Gay Patriot Header Image

John Boehner’s Marker

It is not often that I strongly disagree with Bruce.  No, we should not give the Democrats what they want on the economy.  It’s going to be bad enough that they pretty much got what they wanted during Obama’s first two years in office.

And we’re only beginning to see the consequences of that legislation, with Obamacare causing businesses to restructure their workforces and Dodd-Frank threatening the survival of community banks.  And then there’s the additional burden of the numerous regulations the Obama administration has been pushing.

People will soon see the damage wrought by Democratic policies.  We don’t want to make it even more difficult for our friends out of work and struggling to survive.

What House Speaker Boehner needs to do is not give Obama what he wants, but instead lay down a marker to show where Republicans stand.  And not yield.  And we know tax increases only give Washington politicians excuses not to cut spending.

The Ohio Republican said on Wednesday that “the GOP won’t accept tax increases, though it will accept changes that eventually would increase revenue through a more efficient tax code.”  He must know that if he yields, some conservatives will clamor for new leadership.

When Boehner wins on this, he will give conservatives something to cheer about, to show that conservatives can stand up to the reelected president and remain a potent force even after the disappointing results of last week’s election.  The Democrat will know that the Republican Speaker is no push-over, keeping him on his toes.

Right now, Republicans should not give Democrats what they want in order to weaken the economy.  They should stand firm on principle in order to show their supporters than they mean to stand up to Obama’s job-killing policies.

Meanwhile it seems Democrats are prepared to let the Bush-era tax rates expire rather than take what Senator Patsy Murray calls an “unfair deal“.  If they do as Miss Murray wants, taxes will go up on all families, including those in the “middle class.”  And if the Republican House has passed a bill extending the tax rates on all levels, then it will be the Democrats who have done nothing to prevent such tax hikes.

All because Speaker Boehner stood firm.  May he never waiver.

Share

99 Comments

  1. Only one thing is wrong with your scenario, and that is this: what’s more likely to happen in the face of Republican intransigence is that the Bush-era tax cuts will be allowed to expire, which will in effect raise taxes across all income levels. Then the Democrats will introduce a bill to lower taxes on everyone making less than $250,000 per year – and will keep re-introducing it and hammering on it until the Republicans support it or the 2014 elections roll around, whichever comes first. If it’s the elections, plan on running against a tsunami of ads placing the blame for higher taxes on 90% of the electorate on the GOP, who won’t support tax cuts that don’t include favors to their sponsors in the millionaire and billionaire class.

    You’re probably right about this. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Republicans caved, it’s what they’re good at lately it seems. No doubt they have a trick or two up their collective sleeves but given their most recent performance I question if it’ll be enough. Still, one benefit of letting all of the Bush-era tax rates expire is that not only will the rich pay a higher percentage like many seem to want, but so will the poorest who currently have little to no “skin in the game”. I don’t care if they pay a dollar in income taxes, they should still be paying something.

    As for higher taxes on millionaires hurting the economy, that might be true if we were talking about large increases, rather than a piddly little 3%.

    Why are you being so disingenuous? The proposed tax hikes are not just on “millionaires” but on EVERYONE who makes $250,000 in income. That’s what your guy Obama has clearly said all throughout the campaign and still does today. Guess what? This includes small business owners, the majority of employers in this country btw, who’s business earnings are also counted as their personal income. If you really think that raising their taxes won’t cause them to make some serious changes to protect their own interests, well I’d like to have some of what you’re smoking. It might help take the economic pain in what’s now beginning Year 3 for myself at least.

    What’s holding the economy back right now is lack of demand – too many people with too little money to do the spending and create the demand that would necessitate full employment.

    And why is that? Could it be the nearly 8% unemployment we still have and will have for the foreseeable future? The long-term unemployment that is screwing those affected from gaining employment back in their old fields, since employers just won’t hire them after a period of time? No, in order to create demand you have to have consumers with enough disposable income to buy more products and services. With increased taxes, now Obamacare taxes, potential carbon taxes, increased prices in food, gas and other essentials, as well as heavy credit debts and fear of possible job loss in the immediate future, most folks have seriously cut back on their spending. Just where do you think they are going to get the money to increased demand through their spending? Another $300 “stimulus check”? Please. Don’t make me laugh. I’ve seen a number of studies that show most people use those checks to do exactly what I’ve done every time I received one: make a payment on a bill or put it in savings.

    By the same token, a smart businessperson isn’t going to cut the workforce he needs to supply the demand he’s got if his taxes go up a little, because if he doesn’t meet the demand, he’ll have even less profit when his sales go down as a result of customers going elsewhere. Rational people don’t cut off their noses to spite their faces.

    are you seriously that naive? It’s not just income taxes, it’s the cost of all the new regulations that impact their bottom line as well as the big behemoth: Obamacare. Ever wonder why France has “2.4 times as many companies with 49 employees as with 50“? Well you’re about to see something like this play out here in the States as companies shed employees, cut back hours for remaining employees and create other smaller business arrangements to escape the costs of regulations from things like Obamacare. Remember what I said here because you WILL be seeing this in the coming year.

    This leaves the possibility that the reports we’ve seen in the past week of business owners “punishing” their employees with layoffs due to the election outcome represent irrational people, of which there are undoubtedly a few. But more likely is that the layoffs were being planned anyway. Or perhaps it’s a mix of both.

    Of course these layoffs were planned. Any smart business person had contingency plans ready to go for whichever candidate won on November 6th. What we’re starting to see now are their plans for an Obama win being put into place.

    Bottom line, this idea that “tax cuts create jobs” is just a fairy tale.

    Maybe, maybe not. I’ll let those smarter than I in economic matters debate that. Yet what I do know is that what businesses and people do in the wake of combined higher income taxes, increased costs for Obamacare & new regulations, rising prices on essentials, lower job security and prospects for new employment, etc. all combined together will not have a positive impact on the overall economy. Only someone completely incapable of rational thought would seriously claim otherwise.

    Comment by JohnAGJ — November 12, 2012 @ 2:18 pm - November 12, 2012

  2. Something I was thinking about when it comes to freeing income.

    Kickstarter.

    I’ve participated in a few projects as an investor. The amount of capital raised for certain projects far exceeds the goals.

    Examples I can cite are Reaper’s Bones (30k requested, 3.5 million pledged), Rappan Athuk (25k requested, 246K pledged) Pathfinder online (50K requested, 300K pledged), Dreamscarred press (2.5K requested, 57K pledged) and Giant in the Playground (58K requested, 1.25 million pledged)

    (Aside, Levi would have demanded none of these exist.)

