destroying any credibility that the news organizations like the AP had left. I’m curious what these folks think will happen when nobody can trust anymore.

  82. Darleen says:

    ST

    taxing and spending responsibly

    The minute that Barry stated the fundamental reason for taxes was NOT to generate revenue for government programs but to be “more fair” in wealth “distribution”, coupled with his statement that healthcare is a “right”, then any claim to “responsibilty” has absolutely no credibility.

    Leftists pine for “equal outcomes” like Norwegian blue parrot pines for the fjords. But what you get is the masses reduced to the lowest common denominator (who is really going to work 12 hour days when nothing you earn is yours?) being administered by the Superior Beings (aka coveting thugs like Barry, Frank, Dodd, Pelosi, et al).

  83. David says:

    Mark A. Flacy, I’m sure you and your ilk are all about style over substance… as long as she’s a right-wing theocon.

    “The RNC also spent $4,716.49 on hair and makeup through September after reporting no such costs in August.”

  84. SarahW says:

    Speaking of “productions”, JeffG, I rest my case that you might find some advantage in a visual format. I mean, seriously.

    Also, DH put the nix on his ability to help out with a stern letter, because to represent your interests he would need, even in a Federal matter, some VA nexus in the case.

  85. Anne says:

    Amazing, isn’t it, that all we hear about is how the economy “thrived” under Clinton but “nobody” ever talks about the boom following Reagan’s presidency. Great blog. I’d like to post it on my website with your permission. Please contact me!

  86. Darleen says:

    ducktrapper

    Palin is an inauthentic woman. She is not allowed to bring her family along with her anywhere at any time. Palin is breastfeeding Trig? Pfffft… Trig shouldn’t even exist so she is stealing money from everyone by letting the “it” live.

    Republican/conservative/libertarian/capitalist females are traitors to their sex.

    NOW is still trying to figure out how to repo her vagina…not that they would know what to do with one in the first place.

  87. ducktrapper says:

    I find it hard to believe that those tacky snowbilly outfits could add up to more than a couple of moose antlers and a bear gall bladder but what do I know?

  88. dicentra says:

    No, this is willful, intended, malicious. This is power-madness, not mere primitiveness.

    Used to be that the folks in THIS tribe, when they got them a bad case of envy and power-lust, went and raided the folks in THAT tribe, took their stuff, and enslaved the people.

    Until THEY got raided by a bigger tribe over the hill, &c.

    Ayn Rand was right when she called collectivism “plunder.” Same urge, different method.

    I’m sure you and your ilk are all about style over substance… as long as she’s a right-wing theocon.

    No, not style OVER substance, but substance WITH style is just fine.

    As long as the substance precedes the style. Get it?

  89. Sdferr says:

    O noble David, our Saviour! sent from the God on high to put down that evil schemer, the loathsome Sarah Palin. Spending such money, she is! Not that there is anything wrong with that as Baracky spends his glorious way into the history books, but after all, there is a difference, Baracky is good and Palin is evil. All Hail David, Saviour of the blogs!

  90. Darleen says:

    David

    you are an indecent little schmuck, aren’t you! Making your mama proud.

  91. ducktrapper says:

    Darleen, me not being a lib, you’re turning my on with all that sassy talk about repo-vaginas. I can’t help myself! ;)

  92. Obstreperous Infidel says:

    LOL…ST, don’t cement your reputation as a dumbass by agreeing with semantic. See, semantic is an asshole. A douche. A worthless fucking trollop. Also, most likely certifiably insane. If so, disregard the first three descriptors. Point is the next actual point semantic makes will be its first. It just hates em, the rethuglicans. It hates em, it does.

  93. Spies, Brigands, and Pirates says:

    David: got anything besides copy-paste drivel and rehashed insults? If so, bring it. If not, STFU.

  94. Spies, Brigands, and Pirates says:

    BTW, if we’re all going to be “right-wing theocons” with style, I want one of those bitchin’ Hugo Boss uniforms.

  95. Rusty says:

    Aw, jesus. Now cleos gone and attracted another one, david. Seriously cleo,try crack. It just might improve your IQ.
    I have no patience with stupid tonight.

  96. Obstreperous Infidel says:

    David…you are not worthy enough to troll this blog. Please go away. Shit, he makes semantic look somewhat intelligent. Well, ok, maybe not. But david is pretty fucking dumb.

  97. ducktrapper says:

    Protein Wisdom – Smarter Trolls For Unity!

  98. happyfeet says:

    oh. SarahW. What are they thinking? Can is not the same as should.

  99. J. Peden says:

    No, this is willful, intended, malicious.

    Even moreso, a death wish, sadomasochistic/suicidal-homocidalistic.
    .

  100. J. Peden says:

    David…you are not worthy enough to troll this blog.

    B-but, it works so well back in the Cult-Bubble!

  101. Sdferr says:

    David almost makes you long for that new JeffG, the bann stomper so recently shown forth disappearing, what was it?, glasnost or some such shit? doink, gone, just like that. Imagine, doink, the merciful saviour David, disappeared, blooey, who could think it?

    I could.

  102. ducktrapper says:

    Cut and not pasted!

  103. ducktrapper says:

    As opposed to me, cute and totally pasted!

