Why, yes, he does!

Charles Krauthammer of The Washington Post asked a rhetorical question in his column last Thursday:

Three years later, we are back to smoke and mirrors. This time it’s not health care but the Buffett Rule, which would impose a minimum 30 percent effective tax rate on millionaires. Here is how Obama introduced it last September:

“Warren Buffett’s secretary shouldn’t pay a [higher] tax rate than Warren Buffett. . . . And that basic principle of fairness, if applied to our tax code, could raise enough money” to “stabilize our debt and deficits for the next decade. . . . This is not politics; this is math.”

Okay. Let’s do the math. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates this new tax would yield between $4 billion and $5 billion a year. If we collect the Buffett tax for the next 250 years — a span longer than the life of this republic — it would not cover the Obama deficit for 2011 alone.

As an approach to our mountain of debt, the Buffett Rule is a farce. And yet Obama repeated the ridiculous claim again this week. “It will help us close our deficit.” Does he really think we’re that stupid?

Yes, Mr Krauthammer, he does. The most important piece of evidence in his favor is that we were stupid enough to have elected him, freely elected him, to be our 44th President in November of 2008. We bought a smile and we bought erudition and we bought confidence, valuing it over experience, we bought hope over knowledge, and we bought change, without asking whether it was change for the better. As much as the Democrats derided the Republican Vice Presidential nominee, Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK), she was the only candidate among the Democrats and Republicans who had ever actually run anything before. There were literally people saying that, why of course Senator Obama had more experience than Governor Palin, because he represented a district with more people in it than the population of Alaska, as though representing a district was the same thing as governing it, same thing as managing it.

Of course, the Republican presidential nominee, Senator John McCain (R-AZ), had never run anything (other than his mouth) before, either, but at least he was older, wiser (well, maybe), and more greatly tempered by military service, by 5½ years in a North Vietnamese prison camp, and by life in general than Barack Obama.

And yet, a clear majority of the American voters cast their ballots for Senator Obama. So, does he really think we’re that stupid? Yes, of course he does, and we have yet to prove that we aren’t.

84 Comments

  1. “Yes, Mr Krauthammer, he does [think we're stupid].”

    No, Mr Krauthammer, he does not. President Obama thinks that the Buffet rule is the fair thing to do, a concept which continues to be not part of the Republican vocabulary, and certainly never has been part of Mr Krauthammer’s, who politically is at the far extreme edge of wingnut ideology, in my opinion.

  2. Obama’s transparent deceptions reveal the intellectual bankruptcy of his insanely stupid fiscal policies. He’s peddling garbage:

    “Warren Buffett’s secretary shouldn’t pay a [higher] tax rate than Warren Buffett. . . .

    Sounds great, but what about Obama’s own secretary? What should she pay?

    The so-called Buffet Rule is nothing more than an obvious campaign stunt which Obama knows full well is thoroughly bogus and doesn’t stand a snowball’s chance in hell of Congressional approval. It’s a lot like Obama himself, the result of smoke and mirrors.

    Want proof? (bold added)

    Here’s an excerpt reported in the Seattle Times

    Obama’s secretary pays higher tax rate than he and first lady do

    By Kathleen Hennessey and Michael A. Memoli, Tribune Washington bureau

    WASHINGTON — As President Obama mounts an aggressive campaign on what he calls tax fairness, his tax burden has fallen to the lowest of his time in the White House, lower than many who make less, including his secretary

    …Obamas’ tax bite was slightly lower than the rate paid by the president’s secretary, Anita Decker Breckenridge, who makes a $95,000 salary, the administration confirmed Friday.

    The administration would not disclose what Breckenridge paid, saying only that it was a “slightly higher rate” than that of her boss.

  3. President Obama has included himself in the Buffet group who should pay more taxes, based on fairness in our tax structure.

    And by the way, in historical terms, a 30% top bracket is very low! The current top bracket is 35%, which the 1% does not pay due to much lower taxes on dividends (15%) and capital gains (20%).

  4. There’s nothing in the least fair or equitable about demanding the very Americans who are already paying significantly more than all others to pay even more in taxes when about half our fellow countrymen pay nothing at all. That’s not fair, that’s the opposite of fair, that’s discriminatory, that’s unAmerican, and it’s as wrong as wrong can be.

    Either we share the tax burden equally, and that means every American is responsible for sharing the cost of government, or it’s every man for himself and the devil takes the hindmost.

  5. SINP writes

    President Obama has included himself in the Buffet group who should pay more taxes, based on fairness in our tax structure.

    Then why doesn’t Obama (and Buffet) simply pay more to the feds on their own? Y’know, like you refuse to do?

    They certainly can afford it. But, alas, like proven in Mass., progressives are hypocrites. Less than 1% of taxpayers there voluntarily paid the higher old state tax rate (given the chance on the tax form), opting instead to pay the new — lower — rate. Surprise.

  6. People keep talking about buffets and it’s making me hungry. On the other hand, the so-called “Buffett Tax”, which Buffett’s finances are organized in such a way that it wouldn’t touch him at all, would only generate 5 Billion Dollars in new taxes, provided a static model in which new taxes have no effect on people’s behavior (and absolutely anyone with an iota of understanding knows new taxes do, indeed, shrink the money pool those new taxes effect). But a ONE PERCENT ACCROSS-THE-BOARD CUT IN FEDERAL SPENDING would produce over 33 Billion Dollars a year in deficit reduction, or NEARLY SEVEN TIMES what the so-called “Buffett Tax” would do. But that doesn’t even approach the point that if you confiscated the entire wealth of all the nation’s billionaires, it would barely cover the deficit spending of One Single Year of Obamanomics. And then what? Confiscate the wealth of the top thousand millionaires? How many businesses would those actions eliminate? How many millions of jobs? Tenth Commandment violators never consider for a moment the consequences inexorably tied to their wishes. But Conservatives already know what sort of consequences would be involved because we live in the “what is” while Liberals live in the “what should be”. And the “what should be” will never, ever, become the “what is” because humans are involved.

  7. “… when about half our fellow countrymen pay nothing at all. “

    False! Another ropelight falsehood is upon us. You need to consider the total tax burden, not just the federal taxes, as pointed out on here a million times already.

    Now look, ropelight, check out this cite, specifically on page 1 for all states, and page 34 for your state of FL, after which you can come back on this thread and acknowledge that you were dead wrong, and then you might apologize to me for all the nasty insults you have made!

    You can now see that in your state of FL, the poor by far suffer from having the largest tax burden as a percent of their income, whereas the wealthy have much less of a tax burden, relatively speaking. Others like FL are WA and TX.

    On the other hand, states which do not tax the poor very much, and have the least spread between poor and wealthy, are my state of DE, also OR and VT.

    This cite has a very informative analysis of the total tax burden by state and by income tax burden, which should teach you folks that which your political leaders avoid like the plague, therefore, you should bookmark this cite for future reference, in order to complain to your leaders about the unfair tax burden the poor and the middle have in too many states.

