Powered by TypePad

« Dueling Headlines | Main | "Home Alone" »

September 17, 2011


Captain Hate

Does the Buffett Rule mean that nobody has to pay anything?


Isn't the AMT already supposed to ensure that the "rich" (middle income taxpayers) pay "the same" (more) as "middle income workers" (those who make enough to have to pay any taxes after deductions and credits)? Why don't they just say they want to tax capital gains at a higher rate (rhetorical question--I know why).


Yes, but one has to act real indignant about it, also see Rangel, Geithner, et al.


In the same vein--that is nonsense driving policy --Yergin o the lunacy behind "peak oil".


Danube of Thought

We could see this coming in the 2008 campaign, when he said he'd raise the cap gain rate in the interest of "fairness," even if it meant reducing total revenue.

Meantime, Buffett would do well to pay the taxes he's been fighting about with the IRS for eight years before he lectures the rest of us about our duties.

Frau Taubenfreund

Playing "Mother, may I"?


saw that, Clarice. Yergin is pretty much the Graham of the oil business.

Just back from the California Republican convention in LA. Interesting. Saw Bachmann speak for an hour last night and she did very well. Not presidential, but not bad either. Common sense.

Paul was there this morning and the sooner he is out of the race the better. His supporters are scary; hippies, college kids, old scruffy aluminum foil helmet wearers; a lot of gays and lesbians. When he came into the hotel they formed a wall of chanting, screaming supporters. I swear the best analogy would have been the Hitler Youth in '33-34.

I think the rest of the candidates have written California off. Perry was here the other day and my brother said he was meh...

Frau Taubenfreund

First, they came after the millionaires...

Charlie (Colorado)

I want a tax on idiots.


Tomorrow's Sunday papers is gonna have girlie-man Brad Pitt lecturing Americans on paying more taxes.

"You know, we bitch about raising taxes. I think the argument is that it’s my money, I earned it, why do I have to pay for other people? I get very frustrated with that argument. I don’t mind paying taxes. I live in a country that gave me the opportunity to make money, and most people on this planet do not have that."
then this -
"If we’re gone for a long time, we’ll fly their friends out so they can be together. [The family’s principal home is in L.A., but Pitt says they would like to spend more time in Europe.]"

How dare this guy tell me to quit complaining about government taking & wasting my money.

It talks about his charitable foundation - Make it Right. Why doesn't he just give his money to HUD. Let government spend his money...or does he like spending his charity dollars on what he is interested in?

And then the token shot at W - "For one thing, I would be making Bushisms, like, every third day. [He laughs.] One malapropism after another."


Brad Pitt can donate to the US Treasury any time he'd like. I'm sure they'd spend it exactly as efficiently as does his foundation.


He is really working on perfecting the Tom Cruise school of alienating his audience, isn't he,

Captain Hate

Brad gets frustrated with the argument because he can't intelligently refute it; instead he just pronounces that everybody should be like him.


I have no problem with Brad paying lots of taxes.


I also have no problem with Brad spending lots of his money to fly his kids' friends around.


I want elected people to pay more taxes.


I have a problem with Brad thinking he knows jack shit about economics or tax policy.
Has it ever occurred to him that his living in a country that allows him the opportunity to make money might have something to do with tax policy?
Or that the circumstance that the poor in America are far wealthier than the majority of the world's population might have something to do with the fact that he's not "allowed" to make money--he has a right to do so?

Danube of Thought

What the hell, it's a football Saturday night with not a lot going on here, so I'll just post in its entirety this piece from the National Post:

As the bad economic news continues to emanate from the United States — with a double-dip recession now all but certain — a reckoning is overdue. American journalism will have to look back at the period starting with Barrack Obama’s rise, his assumption of the presidency and his conduct in it to the present, and ask itself how it came to cast aside so many of its vital functions. In the main, the establishment American media abandoned its critical faculties during the Obama campaign — and it hasn’t reclaimed them since.