    It is clear that people have some income to invest in projects they value. Levi and Jenn (hmm maybe she’s Levi’s imaginary girlfriend?) don’t believe that people with that extra income should be allowed to chose what to do with it. It’s also clear that the people investing have helped create jobs (Reaper is buying new equipment and moving their operations back to the US, PFO created 4 freelance positons, and if the game takes off that’s programmers systems analysts, etc. etc.) and yet, both Jenn and Levi would demand that they/we have that money taken by the state, because they fail economics.

    Human nature and trade will always prevail. Whether it be in ‘black markets’ or simple trade for service (I am going to go work on my sister’s computer tonight, my brother in law redid the plumbing in my condo). No matter how much Jenn wants to pretend otherwiswe.

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 12, 2012 @ 2:21 pm - November 12, 2012

  3. ILoveCapitalism – you haven’t raised any points. You’ve bemoaned that I do not base my understanding of economics on a work of fiction, and I hardly regard that as a point.

    But, whatever. You, and NDT, and The_Live_Wire, and whoever else should feel free to go on believing that what you wish to believe is reality. It didn’t work out too well for you last Tuesday, when you chose to believe that the polls were skewed rather than reflecting what the true reality was, but apparently you’ve learned nothing from that.

    Comment by JennOfArk — November 12, 2012 @ 2:23 pm - November 12, 2012

  4. Yup, definately Levi’s girlfriend.

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 12, 2012 @ 2:26 pm - November 12, 2012

  5. he’d never be able to read “having the government spend and print” into anything I’ve written.

    I’m sorry, Jenn: Excuse me for crediting you with an actual theory, an actual line of thought, behind your incorrect and insane comments.

    If you want, I can stop giving you so much credit. It’s your call.

    You see, your talk about “demand”, your taking Obama’s side of the argument, and your denial of the inarguable truth that tax cuts for the holders of businesses and productive capital (the rich) creates more jobs, together imply a political-economic theory: that aggregate economic growth comes from so-called “demand”, and that we need government to (supposedly, somehow) create more of it, with redistributionism as part of the solution.

    Can you deny that you think that? If you can deny it, then you are even less worthwhile than I already suspected (because actually, you have no theory behind your comments). And if you can’t deny it, then kindly acknowledge that I perceived it correctly and apologize for your use of epithets.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 12, 2012 @ 2:26 pm - November 12, 2012

  6. ILoveCapitalism – you haven’t raised any points.

    As I said: You choose to ignore my points, and answer instead what you wish I’d said.

    If you really didn’t see my points the first time, I can re-print them for you:

    [JoA] overlooks so many things… including the devastating effect of Obamacare on employment (converting the U.S. to a “part-time nation”)… and that the business person’s smartest move, in the world that she and Obama envision, is to say “Screw you guys, I’m going home”…

    Human demand is infinite: people always need things. Lack of demand for useful goods and services is never, ever a problem in any economy.

    “But I was talking about *effective* demand… that is, purchasing power”, the Keynesian blabbermouth will now say. Well, then. Where does purchasing power come from? Not from printing money! … [or spending it; but rather,] from production and trade… the very thing that Obama and left-liberals are so determined to make war on.

    [that businesses will not hire workers unless demand requires, is] true at the MICRO-economic level. That is: The red button maker won’t hire more workers *to produce red buttons*, unless there is a rise in the demand/spending for red buttons. But it is not true, at the macro level. You cannot increase demand for all goods and services at once; because, as I said, the demand for all goods and services in aggregate, is already effectively infinite. And if you try to… all you do is raise commodity prices for everybody. Which hurts the middle class and the poor, the most.

    These last four years have already seen a wave of smart business people giving up.

    [the Obama welfare slut definition of “demand” involves handing out millions of dollars to drunks, adult babies, and multimillionaire tax-dodging Congresspersons] … which operates at a MICRO level to increase the demand for the goods favored by drunks, adult babies, and multimillionaire tax-dodging Congresspersons: for example, alcohol.

    But then everyone else must pay more for alcohol, and whatever else is used to make it. There is no gain to aggregate demand; only a micro re-allocation of it.

    You have no answers for any of that, JoA. So don’t try. Just keep ignoring it. Answer the thing you wish I’d said, instead.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 12, 2012 @ 2:36 pm - November 12, 2012

  7. JohnAGJ – I don’t agree with some of what you’ve said, but at least you make a rational argument, unlike the others here.

    I have to note that the Clinton tax increases did not lead to fewer jobs, just as the Bush tax cuts did not lead to more jobs.

    Of course high unemployment is a large part of the demand problem. People without jobs don’t generally have discretionary income. But that problem won’t be solved by keeping tax rates low – or lowering them – on people who are doing fine.

    The crux of it is that the only way to pay off debt is by raising revenue and/or cutting spending. The Republican idea is to cut spending on things like Medicare (via voucherizing it) or Social Security, cutting benefits like food stamps (which are being highly utilized thanks to the high unemployment rate) and mostly things of this nature. Which brings us around to: do you think these proposals would have no impact on discretionary income and, by extension, demand? The senior who spends $6,000 of their fixed income per year on health coverage is going to be spending $6,000 less on consumer purchases. The senior whose Social Security benefit is cut will also be spending less. The family who is scraping by through a period of unemployment with food stamps won’t have those anymore; presumably they will rely on food banks and church food pantries to avoid starvation – but they won’t be spending at the grocery store. Think that will have zero impact on grocery store employment and employment in the companies that supply grocery stores?

    If we take all of those measures instead of raising taxes a few percent on the wealthiest, are those wealthiest going to make up for the lost purchasing power of the many whose Medicare/Social Security has been cut? Not likely. A million households will never be able to consume as much as 50 million households, no matter how they try. Even if they have 10 homes, 10 refrigerators, 10 cars, on down the line, they aren’t going to generate the kind of demand you see from a more broad distribution of wealth.

    That’s the issue here. It’s not about printing more money, or as NDT would like to pretend, people on disability or welfare. It’s about not having all the wealth highly concentrated. That can only come about a few ways: higher wages for working people, or higher taxes for wealthy people, or some combination of the two. A system where the burden of taxation is falling most heavily upon those who already can’t participate in discretionary spending isn’t going to fix things; it will only make them worse.

    Comment by JennOfArk — November 12, 2012 @ 2:40 pm - November 12, 2012

  8. do you think [spending cut] proposals would have no impact on discretionary income and, by extension, demand?

