23 Comments

  1. I agree completely with Dana. If corporations paid a fair amount of our taxes, and our defense budget wasn’t so enormous, then us poor folks wouldn’t have to pay so much in taxes for all the necessary functions that government performs!

    Then, the Vikings that robbed us would get away with so much more loot.

  2. From following the British Press at the time, I realized in the summer of 2002, about nine months before the Iraq invasion started, that we were being manipulated by the likes of Curveball, Chalabi, the American neocons, and the like. Now that we know that the neocon Bush Administration made the decision to invade Iraq just a few days after 9/11, it can be fairly said that we had American war criminals calling the shots.

    Talk about wasted lives, infrastructure damage, and deficit spending, here we have all three in one great big mess that has torn up the moral fabric of this nation.

    And now Dana has the utter gall to claim that we have one won that war. At the very least, Dana’s definition of winning is very strange indeed.

  3. Taxes are vastly lower under Obama than they have been in a long time…including under either Bush.

    For the rich, that is. When wingnuts complain about the tax burden, they may have a point in that said burden has shifted downwards, at a time when the median salary has been stagnant for decades.

    The answer, of course, is to raise taxes on the top level – say to the point they were when Clinton was President. unless anyone wants to argue that the Clinton economy was much much worse than the economy now.

    This is, in part thanks to the wingnuts, politically impossible. Which means your country will continue sliding downhill while the rest of us eat popcorn and watch the spectacle.

  4. Of course taxes are shifted downward you asshole, corporate taxes are expenses, paid for by the buyers. The more you tax corporations the more you tax the poor asshole. The more you raise taxes on guys like me, the more we invest elsewhere, dope. I can buy anything I want and go anywhere and invest anywhere (or not). Keep screwing with me you end up with nothing! You are a complete economic moron. investment and wealth are not encouraged by taxes or force, but rather by the willing and free exchange of labor, goods and services.

  5. Of course taxes are shifted downward you asshole, corporate taxes are expenses, paid for by the buyers. The more you tax corporations the more you tax the poor asshole. The more you raise taxes on guys like me, the more we invest elsewhere, dope. I can buy anything I want and go anywhere and invest anywhere (or not). Keep screwing with me you end up with nothing!

    Doesn’t bother me if your country crumbles, Hoagie. Might bother people like Warren Buffett

    Buffett told ABC News’ Christiane Amanpour that tax breaks for the rich don’t help the economy.

    “The rich are always going to say that, you know, just give us more money and we’ll go out and spend more and then it will all trickle down to the rest of you,” Buffett said. “But that has not worked the last 10 years, and I hope the American public is catching on.”

    but I’m not him.

    I wonder, though, why business people didn’t desert America in droves during the bad old days of the Clinton administration or – gasp – before Reagan, back when the US was growing well above its current rate.

    But I’m swell with the idea of people like you shrugging off most – indeed ALL – your tax burden and leaving it to the working and middle classes to pay for everything, including the bail outs, defense contracts, agricultural subsidies and all the rest of the corporate welfare. Go for it. That’s what Rome did towards the end too.

  6. You are a complete economic moron. investment and wealth are not encouraged by taxes or force, but rather by the willing and free exchange of labor, goods and services.

    Nothing like what you’re describing has ever existed in the history of man. Not in this country, not in any country. In fact, the United States rose to power by avoiding the free market forces that you exalt.

    I can buy anything I want and go anywhere and invest anywhere (or not). Keep screwing with me you end up with nothing!

    Where were you thinking about going? Communist China? Universal health care Korea?

  7. Where were you thinking about going? Communist China? Universal health care Korea?

    Yup – after looting the body corporate down into collapse, the rich will escape elsewhere like maggots leaving a corpse. Pity about the rest of you not rich enough to relocate, but there you go.

    BTW, Hoagie, NZ is a socialist nightmare. Truly terrible. Go elsewhere – you’re not welcome here.

  8. Hoagie: You are a complete economic moron. investment and wealth are not encouraged by taxes or force, but rather by the willing and free exchange of labor, goods and services.

    MikeG: Nothing like what you’re describing has ever existed in the history of man. Not in this country, not in any country. In fact, the United States rose to power by avoiding the free market forces that you exalt.

    Be fair, Mike. Hoagie is no doubt thinking about those utopias where taxes and government force do not exist. Like Somalia.

  9. It’s just RW gibberish with the comforting patina of upper-class indignation. Like I mentioned in another thread, my tax dollars go towards corn and wheat subsidies that Hoagie directly benefits from yet he’s the one shouting about thieves and cowards on internet comment threads.