    PS: Please note that these data do not include ss tax or medicare tax, both of which are regressive, therefore impact the poor and middle much less than the wealthy, much of whose income comes from dividends and capital gains, therefore is not taxed by ss and medicare. So the picture is even worse for the poor and the middle than this cite indicates.

  8. Stop it with your “total tax burden”, Perry. First off, that “total tax burden” has nothing to do with Federal Taxes and the running of the Federal Government, and anyone’s “fair” share. Second off, I already stated that I get so much Federal Income Tax back, that I even got more than what I paid in to the Federal (including Social Security and Medicare, that you face-planted when you called “regressive” already but cannot learn from your own face-plants) and sales tax (since I live in a state smart enough to not even have income tax). And I already explained that for many years, I did not make enough for income tax in the State of Ohio.

    Once again, Perry, you are using radical Leftist propaganda that could be very easily disproved if you even attempted to run the numbers. And once again, Perry, you somehow foolishly believe it’s a communication problem you’re having when Conservatives already understand and reject Liberal spewings, while Liberals do not understand Conservative positions at all, don’t know the Conservative language, can’t learn the Conservative language, and don’t even know what they don’t know.

    And, once again, Perry, you are pushing very hard for a predominantly Christian commentariat to violate the Tenth Commandment, a Commandment given by the Almighty, the Lord of Lords and King of Kings, the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End. You will not succeed in tempting this Christian commentariat to commit the sins you so blatantly wallow in.

  9. Here’s a question for SINP based on charts: How would you propose making sales/excise taxes progressive (since they appear to the largest negative factor on lower income totral tax burdens)? Precisely how would POSs (not you, but in this case points of sale) logistically be able to calculate that? Would consumers have to present a card showing what income level they’re currently in?

  10. Heh. Looks like I may have been right. Check out this proposal for a federal national progressive sales tax:

    We are all familiar with how credit and debit cards work by now. With a credit or debit card someone can make a purchase based on the funds available to their account. We are also familiar with a store discount card where the cardholder receives a discount on certain items. A national identification card would work similar to these cards to administer a progressive sales tax. Each id card would be tied to a data base to verify the annual income of the cardholder and would automatically apply the correct sales tax when the card is inserted. Accumulative annual spending could also be monitored so that when someone’s annual spending exceeded a certain amount they would then pay the next higher sales tax. This would discourage card sharing.

    Hello, Big Brother.

    [Comment edited to fix formatting error; no changes made in content. -- Editor]

  11. And to add to Koolo’s point regarding sales tax, from a completely different direction, what is the political persuasion of those governments that have chosen to foist the highest sales taxes on their subjects? Like in Chicago and Los Angeles and San Francisco. What is the political persuasion of those governments with the highest State Income Tax? What is the political persuasion of those governments with the highest gasoline tax? What is the political persuasion of those governments with the highest cigarette tax? It could be argued, from your perspective, that all the above-mentioned taxes are regressive. They do harm the little guy far more than the big guy. Again, which political persuasion pushes the highest taxes in those realms?

    Be honest.

    I bet you don’t even bother to give a direct and honest answer. Because it shows your face-plant.

  12. Koolo, follow the DE formula by eliminating sales taxes and relying more on progressive income taxes and property taxes which are also progressive to a degree. Vermont has a state tax offset for the lower 20%. If a state must have a sales tax because of low property values, keep it low, say 2-3%; Oregon’s is 2%. Another sales tax approach is not to tax necessities like food and clothing.

  13. Mr Hitchcock says:

    ” It could be argued, from your perspective, that all the above-mentioned taxes are regressive. They do harm the little guy far more than the big guy. “

    Exactly!

    Moreover, you make a good point about local sales taxes in big cities, as adders to state sales taxes, which hit the poor and middle yet more. These local taxes also were not included in the reference I cited.

    Regarding the political persuasion invoking taxes like local sales taxes, fuel taxes, excise taxes, and inheritance taxes, it depends on the jurisdiction levying the particular tax, so it could be either party.

  14. SINP writes

    Koolo, follow the DE formula by eliminating sales taxes and relying more on progressive income taxes and property taxes which are also progressive to a degree. Vermont has a state tax offset for the lower 20%. If a state must have a sales tax because of low property values, keep it low, say 2-3%; Oregon’s is 2%. Another sales tax approach is not to tax necessities like food and clothing.

    Interesting, as DE is one of what — three states in the Union w/o a sales tax?? Why is that, SINP? And should all food and clothing be exempt from sales taxes?

  15. Each and every adult resident and all minors above the designated age for taxation is responsible for paying for the cost of government, federal, state, and local.

    Divide the cost of government by the number of resident taxpayers per unit and send them a bill every year well in advance of the elections so taxpaying voters can make an informed choice between candidates who spend more and the ones who spend less.

    Simple, government of, for, and by the people paying the taxes.

  16. “Another sales tax approach is not to tax necessities like food and clothing.”

    Food and clothing are not the only necessities Wagonwheeel, shelter is a necessity too as is energy to heat and light our homes. So why would property taxes be okay or fuel taxes?

    And as Koolo pointed out, should all food be tax free, even dinner at The Capitol Grill? And should all clothing be tax free even a $3500 Versace suit?

  17. It’s a clear conflict of interest for anyone who isn’t paying taxes to vote.

    It is improper in the extreme for tax deadbeats to be able to vote for corrupt candidates who promise more and more benefits in exchange for access to elected office and to the keys to the public treasury. That’s just plain wrong and everyone knows it, even if they refuse to admit it.

    It’s time to put things right: No Representation Without Taxation!

  18. WW wrote:

    Koolo, follow the DE formula by eliminating sales taxes and relying more on progressive income taxes and property taxes which are also progressive to a degree.

    You live close enough to Pennsylvania and New Jersey to have heard just how much property taxes are hated by the public. New Jersey has the highest property taxes in the nation, and it’s killing them.

    You think property taxes are progressive? A married couple who bought their house, worked hard, and paid it off before retirement still get socked with huge property tax bills, even though their retirement income is (usually) significantly lower than what they were earning before retirement.

  19. There’s even more to it than that Mr. Editor. I’ve known several people who could no longer afford the upkeep and maintenance of their homes along with the taxes. They could afford one or the other but not both so subsequently they had to sell their home and rent a condo or apartment.

  20. Two points:

    1) I already called it. Perry refused to answer my questions. They would have indicted his political cohort.

    2) Perry unintentionally indicted his political cohort anyway with his agenda-driven response to what I wrote.

    Go look at the challenge I gave him and the response he gave. See for yourself.

  21. “You think property taxes are progressive? “

    No, Mr Editor, if you look at my cite, you will note that property taxes are also typically mildly regressive. Check the data, green bars.