    Overlooks, again, the fact that aggregate demand is not the problem; government intervention in the economy, is – including huge excesses in regulation, mandates and restrictions (which effectively make war on production and trade and employment), spending (which distorts both demand and supply, re-allocation from producers to moochers), borrowing and money-printing.

    The more Obama makes war on production and trade (including tax increases but not limited to them), the less will be produced, and the lower American living standards will fall.

    And the more Obama borrows and prints money in a delusional effort to raise aggregate demand, the more commodity prices will rise on average, hurting people’s spending elsewhere – thus proving the point that total aggregate demand cannot be increased by policy (but only re-allocated), and also hurting seniors and the poor, the most.

    If we take all of those measures instead of raising taxes a few percent on the wealthiest, are those wealthiest going to make up for the lost purchasing power of the many whose Medicare/Social Security has been cut?

    That’s what I mean by a really ignorant comment.

    First, there is no reason to think that tax increases on the wealthy are capable of raising the desired revenue, as NDT has shown repeated. Second, if they could raise the desired revenue, it would be a grave injury to the economy. The more we tax the wealthy, the more we eat businesses’ capital. JoA overlooks the role of capital in creating production, trade and employment. Show me an economy which insistently confiscates and consumes the capital of its rich people, and I’ll show you one getting steadily poorer.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 12, 2012 @ 2:54 pm - November 12, 2012

  9. One of the main reason’s I wrote the post that Dan disagrees with is this comment by #14:

    My concern though is no matter what the GOP in the house does Obama and his lap dog media will find a way to blame all that goes wrong on the GOP house if they negotiate on a bill.

    Why bother? Let them have it. It is time for Obama voters to have their “fair share” of pain since they seem immune from it so far.

    Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — November 12, 2012 @ 3:10 pm - November 12, 2012

  10. I’ve a question, policywise.

    I know the Senate has ‘gutted’ bills passed by the house and put their own language in. Can the House do the same?

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 12, 2012 @ 3:23 pm - November 12, 2012

  11. ILoveCapitalism – NDT has shown nothing repeatedly, other than a shocking ignorance. As in his comment about killing off the consumers to make the economy healthy. If making purchasing and consumption harder were the answer, the last 4 years would have been boom years.

    Your problem, it seems, is that you equate “working people who don’t make a lot of money” with “moochers.” In this, you take a typically Randian view – that somehow, billionaires produce wealth all by their lonesomes. They don’t. No one in human history has EVER become a billionaire without profiting from the labor of others. Not that there’s anything inherently wrong with profiting from the labor of others – that’s what the capitalist system is all about. The question is, how much profit should go to the billionaire capitalist vs. how much in wages to the workers without whom he wouldn’t be a billionaire? Your lot seems to think that money is self-generating – that the billionaire can just pile his riches in a room, fire all the “moochers” whose productivity created those riches, and somehow his wealth will increase. Doesn’t work that way. Pushed too far in the direction of profits for the capitalist billionaire at the expense of wages to his employees, multiplied across the economy, and soon you have a majority of workers who aren’t earning enough to buy…at which point the billionaire capitalist can’t sell what his workers produce, or enough of it, to continue making profit. Where we are right now is in a bad pinch, because not only does the billionaire capitalist think that more is never enough, and this justifies paying ever less in wages, but he also doesn’t want to pay taxes for social services for his employees who can no longer do for themselves thanks to falling wages. Eventually you get to a point where there are maybe a couple of million people sitting on almost all the wealth, and economic activity slows to a trickle. Because those couple of million people can’t keep every local dry cleaner and Ace Hardware in business, the way that tens of millions, earning decent wages, can.

    But hey, go on believing your own reality. Like I said, that worked out so well for you folks last Tuesday.

    Comment by JennOfArk — November 12, 2012 @ 3:42 pm - November 12, 2012

  12. Jenn is again proof that you can lead a lib to facts, but can’t make her think.

    I guess to her, when I buy a book, it appears magically out of thin air. It doesn’t generate work (i.e. demand) for the retailer I get it from. The trucker who ships it, the gas station attendent who fills the truck, the writer who writes it, the publisher who publishes it, the lumberjack who cuts the trees down, etc etc. Nor the people who’s jobs provide them the tools to do their job. Nope, it just suddenly springs from the writer’s brain fully formed to materialize on my doorstep.

    And I love the Levi-esque image of people ‘sitting’ on their wealth. People ‘sit’ on their wealth when it’s detrimental for them to spend it. But hey, that’s getting facts in the way of her rant.

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 12, 2012 @ 4:07 pm - November 12, 2012

  13. As I said above, JennofArk’s posts are elaborate rationalizations that revolve around one thing and one thing only: her belief that people like her should get paid for no work out of the proceeds of those who do work.

    Notice how she screams and cries that anyone who has more money than she does doesn’t deserve it because they profited off the labor of others.

    The funny thing about it is that, if that were the case, everyone would be as poor and helpless as JennofArk.

    The simple fact is people succeed because they build a better product, provide a better service, and create value that other people wish to purchase.

    This is intolerable to JennofArk, who produces a shoddy product, does a crappy service, and does a tremendous job of wasting any dollar that is put in her hand.

    So what does she do? She starts screaming that those who do better “don’t deserve it” or that they “stole” it from their workers.

    No. What it is is that they did a better job at capitalism. She didn’t. She is a failure, and rather than changing her ways so that she can succeed, she goes screaming to Obama to drag everyone else down to her decrepit level.

    That’s why Obama supports bailouts. That’s why Obama supports giving welfare to drunks. That’s why the Obama Party is all about welfare checks for no work and punishing those who do work. It is, plain and simple, people like JennofArk using the government to paper and plaster over their failures and allow them to profit off the labor of others without contributing a single penny.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 12, 2012 @ 4:44 pm - November 12, 2012

  14. Also, notice something else.

    I provided not one, not two, but THREE real-world examples of how JennofArk and her Obama Party were doling out money.

    JennofArk screams and cries and runs away from reality, declaring it “irrelevant”, and then starts spinning theoretical sob stories.

    You would think that reality would support her if what she was saying was true. But what reality supports is that Obama welfare sluts like JennofArk have no interest in actually helping the “working poor”; instead, they dole out money to drunks who don’t work, adult babies who don’t work, and multi-millionaire tax cheat members of Congress.

    Not to mention how they blow the millions of taxpayer dollars that they claim are to help “the poor” on private airliners and lavish offshore vacations for insider-trading multimillionaires.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 12, 2012 @ 4:49 pm - November 12, 2012

  15. Of course high unemployment is a large part of the demand problem. People without jobs don’t generally have discretionary income. But that problem won’t be solved by keeping tax rates low – or lowering them – on people who are doing fine.