Much of the Obama coverage was orchestrated sychophancy. They glided past his pretensions — when did a presidential candidate before “address the world” from the Brandenberg Gate in Berlin? They ignored his arrogance — “You’re likeable enough, Hillary.” And they averted their eyes from his every gaffe — such as the admission that he didn’t speak “Austrian.”

The media walked right past the decades-long association of Obama with the weird and racist pastor Jermiah Wright. In the midst of the brief stormlet over the issue, one CNN host — inexplicably — decided that CNN was going to be a “Wright-free zone.” He could have hung out a sign: “No bad news about Obama here.”

The media trashed Hillary. They burned Republicans. They ransacked Sarah Palin and her family. But Obama, the cool, the detached, the oracular Obama — he strolled to the presidency.

Palin, in particular, stands out as Obama’s opposite in the media’s eyes. As much as they genuflected to the one, they felt the need to turn rotweiler toward the other. If Obama was sacred , classy, intellectual and cosmopolitan, why then Palin must be malevolent, trashy, dumb and pure backwoods-ignorant.

Every doubt they hid from themselves about Obama, every potential embarrassment they tucked under the blanket of their superior sensibilities, they furiously over-compensated for by their remorseless hounding of Palin — from utterly trivial e-mails, to blogger Andrew Sullivan’s weird speculations about Palin’s womb, musings that put the Obama “Birther” fantasies into a realm near sanity. (We are now seeing an echo of that — with a new book promoting all sorts of unconfirmed gossip about Palin, including her alleged sexual dalliance with a basketball star.)

As a result, the press gave the great American republic an untried, unknown and, it is becoming more and more frighteningly clear, incompetent figure as President. Under Obama, America’s foreign policies are a mixture of confusion and costly impotence. It is increasingly bypassed or derided; the great approach to the Muslim world, symbolized by the Cairo speech, is in tatters. Its debt and deficits are a weight on the entire global economy. And the office of presidency is less and less a symbol of strength.

To the degree the press neglected its function as watchdog and turned cupbearer to a styrofoam demigod, it is a partner in the flaws and failures of what is turning out to be one of the most miserable performances in the modern history of the American presidency.


Brad Pitt Given Money From Struggling Louisiana As A Filming Incentive

”One of the most shocking bills has come due in Louisiana, where residents are financing a hefty share of Brad Pitt’s next movie — $27,117,737, to be exact, which the producers will receive by cashing or selling off valuable tax credits….”

Pass the bill!

Jack is Back!

Hail, Hail, DoT. Wish I could write it like that but it captures all my thoughts and considerations as if I wrote it. Thanks for sharing.

Watching Noles V. Sooners. Who knows how this one will turn out.

Captain Hate

OMG the Noles have tied it up. LOL @ Stoops


This is the link:



--Does the Buffett Rule mean that nobody has to pay anything?--

Shouldn't it be called the Wimpy Rule?
As in, 'I'll gladly pay as much as my secretary Tuesday if you ignore the billion in back taxes I already owe today'.


I can see it now .. a box asking for donations to our federal government.

Just wait till somebody figures out that the IRS forgot to disallow negative values.

Jack is Back!

Looks like the 'noles have given up the ghost.

OU is just so much more athletic. But they are vulnerable like to a LSU or a Boise State (believe me).

Tom Veal

I'm sure that everybody here already knows this, but the reason for the lower tax rates on long-term capital gains and qualifying dividends is that the income has already been taxed at the corporate level. The income tax is an additional charge, raising the true marginal tax rate to well above the one that Mr. Buffett's secretary pays on her salary.

Warren Buffett knows that, but he thinks that the rest of us are too stupid to figure it out, just as we're too stupid to avoid his overpriced insurance policies.

Captain Hate

Shouldn't it be called the Wimpy Rule?
As in, 'I'll gladly pay as much as my secretary Tuesday if you ignore the billion in back taxes I already owe today'.

I can't believe the community organizer in chief keeps trotting that deadbeat POS out as some sort of moral exemplar.

Captain Hate

Right JiB; the Bob Stoops meltdown usually happens in a very high exposure BCS game. And LOL @ the Dorkeyes; why the imbecile pollsters kept them ranked high after barely beating Toledo is a mystery to everybody.