  104. Ric Locke says:

    Probably I miss something, but it’s late and I’m rushing this reply

    It’s not that you’ve missed anything, JHoward; you have simply failed to make the distinction between leaders (and wannabees) and followers. Leaders don’t comment here; they’re too busy hornswoggling followers by telling them that their concepts of fairness are entirely valid, and turning their lives and fortunes over to Teh Leader will result in Good Times for All. They neither believe nor disbelieve in “production” as a concept — they don’t give a damn either way, because what they want is the position as Leader. “Better to reign in Hell” is their guiding philosophy. The STs and Davids are merely a means to an end.

    Regards,
    Ric

  105. Jeffersonian says:

    What made me laugh was Goolsbee’s talismanic invocation of the Social Security Trust Fund and how inviolable it is. The SSTF has been raided for every penny it’s ever seen for 25 years, by Presidents and Congresses of both parties. And kiddies, once the Social Security payroll taxes don’t cover the program’s annual outlays, we’ll be yearning for the simple, stable days of $700 billion bailouts.

  106. J. Peden says:

    As opposed to me, cute and totally pasted!

    That why you don’t kill the little bastards, trapper?

  107. happyfeet says:

    Social Security is free swiss cake rolls when you’re old. Rapacious boomers though they get Ding Dongs. It’s just cause they’re special.

  108. N. O'Brain says:

    Comment by Semanticleo on 10/21 @ 6:26 pm #

    Do you speak English?

  109. ducktrapper says:

    I only use humane traps, mon ami. I’d rather just make fun of them.

  110. Makewi says:

    happy, the swiss cake rolls aren’t free. You bought them already. Don’t worry though, when you thought to yourself, this is a tax that I will never get back no matter what they are promising me now. You were probably right.

  111. ducktrapper says:

    … unless of course they piss me off while in backhanding distance.

  112. happyfeet says:

    You are despondent Makewi. I sense it. Do not worry. America will not elect a goofball socialist. We’re America.

  113. J. Peden says:

    The STs and Davids are merely a means to an end.

    lalalalalala i can’t hear you lalalalalala

  114. ducktrapper says:

    Like all STDs, just something that’s going around. Watch you don’t catch it.

  115. Jeff G. says:

    Sarah —

    I now have a blip Tv account. http://proteinwisdom.blip.tv will be the home of my “show” once I start production.

  116. Makewi says:

    happy

    I was the optimist in 2004, but in 2008 the Democrats are going to steal it. The American voter won’t be the problem.

  117. Makewi says:

    It will be sadness and left leaning courts for all.

  118. pw says:

    Ah, if only……

    ……

  119. ducktrapper says:

    Beware the dead American voter, however, eh? CBC basically just announced the thing is over, awarding the election to Obama in a landslide. Keeping in mind that the CBC hates the USA, what do you think of that?

  120. Pablo says:

    It will be sadness and left leaning courts for all.

    Two, maybe three SCOTUS appointments. God help us all.

  121. J. Peden says:

    I’d rather just make fun of them.

    Hmmmm, I done never tried that, but it sure doesn’t seem to work too well on that, er, Troll species, probably cause they’re deaf?

  122. ducktrapper says:

    J. Serious assholes like _____ must not be fed. You know how this works by now.

  123. Spies, Brigands, and Pirates says:

    Two, maybe three SCOTUS appointments. God help us all.

    On the bright side, most of them will probably come from the leftist wing. Thomas, Alito, and Roberts are all pretty young. Scalia is worrisome, though.

  124. J. Peden says:

    J. Serious assholes like _____ must not be fed. You know how this works by now.

    Amen, that’s why I stick to trying to humiliate them via one-liners. It’s hard, though, since once I determine they are “deaf” or insane, I usually don’t even read their posts.

  125. dicentra says:

    I now have a blip Tv account

    W00t!

  126. mojo says:

    I’ll move myself and my family aside
    If we happen to be left half alive
    I’ll get all my papers and smile at the sky
    For I know that the hypnotized never lie

    Do ya?

  127. Slartibartfast says:

    Why do you think so many nominal conservatives have endorsed Obama?

    Because nominal conservatives enjoy spending like drunken sailors?

    Well, yeah. Plus, there’s the prospect of even more shredded Constitution for breakfast.

  128. Mark A. Flacy says:

    Mark A. Flacy, I’m sure you and your ilk are all about style over substance… as long as she’s a right-wing theocon.

    My ilk? Atheist USMA graduates that are Java programmers?

    That’s a pretty narrow demographic.

    Although an O-bot decrying “style over substance” is actually rather funny.

  129. Darleen says:

    sorry, I dropped out for a bit… photoshopping called, inspired by Madame Barney deFrank

  130. Darleen says:

    JeffG

    blip.tv! yes!

  131. Ric Locke says:

    shredded Constitution for breakfast

    Y’know, that’s been puzzling me.

    The proggs believe in a Living Constitution, meaning that it says whatever a smart lawyer can convince a judge to say.

    Bush has gotten rulings that say everything he’s done is perfectly legal. Why is the Constitution “living” for proggs, but Bush can only “shred” it?

    Regards,
    Ric

  132. Ric Locke says:

    Oh, and Jeff picked the wrong poem.

    “I weep for you,” the Walrus said:
    “I deeply sympathize.”
    With sobs and tears he sorted out
    Those of the largest size,
    Holding his pocket-handkerchief
    Before his streaming eyes.

    Regards,
    Ric

  133. Big Bang Hunter (pumping you up) says:

    – Whats really relling, is the Lefturds don’t seem to mind being counted among the slackers, deadbeats, and crooks.

    – Apparently they think none of it matters, because everyone is on the take.

    – Why I named them the New Cynicals (NeoCyns).