    “People who are doing fine”? Like small business owners who will pay these higher taxes that will definitely have an impact on their companies? Did you miss the fact that these are the largest number of employers in this country? Yet whether incomes taxes go up or down in isolation isn’t the problem. You’re still overlooking the crucial fact that we’re talking about raising income taxes on these small business owners at the same time we have the increased costs from Obamacare, new regulations they must comply with, higher costs for essentials (which impacts businesses too), and a low demand. The way for these small business owners to meet these changes, if they don’t go under that is, will have a negative effect on people’s lives who will lose their jobs or find their hours reduced all of which will not be positive for an economy that’s teetering on dismal growth for years now.

    The crux of it is that the only way to pay off debt is by raising revenue and/or cutting spending.

    C’mon, do you really think that this administration will use any new revenue or savings to pay off debt? They’d have to take care of the $1+ trillion deficit before they even begin to pay on the national debt and nothing from Obama indicates that they will even do the former let alone the latter. Their own budget proposals have enormous deficits for years to come with MORE spending like Obamacare to add into the mix!

    The Republican idea is to cut spending on things like Medicare (via voucherizing it) or Social Security, cutting benefits like food stamps (which are being highly utilized thanks to the high unemployment rate) and mostly things of this nature.

    Tell me how you can sustain these programs without cuts. It’s a fantasy to think that a few billion more in taxes is going to cover them. Without cutting them and probably means testing them as well you’re never even going to get close to breaking even, which means they will go broke and drag the weak economy down with them.

    Which brings us around to: do you think these proposals would have no impact on discretionary income and, by extension, demand? The senior who spends $6,000 of their fixed income per year on health coverage is going to be spending $6,000 less on consumer purchases. The senior whose Social Security benefit is cut will also be spending less. The family who is scraping by through a period of unemployment with food stamps won’t have those anymore; presumably they will rely on food banks and church food pantries to avoid starvation – but they won’t be spending at the grocery store. Think that will have zero impact on grocery store employment and employment in the companies that supply grocery stores?

    How much more are businesses and individuals paying from their own income under Obamacare for that senior you speak of? Will that grocery store see its costs increased for employee health care, pay more for compliance with new regulations, cope with rising transportation costs and food prices, etc. enough to offset what it receives from that unemployed family on food stamps you speak of – which btw are also paying those benefits this unemployed family receives? I doubt it. What you are creating is a ponzi scheme that is not sustainable.

    If we take all of those measures instead of raising taxes a few percent on the wealthiest, are those wealthiest going to make up for the lost purchasing power of the many whose Medicare/Social Security has been cut?

    Great, stick it to the Romney’s, Obama’s, Bill Gates’, etc. You keep referring to the super rich when in reality this will hit small business owners more. Remember, many of them pay incomes taxes on their business earnings and Obama is talking about folks at $250,000 on up – not just millionaires or the super rich as you seem to think.

    A system where the burden of taxation is falling most heavily upon those who already can’t participate in discretionary spending isn’t going to fix things; it will only make them worse.

    Most of the people you are talking about do not pay Federal income taxes and haven’t for years now. Taking more from others to feed into more programs that are not sustainable without cuts combined with increased taxes on EVERYBODY not just the rich, isn’t going to change this. You could confiscate the wealth of the rich, well what the Feds could actually find, and it still wouldn’t keep us going for long with all the entitlement spending we have.

    Comment by JohnAGJ — November 12, 2012 @ 5:55 pm - November 12, 2012

  16. Oh swell. Bruce or Dan, please edit my last comment to close a blockquote I missed. Thanks.

    Comment by JohnAGJ — November 12, 2012 @ 5:57 pm - November 12, 2012

  17. Whew!

    I never knew that there is demand coming down the road and supply heading toward it and an economic exchange orgy when they swat spit and fluids with one another. That is really, really simple. Sort of like evolution: things evolve. Sort of like global warming: it gets hot then it gets cold.

    So, if the government finances it, the demand will spike and the age of aquarius is upon us. Think solar panels, wind machines, the Chevy Volt, and unicorn farts.

    Jenn @ #45:

    I merely made the unassailable observation that giving tax cuts to rich people doesn’t “create jobs.” It never has, and it never will.

    Liberals seem to have this incredible hyperbole disease as some sort of argument put-down technique. Well, Jenn’s unassailable “observation” is about to be assailed: if “it never has, and it never will” is the case, why on earth would the government ever cut taxes under any circumstances? Kennedy was a master screw-up in the House of Jenn.

    Consider the following quote from Obama on September 12th, 2008:

    Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.

    See that dependable liberal hyperbole/lie in that one? (I highlighted it for you.)

    Obviously, not a single aspect of Obamacare will raise the costs on medical care for anyone making under $250,000 a year. No, sir-ee. Not a penny. And the Supreme Court did not declare Obamacare legal only because it is a TAX. Right?

    Now, this stuff about comparing Ayn Rand to Adam Smith is no different from comparing Mein Kampf to The Theory of Relativity. However, it is salient to note that far more people have read and understood Ayn Rand than ever read Adam Smith, Einstein, Darwin, Marx, Locke, Burke and many others who are constance subject of reference without retribution.

    The “demand” fairy tale that Jenn peddles is remarkable for its naive simplicity. Look at any chart available about where the “demand” magnet for mind soothing or altering drugs in the world is centered and you will see that the U.S. of A. is ground zero.

    Accordingly, Jenn’s definition of “demand” compels the US to open the market and let the suppliers loose to satisfy demand and hire distributors and hang around school yards to “hook up” a new batch of demanders.

    Meanwhile, Bloomberg is all hot to keep people from having access to one 16 ounce of non-diet soda, but not two 8 ounce cups of non-diet soda and the cops will just have to decide whether it is non-diet or not. Simple.

    So, we need only turn to Jenn and other hyperbole liberals with diarrhea to separate “good” demand form “bad” demand and politically correct modes of supply.

    No matter how thick or thin you slice it, Bush derangement syndrome and liberal hyperbole and attempting to limit the definition of terms (think: “demand”) is pure boloney.

    Jenn, crawl back into you thumb-sucking special word under the cartable castle and cuddle up with your little friend Levi.

    Comment by heliotrope — November 12, 2012 @ 6:06 pm - November 12, 2012

  18. You guys/gals are missing the point. These problems aren’t bugs, they’re features.

    The first couple of years, I thought people mentioning Cloward-Piven were hearing signals in their fillings but I’m starting to think they were simply looking a bit further ahead than I was.