That is my favorite thing of the day. Buffet will go down in history as the man they named a tax for, while he cheated the IRS. That's almost as bad as being a Kennedy.


Reposting this link from the other thread on the disruption and threat Erdogan's resurgent Turkey poses to the world, in case anyone missed it. How long before a disruption within NATO will take I don't know, but his Islamic activism and NATO's interests would at some point seem to be on a collision course no matter how obsequious the Euroweenies are regarding Islam.
Nothing will block him as long as the present rug rat in short pants is in the oval office but the signs are ominous as the new Ottoman seeks to fill the vacuum in power left by the one between Barry's ears.


--I'm sure that everybody here already knows this, but the reason for the lower tax rates on long-term capital gains and qualifying dividends is that the income has already been taxed at the corporate level.--

True of essentially all dividends but not true of many capital gains.
In my case for instance I am quite happy to pay considerably less than Mr. Buffet's secretary when I sell my timber and/or timberland and it has not been previously taxed in the corporate realm which is true of a lot of real estate and various other types of transactions.


Iggie, I think Erdogan may be playing games to force us to station missiles aimed at the Kurds in Turkey. Just saying. Of course, one may question that would work with such a great card player as don't bluff me.

While I regard Erdogan as dangerous, we must remember that at the outset of the war in Iraq,the Euro parasites refused to provide Turkey the defensive weapons they sought and were entitled to under the NATO agreements. Or is this old lady's memory failing yet again?Certainly that action weakened the military and other more stalwart West accommodating members of Turkey political society.


To go with Ignatz link:

Barack and Erdogan

Mr and Mrs Erdogan
I bet they hated the way MO was dressed!


Is he trying to bow down again?


thanks for the link Narciso., I was wondering who wrote the NP article. I love Rex, and the great thing about him is that he has a nice big soapbox in Canada as host of CBC radio's longstanding and popular Sunday afternoon talk radio show, Cross Country Checkup. Rex is basically a liberal, but is an extremely honest one.


He seems reasonable:
Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkey’s prime minister, demanded an ­apology from Israel over the deadly flotilla raid. Photograph: AP



True of essentially all dividends but not true of many capital gains. In my case for instance I am quite happy to pay considerably less than Mr. Buffet's secretary when I sell my timber and/or timberland and it has not been previously taxed in the corporate realm which is true of a lot of real estate and various other types of transactions.

I think it's more accurate to say that the income will be taxed at the corporate (or individual) rate in the future. Capital gains usually reflect good news about future earnings, and those earnings normally will be taxed somehow. Is that not so in the lumber industry? The only exception I can think of is owner-occupied residential real estate.

I want a tax on idiots.
Danube of Thought

But Iggy: wasn't the timberland acquired in the first instance with after-tax money?

Stephanie 'Kindred Spirit Sister'
I want a tax on idiots.


"Just Damn!" she exclaimed looking at a Megamillions ticket on her desk.

I will occasionally buy one if I have a wallet full of change (I rarely carry cash anyways). Can I just occasionally be taxed under Charlie's proposed idiot's tax for my dalliances or is it like that one drop rule and I'm ruled all in???


I buy lottery tickets, too, whenever the pot is large enough that the ticket is worth more than a dollar. But mostly because my elaborate plans for spending the $200million are entertaining enough to be worth a buck. And you can't dream if you don't buy a ticket!


This country "allows us" to make money? Uh... actually, it doesn't "allow us" anything. Our constitution is a charter of negative liberty. Perhaps someone ought to define that concept to mouthy moonbats.

Tom Veal

I'm aware that timber has special tax treatment, about which I know very little. The overwhelming majority of realized capital gains are, however, related to garden variety securities, where the present value of the future stream of anticipated cash flows incorporates future taxes.

Stephanie 'Kindred Spirit Sister'

Cathy, the 'opportunity cost,' if you can call it that, of not buying one - Can't win if you don't play!!!

The stupidity of buying more than one per drawing, however, is exhibit one for those who learned nothing in statistics class...