  134. Darleen says:

    cleo pulls out the race card because he looked down his shorts and couldn’t find anything else to pull

  135. JD says:

    Why is it that SemenKKKleo and the Dems are so hung up on race?

  136. Big Bang Hunter (pumping you up) says:

    – You really need to empty your heart and mind of your obsession with race and class Semi colon-cleaner,

    – Jealous and bigoted is no way for you to go through life.

  137. Darleen says:

    JD

    Because they really don’t believe in individuals

  138. dicentra says:

    Oh, Mark! A JAVA programmer?

    Everyone knows that Fortran77 is where it’s at.

  139. Pablo says:

    Why do you think so many nominal conservatives have endorsed Obama?

    Faith and not much else.

  140. Jeff G. says:

    Ric —

    In the 80s, my friends’ band almost made it big, winning some local contests and opening for some pretty good acts (Echo and the Bunnymen, The Church). I suggested as a title for their first album “Of Cabbages and Kings.”

    They went a different route.

    And now nobody’s ever heard of them, except for a bunch of forty-year-old former groupies.

  141. Pablo says:

    Especially a black goofball socialist…………..

    The black one has a much better shot, though not a hotter wife.

  142. mojo says:

    For the Snark was a Boojum, you see.

  143. JD says:

    Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer, and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill something like we pay our taxes, it would go something like this.

    The first 4 men, the lowest earners, would pay nothing.
    The 5th would pay $1.
    The 6th would pay $3.
    The 7th would pay $7.
    The 8th would pay $12.
    The 9th would pay $18.
    The 10th would pay $59.

    These 10 men drank at the bar every day and were quite content with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.

    “Since you are all such good customers, I’m going to take $20 off of your bill every time you come in.”

    So, their drinks went from $100 to $80.

    The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay taxes so.

    The first 4 men were still unaffected, they still drank for free.
    But what about the other 6 men?

    How could they divide this windfall so everyone got their fair share?

    They originally wanted to divide it 6 ways, $3.33 a man, but if they did it that way, the 5th and 6th man would wind up getting paid to drink beer.

    The owner suggested that they distribute the saving like they distributed the costs.

    In the new scenario
    The first 4 still paid nothing.
    The 5th now also paid nothing.
    The 6th dropped to $2 from $3, a 33% reduction.
    The 7th dropped to $5 from $7, a 28% reduction.
    The 8th dropped to $9 from $12, a 25% reduction.
    The 9th dropped to $14 from $18, a 22% reduction.
    The 10th dropped to $49 from $59, a 16% reduction.

    Each of the 6 taxpayers was better off than they were before. The first 4 continued to drink for free.

    When they left, they began to compare their savings.

    I only got $1 out of the $20, said the 6th man.
    Then he pointed at the 10th man, and said “But he got $10!”

    The 5th man, now drinking for free, said “Yeah, I only saved $1 too, it is not fair he got 10 times what I did.”

    The 7th man said “Why should I only get $2 back when he gets $10 back, the rich always get all the breaks!”

    The first 4 men, in unison, said “Wait. We got nothing at all. Why are you exploiting the poor?”

    The 9 men surrounded the 10th man and beat him up.

    The next night, the first 9 men showed up for drinks. The 10th did not. They had their drinks, and when the bill came, they did not collectively have enough money to pay even half the bill.

    Somehow, I bet Baracky would find a way to get a profit into the pockets of those that were not paying anything, and being oppressed by this unjust system of taxation.

  144. happyfeet says:

    JD that was very cool

  145. Pablo says:

    Read The Fucking Blog, ‘cleo. And stop making foolish pronouncements, please.

  146. J. Peden says:

    You really need to empty your heart and mind of your obsession with race and class Semi colon-cleaner,

    Nothing from nothing leaves nothing.

  147. happyfeet says:

    I usually hate math

  148. Spies, Brigands, and Pirates says:

    MSNBC.

    Heh.

    Meanwhile, Rendell is begging Bambi to come back to Pennsylvania, and the Chicago Tribune is showing Barky only getting 56% in friggin’ Illinois.

  149. happyfeet says:

    Baracky is a toasty little socialist and the hopey dumbass don’t even know it. M’chelle can come out now it won’t matter none.

  150. Spies, Brigands, and Pirates says:

    Enjoy it while it lasts, Semen.

    Note that Obama consistently polled 7% above his actual numbers all through the primary season.

    Look on the bright side: you’ll have 4-8 years of screeching at McCain, followed by 8 years of screeching at Palin.

  151. Darleen says:

    Racism and a religious experience…that’s a significant portion of the vote for Barry.

    And funny how Barry is NOT buying the election, even has he broke his public financing promise, taking questionable foreign contributions, and refuses transparency in the “contributions”.

    Frankly, that Barry isn’t 25 points ahead is pretty amazing…proving that there is some reasonable and courageous people left who are more interested in American interests than in rolling over for the Left.

  152. geoffb (JARAIP) says:

    Well you have convinced me, completely.

    Lewis Carroll makes more sense on the issues than Obama, his financial twinkie Austan Goolsbee or any of his spokespeople outside of Biden. Biden comes closest, however Lewis Carroll uses his own words.

  153. J. Peden says:

    I guess we’ll just have to steal another one.

  154. pdbuttons says:

    echo and the bun-men/
    well he’s got “lips like sugar”
    but will he “cutter” me taxes

  155. Log Cabin says:

    Just been lurking on the threads tonight, enjoying the give and take.
    But Cleo’s citing of MSNBC had me spitting up my beer with laughter! Why would leftards think we would believe anything at all coming from MSNBC?