    You do not appear to understand what a regressive tax is, so let me explain. A regressive tax is one which, as a percentage of one’s gross income, becomes lower as the gross income increases. You will see the evidence if you read the introductory text, or, page through the 50 states in my cite.

    Moreover, you will note that there is a large discrepancy from state to state, (light blue bar, which is the sum of the taxes considered), such as, for example, DE, OR, NY, DC, and VT are the least regressive, and states like FL, TX, NV, TN, PA, and WA are the most regressive. The light blue summation bar decreases as gross income increases, which is true for most states.

    PS: You will also note that many (not all) of your wingnut colleagues on here have become more radicalized in terms of their personal attacks on those having a different political perspective than they have. Thus, they are more intolerant, radical, and desperate as they observe the direction of the emerging political tide.

  22. SINP writes

    PS: You will also note that many (not all) of your wingnut colleagues on here have become more radicalized in terms of their personal attacks on those having a different political perspective than they have. Thus, they are more intolerant, radical, and desperate as they observe the direction of the emerging political tide.

    Blah blah blah. At least they don’t threaten people’s livelihoods like a particular radical progressive has on here.

    Why don’t you answer people’s questions, SINP? You merely pick and choose which ones you want to answer — those that either fit your radical agenda, or those that are “easy.” So don’t come in here acting as if we don’t know what we’re talking about … especially since, for example, you believe that the GOP is still in control in the Senate! LOL!

  23. Koolo, Perry’s just being his normal passive-aggressive self. He’s got his Dennis Rodman or Bill Laimbeer act down pat. But he’s not fooling anyone other than, possibly, himself. And I don’t really believe he’s fooling himself, either.

    But let’s not forget Conservatives understand Liberal positions while Liberals do not understand Conservative positions. And Liberals don’t know what they don’t know, so they don’t know what it is they need to learn. They’re still under this mistaken belief that “if only they explain it better” people will buy their crap sandwiches. They don’t realize we do understand and flat-out reject it, for reasons of logic and common sense.

  24. “Two points:

    1) I already called it. Perry refused to answer my questions. They would have indicted his political cohort.

    2) Perry unintentionally indicted his political cohort anyway with his agenda-driven response to what I wrote.

    Go look at the challenge I gave him and the response he gave. See for yourself.”

    Mr Hitchcock, you are so damn dense! I answered your question, and here it is:

    “Regarding the political persuasion invoking taxes like local sales taxes, fuel taxes, excise taxes, and inheritance taxes, it depends on the jurisdiction levying the particular tax, so it could be either party.”

    Moreover, it is simply stupid to single out federal taxes, which are supposedly progressive but really are not, as per the tax policies of G W Bush, favoring the wealthy, you know, where Warren Buffet and President Obama pay a lower percentage of their income for federal tax than their secretaries.

    One must look at the total tax burden to measure the impact of all taxes on citizens, that is, the percentage of their gross income which they pay. My cite covers the state and local taxes which people must pay in addition to their federal taxes.

    You happen to have chosen to live in the one of the most regressively taxing states in the nation, Texas! Assuming that your income is in the lowest 20%, you are hit with upwards of 12% of your income in local taxes. And your federal taxes, by the way, are zero. In fact, I would not be surprised at all if you are actually receiving a federal tax subsidy. Do you, Mr Hitchcock?

    And by the way, you did not answer my earlier questions of you: Are you on unemployment? Are you on food stamps? Are you receiving welfare payments? Why haven’t you answered, Mr Hitchcock.

    Are you even employed, Mr Hitchcock?

    Feel free to ask me these same questions, Mr Hitchcock. I’ll save you the trouble: My answers is to these five questions are: No, no, no, no, no! Now it is your turn to answer.

    But of course you won’t, and that’s OK. These are private matters. But I will wager that you are on the take from the governments which are helping you out, unacknowledged of course, and worse, severely criticized by you on a daily basis. How does this happen, Mr Hitchcock?

    Be happy you live in the good old US of A, a country which cares for our downtrodden and for those in need!

    And you know what else, Mr Hitchcock? Your almost daily partisan outbursts on here, together with your personal attacks, remind me of an idiot who has been in the news the last few days: Ted Nugent

    There is no call for his kind of behavior, nor yours, Mr Hitchcock!!!

  25. Mr Hitchcock wrote:

    (Liberals are) still under this mistaken belief that “if only they explain it better” people will buy their crap sandwiches. They don’t realize we do understand and flat-out reject it, for reasons of logic and common sense.

    That stems from the very sincerely held belief on the part of so many of our friends on the left that liberals are just plain smarter than conservatives. That’s why they tried so hard to push the meme that Al Gore and John Kerry were just so much smarter than George Bush, even though it turned out that Mr Bush got better grades in college than either of the two Democrats named.

    The fact that the Democrats’ base consists of the least educated Americans, and the fact that, if you went to college you are more likely to vote Republican, why that just doesn’t seem to register with them.

    Wagonwheel’s problem is that he believes that there is some magic formula which will enable complete fairness, across the board, while still holding that fairness involves considering how much people have when setting their tax rates. These are two diametrically opposed positions: a progressive tax structure might seem fairer if your consideration is the taxpayer’s ability to pay, but it is manifestly unfair to the higher producer, who is taxed at a higher rate. And if everybody is taxed at the same rate — which would be legal fairness, which would constitute equal treatment under the law — the lower producers are going to feel the pain of taxation more than higher earners, because each dollar that they lose is a dollar which would have gone to necessities rather than luxuries.

    You can come up with all sorts of what ifs and but thats — should retirement income be taxed the same as regular earnings? — but it’s an exercise in trying to out-think the economy; that has never worked before.

    Wagonwheel is very upset that people don’t have equal outcomes in our society, that some people simply earn more than others. To him, that’s a great injustice. But it can’t be helped: some people are simply more talented and productive than others, and that will never change.

  26. “So don’t come in here acting as if we don’t know what we’re talking about … especially since, for example, you believe that the GOP is still in control in the Senate! LOL!”

    Koolo, your dribble is typically not worth either attention or response, but let me correct this misstatement of yours. The filibuster threat by the do-nothing GOP rules the Senate, thus requiring 60 votes to get contentious/most legislation passed. Didn’t you tell us that you are a school teacher?

  27. SINP writes

    Koolo, your dribble is typically not worth either attention or response, but let me correct this misstatement of yours. The filibuster threat by the do-nothing GOP rules the Senate, thus requiring 60 votes to get contentious/most legislation passed. Didn’t you tell us that you are a school teacher?

    Uh huh. That must be why you wrote

    I also predict that the Repubs will lose the house, but probably retain the Senate, so the challenge for Dems will be to assure that the Repubs do not end up with 60 votes.

    In other words, you actually thought that the GOP controls the Senate, and you hope that they do not get a filibuster-proof majority. Your own words prove that. There’s nothing said about the [red herring] GOP-minority filibuster or any other such nonsense.

    You’re as “knowledgable” as that person who thought that Thomas Jefferson wrote the Constitution.