How quick you guys forget.

Harry Reid already told us that Paying Income Tax in America is Voluntary.


And as for States giving tax breaks to movie stars...


"...The tale of serial killer Robert Hansen, starring John Cusack and Nicolas Cage, films in Anchorage this fall. Other major-studio films are considering an Alaska shoot, even as an army of reality TV camera crews continues to prowl the state. Producers credit the state’s fledgling tax incentive program – one of the most generous such public subsidies in the country – with enticing movie-makers to the Last Frontier. How long will the gold rush last? Is the state getting a big enough return on its investment? Welcome to Hollywood, Alaska."

Nick Cage's film says they are looking for locals to play Cops. I think I would do better playing the serial killer, but since John Cusack already has that role locked up when I walked the dogs today I practiced screaming "Book'em Danno!"

Could this be my big break???



You have two good sides and the camera doesn't add 10 lbs. Break a leg.

Or you could just get piss drunk and have a guest starring role in Alaska State Troopers;)


Clarice does an outstanding job covering the Blue Dog Democrats today.



From your lips Clarice!




list of current Blue Dogs

There are two Black Caucus/Blue Dogs from GA, Sanford Bishop and David Scott. The Rep legislature's redistricting made their reelect chances stronger by moving blacks from neighboring Republican districts into their newly redrawn ones. The Voting Rights Act prohibits weakening a majority black district, but afaik doesn't prohibit making them blacker and adjoining white districts whiter. Also, GA gained a seat via the census and the Repubs drew a brand new heavily Republican district in north GA.


Deb there's a story in there about how the Voting rights Act has diluted black power, isn't there? I think Georgia's example is not unique. In gerrymandering most blacks into certain districts to keep them black, the consequence has been more radical representation in Congress and less power outside those districts.It's why I think O's big advantage among black voters doesn't necessarily translate into as large a national advantage as one might imagine.


Years ago, Rush had this routine about keeping
the liberals in a zoo, so we would remember what they were like, they have actually made
that situation true, Of course, the media only focuses on the Wooly Mammoths of the GOP,
like Specter and Bennett, the first of which
already made him extinct, great pieces as Always, with kind of a "Night of the Museum"
flair to it.


I never knew that "Gaylord the Dog" was gay, but he does "come with a bone of his own."


Thanks, Narciso. Have you seen every movie ever made? This weekend I saw one I really loved--King of the masks. If you haven't seen it, you might like it.


A tax on those making $1 million a year or more? Well, I'm safe. But so is anyone else who has a tax lawyer.

When I hear "fair share" I usually get my gun, but I also wonder if it is fair for about half to pay nothing at all. It's then that the "share" part makes sense.

Danube of Thought

Minus 19 at Raz today.


No, but I've seen that one, being run on FX, often enough, and there is certainly an animatronic feel to most of this,: Btw, you'll
be glad to know, the FBI's man in Tampa, says
there is nothing to the Prestancia tie to 9/11.


I probably shouldn't have watched chef Anthony Bourdain whip up his cod-sperm crème anglaise and sheep-testicle soufflé so close to bedtime because my dreams that night were certainly bizarre. But I had stayed up late to see the victories in NY- 9 and Nevada.

That's got to be your best opening yet.


I am sick of these particular lies the Democrats tell and the Republicans never call them on it:

1. Clinton raised taxes and the economy grew greatly.

Bullsh-t! There was no cause to affect, Clinton took office and raised taxes and the economy actually grew at a SLOWER rate until the Republicans took over Congress. Then when businesses felt safe the economy grew faster - not due to Clintons tax rates but due to Republican control of Congress putting a stop to excessive spending and regulating.

2. Obama inhereted a great depression.

FALSE, yes the economy wasn't doing exactly great, but if you actually track the downturns, you see it had much more to do with Obama becoming the front runner and getting the nomination then it had to do with any Bush policy.
You can see buinesses were pulling back and back the better the Socialist did ion the primaries and the more businesses knew they were in for some punishment when Obama got elected. He started affecting the growth rate and the economy 9 months before his inaugaration.