    I mean, does anyone think that the statistic are really shocked and unhappy that lots of people are losing full time positions or being fired d/t imminent Obamacare rules?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloward–Piven_strategy

    Comment by SoCalRobert — November 12, 2012 @ 6:31 pm - November 12, 2012

  19. Here’s an interesting proposal for raising more revenue:

    Maybe 15 Years ago a columnist at the Atlantic noted that the not-for- profit sector was placing itself in the same position the Catholic monasteries in England were in at the start of Henry VIII’s reign. The monasteries held all the wealth and the Henry’s government needed revenue.

    A one time excise tax on the fair market value of the endowments of all the private foundations would work nicely. An to be fair, the rate should be low for the small guys and 90% for the behemoths like Ford and Carnegie.

    Colleges are a bit trickier. Some of them have much larger endowments than others. Maybe it should be a graduated rate based on a multiple of an amount based on the theoretical current income to the school if all students enrolled at the beginning of the school year paid full tuition and fees. If the FMV of the endowment is less than eight to ten times that number the tax would be nominal. The rate for a school like Harvard where the income alone from the endowment could pay the combined tuition and fees with lots of money left over should be 90%. After that haircut place the schools on a system that confiscates part of their endowment if future tuition increases ever exceed the CPI.

    And here are some more ideas:

    The first such proposal would be to restore the 20 percent excise tax on motion picture theater gross revenues that existed between the end of World War II and its repeal in the mid-1950s. The campaign to end the excise tax had studio executives and movie stars talking like Art Laffer, as they noted that high taxes reduced business income, hurt investment and cost jobs.

    The movie excise tax was imposed in response to the high deficits after World War Two. Deficits are high again, and there’s already historical precedent. Of course, to keep up with technology, the tax should now apply to DVDs, downloadable movies, pay-per-view and the like. But in these financially perilous times, why should movie stars and studio moguls, with their yachts, swimming pools and private jets, not at least shoulder the burden they carried back in Harry Truman’s day — when, to be honest, movies were better anyway.

    For extra fun, they could show pictures of David Geffen’s yacht and John Travolta’s personal Boeing 707 on the Senate floor. You want to tax fat cats? I gotcher “fat cats” right here! Repeal the Hollywood Tax Cuts!

    Another valuable proposal would limit the ability of tax-exempt organizations to escape scrutiny and hoard funds. To limit foundations’ role as perpetual-employment agencies for cause-oriented Lefties (and it’s mostly Lefties), Congress might require them to spend at least 10 percent of their endowment each year, with no wiggle room. Why should rich people be able to go on influencing the culture, tax-free, for decades after they die? (Or, perhaps more accurately, why should foundation apparatchiks be free to pursue their own goals tax-free with other people’s money?)

    Limits on the charitable deduction might be worth considering: Perhaps a $50 million lifetime limit, which should surely be enough for anyone; perhaps a $1 million to $5 million annual limit. Why should fatcats like Warren Buffett be able to get millions in tax deductions that average Americans can’t?

    Limiting the pay of nonprofit leaders (including university presidents and foundation heads) to no more than the pay of a member of Congress or a Supreme Court justice might also be worthwhile. Who needs to make more money than that, especially when it’s coming from tax-deductible sources? At some point, you’ve made enough money, as a great man once said.

    Beyond this, if Democrats demand truly serious tax increases, Republicans could propose capping the mortgage interest deduction so that houses worth more than $250,000 are ineligible. (You say that hits blue states harder? Darn!) Ending the deductibility of state property and income taxes — which would also hit residents of high-tax blue states harder — might also be worth it. These measures would be unpopular with a lot of voters, but they’d mostly be Democratic voters.

    Comment by JohnAGJ — November 12, 2012 @ 6:32 pm - November 12, 2012

  20. The Republican idea is to cut spending on things like Medicare (via voucherizing it) or Social Security, cutting benefits like food stamps (which are being highly utilized thanks to the high unemployment rate) and mostly things of this nature.

    You say that like it is a bad thing.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — November 12, 2012 @ 6:34 pm - November 12, 2012

  21. heliotrope – under Kennedy, the top marginal rate went from 91% to 70%. You want to claim that this is the same thing as 3%? Go back and re-read; I said at least once that very large tax increases or cuts might have an effect on job creation, but not increases or cuts on the magnitude of 3%.

    Something else you might note: the more taxes are cut, the less their value is. When the top rate was 91% and went to 70%, that meant that for every dollar taxed at that top rate, instead of keeping 9 cents, the earner got to keep 30 cents – meaning every additional dollar earned returned 3 times as much – over 300% more – to the earner as it had previously. When, under Reagan, the top rate dropped from 70% to 50%, instead of getting to keep 30 cents of every dollar earned at the top rate, the earner got to keep 50 cents – not three times as much, or even twice as much, but still a respectable 66% more. Now look at the effect of going, as we did under Bush, from 39% to 36% – instead of keeping 61 cents of every dollar earned at the top rate, earners in the bracket got to keep 64 cents – less than 5% more than previously.

    It’s diminishing returns in terms of any economic stimulative effect, the more you cut.

    Still, going back to the original, you’d have to be a complete moron to compare the effect of the Kennedy cuts to the effect of the Bush cuts, for the reason outlined above, which is why I stipulated that VERY LARGE cuts or increases could have an effect, while a piddling 3% don’t make much difference, if any at all.

    Comment by JennOfArk — November 12, 2012 @ 6:37 pm - November 12, 2012

  22. Something else you might note: the more taxes are cut, the less their value is. When the top rate was 91% and went to 70%, that meant that for every dollar taxed at that top rate, instead of keeping 9 cents, the earner got to keep 30 cents – meaning every additional dollar earned returned 3 times as much – over 300% more – to the earner as it had previously.

    LOL.

    The truly brain-dead imbecile speaks again.

    A reduction in tax cost is a reduction in expenses, child. All that the reduction in tax rates meant was that the government started taking less of the money you had already earned; it didn’t mean that you were earning more money.

    Furthermore, imbecile, you forgot one of your blanket statements above:

    Bottom line, this idea that “tax cuts create jobs” is just a fairy tale.

    Comment by JennOfArk — November 12, 2012 @ 12:30 pm – November 12, 2012

    And

    I merely made the unassailable observation that giving tax cuts to rich people doesn’t “create jobs.” It never has, and it never will.

    Comment by JennOfArk — November 12, 2012 @ 2:00 pm – November 12, 2012

    And here you are citing the Kennedy tax cuts as things that produced economic and job growth.