    So pack up and go to your free market utopia, I say. Go sell sandwiches to the Somalis: Don’t like the, um, adverse business climate? Then pull yourself up by the bootstraps and hire your own security force! What? The people are broke? No they’re not! They just don’t have enough sandwich shops to work in! Once everyone is working as a sandwich artist they can spend their wages on sandwiches. All you have to do is form a government, tax the populace and use those funds to subsidize all of my start up costs….

  10. And if you want a sterling example of the sputtering rage one incurs by daring to suggest that small government “conservatives” are frequently direct beneficiaries of The State themselves look no further.

    In my experience it’s almost axiomatic. The more someone froths at the mouth about Big Government the more likely it is that they’re hitched onto the public tit somehow. Sure, they’ll spend all of their time developing rationales for why their welfare is legitimate and deserved but at the end of the day you’ve got a room full of right wingers cashing government checks with nobody willing to pay the bill.

  11. This is dedicated to both Mike G. and Pho:
    I didn’t mention no government nor small. I only mentioned the words “willing” and “free”. Scares the shit out of both of you!
    Force is your mantra and anyone who resists is a “moron”, an “idiot” or perhaps a racist. It is people like you who will never rise to the level of the regular folks. You cherish power, we love freedom. I don’t want to tell either of you what to do nor how to do it. Would you accord me the same consideration? Or am I too stupid to be entrusted with my own freedom?

    You both project your own shortcomings and your own faults. Your weakness and inability to succeed cannot stop us. We will always win. Fools.

    I benefit from zero subsities, matter of fact I , like you Pay For Them, Idiot. I want NOTHING from you and care NOTHING for Pho. I’ll make you a deal: leave me alone and I’ll leave you alone. Sound good? Or is it too much to ask you two to fend for yourselves?

    Pho exists because WE protect his country. And yet he complaines about our DoD. Mike G. exists because I paid my taxes for forty five years to put him and now his kids through school and cover his ass in the market. Because guys like me buit businesses and employed people. Because we took the risks a pussy like him will never take. But somehow, I’m the bad guy. Eat me ladies!

    And BTW Mike G., when you say “in my experience” exactly what does that mean? What is your “experience”? Do you have any? Or are you just another moonbat mouthing the words others have taught you to parrot like a good little liberal? Go DO something then thell me about your “experience”.

  12. So, your point is that Hoagie’s (former) businesses benefited from corn and wheat subsidies? You know, in price downrange, I’ll bet that they did. But from where did those subsidies come? Right out of Hoagie’s pockets at tax time! He wound up paying for the tax breaks the farmers got and passed down to him. Because he’s a lot wealthier than most of us, he paid more for those tax breaks for other people than most people.

    Me, I’d be perfectly happy if we ended subsidies for farmers, ended special breaks for certain industries, and ended most of the tax breaks individuals and corporations get, in exchange for lower rates and simpler tax filing. Both Republicans and Democrats have been on the bandwagon of trying to manipulate the economy through various tax breaks and incentives; if we’d end most of that and simplify the system, and stop favoring one group of people over another group, we’d be a whole lot better off.

    And if we got rid of all of that foolishness, lobbyists wouldn’t have nearly as much that they could try to do.

  13. I didn’t mention no government nor small. I only mentioned the words “willing” and “free”.

    Yet, if you and yours rhetoric is to be taken seriously, I am not free to deny you your subsidies that you got fat off of. I am compelled by a coercive and cruel Big Government, no?

    Scares the shit out of both of you!

    Rhetoric does not scare me.

    Force is your mantra and anyone who resists is a “moron”, an “idiot” or perhaps a racist. It is people like you who will never rise to the level of the regular folks. You cherish power, we love freedom. I don’t want to tell either of you what to do nor how to do it. Would you accord me the same consideration? Or am I too stupid to be entrusted with my own freedom?

    Nonsense. You keep spitting out platitudes and expect to be taken seriously. I have explained in no uncertain terms that if we are going to make a point of blaming government coercion for our ills then we should be allowed to take into consideration all activities our government undertakes. Instead you embark upon your usual grandstanding without addressing the point.

    You both project your own shortcomings and your own faults. Your weakness and inability to succeed cannot stop us. We will always win. Fools.

    What are you talking about? I live a comfortable life.

    I benefit from zero subsities, matter of fact I , like you Pay For Them, Idiot. I want NOTHING from you and care NOTHING for Pho. I’ll make you a deal: leave me alone and I’ll leave you alone. Sound good? Or is it too much to ask you two to fend for yourselves?