  28. WW wrote:

    The filibuster threat by the do-nothing GOP rules the Senate, thus requiring 60 votes to get contentious/most legislation passed. Didn’t you tell us that you are a school teacher?

    Apparently it rules more than that: the Senate Democrats, who control every committee and control the schedule, won’t even try to vote on the most basic legislation, the budget, even in committee, where there is no filibuster.

  29. “The filibuster threat by the do-nothing GOP rules the Senate, thus requiring 60 votes to get contentious/most legislation passed.”

    So? Do you mean the “threat” of a filibuster is stoping the wise and powerful Democrats from even introducing a bill? How weak-kneed is that? Or is it that any legislation they would introduce would be so divisive, so uncompromising they need not bother? I thought you guys were all for bi-partisan compromise. So introduce a bill and debate it for heaven sake.

    Seems to me the only “do-nothings” are the Democrats as they do- nothing as far as introducing legislation because they know they would have to compromise. And we all know tyrants don’t do that. So I guess till they get it all their way they’ll take their ball and go home and sulk. Typical maturity level for leftists. I suppose the “We won” so “go to the back of the bus” philosophy ain’t workin’ out that well.

    We need a budget. We need to address the federal tax system. We need an energy policy which encourages innovation as well as exploration. We need to look at and revamp a ton of regulations. We need to address entitlements and entitlement abuse. We need to take a long hard look at Who we are and Where we want to go. But the Democxrats in the Senate are afraid to debate anything they can’t control and win 100%. Cowards!

  30. Koolo, your dribble is typically not worth either attention or response, but let me correct this misstatement of yours. The filibuster threat by the do-nothing GOP rules the Senate, thus requiring 60 votes to get contentious/most legislation passed. Didn’t you tell us that you are a school teacher?"

    A filibuster threat means nothing unless the party threatening is actually willing to speak on the floor. You need 60 votes to stop it, not call the bluff which would if historical precedent is any indication would last less than 30 hours.

    In fact a do nothing Senate like this one – which has been reported in session fewer hours than any in recent memory – has plenty of time to let the matter be thoroughly aired. Let the opposition talk. The Senate is doing nothing anyway. And if the Demos have the better argument CSPAN will show that the filibuster is nothing but an obstruction.

    Your drivel about the filibuster being to blame is both ignorant and dishonest.

  31. Mr Editor, this statement of yours is patently incorrect:

    “These are two diametrically opposed positions: a progressive tax structure might seem fairer if your consideration is the taxpayer’s ability to pay, but it is manifestly unfair to the higher producer, who is taxed at a higher rate.”

    We absolutely do not have progressive taxes on the local level, as I have documented for you in this very thread that they are regressive overall. Have you been paying attention?

    On the federal level, yes, for the most part, except for those in the the upper couple of a percent, say over about $1 million in income, our federal income taxes are progressive. On the top earners, they turn regressive, because of the lower rates for income from dividends and capital gains, because of tax loopholes, and because of off-shore cash depositories, as in Warren Buffet and President Obama paying a lower percentage of their income in taxes than their secretaries.

    Moreover, other federal taxes such as on social security, excise taxes, and fuel taxes are all regressive, since the wealthy pay less as a percentage of their income. An exception is the medicare tax, which is a flat tax on all income levels.

    You need to finally acknowledge these facts about our taxes, Mr Editor! I await that acknowledgment.

    I will also note that your claim that we Americans are paid according to our productivity is false, as evidenced by the huge upward movement of wealth in this nation. The upper 1% now own something like 40% of the entire nation’s wealth.

    Productivity is output over input, or efficiency. Profit is a measure of productivity. However, morals and ethics have to be factored in, such as: Are employees rewarded fairly? Are working conditions safe and healthy? Are accounting standards adhered to? Is the quality of the output up to standards? Is there appropriate transparency? Are regulations being followed? Is the law being obeyed? Are unsavory money and/or stock manipulations being followed? Are reporting requirements being followed rigorously? Are productivity gains per capita being amply rewarded?

    In point of fact, a very productive segment of our population has seen their rewards stagnate for at least three decades. Do I need to document this fact for you, Mr Editor? And again, over these same three decades, look what has happened to the excessive rewards to our top couple of percent. Are you going to persist in your denial of these facts, Mr Editor.

    Our compensation system has gone haywire. Which party do you trust to focus on this problem, Mr Editor? It seems to me that Republican leaders, rather than focusing on this issue, especially regarding readjusting tax policy, are actually interested in continuing this upward movement of wealth.

    There are plenty of wealthy Americans who understand this problem, for example: Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, George Soros, Oprah Winfrey, Bruce Springsteen, Robert DeNiro, Madonna, Michael Moore, Stephen Spielberg, Paul Newman, Barbara Streisand, Jon Bon Jovi, ….

    If we do not reverse this trend, I am sure that increasing chaos will ensue!

    If the Democrats are successful in getting this message out, as I think they will be, then in November the Republicans will lose.

  32. “There is no call for his kind of behavior, nor yours, Mr Hitchcock!!!”

    Three exclamation points now.

    Have you ever been treated or medicated for mental illness or imbalance? Ever taken any mood altering prescriptions? Feel free to ask me the same question after you have answered. LOL

  33. “We absolutely do not have progressive taxes on the local level, as I have documented for you in this very thread that they are regressive overall.”

    This thread is not about taxes at the local level Wagonwheel, it’s about federal income taxes.

    Have you been paying attention?

  34. “There are plenty of wealthy Americans who understand this problem, for example: Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, George Soros, Oprah Winfrey, Bruce Springsteen, Robert DeNiro, Madonna, Michael Moore, Stephen Spielberg, Paul Newman, Barbara Streisand [sic], Jon Bon Jovi, ….”

    Gee, you left out Steve Jobs.

  35. “Your drivel about the filibuster being to blame is both ignorant and dishonest.”

    The filibuster threat has been used more frequently since President Obama took office by lock-step Republicans, than any other time in our history. So DNW, your refusal to acknowledge this is where the ignorance and dishonesty comes in!

    And koolo, it is true that I did carelessly misstated the Senate majority. However, the control of the Senate depends on being able to muster 60 votes to override the filibuster threat, which is what I should have written.

  36. “This thread is not about taxes at the local level Wagonwheel, it’s about federal income taxes.

    Have you been paying attention?”

    Well you obviously have not, Hoagie, because I have discussed federal taxes as well, in detail!

  37. And, Perry, you decidedly did not answer my questions.

    Who runs the show with the highest sales tax rates? Democrats.
    Who runs the show with the highest cigarette tax rates? Democrats.
    Who runs the show with the highest gasoline tax rates? Democrats.
    Who runs the show with the highest State Income Tax rates? Democrats.

    Perry, you refused to answer my questions because you knew the answer and you didn’t want to have to actually give the answer. It’s Democrats who pump up those supposedly “regressive” taxes (and you are still rejecting the Dictionary definition and trying to redefine a term to fit your propaganda) which you say are hurting the poor and middle class so horribly.