3. Raising taxes on the rich, raises revenue.

FALSE! Raising taxes will most likely reduce revenue due to stopping any economic growth and tax avoidance. Everytime the feds try to punish the rich it back fires..the tax on yachts, got a lot of little people losing their jobs. States that raise taxes on Millionaires, LOSE those millionaires to lower tax states.
Trillions of dollars stay overseas to avoid paying these high rates.

Melinda Romanoff


Excellent Pieces.

I've viewed the creeping conservatism of the electorate emerge as the Dems have moved further to the left. The choice, and dynamism, for some moved from the general election to the GOP primary, where it's now Tea Party vs. RINO.

Their party leaders, ageists all, are from the most distilled districts of Progressive purity that their good fiend Gerry can mander in Court. Power first, power last, and thier loyal, but captive, electorate sends them back for less and less gelf. They did it to themselves, and just for power.

That is to say, power over an electorate who has culturally remembered that the original revolution was based on these three simple words said while rising from a chair.

"Oh, hell, no."


Gee, is CBS more irresponsible then Michelle Bachmann??


Warning, CBS claims Gardisil can kill, if you can't handle that information - please don't click.


Here's an interesting question....what is the individuals responsibility to society when in comes to infecting people with a disease?

I never heard any discussion regarding gay peoples responsibilities for spreading aids throughout the Nation...I thought we were told it wasn't any of our business what people do in their bedrooms.

So when it comes to vaccines like HPV where we know hundreds, perhaps thousands of peoples lives mau be saved.
But at the same time we know tens, or dozens, or hundreds will die from reactions and complications from the vaccine.
What is my responsibility to those others? To potentially sacrifice my lifefor someone else?

And what if you had a population of people, who for whatever reason, have a much higher incidence of bad reactions and side affects? Could they be forced to have the vaccine even if you know their is a good chance they will get sick?

Cecil Turner

In other words, they have no idea how much it will raise but they know it sounds good talking about it.

It's amazing how widespread the support is for this, and how persistent:

Most Americans think the United States should raise taxes for the rich to balance the budget . . .
A simple bit of arithmetic should illustrate how clueless this is; the "wealthy" portion of the Bush tax cuts amounted to less than a trillion over ten years (the "middle class" part was more than three times as large). There's simply no chance of balancing the budget with this, even if the unintended consequences (esp. small business layoffs) weren't so pernicious. The idea that it could support runaway entitlement spending is farcical. But that won't stop the Democrats from demagoguing it.

A cautionary note, however. The last time we saw such a stark disconnect between reality and a Dem sacred cow was over GSEs. And there, the kleptocrats managed to stave off investigators and prospective regulators--paying off supporters and friendly politicians--until the whole thing exploded at the cost of hundreds of billions and a bubble-bursting economic collapse. I have little doubt they'll be able to con enough of the electorate (especially those receiving direct payments) to continue their little shell game through at least one more election cycle. And then try to blame the result on Republicans. Again.


Apparently Bill Clinton is trying to remind us of his whore status today on the Sunday talk shows.

Too bad, really.

It ruins half the winners.

cathyf, I got bored with imagining how to spend the money. Now I try to think of ways to keep so much money from ruining me. There is endless speculation there.

Google 'power density' someday.

In an amusing follow to the Solyndra story, Chinese are rioting at a solar panel manufactory because of its toxic emissions.

Mark Folkestad

Meeting PD and his wife for lunch today, on their drive back to Madison. It should be fun. Man Tran is flying in to a suburban airport today, and we were going to have coffee, but the rain might cause him delays. I'll hear when he refuels at Great Falls. It's great when members of the JOMO tribe get the chance to meet in person.


ext, the creme anglaise and souffle confections are from a very funny Rachel Abrams piece I linked. Don't miss it.

Jim Ryan

Excuse me if someone else has mentioned this but Peggy Noonan yesterday trashed Obama and then said, in my paraphrase, "I applaude Obama for at least keeping his family intact when so many fail to do so." This is bigotry of low expectations taken to an absurd extreme - the POTUS?! Disgusting.