    Ah, but you can’t leave me alone Hoagie. You need my tax dollars to pay those crop subsidies that protect you from market forces as well as a strong military to make sure that Seoul doesn’t end up looking like the surface of the moon and its citizens can afford to buy cold meat sandwiches. Dana and John Hitchcock need my tax dollars to put their kids through college/pay for their health care. Yorkshire needs my tax dollars to cut his paycheck. Now, keep in mind that I am not opposed to these things. The difference here is that I’m not the one preaching free market theology and no taxes.

    Mike G. exists because I paid my taxes for forty five years to put him and now his kids through school and cover his ass in the market.

    What makes you think I don’t pay taxes? I pay taxes, Hoagie. And I’m just as concerned as the rest of you about what they’re spent on. However, I don’t resort to special pleading.

    Because we took the risks a pussy like him will never take. But somehow, I’m the bad guy. Eat me ladies!

    I don’t understand what this is supposed to mean or imply considering that I own two LLCs.

    And BTW Mike G., when you say “in my experience” exactly what does that mean? What is your “experience”? Do you have any? Or are you just another moonbat mouthing the words others have taught you to parrot like a good little liberal?

    Again, this is just unctuous preening on your part. I made a simple observation: that you sell (sold) products that benefit from quite a considerable amount of government subsidy therefore you have been the beneficiary of Big Government intervention. By that same token I could shake my fist at the freedom hating farmer who conspires to shackle the fair mistress of the free market. I don’t do that. What I ask is that you apply the same standard to yourself that you apply to others which as plain a moral truism if there ever was one.

  14. So, your point is that Hoagie’s (former) businesses benefited from corn and wheat subsidies? You know, in price downrange, I’ll bet that they did.

    But from where did those subsidies come?

    Me.

    Right out of Hoagie’s pockets at tax time! He wound up paying for the tax breaks the farmers got and passed down to him. Because he’s a lot wealthier than most of us, he paid more for those tax breaks for other people than most people.

    So the government taxing individuals and channeling that money upward to enrich the wealthy is acceptable just as long as it benefits the “Wealth Producers”? How is that not tyranny as described so recently by Our Lady of Madonna University while on his way out the door?

  15. The difference here is that I’m not the one preaching free market theology and no taxes.

    Which is unfair of me to say. I don’t think anyone has preached no taxes zero none whatsoever. My overall point was described in another comment thread. That being, in short, that I don’t agree with Reaganite “Free Lunch Conservatism” where we all preach the religion of limited government and low taxes, collect our government checks and then look to each others constituencies to pay up when the bill shows up in the mail.

  16. Gee, Hoagie, we’ve seen your rant, and yet you haven’t seem to have actually dealt with the facts we’ve bought up.

    Namely that tax burdens have shifted down under Reagan and Bush, and back when America was doing much better than it is now, the rich were paying a greater share of the taxes.

  17. And the Times has an interactive graphic so people can see what their own proposed budget choices would do.

    Of course, we know wingnuts don’t have the courage to put hard numbers to their wailing. i invite mike g and Perry to give it a go.

  18. I did “give it a go”, PiaToR, and here are my results.

    I was able to create a surplus of $250 billion by 2015, and about $50 billion by 2030, by focusing on cuts in DoD, Social Security for high incomes, medical malpractice, and increasing estate, dividend, and capital gains taxes to Clinton levels, expire tax cuts on >$250K incomes, a new 5.4% surtax on >$1 million incomes, eliminating tax loopholes, imposing a carbon tax and a bank tax. This all corresponds to savings of 70% from tax revenues and 30% from spending cuts.

    Now granted, this exercise is somewhat simplistic, but it does indicate the relative impacts of spending cuts in discretionary spending (minor), DoD spending (major) and entitlements (major), and tax increases, so no surprises here, but the specific details are surprises, at least to me. It is interesting to note that the Republican House is focusing on discretionary spending, the least likely area to impact our deficit/debt.

    And yes, I am hitting the wealthy hard, by mainly going back to Clinton era tax policies during a time when the economy flourished and a federal surplus was generated. Moreover, I am hitting them by closing loopholes and raising their taxes in several new ways. In my view, this is the only way that we can more effectively approach our current fiscal challenges. We certainly cannot afford to hit the middle class any harder, but we can hit the wealthy class harder, in my view. I don’t think there are any other viable options.

    I expect Hoagie (John) to come down hard on my analysis. Let’s see yours, John!

  19. I expect Hoagie (John) to come down hard on my analysis. Let’s see yours, John!

    Don’t hold your breath. You’re asking people who think that cutting funding for the NEA is going to solve the budget crisis.

Comments are closed.