    Cleo, they are not reporters, they are advocates. Don’t you understand the difference?

  156. E.W. says:

    It times like this that i realize so many of these issues are so multi-faceted that i’m not sure i will ever get my head around it all. I just wonder why would rich democrats back a proposal like this? Are the real liberal illuminati of the party working some kind of magic, are they that selfless, or is there some kind of benefit i don’t understand for them?

    Honestly, so much of what is being said sounds good. I would get a tax cut but i know there are loop holes and agendas that are being furthered by saying these kinds of things. Who really knows…

  157. J. Peden says:

    M’chelle can come out now it won’t matter none.

    Someone’s sure got to counter the Biden effect.

    Btw, Negrodamus doesn’t like it when someone steals his shit.

  158. Darleen says:

    EW

    you can go up to a cultist who is fasting themselves to death and point out, logically, the reality of what they are doing

    and they will brush you off “You don’t understand, it is more important that I do this, even as it is against my own interest.”

    That’s Obama’s base. Cultists.

  159. Obama indulges in the leftist fantasy that rich corporations—or any business for that matter—is taxable. For any business, taxes are merely another cost of operation, a cost of doing business, and are passed on to customers/consumers like every other cost of doing business. And business taxes are as regressive a tax as you can get. Prices don’t descriminate. The poorest ghetto mother will pay the same amount of Johnson & Johnson’s taxes when purchasing a pack of Pampers.

    Businesses don’t pay taxes. They collect them.

  160. thor says:

    If there’s no pricing elasticity then additional taxes come out of the bottom line.

    Get your sophomoric b-school narratives straight, Jr.

  161. thor says:

    Comment by Log Cabin on 10/21 @ 11:16 pm #

    Just been lurking on the threads tonight, enjoying the give and take.
    But Cleo’s citing of MSNBC had me spitting up my beer with laughter! Why would leftards think we would believe anything at all coming from MSNBC?

    If you’re slurping a beer with wads of spit in it then you’re likely to swallow just about anything, eh.

  162. geoffb (JARAIP) says:

    “I just wonder why would rich democrats back a proposal like this? “

    There is a difference between taxing income and taxing wealth.

    Only the “death tax” hits wealth and that one is easily avoided by the actual wealthy and hits mostly small business owner’s family members.

    Taxing “high earners” has a benefit for the wealthy. It helps to keep those annoying Nouveau riche from clogging up all the exclusive events by keeping them from existing in the first place.

  163. john curtin says:

    http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/ http://www.electoral-vote.com/

    this is what is about , the national poll doesn’t matter ..Silly little people

  164. john curtin says:

    Its funny seeing everyone rail about the GOP or the Dems , they are really all the same , they just want to stay in office cause those jobs kick ass.. Low hours , good pay , perks up the ass , and they get to spend the money they raise after they leave , Obama will be loaded ..hahaha . Funny also to see the talk of Obama wrecking this country ??!!! Have you not been alive for the last 2 years ??!!! Its in trouble !!!!!!!!!! ..

  165. Big Bang Hunter (pumping you up) says:

    – Now there’s a surprise. The majority of estimates say that WonderBoy needs at least 10 points going into election day, just to stay even, and lo and behold that bastion of non-partisan journalism finds, of all things, precisely 10 points among the nearest 326 Democrats.

    – Imagine that. Now all the jackasses need is a PEW exit poll showing O!Shit with a 6 point lead going into election night, and Mr. “Fuck America” will be a lead pipe cinch. (See Kerry – 2004)

  166. Big Bang Hunter (pumping you up) says:

    – No Semi-skank, if you thought your WonderBoy had a lock on it, you wouldn’t be here screeching about the great victory to come.

    – Your lawn jockey hasn’t been able to close the deal, even with all the cheating and whoring and <S< efforts to drag his oreo ass across the finish line.

    – Theres still two weeks to go, and Joe the biden, and senile Murtha are sure to drop a few more well placed turds for your Candy assed candidate to step in.

    – You’re worried. I don’t blame you.

  167. Big Bang Hunter (pumping you up) says:

    – That’s “MSM efforts”.

    – With all the crap you got going for you, the truth is your Marx-o-crat should be at least 20 points ahead by now.

    – Whats the matter with O?

  168. Rusty says:

    #159
    Comment by Semanticleo on 10/21 @ 10:39 pm #

    “Shit, he makes semantic look somewhat intelligent. Well, ok, maybe not. But david is pretty fucking dumb.”

    Jeebus Christos, I’ve heard some mind-numbingly stupid farts masquerading as exhortation, but before now, I didn’t realize the sensory deprivation in yer medulla, Obstrepmisstep.

    You are queer for what banal camaradarie, which exists in the intellectual wasteland comprised of homophobes and anti=intellectualism, as the regulars at PW can provide to your sad soul, you poor bastard.

    Spend some time with people less fortunate than yerself, if you can find any, and tell them yer story of persecution at the hands of the socialists that will keep you miserable carcass from starving, once the full brunt of the legacy of RWR and GWB reach full fruition.

    I’m feel confident you will find a way to bite the hand that feeds you, sociopath

    Seriously, son. I don’t care what color you paint it, your’re always gonna be a few lumens short of bright.

  169. meya says:

    “Or necessary cuts to spending waiting to happen”

    So either way, you have present benefit (Tax cuts or higher spending) being offset by future belt-tightening (tax increases or lower spending). IOW: spreading the wealth around, from the future to the present.