    Again, all this is because the imbecile JennofArk is not operating off intelligent economic theory; rather, the imbecile is trying to craft an explanation for why she should profit off the labor of others and be paid for not working.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 12, 2012 @ 7:01 pm - November 12, 2012

  23. Moreover, I think it’s time we crushed the deluded imbecile JennofArk with some math.

    Basically, JennofArk and her Barack Obama scream that “the rich” are the problem and that we need to confiscate their wealth in the name of “fairness”.

    First, as was aptly pointed out, the total of the Obama deficits for the past three years of the Obama reign, even with a generous adjustment, is $3.43 trillion dollars.

    As Mary Katherine Ham so helpfully calculated, the grand total of wealth of every single one of the US’s billionaires is $1.3 trillion — or, put differently, a mere 38% of the total generously-adjusted Obama deficit.

    Clearly, not enough. So let’s go even deeper than that. Let’s tax everyone who makes over $200k at 100% of their income.

    That would raise a grand total of $2.4 trillion — or 71% of the total generously-adjusted Obama budget.

    Do you understand that, JennofArk? If you confiscated the total income of every single taxpayer making over $200k annually in the United States, you couldn’t even pay the entire generously-adjusted deficit that your “progressive” Obama Party and Barack Obama have run up just in their three years in office.

    And that doesn’t even get into the economic effect of confiscating every single dollar of income that anyone making over $200k has.

    You have a child’s view of economics, JennofArk, as does your Barack Obama. You see the economy as your parent’s wallet — an inexhaustible supply of funds that you didn’t have to lift a finger to earn and that belongs to you to spend as you like, and if they refuse you, they’re hateful bigots who abuse their child and want you to starve.

    We all think it’s cute how you sit here and pronounce what you think are magic words like “demand”, when it’s clear that you have absolutely no concept of what you’re saying. We also understand clearly why your fellow liberals like Levi say that women are stupid and unable to avoid being emotionally manipulated by men into having promiscuous and unprotected sex.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 12, 2012 @ 7:07 pm - November 12, 2012

  24. NDT, it’s rich to see you calling anyone else a moron.

    It’s not an issue of “expenses” vs anything; it’s an issue of the marginal value of a dollar earned to the person who earned it. At 70% rate of taxation, that person is getting over 300% more income for every top-bracket dollar earned than he was getting at a 91% rate of taxation. That’s likely to be stimulative in a way that getting, say, 4.5% more income for each dollar earned is not.

    Unless you’re now going to tell us that 4.5% is the same as over 300%, which quite honestly would not surprise me in the least.

    Comment by JennOfArk — November 12, 2012 @ 7:24 pm - November 12, 2012

  25. From my first comment on the topic:

    Bottom line, this idea that “tax cuts create jobs” is just a fairy tale. In extreme cases there might be a bit of truth to it, but we aren’t talking about extremes in terms of cutting or raising rates. And any economic theory that relies on ignoring the rules that overarch all – those of supply and demand – in order to make any sense, are at root nonsensical theories.

    NDT, now explain to us how 300% isn’t “extreme” as compared to 4.5%. Then you can lie some more about stuff that any person reading can see is a lie.

    Comment by JennOfArk — November 12, 2012 @ 7:34 pm - November 12, 2012

  26. Thank you Jenn for admitting you don’t have a compelling argument.

    When confronted by facts…

    NDT, it’s rich to see you calling anyone else a moron.

    To quote a (not so) wise woman

    Epithets do not a convincing argument make.

    So you can’t counter facts, except when you shoot yourself in the foot and conceed the point. You can’t make a convincing argument, and your only ally is a sexist racist fascist. Maybe you should quit beclowning yourself?

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 12, 2012 @ 7:44 pm - November 12, 2012

  27. Something else you might note: the more taxes are cut, the less their value is. When the top rate was 91% and went to 70%, that meant that for every dollar taxed at that top rate, instead of keeping 9 cents, the earner got to keep 30 cents – meaning every additional dollar earned returned 3 times as much – over 300% more – to the earner as it had previously.

    You are forgetting about the payroll tax differences over the years. Kennedy’s tax cut passed in 1964 when SSI had a 7.25% rate and is 10.4% today. In 1964 there was no Medicare Hospital Insurance, but is taxed at 2.9% today and has been at this rate since 1986.

    Then there is the Alternative Minimum Tax & capital gains taxes that Kennedy didn’t have to contend with in the 1960s. There are also the increased state income tax rates, state & local sales taxes which combines can range anywhere from 3%-10.5% depending upon where you’re at, property taxes, estate & gift taxes, etc. Then there are the “hidden” costs of increased fees for almost everything we do with government from driver’s licenses & vehicle stickers to passports.

    So comparing just the income tax rates alone from Kennedy’s era to ours leaves out a heckuva lot.

    Comment by JohnAGJ — November 12, 2012 @ 7:45 pm - November 12, 2012

  28. JohnAGJ – I’m comparing apples to apples – that is, federal income tax rates to income tax rates, since that’s what heliotrope specifically mentioned – the Kennedy income tax cuts.

    Such a comparison also leaves out the fact that that top rate only applied to truly astronomical income levels, the equivalent of tens of millions in today’s dollars. Also left out is the fact that we, today, only have 5 brackets, where in the 40’s – 70’s we had a dozen to two dozen brackets.

    Frankly, that’s the one issue I have with Obama’s tax proposal – it lumps in those making $250K with those making millions or tens of millions. I’d prefer to see something more like a 1% increase on the $250K earners, 2% on the $500K earners, 3% on the million-dollar earners, 4% on those making 3 or 4 or 5 million, and so on. Which would solve most of the concerns about the truly “small business” owner, because most of them aren’t making more than $250K to begin with. The only reason we ever ended up with so few brackets was that it was engineered to protect the incomes of the super-wealthy by lumping them in at the same rate as the merely well-off. I say, let’s go back to more brackets instead of pretending that those making $250K have the same ability to pay as those making $10 million.

    Comment by JennOfArk — November 12, 2012 @ 8:01 pm - November 12, 2012

  29. The Live_Wire – you’d be the expert on beclowning, for comparing the phrase “it’s rich to see you calling someone else a moron” to multiple – too many to count – flinging-abouts of “slut” and various other charming epithets which stand in for actual facts or logic in NDT’s many posts. Only a clown would see equivalency there.

    BTW, I can’t help but notice that no one here ever tries to step up to the plate to defend NDT’s pathetic attempts at argument. Notably, no one has agreed that the key to economic prosperity is to kill off all the consumers. And other examples of happy lunacy, though that one tops all.