The tax the rich argument demonstrates why Solyndra is such devastating topic.

Every time the President or his allies mention fairness regarding the rich and middle class taxpayers then the response should be why the Obama Adminstration restructured the Solyndra loan payments putting middle class taxpayers before rich investors and donors.


I screwed up "middle class taxpayers after rich investors and donors."


She is rapidly approaching the Charlie Gibson level of irrelevance, Kathleen Parker, is right behind her in the red shift,


cathyf, I always imagine I ruin myself with excess riches and then rue it only with my dying breath--after having thoroughly enjoyed the dissipation.


Thanks for referring again to the NP article, Ignatz. Erdogan's plans outline a malevolent scheme to metastasize the Islamic malignancy throughout the Middle East and Europe and eventually the entire world, beginning of course with destroying Israel and the Jews. The blind ignorance of most of the western world as this unfolds is stunning.

If Erdogan's economic and organizational abilities weren't already exclaimed over for their efficiency and thoroughness, perhaps his conquestorial designs could be ignored or sneered at. But I'll bet a lot of folks like me are thumbing through their Bibles reading up on the Gog and Magog scriptures and especially the parts that describe "benign" Turkey's alignment with the bad guys at this point in history.



Ignatz's article about Turkey by David Warren was in the Ottawa Citizen, to which he contributes regularly.

The article linked to in the NP by narciso was by Rex Murphy and was about the forces that enable the Obama adminstration.

Benjamin Franklin

The GOP has cobbled a response to American Jobs....


"House Republican leaders rejected some main elements of President Obama’s jobs plan on Friday but told their rank-and-file members that they would support other components. Approvals ranged from the well-publicized parts, like an extension of the payroll tax holiday, to the more obscure, like continuing depreciation write-offs for businesses.

After a week of gingerly walking the line of conciliation, Speaker John A. Boehner and Representative Eric Cantor, the majority leader, sent a letter to their members specifying a few areas where they found common ground with Mr. Obama. […]

“We believe there are areas of common agreement,” the letter said, “and areas worthy of further conversation where agreement, assuming there are good faith discussions, may be possible.”

As Election Year approaches, it seems the strategy of undercutting
Obama, undermining public confidence in institutions is still there, but more polite.

Cecil Turner

Chinese are rioting at a solar panel manufactory because of its toxic emissions.

Yeah, but look how cheaply they can make 'em.

I know . . . let's have a treaty to reduce our factory gas emissions to levels safe enough to pump directly into canary cages. But they can just ignore it, if they want.


Thanks, Chubby..should have typed "OC" instead of "NP" :)


--But Iggy: wasn't the timberland acquired in the first instance with after-tax money?--

It's possible to apply a strict enough standard so that all money is not only double taxed but taxed exponentially if you follow it far enough, either forward or backward. It is not double taxed in the common sense that a dividend is. And if the property is acquired through a 1031 exchange or with money from a sale in which no gain or a loss occurred then in it's last iteration the money used was not subject to taxation.

--The overwhelming majority of realized capital gains are, however, related to garden variety securities, where the present value of the future stream of anticipated cash flows incorporates future taxes.--

Is that true, or at least what is the actual ratio? It may be true at this point since real estate is in a depression but seems to me that not just timber but all commodities and real estate, both residential and commercial, are not subject to the narrow definition of double taxation that capital gains and especially dividends are. So whether it's an overwhelming majority I don't know.
Additionally, when a gain on stock is realized a person has been on both ends of the corporate tax discount that depresses the security's price, so it can be argued that there has been no net tax cost to him.

--Capital gains usually reflect good news about future earnings, and those earnings normally will be taxed somehow. Is that not so in the lumber industry?--

Capital gains can reflect any number of things; in the present timber instance, bad Fed policy leading to higher commodity prices, not future earnings.
But regardless I have never heard of a guy selling his stock for a realized gain and then the corporation paying tax on the future earnings that gave rise to his realized gains being considered double taxation.
The direct double taxation of dividends arises from corporations paying tax on their earnings, and then individuals and institutional investors paying tax on the dividends from those earnings.
There is no direct double taxation of capital gains from a sale of stock since there is no direct link between corporate earnings and stock ownership. But as Tom Veal points out the price of the stock presumably represents a discount that takes into consideration the effect of corporate taxes on earnings.