  170. Pablo says:

    Lowering spending is not “spreading the wealth around”, meya.

  171. meya says:

    “Your lawn jockey hasn’t been able to close the deal, even with all the cheating and whoring and <S< efforts to drag his oreo ass across the finish line.”

    Oh man.

  172. Darleen says:

    Oh man.

    meya has had no experience of people playing to the stereotype they are labled with …

    sad

  173. Carin says:

    Have you not been alive for the last 2 years ??!!! Its in trouble !!!!!!!!!! ..

    You mean, since Pelosi and her gang took over?

  174. Rob Crawford says:

    Why is it that SemenKKKleo and the Dems are so hung up on race?

    They’re racists, know they should be ashamed of it, and over compensate by declaring anyone else not equally hung up on race to be racists.

  175. Big Bang Hunter (pumping you up) says:

    – Darleen, its truly hopeless. You can’t reason with people whose entire life experience is based on living down their youth and inexperience 24 hours a day. Ever time you try to talk common sense to glands, you’re just fueling the fire. They have no idea they’re rebellious BS is playing Russian roulette with their entire futures.

    – I had a gal I went to college with treat Me to lunch the other day – hadn’t seen her in quite some time, so we had fun catching up on things. We talked a lot about the “old days”, and one thing we both agreed on is we can’t believe how absolutely sure we were of our ideas, and how dumb and impressionable we and all our friends were.

    – It just goes with the territory. That’s why the cult groups target the youth. As the Collectivists all say “their minds are like “fresh fertal soil, just waiting to be planted with the seeds of rebellion”.

    – What you can say about people like Waters and all the other extremists in her circle is something else altogether. They have no such excuse. With them, its simply cynical opportunism. They, unlike the kids, are the true cultural rat’s.

  176. Carin says:

    ere’s no pricing elasticity then additional taxes come out of the bottom line.

    Get your sophomoric b-school narratives straight, Jr.

    You do understand what small margins (and thus zero elasticity) many businesses work with, right?

    But, raising taxes on businesses is a great way to send more jobs overseas. Or simply put companies out of business. Michigan should just close shop. Jenny raised business taxes last year. We won’t be able to handle Obama’s.

  177. SevenEleventy says:

    Carin, don’t argue with thor, he has two calculators, and he knows how to use them!

  178. Mr. Pink says:

    How can you have pride in yourself living off handouts? How is it that some people view this as noble? I thought the idea of helping people was to help them to the point where they can help themselves, not to help them in perpetuity. If someone can actually tell me the endstate of all these programs, ie what is the end goal is it to have all basic services accounted for (food, healthcare, housing, car, gas, schooling, job) or is it just the bare minimum(souplines, emergency services)?

  179. Spies, Brigands, and Pirates says:

    There is a difference between taxing income and taxing wealth.

    Bingo.

    The ideal Dem society consists of a patrician class (Kennedy family, Heinz-Kerry, thorboi’s family) and a serf class, with the serf class completely dependent on alms handed out by the patricians.

    Very American, those Dems.

  180. Spies, Brigands, and Pirates says:

    If there’s no pricing elasticity then additional taxes come out of the bottom line.

    And if the bottom line won’t cover it, or if the business owner decides that it’s simply not worth his time any more, he closes up shop or moves the shop overseas.

    I notice you left out that part of Teh Narrative, thorboi.

  181. Mr. Pink says:

    By basic service I should have just said “have someone else figure out and pay for your life”. Sorry.

  182. Carin says:

    I’m not really arguing with Thor, because I think he has me trollhammered. I just couldn’t let his comment stand unanswered. It’s kinda fun being ‘hammered by him, because I can respond to his comments w/o being called names.

  183. Darleen says:

    Carin

    A couple of days ago Hugh Hewitt took only calls from small business owners (yesterday it was only from doctors) … every one of them said their business would suffer under O! They are already planning on how to CUT BACK… laying off people, shelving expansion plans.

    My husband works for a mid-size business…small manufacturing, 220 people, $22 million gross sales … in So. Cal. It’s a family owned business and they have flirted with moving to Mexico because CA is SO business-unfriendly.

  184. Mr. Pink says:

    Darleen I see ads here in VA on my local TV stations begging people to move to California or visit. Some reason that strikes me as pretty telling that a state has to go out and advertise because otherwise people wouldn’t want to go there. I normally see West Virginia doing that.

  185. Darleen says:

    Mr Pink

    CA is going to be relying more and more on tourism for $$$… kinda like a lot of banana republics. We are becoming the patrician/serf state

    New York City is kinda like that…they have the advantage that the middle class they depend on lives in New Jersey

    It is hours to drive out of CA from Los Angeles or Frisco.

  186. Big Bang Hunter (pumping you up) says:

    – Life is a long series of hard lessons. It doesn’t care if you listen or not. If you refuse too, it will teach you anyway. Life is absolutely bi-partisan.

  187. SarahW says:

    #133 – JeffG… regarding Blip TV – Woo and Yay!

  188. Mark A. Flacy says:

    And business taxes are as regressive a tax as you can get.

    During a discussion with a somewhat liberal colleague of mine, he pointed out that the business income tax is actually a stealth VAT. (I had to promise that I wouldn’t use his name.

  189. Carin says:

    My husband is a small business owner. He employees four people. He’s hoping to expand and open a retail shop. Right now, he’s looking for a location – there are TONS to choose from because so many companies have gone under or moved. He is REALLY worried about Obama’s tax plans and is afraid to make a move for fear it may pull everything under.