    A person making 69k a year in TX can live as affluently — and likely more affluently — than a person making 100k a year in CA, so don’t go telling me how terrible taxes are in TX. I live here, so I know things. Like taxes in TX are not nearly as bad as in OH. Like gasoline is much cheaper. Like electricity is cheaper. Like natural gas is cheaper. Like water is cheaper. Like garbage collection is cheaper.

  38. SINP writes

    The filibuster threat has been used more frequently since President Obama took office by lock-step Republicans, than any other time in our history.

    Maybe that’s b/c the Democrat majority has disallowed amendments from the minority more than any other time in our history. Or, this is the longest time in our history that the Senate hasn’t put forth a budget. Talk about “ignorance” and “dishonesty,” SINP.

    And koolo, it is true that I did carelessly misstated the Senate majority.

    Oh, is this how you’re defending your ridiculous mistake?

  39. “The filibuster threat has been used more frequently since President Obama took office by lock-step Republicans, than any other time in our history.”

    I don’t often use the word here but this time I will: that statement is a lie. Other than here on this blog, uttered by Wagonwheel, when have we heard the Republicans say they are “threatening” a filibuster? If they threatened a filibuster as often as you say they do it would beall over the MSM every day reminding us of “Republican obstructionism”. But it isn’t.

    You Wagonwheel, are confusing the possibility of a filibuster with the threat of one. Good job! It paints the Republicans as obstructionists while allowing the Democrats to do nothing. I’ve always admired the left’s use of language to fire up their ignorant masses.

  40. “Have you ever been treated or medicated for mental illness or imbalance? Ever taken any mood altering prescriptions? Feel free to ask me the same question after you have answered. LOL”

    No, have you? LOL!

    However, there are several on here who, if not, should!

  41. SINP writes

    And you know what else, Mr Hitchcock? Your almost daily partisan outbursts on here, together with your personal attacks, remind me of an idiot who has been in the news the last few days: Ted Nugent

    Yeah, Nugent gets a visit from the Secret Service, but Louis Farrakhan — who’s made arguably worse threats — gets … nothing in response.

  42. WW wrote:

    There are plenty of wealthy Americans who understand this problem, for example: Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, George Soros, Oprah Winfrey, Bruce Springsteen, Robert DeNiro, Madonna, Michael Moore, Stephen Spielberg, Paul Newman, Barbara Streisand, Jon Bon Jovi, ….

    And there is not one thing stopping them from contributing all that they want to the federal government! We have the contribution button on the right hand side bar, and THE FIRST STREET JOURNAL is not the only place it can be found. If these fine people believe that they ought to pay more in taxes, let them! Please, Mr Soros, go right ahead, I will not get in your way.

    The Commonwealth of Taxachusetts Massachusetts has an option, on the state income tax forms, for people to choose to voluntarily pay the older, higher tares:

    It’s somewhat noteworthy that the democratic senatorial candidate, Elizabeth Warren, who has said that the well-to-do have a moral responsibility to pay higher taxes, but refused to say whether she has done so.

    But, then again, not many people do. If Warren Buffet, et al, believe that they ought to pay more in taxes, let them lead with their actions, let them show us by their deeds. When they put their money where their mouths are, I will be impressed.

  43. But that’s just it Mr. Editor. They don’t want to put their money where their mouths are, they want to put our money where their mouths are. Nothing they propose even puts a dent in their wealth, it just sets up roadblocks for the rest of America from achieving the same.

  44. The “lie” is on you, Hoagie. Look here,, and then look here!

    From the NYT, January 2008:

    “The system for reviewing presidential appointments is broken. The Senate has a constitutional duty to provide advice and consent on the naming of judges and high-ranking executive branch officials. But the process has been hijacked by cynical partisanship and cheap tricks.

    This is not a new problem, but it has gotten intolerably worse and is now threatening to paralyze government, as Republicans use the filibuster to try to kill off agencies they do not like. The number of unfilled judicial seats is nearing a historic high.

    It is time to end the ability of a single senator, or group of senators, to block the confirmation process by threatening a filibuster, which can be overcome only by the vote of 60 senators. We agree with President Obama’s call in the State of the Union address for the Senate to change its rules and require votes on judicial and executive nominees within 90 days.”

  45. “If Warren Buffet, et al, believe that they ought to pay more in taxes, let them lead with their actions, let them show us by their deeds. When they put their money where their mouths are, I will be impressed.”

    Mr Editor, you have repeated this screed on here time and time again; it is flimsy and it is old. Moreover, you do not address the issue of our regressive taxes, especially state and local, which hit the poor and middle very hard indeed.

    I take your lack of a meaningful response as ducking the issue, in other words a retreat, actually an admission that you have nothing to counter.

    So go back to work and mix your concrete!

  46. “But that’s just it Mr. Editor. They don’t want to put their money where their mouths are, they want to put our money where their mouths are. Nothing they propose even puts a dent in their wealth, it just sets up roadblocks for the rest of America from achieving the same.”

    A case can easily be made, Hoagie, that the stealing is done by folks like you, who support regressive taxes which “steal” from the middle and poor, that is, those who are least able to afford the loss, especially in times like these.

    And you never give a glance to these people – a pox on your morality!

    Moreover, you people do not acknowledge the infrastructure which the taxpayers provide for you which enhances your chances for success. And success once achieved, then what do you do? Support wingnut policies which move more of the nation’s wealth upwards. You simply cannot argue with the facts. Instead, you people continue to be arrogant, selfish, and self-centered with most of your remarks, with the exception of the charitable work yourself do, for which you deserve kudos!

    Please give me an ethical explanation for your positions on policy, which are doing in our middle and our poor. Are they all lazy, as you people portray? That’s not my observation!

  47. “Moreover, you do not address the issue of our regressive taxes, especially state and local, which hit the poor and middle very hard indeed.”

    One more time Wagonwheel, state and local taxes are the responsability of the state and local governments, not the feds. Take it up with your governer, this thread is about federal income tax, that’s all.

  48. “Wagonwheel’s a mouthy little tart “pounding the table” and we all know the attorney slogan about “pounding the table”.”

    And Mr Hitchcock, you are your own worst enemy, and too dishonestly prideful and arrogant and adament to admit or even realize it.

    I’m outta here!

  49. “One more time Wagonwheel, state and local taxes are the responsability of the state and local governments, not the feds. Take it up with your governer, this thread is about federal income tax, that’s all.”

    I understand that you want to restrict this to federal taxes, because the inclusion of state and local taxes changes the picture in a way you don’t like, in a way that overturns your ranting. That is dishonest, Hoagie, do you understand that?

  50. Wagonwheel, you have no idea what the term “ethical” means, so you’re trying to change it up to serve your socialist desires. As documented evidence shows, Liberals cannot understand Conservatives, but Conservatives do, indeed, understand Liberals. And as documented evidence shows, people and businesses are leaving Leftist states and going to Conservative states like Texas, completely destroying the Socialist Democrat meme that you push so hard.