It can be plausibly argued and has been that no capital gain is double taxed because it can also be plausibly argued that when the gain is realized new wealth is being created that did not exist before and therefore could not have been taxed, unless you use jimmy's argument that the anticipated earnings which gave rise to the gain will eventually be taxed.
That of course doesn't apply to oil, timber, wheat, gold, T or muni bonds, forex or any other commodity including real estate.

Benjamin Franklin


"A new book claims that the Obama White House is a boys’ club marred by rampant infighting that has hindered the administration’s economic policy and left top female advisers feeling excluded from key conversations.
“Confidence Men: Wall Street, Washington, and the Education of a President,” by journalist Ron Suskind due out next Tuesday, details the rivalries among Obama’s top economic advisers, Larry Summers, former chairman of the National Economic Council, and Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner. It describes constant second-guessing by Summers, now at Harvard, who was seen by others as “imperious and heavy-handed” in his decision-making.
In an excerpt obtained by The Post, a female senior aide to President Obama called the White House a hostile environment for women.“This place would be in court for a hostile workplace,” former White House communications director Anita Dunn is quoted as saying. “Because it actually fit all of the classic legal requirements for a genuinely hostile workplace to women."

Gotta read this one.......

Benjamin Franklin

Is "Class Consciousness" a sleeping giant who's awakening is overdue?



When Peggy NOonan gives credit to Obama for not having his family break up, what she is really saying is "he's a credit to his race." I guess that is better than David Brooks, who says, in essence, "he's a credit to his crease."


((Thanks, Chubby..should have typed "OC" instead of "NP))


I was thinking after I posted that instead of focusing on a tiny quibble, I should have responded to your actual content. I too responded to Warren's column by thinking of Biblical themes. His columns often evoke that kind of response.

Here's one of his more controversial statements, his birthday greeting to Darwin:

((I oppose Darwinism because it is an intellectual & scientific fraud. I have opposed it all my adult life on that account alone; as I've told you before, I opposed it as crap science when I was an atheist. But I oppose it today with greater & greater passion, because I see that it provides the cosmological groundwork for real evil.))

Cecil Turner

Is "Class Consciousness" a sleeping giant who's awakening is overdue?

No, it's a long-discredited concept favored by socialists and Democrats when they're out of ideas.

And why am I seeing your tripe? Oh, got it, you added a "jamin" to your handle. Easily fixed . . . toodles. [plonk]

Benjamin Franklin

"A simple bit of arithmetic should illustrate how clueless this is; the "wealthy" portion of the Bush tax cuts amounted to less than a trillion over ten years"

'Simple' arithmetic. Heh.....


"Tax cuts are estimated to have totaled $2.8 trillion, which we guess would count as “trillions,” as the president put it. Strictly speaking, the two big tax cuts during the Bush years are estimated to total about $1.5 trillion, But many continued into the early years of the Obama presidency, and in December he cut a deal with Republicans to extend them even more, which brings us to $2.8 trillion."


Obama's view is rather simple, like the man himself. Raise taxes to support increased government. In the end you have a socialized state. What could be easier to understand? Cutting spending means the government shrinks. Not on his watch. Increased taxation means more government spending and a larger government. That's all there is, there ain't no more.


((Increased taxation means more government spending and a larger government.))

and, most importantly, more money and gold-plated perqs in politicians' pockets and purses

Benjamin Franklin

". In the end you have a socialized state"

Most of us are 'socialized'. so I think you mean 'socialist'.

We have had 'Social Security' since the 1930's. Where is the 'end' you anticipate?


Ben-Dana, because you have a degree from Yale I would not expect you to miss the point nearly so often as you do. On the other hand, and you have many, a toothless anarchist might throw digital shoes into the thread to create what his great leader used to call everything, “a distraction.”