    Already he has a major problem raising capital. none of those wealthy people want to part with their money for fear of Obama.

  190. Mark A. Flacy says:

    )

  191. Mark A. Flacy says:

    dicentra, Fortran77 wasn’t around for my first programming class in 1976 (which was Fortan). We had an Algol68 compiler, so I’ve even written working programs in that language.

  192. Spies, Brigands, and Pirates says:

    We are becoming the patrician/serf state

    It’s a tempting model for some — the patricians view themselves as “natural leaders” (usually thanks to inherited wealth from ancestors whose shoes they are not fit to shine), while the serfs are all about the panem et circenses.

    It rarely turns out well in the long run, though. Ask Louis XVI.

    The usual end state of such a society is that the patricians wind up dead, then the former serfs get to suffer the joys of mass starvation for a while — with the occasional bloody purge of whichever group gets nominated as the new “enemy of the people” to liven things up.

    Papa Hegel he say, ‘The only thing we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history’. I know people who can’t learn from what happened this morning. Hegel must’ve been taking the long view.

    — John Brunner

  193. SevenEleventy says:

    I’m not really arguing with Thor, because I think he has me trollhammered. I just couldn’t let his comment stand unanswered. It’s kinda fun being ‘hammered by him, because I can respond to his comments w/o being called names.

    I was being sarcastic. His brilliance is a creation of his own imagination. And be proud that he has trollhammered you.
    For all thor’s derogatory comments to SBP, only SBP has proven to be a person will tangible skills, i.e., creating the trollhammer script. The only thing thor has proven is that he’s another self-congratulatory internet blowhard who thinks he’s smarter than everyone else. If you go to any blog, there’s always the ubiquitous commentor, who believes s/he is of superior intellect. It’s usually a sign of insecurity, and enuresis.

  194. Big Bang Hunter (pumping you up) says:

    “Already he has a major problem raising capital. none of those wealthy people want to part with their money for fear of Obama.”

    – Obama, like so many of his youthful followers have yet to learn on of those life lessons I mentioned. The man with the gold makes the rules. For better or worse, that’s the way things work. You cannot change that situation by force. If you try to the people that worked hard to get what they have will see that as unfriendly,l and act to prtect themselves, and you will lose.

    – The only way that does work is to play by the rules. But that’s hard, and doesn’t come with guarantees. We’ve spoiled generations of our children to believe there’s an easier way.

    – We may be about to all suffer because of it.

  195. Carin says:

    man with the gold makes the rules. For better or worse, that’s the way things work. You cannot change that situation by force. I

    The beautiful thing that today’s socialists don’t get is that if you have an idea, the man with the gold will let you use some of it to make the BOTH of you more gold.

    And, the man with the gold often makes really stupid decisions, and then his gold all goes to someone else.

  196. SevenEleventy says:

    That should read “with tangible skills.”

  197. Obstreperous Infidel says:

    ShShit, semantic is certifiably insane. Still, the irony of being called a sociopath by a psychopath is kind of sweet. I wonder if he pissed himself when writing that? Still waiting on that first actual point, though. I’d echo Rob Schneider and say, “you can do iiiittt!”, but the truth is I don’t think he can.

  198. Techie says:

    Don’t worry, Thor, ‘cleo and Co. will feel GOOD about themselves as they drive those evil business owners out of work, overseas or ramped down.

    And, isn’t that what really matters most?

  199. SevenEleventy says:

    Semenlips will show up and criticize all PW commentors as having nothing better to do than comment on blogs in 5, 4, 3,….

    *pegs irony meter*

  200. Big Bang Hunter (pumping you up) says:

    – I notice my question from last evening “Why can’t WonderBoy close the deal” has met with the sound of:

    *crickets*

  201. Jeffersonian says:

    Darleen I see ads here in VA on my local TV stations begging people to move to California or visit. Some reason that strikes me as pretty telling that a state has to go out and advertise because otherwise people wouldn’t want to go there. I normally see West Virginia doing that.

    The reason you don’t see it coming from West Virginia right now is that they have a small-government-minded Democrat, Joe Manchin, for Governor.

  202. Jeffersonian says:

    – I notice my question from last evening “Why can’t WonderBoy close the deal” has met with the sound of:

    *crickets*

    It’s that goddamn US of KKK A.

  203. Mr. Pink says:

    If he can’t win with the entire MSM down to entertainment magazines advocating for him then there is something wrong.

  204. Drider says:

    That gal on Neil Cavuto’s show was a perfect example of Marx spawn if there ever was.

    Phrases like “on the backs of workers” and buisness owners being “lucky” to be where they are is absolute pure Karl Marx, with no inhibitions whatsoever.

    The scariest part about this is that Obama and his ilk aren’t even hiding the fact that they are born and bred Marxist’s as they normally would in an American election.

    If Obama were to take office and the congress indeed does become filibuster proof, the change we will see in this country will mirror the change that Cuba went through with Castro…..on a much larger scale.

  205. mellow-drama says:

    Jeff, if you weren’t already married I’d propose on the spot, based on posts like this. You’re a genius, man. I just wish all those “undecided” idiots out there read PW.

  206. SevenEleventy says:

    The Republican Party has a very small umbrella

    It could probably fit your peabrain!