    And your headstrong effort to try to get a predominantly Christian commentariat to join you in wallowing in your sin of violating the Tenth Commandment continues apace, without any opportunity whatsoever of succeeding. Violating the Tenth Commandment and passing laws that violate the Tenth Commandment are unethical. Fast and Furious is murderously unethical. Eric “my people” Holder is unethical. Elena Kagan sitting on the bench to hear the SCOTUS case on ObamaCare is unethical. But our positions on taxes? Not at all unethical.

    But, according to the above-noted documented evidence, you will likely never be able to understand.

  51. “A case can easily be made, Hoagie, that the stealing is done by folks like you, who support regressive taxes which “steal” from the middle and poor,”

    Who the hell said I support regressive taxes? Did I? I don’t think so. But you are correct in that I believe taxes of all kinds “steal” from those taxed. The question is at what level do those taxes become oppression. My tolerance level is much, much lower than yours Wagonwheel for the poor, middle and rich.

    “And you never give a glance to these people – a pox on your morality!”

    How do you know at whom I “glance”? I’ve “glanced” thousands of times and provided thousands of jobs over decades for people from all walks of life. I guess that’s not good enough vis-a-vis my morality. Would you have me adopt them rather than employ them? Nah, you’d just complaine because I could use them as dependants on my taxes if I did that.

    “Moreover, you people do not acknowledge the infrastructure which the taxpayers provide for you which enhances your chances for success.”

    Of course we “acknowledge the infrastructure” since we as taxpayers provide it for ourselves and our countrymen. However, that infrastructure no more enhances my chances for success than it does yours.

  52. “I understand that you want to restrict this to federal taxes, because the inclusion of state and local taxes changes the picture in a way you don’t like, in a way that overturns your ranting. That is dishonest, Hoagie, do you understand that?”

    No I don’t understand that because this thread is about one friggin’ kind of tax not every tax ever levied on anyone! Damn it. You’re trying to muddy the water by bringing in all kinds of other crap which has nothing to do with federal income tax. That sir, is dishonest and if you were in court and the subject was federal taxes and you tried to introduce local taxes you’d be called out of order.

    Now if you want to talk regressive local taxes just ask The Editor to start a thread about such. But local taxes differ in all 50 states so it could get messy. But at least we could keep you on topic.

    And once again, I am not “for” regressive taxes.

  53. Wagonwheel says:
    April 19, 2012 at 10:31

    “Have you ever been treated or medicated for mental illness or imbalance? Ever taken any mood altering prescriptions? Feel free to ask me the same question after you have answered. LOL”

    No, have you? LOL!

    No” So what’s the deal then with all the hyper-emotionalism?

    And no, I haven’t, though in school they taught us that approximately 25% of the population would at one time or another be candidates for psychiatric treatment. Reading the Internet Commentariat has convinced me that that might be true.

    “However, there are several on here who, if not, should!”

    Given the often disproportionate intensity of your comments would you include yourself among them?

  54. Mr Editor, I have had a post in moderation now for over three hours, during which time Mr Hitchcock, an administrator, has been quite active in comment exchanges on this very thread.

    I interpret this purposeful negligence as Mr Hitchcock interfering with my First Amendment right to free speech and with the ground rules for this blog, which he obviously has done.

    I therefore request that you reprimand Mr Hitchcock, or better yet, that you discharge him from administrative duties on your blog. I would also suggest that without his presence, the level of civility would increase markedly, and you would get more views and commenters. Moreover, you would reduce his abjectly violating your desire to support free speech, providing the commenters exercise due regard to civility.

    Finally, I would suggest that viewers are discouraged from commenting, perhaps even from viewing on a regular basis, because of the behavior on here of one Mr John Hitchcock! Haven’t you noticed, that in spite of your views increasing, very rarely do we get a comment from anyone other than your regulars. What does this indicate to you?

    PS: I will point out in passing that as an administrator on your previous blog, CSPT, that I was very conscientious in full filling my duties regarding taking care of the moderation problems, independent of whose post happened to be in the moderation folder. I would be happy to be of similar service on FSJ.

  55. SINP writes

    Mr Editor, I have had a post in moderation now for over three hours, during which time Mr Hitchcock, an administrator, has been quite active in comment exchanges on this very thread.

    Translation: WAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH!

    I interpret this purposeful negligence as Mr Hitchcock interfering with my First Amendment right to free speech and with the ground rules for this blog, which he obviously has done.

    You really are one egomaniacal piece of work, you know that? Are you really that obtuse, SINP, about the First Amendment? Obviously so.

    Finally, I would suggest that viewers are discouraged from commenting, perhaps even from viewing on a regular basis, because of the behavior on here of one Mr John Hitchcock! Haven’t you noticed, that in spite of your views increasing, very rarely do we get a comment from anyone other than your regulars. What does this indicate to you?

    It indicates to me that YOU are the big problem around here. Maybe other commenters fear you’ll try to out them like you have others here — merely because they “pushed back,” against your “dribble,” as you’d laughably say.

    PS: I will point out in passing that as an administrator on your previous blog, CSPT, that I was very conscientious in full filling my duties regarding taking care of the moderation problems, independent of whose post happened to be in the moderation folder. I would be happy to be of similar service on FSJ.

    LOL! And you’re worried about bringing in other commenters?? That would only chase them away, even some of the regulars, I’d wager, as I’d certainly be one of them. Trusting you is like trusting Obama to pay down the deficit.

  56. “Given the often disproportionate intensity of your comments would you include yourself among them?”

    Hey, DNW, don’t you think that every one of us would benefit from the insight of some well schooled and effective counselor, even yourself? I don’t think I’ve yet met the person who can step outside of oneself in order to garner said insight, and then be as successful in suggesting remediation in such a way as to be taken seriously enough to effectively motivate the invocation of said remediation in any sort of an effective manner as otherwise might be the case having a counselor.

    Why do you suppose that it is not advisable for a defendant to perform as his/her own defense attorney, no matter how well-schooled, talented, and experienced in the law that the defendant might be?

  57. Perry, there’s a reason why you do not have any administrative authority here. Actually multiple reasons. But you can keep crying all you want (until the Editor puts a stop to it), won’t change the Editor’s mind regarding your target dujour.

  58. “I interpret this purposeful negligence as Mr Hitchcock interfering with my First Amendment right to free speech …”

    Yes, of course you do. You speculate that someone is ignoring you; and from that you conclude they have interfered with your self-realization potential. Yeah, yer a lib, alright.

  59. It’s a free speech issue, DNW, but having your lopsided interpretation of same, who can be surprised?

    And Mr Hitchcock, I see that you have taken it upon yourself to speak for our Editor, the blog owner. Your arrogance is beyond the pale.