Other than your error about my “error,” you have nothing to dispute Obama’s intent or the fact that he’s just not that smart.


Dear Ben,

Here's how the government thinks.

Currently JOM has no tax on your posts, but suppose tomorrow JOM decided to tax each post at 1.00 dollar if your income is below 100,000 and 100.00 dollars if your income is over 100,000.

Of course you report your income to JOM.

So, JOM goes to the bank to get a loan and uses the number of posts that occurred over the past year to calculate how much money they will take in over the next year.

So you are the bank..do you accept JOMs numbers? Or would you question whether people would modify their income to avoid the higher post tax?
Would you think that maybe people would not post as often given the addtl cost?

Do you not understand that taxation causes changes in behavior so you can't calculate what revenues would have been because the behaviors were changed.

Given Obamas position, he could simply tax everyone at 100% and calculate trillions of new revenue, because he's an idiot.


"""". In the end you have a socialized state"

Most of us are 'socialized'. so I think you mean 'socialist'.""

So its Socialist Medicine and not Socialized Medicine?

Social security is essential a bad insurance program, not socialism. Socialism means the government owns or controls the means of production.

I think you probably lean more towards fascism...

Benjamin Franklin

"Do you not understand that taxation causes changes in behavior so you can't calculate what revenues would have been because the behaviors were changed."


The Bush Tax cuts have been extant for, what, 8 years now?
How have those upper crust advantages moved the economy forward?

It's a waiting game. The consumer is waiting until they have gainful employment before goods and services are purchased.

Meanwhile Business is allowing the Durable Goods pipeline to reach zero before they amp up manufacturing and hire more employees....

Zero Sum Game

Benjamin Franklin

"Other than your error about my “error,” you have nothing to dispute Obama’s intent or the fact that he’s just not that smart."

I believe your point was, a 'socialized end'. When is that end?


Ben-Dana, do some close reading here, like in Yale English class. My point is to suggest that Obama is a one-trick pony and that one trick is to increase government. Taxation for him is not about "fairness" or "sharing," it's about fundamental transformation of the economy of the USA. Right? Agree? He has no other plan.

Benjamin Franklin

"it's about fundamental transformation of the economy of the USA. "

If you mean the preservation of the Middle Class...yes.

I remember a classic line from George Carlin......

"The only reason the Wealthy keep the Poor around is to scare the Middle Class and keep them going to work"

The Middle Class does most of the heavy lifting in this Economy.
Obama is keeping the Wealthy happy in his venture,,,,,,,,,

He's nothing more than a Corporatist trying to keep the ship afloat.


I guess that is better than David Brooks, who says, in essence, "he's a credit to his crease."

Ha. How many times has Brooks regretted writing that, I wonder? Because even Brooksie regrets writing things sometimes.

Cecil Turner

'Simple' arithmetic. Heh.....

Well, obviously too complicated for you. The total tax cuts were of course in the "trillions" range, but the vast majority of that went to middle class taxpayers. The extension numbers are illustrative of the point:

Bush tax cuts: $544.3 billion. The package would extend the Bush tax cuts for everyone for two years.

The bulk of that cost -- $463 billion -- is for the extension of cuts for families making less than $250,000, including two years of relief for 2010 and 2011 for the middle class from the Alternative Minimum Tax.

The rest -- $81.5 billion -- is attributable to the extension of cuts that apply to the highest income families.

The "wealthy" portion is less than 15% of the total (and the historical tax cuts for them is far less than a trillion by any possible accounting), and reinstating it wouldn't retire a tithe of the deficit. Raising taxes on everyone would, of course, but that doesn't play nearly as well to the innumerate class warfare idiots.


Are we watching an MSM melt-down? Seriously. In another year, even most leftists won't believe their progressive betters.

Have you ever listened to someone in absolute denial? The narrative becomes absolutely other-wordly.

Captain Hate

George Carlin was to standup what El JEFe is to the economy.

The comments to this entry are closed.