    Comment by JennOfArk — November 12, 2012 @ 8:08 pm - November 12, 2012

  30. It’s not an issue of “expenses” vs anything; it’s an issue of the marginal value of a dollar earned to the person who earned it.

    Comment by JennOfArk — November 12, 2012 @ 7:24 pm – November 12, 2012

    More attempted magic words spewing from the mouth of the imbecilic child who is whining and crying and screaming about why we won’t pay her for doing nothing.

    The game is up, imbecile girl. Your lies have been debunked using your worst enemy — math. You are completely and totally broke.

    Furthermore, you and your Barack Obama have been “stimulating” the http://www.gaypatriot.net/?comments_popup=56118#comment-720694economy with trillions upon TRILLIONS of debt for the past three years, yet have managed to do nothing but balloon the unemployment rate, collapse tax revenue, crash the GDP, and lower the country’s credit rating.

    Why? Simple. You and your Barack Obama channel money to drunks, adult babies, and corrupt Congresspersons and call it “investment”, while shrieking “you didn’t build that, we’re going to confiscate it and give it to drunks, adult babies, and corrupt Congresspersons” at every successful business in sight.

    That’s what makes your attempt to use magic words so hilarious. For all your whining and spouting about “demand”, all you’ve demonstrated is that you support and endorse policies that are dead opposite to allowing anyone to accumulate enough wealth to even drive demand in the first place.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 12, 2012 @ 8:10 pm - November 12, 2012

  31. The Live_Wire – you’d be the expert on beclowning, for comparing the phrase “it’s rich to see you calling someone else a moron” to multiple – too many to count – flinging-abouts of “slut” and various other charming epithets which stand in for actual facts or logic in NDT’s many posts. Only a clown would see equivalency there.

    Translation: “How dare you hold me accountable to my own standards! My name is Leni Riefenstahl, and everything I do is to advance the Fuhrer Obama and his economic genius!”

    BTW, I can’t help but notice that no one here ever tries to step up to the plate to defend NDT’s pathetic attempts at argument. Notably, no one has agreed that the key to economic prosperity is to kill off all the consumers. And other examples of happy lunacy, though that one tops all.

    Comment by JennOfArk — November 12, 2012 @ 8:08 pm – November 12, 2012

    Too bad you have a reading disability, moron.

    Also, I find it amusing that you equate being right with everyone agreeing with you. It shows why your arguments lack actual facts, logic, and intelligence, and instead are just repeating talking points handed to you by the Obama Party.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 12, 2012 @ 8:16 pm - November 12, 2012

  32. NDT hits it in the black.

    Jenn gets upset that she’s hoist by her own ‘standards’ then tries to change the subject.

    Her self beclowning continues.

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 12, 2012 @ 8:18 pm - November 12, 2012

  33. Yes, NDT, my “math” is so bad that all your compatriots are rushing in to correct it – NOT. Either 30 cents is worth over 300% of 9 cents or it’s not. Get out your calculator, bright boy, and tell us the correct answer on that.

    Comment by JennOfArk — November 12, 2012 @ 8:18 pm - November 12, 2012

  34. Since you link to a comment that isn’t anyone defending any of your extremely stupid pronouncements, NDT, it would appear that it’s you who possesses the reading disability.

    Comment by JennOfArk — November 12, 2012 @ 8:20 pm - November 12, 2012

  35. Yes, NDT, my “math” is so bad that all your compatriots are rushing in to correct it – NOT. Either 30 cents is worth over 300% of 9 cents or it’s not. Get out your calculator, bright boy, and tell us the correct answer on that.

    Comment by JennOfArk — November 12, 2012 @ 8:18 pm – November 12, 2012

    And now the imbecile tries to scream and cry and backpedal away from what she said in the first place.

    Your math is wrong period, ignorant slut, because remember what you stated before?

    I merely made the unassailable observation that giving tax cuts to rich people doesn’t “create jobs.” It never has, and it never will.

    Comment by JennOfArk — November 12, 2012 @ 2:00 pm – November 12, 2012

    See? Your “unassailable” assertion of “never”.

    Therefore, all your attempts at math are lies by your own logic and statement.

    So there’s no need. You’ve beclowned yourself by trying to argue that tax cuts have positive economic value when you stated unequivocally and “unassailably” that they NEVER did.

    Again, ignorant imbecile, your arguments don’t make sense unless one has to realize that all you are doing is trying to rationalize why you should profit off the labor of others and why you should get paid for not working.

    We all realize that. So we just sit here and watch and laugh as you throw screaming tantrum after screaming tantrum, demonstrating once again why your friend Levi thinks all liberal women are ignorant morons who can’t resist emotional manipulation by men.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 12, 2012 @ 8:24 pm - November 12, 2012

  36. Since you link to a comment that isn’t anyone defending any of your extremely stupid pronouncements, NDT, it would appear that it’s you who possesses the reading disability.

    Comment by JennOfArk — November 12, 2012 @ 8:20 pm – November 12, 2012

    Wrong again, liar slut.

    First, there is no reason to think that tax increases on the wealthy are capable of raising the desired revenue, as NDT has shown repeated.

    Ignorant and stupid liar. No wonder you can’t hold a job. Basic reading and research are quite beyond you. Is that why you scream and cry and piss yourself demanding a welfare check for doing nothing?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 12, 2012 @ 8:26 pm - November 12, 2012

  37. NDT, I’m sorry that math is beyond your ken, but in discussing econmics it does play a role. Again, on the subject of reading comprehension. That’s from my very first post on this topic. So either a) you are stupid, and believe that 300% does not represent an extreme as compared with 4.5%, or b) you are, as usual, just lying.

    Comment by JennOfArk — November 12, 2012 @ 8:29 pm - November 12, 2012

  38. With your psychic abilities, NDT, I’m surprised that you weren’t able to predict the outcome of last Tuesday’s election.

    Or maybe your psychic abilities just suck.

    Comment by JennOfArk — November 12, 2012 @ 8:31 pm - November 12, 2012

  39. Unfortunately for your lies, desperate screaming imbecile, that’s not what you said elsewhere.

    I merely made the unassailable observation that giving tax cuts to rich people doesn’t “create jobs.” It never has, and it never will.

    Comment by JennOfArk — November 12, 2012 @ 2:00 pm – November 12, 2012

    It’s not our fault you aren’t intelligent enough to make a coherent argument. That explains a lot about why you need a welfare check, though; no private company would hire such a lazy, pathetic, imbecile such as yourself, who can’t even keep track of her own words and lies about what she says.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 12, 2012 @ 8:34 pm - November 12, 2012

  40. Oh, and you know what’s even funnier?

    BTW, I can’t help but notice that no one here ever tries to step up to the plate to defend NDT’s pathetic attempts at argument.