    And btw, looking at the number of views, they appear to have fallen off. Let us try an experiment: Silence Mr Hitchcock and koolo for a couple of months, then let us see, and the comments, which, as I said, are no more than the usual. In addition to the topics, active commentary is shat constitutes a vibrant and meaningful blog. Unfortunately, only a fraction of our daily viewers, us regulars, comment, not nearly the number on the old CSPT, when we had a number of Libs engaged as well. Not any more!

    On FSJ, we have the same dedicated editor, doing diligent research in an attempt to make his partisan points, and what is the response? The same old same old stale regulars, including yours truly, day in and day out. There must be a reason for this, Mr Editor. Why no new and fresh commenters, of both political stripes?

    Now look at Mr Hitchcock’s blog, TBH. On the page showing, there are 29 comments total, spread over 14 topics, and about 9 of the 29 were cross posts. You are not attracting much discussion. Could this have something to do with your partisan negativity and arrogance Mr Hitchcock? I look forward to your unbiased analysis of your own blog, Mr Hitchcock? All that bluster, and almost nothing to show for it, because that is all it is … bluster!

    PS: Now you needn’t bother criticizing my blog as a diversion, since I am the first to admit that I have neglected it, do not post regularly, and have not attempted to sell it. I admit it! I do, however, stand by the posts that I have made since inception, and appreciate our Editor for sharing his bandwidth. With the campaign now heating up, I plan to energize my blog. You wingnuts have kept me busy pushing back at your lies and half-truths, for the sake of the onlookers.

    PPS: I’ll tell you what, after Mr Hitchcock and koolo stop for two months, I will do the same, during which time I will focus on my own blog. How does that suit you?

  60. “I found the best Perry imitation of all time!”

    That’s not an imitation, that is an example of the kind.

    Perry is remarkable, a perfect paradigm case of the “progressive” mindset. And right here. [You don't even have to go over to Z-Net and read lectures about how you don't deserve what you are because you were given to you, unearned, by your parents; who didn't earn their brains or looks either.]

    Anyway, I dropped a few lines on Haidt’s Righteousmind.com blog site comment area (which you had in a general way linked to), in response to Haidt’s projections concerning the likely SC take on Obama Care; and that decision’s outcome probability being based on whether or not there is a sufficient acceptance by the majority of the Court of the notion of “positive liberty”. You know “Positive liberty”? That’s your supposed moral obligation to watch, applaud, and pay for, boring and useless performances by annoying people, which ultimately only makes you and those you care about poorer, less free, and more miserable.

    No sooner did I do that, than Perry comes out with this stupefyingly resounding confirmation of my rhetorically framed question/observation over there, as to what it was that modern liberals imply that they want.

    Why it’s almost providential.

    By the way, Haidt’s a more interesting read than he was a couple of years ago. It seems that some of his findings have given him some pause to think and rethink.

    What he still doesn’t seem to get, is the lack of reciprocity part. Conservatives and libertarians don’t need liberals in the same way liberals need conservatives and libertarians.

    In fact the fundamental assumption of reciprocity, as the ground for natural law morality in a liberal democracy, has been abandoned in favor of a kind of hive life system of distributive justice managed by experts, a la Garry Will’s panting after rule by experts in “A Necessary Good”. I guess those would be experts like Michael Bellesiles upon whom Garry lavished praise (in almost the same passages) for the expert insights Bellesiles provided us into the reality of American firearms ownership.

    That really worked out well.

    “Bellesiles energized this professional consensus by attempting to play “the professors against the NRA in a high-wire act of arrogant bravado.” For instance, he replied to Heston’s criticism by telling the actor to earn a PhD before he criticized the work of scholars. He pointed out that Cramer was “a long time advocate of unrestricted gun ownership” while he himself was a simple scholar who had “certain obligations of accuracy that transcend current political benefit.”

  61. Perry says, in the same blather-filled comment:

    It’s a free speech issue… Silence Mr Hitchcock and koolo for a couple of months…

    Now look at Mr Hitchcock’s blog, TBH [It's TBD but Perry always makes that "mistake"]. On the page showing, there are 29 comments total, spread over 14 topics, and about 9 of the 29 were cross posts. You are not attracting much discussion. [And the above graphics show my last 7 days have very similar hits and page views as Perry's last 7 months.] Could this have something to do with your partisan negativity and arrogance Mr Hitchcock?

    Yeah, my site generates more interest in a week’s time than Perry’s site does in several months’ time and Perry thinks he has even a sliver of a piece of ground to stand on? It’s utter hilarity.

    And as far as my “speaking for the Editor” I almost never do that. But this site has three administrators, all who know you privately lobbied for your admin position back and were rebuffed, and none who want you anywhere near the nuts and bolts of this site, for multiple reasons.

  62. “PS: Now you needn’t bother criticizing my blog as a diversion, since I am the first to admit that I have neglected it, do not post regularly, and have not attempted to sell it. I admit it! “

    I guess if you build it, it doesn’t mean they will come.

    You might try “selling it”. But since it’s already free, and in color, what have you got to sell that has already been declined when free?

    Maybe you should sue someone for not suffering through your blog. See, they are guilty of depriving you of your free speech rights under the Constitution of the United States, by not self-sacrificially reading the crap you regurgitate there and making approving noises sufficient to thereby fill you with joy, and encourage you to even greater production of the same.

    How can you be you without a captive audience?

  63. “Yeah, my site generates more interest in a week’s time than Perry’s site does in several months’ time and Perry thinks he has even a sliver of a piece of ground to stand on? It’s utter hilarity.”

    Because I have been trying to think of a subject to cover more worthwhile than retro-collectible Department store catalog guitars, but which hasn’t also been recently covered by professionals (there’s currently an explosion of high quality blog writing on the left’s recent embrace of an overt and admitted moral nihilism, and on the subject of “Positive Liberty”) I haven’t visited but once or twice or commented on the site at all in a couple of weeks. What numbers you have are real, and gained without aid.

    Meaning that your numbers have not been inflated to the least degree. Whereas, I’ve taken probably 5, 2 second looks at Perry’s site in the last month: no doubt doubling his visitor numbers.

  64. “In addition to the topics, active commentary is shat …”

    I wouldn’t say so, but perhaps that attitude explains your own blog’s dearth of it.

    One question: Why do you use the past tense?

  65. John Hitchcock says:
    April 19, 2012 at 17:55

    Commenter Comments
    John Hitchcock 226
    Dana Pico 144
    AOTC 135
    Foxfier 101
    DNW 97
    Yorkshire 76
    Hoagie 30

    And that’s just since the time you opened up your dishonorably named blog, Perry.”

    Want a real laugh? Take a look at the blog of the guys who have been posing as you. Not the fraud site little Mr. Ganzeveld and Jeromy Brown have put up, but their “real” one.

    Geez, it’s just one raving lunatic effen this and effen that while frantically stroking his ego to the echos of an empty forum. I guess the potty mouth routine only works if you’re a novelty act like Amanada Marcotte.