  207. Sdferr says:

    Ah, yes, Semanticleo, the very person who jumps from an image of Barack Obama in an Airline pilot’s uniform to a chimpanzee dressed up in a suit.
    Knows all about racism first hand from observing herself, does Semanticleo. https://proteinwisdom.com/?p=13382#comment-555897

  208. Sdferr says:

    You are the perfect exemplar of Jeff’s recurring theme, you racist. My intention was and has been again made perfectly clear by my own words. You cannot take my intent from me and make up your own interpretation of it, you racist. It was you and no one else who brought an image of a chimpanzee into the conversation. Own it, racist. None, exactly none of the other comments you cite are mine. Additionally, just for context of course, you have no way of knowing whether I even read them, let alone intended them as background to a comment about what I see as the campaign of a con artist.

  209. geoffb (JARAIP) says:

    #123 “What made me laugh was Goolsbee’s talismanic invocation of the Social Security Trust Fund and how inviolable it is.”

    I try to think of it as the “Special” Social Security Trust Fund for the “Special” bonds it contains in that Al Gore lock box somewhere in West Virginia in a building most likely named for Robert Byrd.

    Since 1983 I’ve been paying the increased amount because of the 1983 Moynihan/Dole bill to save Social Security. Every year Soc. Sec. sends me a statement which shows what I paid in every year of my working life so far.

    Calculating what I’d have socked away if that had been invested in say an IRA for the S&P 500 (even with the latest downturn) makes me sick. Everybody should try it.

    Obama’s taxes are a way to create the patrician/serf state. Or I should say accelerate our passage into one. That’s why the elite and those that think they are elite support him. They believe they will be the Dukes and Barons.

    History shows that will not be the case. Socialist states favor the most amoral. “Thugs ‘R Us”™.

  210. Sdferr says:

    So directly to personal insult you go. Very good. That is just what I would expect of a knowing racist like you, as such infantile reductions perfectly fit the profile. Carry on by all means with your simplistic assertions. I’m sure they will reward you well.

  211. Sean M. says:

    Seeing as how there were almost 250 comments, I thought I’d check to see if there were trolls here, and lo and behold…

  212. maggie katzen says:

    psst, Sdferr, just go here and giggle at cleo’s cameo. (it’s at about 3:25)

  213. JohnRJ08 says:

    A major pre-requisite for being an effective president is the ability to articulate complicated policies and persuade the opposition that they are the right thing to do. I don’t think anybody would dispute this. The President is the only branch of our government that speaks with one voice. If one is to believe that Obama’s proposals are as overtly dangerous as some seem to think, then one must also admit that John McCain has failed miserably to persuade any of his opposition that this is the case. Furthermore, he has come across as intemperate, pugnacious and, yes, erratic. Regardless of who is elected, the country will emerge from this economic crisis. While the economy is the major issue today, there are other factors to consider here. Great leaders tend to be more pragmatic, highly intelligent, and less about ideology. Of the two candidates, only one comes close to that description.

  214. Carin says:

    Cleo is talking about “context” up there? Baha haahaaha.

  215. Carin says:

    If one is to believe that Obama’s proposals are as overtly dangerous as some seem to think, then one must also admit that John McCain has failed miserably to persuade any of his opposition that this is the case.

    It’s truly amazing that McCain is having so much difficulty getting his message across with a fraction of the cash O! has and MSM in the tank for Obama.

    What complicated policies has Obama articulated?

  216. maggie katzen says:

    Cleo is talking about “context” up there? Baha haahaaha.

    careful, Carin, apparently it thinks laughing at it is a come on.

  217. N. O'Brain says:

    Comment by Semanticleo on 10/22 @ 10:10 am #

    Do you speak English?

  218. maggie katzen says:

    What complicated policies has Obama articulated?

    you know, uh, that one, um, that, that, uh, spreads the wealth around.

  219. ThomasD says:

    then one must also admit that John McCain has failed miserably to persuade any of his opposition that this is the case.

    Barack Obama has likewise failed to persuade any of his opposition.

    Got any more worthless talking points arguments?

  220. SevenEleventy says:

    What complicated policies has Obama articulated?

    Yeah, he really articulated the “surge wouldn’t work” in Iraq thing well. Prescient is the O!ne!

  221. Dash Rendar says:

    He did quite skillfully point out that “White people’s greed runs a world in a need,” in the stupid book about his Communist father.

  222. Obstreperous Infidel says:

    “and less about ideology”

    Funny that one. Do tell us, how is Obama “less” about ideology? John’s just fishing for traffic anyway. Sorry, John. Not biting. Good luck.

  223. J. Peden says:

    – I notice my question from last evening “Why can’t WonderBoy close the deal” has met with the sound of:

    *crickets*

    No doubt that’s really why He had to visit Grandma – to finally be able to obtain the advice of a TWP.

  224. ducktrapper says:

    Economy shmeconomy. It doesn’t matter, I finally got around to watching Obsession last night. With McCain we may have a slim chance. With Obama … we fucked!

  225. Mr. Pink says:

    He has articulated two words “Hope” and “Change”. The rest is just Bush bashing.

  226. J. Peden says:

    With McCain we may have a slim chance. With Obama … we fucked!

    I’m going all in on whoever makes KY Jelly, pronto – at least looks like a [small] win-win, eh?

  227. JD says:

    JohnRJ08 – Simply asserting Baracky is intelligent is not quite the same as proof. Assering he can work with both sides, and is less ideological is just a lie, since it is not based in fact, and contrary to their histories.

    J.Peden – When Baracky and his most certainly NOT-socialist allies bend you over, rest assured that they will not use K-Y.