    Comment by JennOfArk — November 12, 2012 @ 8:08 pm – November 12, 2012

    And then she shrieks and tries to deny that anyone ever has:

    Since you link to a comment that isn’t anyone defending any of your extremely stupid pronouncements, NDT, it would appear that it’s you who possesses the reading disability.

    Comment by JennOfArk — November 12, 2012 @ 8:20 pm – November 12, 2012

    But of course, what was she previously screaming at ILC about?

    ILoveCapitalism – NDT has shown nothing repeatedly, other than a shocking ignorance.

    So her desperate argument was that I was wrong because no one was defending me — while she was simultaneously screaming and shrieking at ILC for defending me.

    Ignorant and unhinged. Nothing more than a typical Obama Nazi, shrieking “SIEG HEIL, OBAMA!” at the top of her lungs, unable to tell the truth about anything or recognize any of the reality of her glorious Reich.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 12, 2012 @ 8:41 pm - November 12, 2012

  41. NDT, it’s not MY fault that you’re not smart enough to read what’s posted. Which I’ll remind you again, was this, in my VERY FIRST POST on the topic:

    Bottom line, this idea that “tax cuts create jobs” is just a fairy tale. In extreme cases there might be a bit of truth to it, but we aren’t talking about extremes in terms of cutting or raising rates. And any economic theory that relies on ignoring the rules that overarch all – those of supply and demand – in order to make any sense, are at root nonsensical theories.

    There’s this thing called context, which I don’t expect you to understand any better than you understand math, but basically the meaning of context is that you don’t just take one word or sentence in isolation when deciphering meaning. My context, as anyone proficient in reading and understanding the English language would have no trouble grasping, was that nibbling around the edges on the tax code with a few lousy percent, as is the current case, doesn’t produce earth-shattering changes. IT NEVER HAS, AND IT NEVER WILL. Saying so does not, under the rules of context, NEGATE what I said originally, that maybe in EXTREME cases you might see some stimulative or depressive effects.

    I’m sure that this is all lost on you, given that you simply aren’t that bright, and even in those cases where you are bright enough to grasp what’s been said, you aren’t HONEST enough to acknowledge it.

    Now tell me again how I’m an “ignorant slut” who doesn’t know math because you have a shameful lack of grasp on the meaning of language. Then show us how 30 cents isn’t over 300% of 9 cents, and tell us how that effeminiate, faggy Nate Silver is just doing fag-math and Romney is going to win in a landslide. In other words, keep f***ing that chicken.

    Comment by JennOfArk — November 12, 2012 @ 8:59 pm - November 12, 2012

  42. Being used to NDT’s vulgarity, I find it funny that Jenn proves she can’t make a compelling argument with every post.

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 12, 2012 @ 9:11 pm - November 12, 2012

  43. I love watching the poor screaming child JennofArk throw even louder tantrums and hissy fits insisting that she never said what she CLEARLY said:

    I merely made the unassailable observation that giving tax cuts to rich people doesn’t “create jobs.” It never has, and it never will.

    Comment by JennOfArk — November 12, 2012 @ 2:00 pm – November 12, 2012

    But as we have already seen, she’s an unhinged liar who doesn’t know WHAT she says anyway.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 12, 2012 @ 9:26 pm - November 12, 2012

  44. BTW, NDT, dear, that post you point to as an example of your buddies having your back? You know, this one:

    First, there is no reason to think that tax increases on the wealthy are capable of raising the desired revenue, as NDT has shown repeated.

    It’s amusing because you’ve not “shown”, repeatedly or otherwise, anywhere on this thread, any type of argument about how tax increases on the wealthy won’t raise the desired revenue. I’m not saying they will or won’t; I’m just pointing out that the only example you can give of anyone backing up any of your “arguments” is an example of someone backing up an argument you haven’t made in this thread. Maybe you’ve made it in the past, though I’ve no faith that it’s any better than any of the imbecilic drivel you’ve posted on THIS thread, but you haven’t made it here; you’ve not even ATTEMPTED to make it here, and yet…that’s the only example you can show of someone agreeing with anything you’ve ever said.

    Of course, no one should be expected to comb through previous threads to look at the stupid things you’ve said there, so you’ll understand why I didn’t accept this as an example of anyone having your back on any of the stupid things you’ve said here today. And in point of fact, we’ve yet to see anyone agree with you that a) 30 cents represents over 300% of 9 cents; b) starving all the consumers isn’t a great way to get an economy moving, or c) anything else you’ve claimed.

    So even your examples of “AHA! did so!” are as lame as the puerile “arguments” you’ve managed to drag out of your backside for this thread.

    Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to go to the grocery store, where I’ll pile my cart high with T-bones and malt liquor, and use the food stamps I didn’t trade for drugs to pay for it all – with the tax dollars you paid from your meager wages at Taco Bell. Ta-ta!

    Comment by JennOfArk — November 12, 2012 @ 9:40 pm - November 12, 2012

  45. Jenn,

    what part of the kennel do you share with Cass? You certainly obfuscate identically, perhaps it is the dogwood.

    Comment by heliotrope — November 12, 2012 @ 9:45 pm - November 12, 2012

  46. It’s amusing because you’ve not “shown”, repeatedly or otherwise, anywhere on this thread, any type of argument about how tax increases on the wealthy won’t raise the desired revenue.

    Comment by JennOfArk — November 12, 2012 @ 9:40 pm – November 12, 2012

    Actually, I have.

    Insane and unhinged, and quite the liar you are. But of course, we can expect no better from an Obama welfare slut.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 12, 2012 @ 9:54 pm - November 12, 2012

  47. her desperate argument was that I was wrong because no one was defending me — while she was simultaneously screaming and shrieking at ILC for defending me.

    Yeah… I’ve been sitting back in ‘popcorn’ mode, but I gotta say, that is the truth and the way you pointed it out NDT has given me a chuckle 🙂

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 12, 2012 @ 10:25 pm - November 12, 2012

  48. As to your manner of expressing yourself: You know, because I’ve told you before, that your rhetoric might leave a little too much battlefield smoke for me BUT I greatly admire your factual/logical content.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 12, 2012 @ 10:28 pm - November 12, 2012

  49. Looks like JuliaOfArk ran away to another thread to beclown herself elsewhere.

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 14, 2012 @ 8:08 am - November 14, 2012

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.