    Liberalism at work for all to see …

  66. Typical, you wingnuts immediately went to the failure of my blog, after I admitted it, so that’s all you have. No owning up to your own failures. That’s the wingnut mindset for you on here, across the board, with some exception for our Editor.

    Now, DNW, are you going to attempt to defend Mr Hitchcock’s blog, with all the discussion his engenders, NOT? Not even wingnuts take to his extremist ways.

    When are we going to get into intelligent and civil debate on the important issues facing our country, that’s my question? Show your stuff, Conservatives!

  67. PS: Moreover, our editor’s attempts to start clean on his new blog here have failed, because like on his other blog, he did not keep after it, and the wingnuts on here went wild, like little kids who do not have their parents eyes on them!

  68. Perry, you Liberals will never understand Conservatives, but Conservatives already do understand Liberals. And your constant, dishonest, racist bleatings in the face of cold, hard facts will win you no moral victories. Your arrogant, holier than thou attitude and your passive-aggressive personality are sure-fire losers, as well.

    Of course when you threaten the livelihoods and freedom of people who speak opinions you don’t like; when you utter homophobic slurs against the millions of people you don’t like; when you make all kinds of outlandish statements unsupported by facts or histo-facts, you are not likely to find much charity toward your stated positions.

  69. Correction: Garry Wills’ book is titled “A Necessary Evil”. For some reason I recalled naming it (apparently) correctly some years ago during the RKBA debates, and being challenged with the “information” that the title was “A Necessary Good”. Seems to have lodged in my mind.

    Well whatever, the title is meant ironically, since Wills’ thesis as I recall was that government, especially modern bureaucratic government was not a necessary evil, but an actually necessary good which made men vulnerable to each other under, and bound them in community so that they could then develop under the guidance of expert rule.

  70. Wagonwheel says:
    April 19, 2012 at 18:12

    Typical, you wingnuts immediately went to the failure of my blog, after I admitted it, so that’s all you have. No owning up to your own failures. That’s the wingnut mindset for you on here, across the board, with some exception for our Editor.

    Now, DNW, are you going to attempt to defend Mr Hitchcock’s blog, with all the discussion his engenders, NOT? Not even wingnuts take to his extremist ways.

    When are we going to get into intelligent and civil debate on the important issues facing our country, that’s my question? Show your stuff, Conservatives!”

    Perry,

    Your aim is to change the fundamental predicates of our political association; to make the citizen a product of the collective to be managed and farmed for some notion of the “greater good”.

    You have been repeatedly invited – with specific examples which you have yourself broached – to explain the rational basis for the interpersonal claims you are making which go well beyond the traditional formalist conceptions of classical liberalism.

    You have consistently declined to justify your limitless managerial utilitarianism in fundamental terms, instead arguing in circles (if we receive any argument at all as opposed to a dose fulminating and indignant emotion) by adverting to it as the explanation as to why it should be accepted.

    When that tactic fails as it invariably does, you resort to waving a Jesus flag around, despite your own atheism and “eclecticism” when it comes to accepting which “Jesus principle” you choose to respect and which you enjoy scoffing at.

    I don’t know why you bother to quote Jesus rather than Nietzsche or Buddha or Zoroaster who you might equally well sample.

    But I guess you figure that the average person you will encounter here won’t reflexively salute those banners, and that therefore they will be of little use to you in stimulating the response you cynically aim to produce with the Jesus references.

    But we have been through all this before.

    If you want to discuss the cost and color of the curtains in the barracks you have planned, and how many hours we will have to labor under the Capos, and how many turnips we get permission to keep from out own plantings, you are going to have to discuss that horseshit with someone else. I’d rather see you on the battlefield – literally – before that.

  71. SINP writes

    Typical, you wingnuts immediately went to the failure of my blog, after I admitted it, so that’s all you have. No owning up to your own failures. That’s the wingnut mindset for you on here, across the board, with some exception for our Editor.

    And we’ll keep going to it, especially since you have little compunction about belittling/pointing out everyone else’s so-called failures.

    Now, DNW, are you going to attempt to defend Mr Hitchcock’s blog, with all the discussion his engenders, NOT? Not even wingnuts take to his extremist ways.

    I see you’re at that again. I believe you tried that with yet another “old friend” of yours and were shot down then, too. Always looking for “failure” when none exists.

    PS: Moreover, our editor’s attempts to start clean on his new blog here have failed, because like on his other blog, he did not keep after it, and the wingnuts on here went wild, like little kids who do not have their parents eyes on them!

    And look — the only one who was actually suspended was the whiner/crybaby-in-chief, who, when he just can’t take being “pushed back” (his own terminology), threatens other people. Is that going wild, whiner-in-chief? Is that acting like a little kid? Is that acting like someone whose parents’ eyes weren’t on them?

    Yes — it is.

    Passive-aggressive. That’s you, SINP. God bless your wife — she sure needs it for putting up with your brutal disorder.

  72. “Your aim is to change the fundamental predicates of our political association; to make the citizen a product of the collective to be managed and farmed for some notion of the “greater good”.”

    DNW, those are obviously your words, not mine, nor do they describe my “fundamental predicates”. Yours are to concoct and believe these fictions, which then justify your arrogant preachings.

    “You have been repeatedly invited – with specific examples which you have yourself broached – to explain the rational basis for the interpersonal claims you are making which go well beyond the traditional formalist conceptions of classical liberalism.”

    As I have said many times, my rational basis is the Golden Rule, simple but profound. If only the extremist political right, of which you are a member and protagonist, would embrace it. You in fact practice the opposite, as do your cohorts, which is why you have succeeded via your immoral and unethical political and criminal misbehaviors behaviors.

    “When that tactic fails as it invariably does, you resort to waving a Jesus flag around, despite your own atheism and “eclecticism” when it comes to accepting which “Jesus principle” you choose to respect and which you enjoy scoffing at.”

    It is most telling that you CINOs should criticize a messenger who quotes from the writings which you all claim to adore, which is thus, in reality, evidence of your perfidity.

    “I don’t know why you bother to quote Jesus rather than Nietzsche or Buddha or Zoroaster who you might equally well sample.”

    If you refuse to respond to my Jesus quotes, how can you be expected to respond to any other, other than your own impulses based on your extreme egocentric obsessions.

    “If you want to discuss the cost and color of the curtains in the barracks you have planned, and how many hours we will have to labor under the Capos, and how many turnips we get permission to keep from out own plantings, you are going to have to discuss that horseshit with someone else. I’d rather see you on the battlefield – literally – before that.”

    You are on our battlefield continuously, as evidenced by the efforts of you and yours to belittle those with whom you disagree with myriad personal attacks and overwhelming negativism, rather than working together to actually work things out, because your arrogance automatically rules that out. Just watch Mr Hitchcock and koolo as they front for you free from corrective comment on your part.

Comments are closed.