  228. Mr. Pink says:

    Well according to every major MSM outlet and poll he will only have to work with one side JD.
    The less ideological line that John threw in there is just laughable. Anyone that quibles over whether a child that survives an abortion should be given medical care (outside the womb no less!!) because it might “spoil” the original intent of the abortion is about as ideological as you can get.

  229. J. Peden says:

    J.Peden – When Baracky and his most certainly NOT-socialist allies bend you over, rest assured that they will not use K-Y.

    Shhhhh! – Must just be that “African” heritage, I suspect. [dry]

  230. Old Texas Turkey says:

    ere’s no pricing elasticity then additional taxes come out of the bottom line.

    Get your sophomoric b-school narratives straight, Jr.

    Jesus. Margin is all a business has. Taxes are passed throughs, no business person is going to sacrifice his margin for taxes. If my widgets are taxed, so is my competitors, so we both can protect margin. Thats the number one fallacy of taxes that tax advocates don’t get, refuse to get, cynically obfuscate. Taxing corporations means consumers ultimately pay taxes. Windfall tax Oil Cos and it will show up at the gas pump. Gauranteed.

    What taxes do to corporations is disincentivize expansion, R&D, risk taking, because your marginal return on investment is reduced. It also encourages economic arbitrage. All points mentioned above.

    Talk about b-school narratives. Talk about getting it wrong. Talk about a doofus. Talk about Thor.

  231. Mr. Pink says:

    I think the people advocating raising taxes in order to “lower” the deficit or increase revenue really use it as a distraction. It is not like they advocate increasing taxes and cutting spending, no no. They want more entitlements, more welfare programs, and new spending at the same time they raise taxes. The new entitlements and spending then become doctrine so the next time anyone calls to cut taxes they fight tooth and nail over any cuts in spending and we are back at square one, deficit spending. Their arguments would have alot more merit if they advocated lowering spending at ANY time because they usually are the ones that can not see a penny of our money that isn’t worth giving to the government.

  232. Thor says:

    Talk about Thor.

    Too funny. But, ftr, I did disown that little prick, thor when he was only very early into his perpetual infancy. All he could ever do even back then was to ring his bell with that little rubber ball peen of his.

  233. J. Peden says:

    It is not like they advocate increasing taxes and cutting spending, no no.

    Plus, in practice the Gov’t never saves any money whatsoever. I don’t know if it even has a mechanism for doing so other than the Federal Reserve. But we all know what just happened there, I guess. Trying to buy back T-notes wouldn’t work too well, either, would it?

  234. Andrew the Noisy says:

    “SFW….you are just another viral scab on the ass of humanity.”

    Translation: “I was wrong, so fuck you.”

    Ever hear the one about how the Germans will never forgive the Jews for Auschwitz? Hey, what’s that Law lying around I just tripped over? Godwin? Nevah hoida da guy….

  235. Big Bang Hunter (pumping you up) says:

    – 60+ comments later, sprinkled Liberally with Semi-colon cleaners evasions, she responds to why her WonderBoy can’t get over the hump with an army of partisan assholes puging his mullato ass for all the worth, and we ger:

    “I’m rewarded every time I get a non-response, response.”

    – And the literally hundreds of times you’ve given non-responsive responses….Did that reward you racist ass too?

    – You, skank queen, are the very essence of “teh stoopid”.

  236. Big Bang Hunter (pumping you up) says:

    – …. and here comes another dozen or so evasions, just to put an exclamation point on it.

  237. meya says:

    “Lowering spending is not “spreading the wealth around”, meya”

    Lowering spending tomorrow because we spent the money today is a transfer from tomorrow to today.

  238. Andrew the Noisy says:

    Sorry, Cleo, was that supposed to be your coup de grace? the link to the comment where you get pointed out for the umptieth time what a knee-jerk, inquisitorial race-bating tool you are?

    Or am I non-responsive enough? Lemme try agin:

    So when you’re munching on billy goat, does it get in the tusks or are they purely decorative?

  239. E.W. says:

    i just wonder if it’s really possible for the wealth to be spread around or is this just another propaganda campaign by the liberal illuminati? I just don’t foresee this really happening. And like everybody is talking about, are the really rich, those living off investments and actually taking a salary, are they going to get a cut to. I wonder.

  240. If there’s no pricing elasticity then additional taxes come out of the bottom line.

    Get your sophomoric b-school narratives straight, Jr.

    Yeah, that’s great, except for the vast majority of goods and services, their prices are elastic most of the time. And if you step too hard on margins the eventually that capital will seek a higher return elsewhere and we’re eating golden goose sandwiches for a week.

    The fact is there is no microeconomic upside to taxing businesses at all. It may be politically convenient to be able to hide taxes within consumer prices, but that doesn’t mean it benefits anyone other than politicians.

  241. Pellegri says:

    People like David don’t get that it’s not that we think Palin is perfect, it’s that she’s not pretending to BE perfect while furiously hiding her imperfections, ala Obama.

    People like Curtin also don’t get that Obama is not going to SAVE the country from trouble. Any change is not good change.

    Sad.

  242. Rusty says:

    Comment by ST on 10/21 @ 5:21 pm #

    ST said, “Or necessary cuts to spending waiting to happen.”

    And how exactly did the GOP cut spending during six years of absolute control?”

    Uh. With the collusion of the democrat congress. “All bills to raise revenue must originate in the house.”

    Basic stuff ST.

  243. 1529 debt consolidation program nd 2203…

    1224 consolidation debt program utah 1763. debt consolidation advice debt consolidation program. consolidation debt loan program….

Comments are closed.