Patterico's Pontifications

12/3/2012

Two Good Pieces from IBD

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:28 am

The first comes courtesy of SPQR and Instapundit, and is titled White House Data Debunk Myth Bush Cuts Built Deficit:

While President Obama insists the Bush tax cuts caused the recession and record deficits, his own economists say otherwise.

He might want to consult their data for the truth.

. . . .

[Obama's] assumptions are faulty, based largely on political demagoguery rather than hard numbers — including ones certified by Obama’s own fiscal policy advisers and bean counters in the White House.

Turn to Pages 411-413 of his 2012 Economic Report of the President, published by the Council of Economic Advisers. They show that “the math,” as Obama is wont to say, in fact does add up for tax cuts.

The piece is accompanied by a nice infographic based on numbers coming from the President’s economic advisers:

The infographic’s headline is not rock solid, because correlation does not equal causation. Maybe the economy would have recovered without the tax cuts. Maybe allowing people to keep more of their money did nothing for the economy! I doubt it, but it’s possible. And if so, then we did lose revenue.

But, the assumption underlying Obama’s political argument, that revenue fell due to the tax cuts, is simply incorrect. Revenue increased after the the tax cuts went into effect, and the budget gap narrowed.

Something to keep in mind as we prepare to chuck these tax cuts.

The second piece is by Andrew Malcolm, and it’s an update on all the wonderful ways that the Obamas are spending your money this Christmas:

Amazing how a reelection can reshape an incumbent’s thinking about many things. Now safely ensconced in the White House for 49 more months, the Obamas have decorated the place with 54 Christmas trees this year.

Even allowing for the usual Washington excesses with taxpayer money, that’s a whole grove of Christmas trees.

“We have 54 trees in the White House,” an excited Michelle Obama proudly told visitors the other day. “54! That’s a lot of trees.”

In fact, the Obamas’ 54 trees this year are almost 50% more Christmas trees than last year. That was during the campaign before Obama whispered a reminder to the Russians that he had to be careful until Nov. 6, when a victory would give him more “flexibility.”

No wonder Obama talked over the weekend about addressing tax increases before any of that annoying business about cutting spending to address this thing called the national debt, now having soared past $16.3 trillion.

Tree purchases aren’t the only thing going up. The Obamas are also doing their part to stimulate the economy (at least the Hawaiian economy) with a longer vacation this year:

The irony is this year the main residents of the White House won’t be there for most of the holiday period and for both major holidays.

According to notices distributed to residents of an exclusive waterfront neighborhood in Hawaii, they can expect to enjoy restricted access and other inconveniences to their homes and normal lives from Dec. 17 through Jan. 6. That’s about a 50% longer holiday vacation than last year.

The inconveniences stem from security requirements for the vacationing Obamas and a large number of their accompanying friends. Obama’s staff will have to put up with rooms in a nearby luxury hotel.

The Coast Guard will be patrolling surrounding canals. Navy SEALs will be doing whatever SEALs do on security detail. The Secret Service and local police will man numerous area roadblocks and perhaps even some bushes.

The estimated costs to taxpayers of this latest vacation foray is in excess of $4 million. The largest single expense is Obama’s 747 jet, Air Force One, which runs about $182,000 per flight hour. It’s a nine-hour journey, each way, between Washington and Honolulu. That’s about $1,638,000 one-way. Their bags fly free.

Ain’t royalty grand?

310 Responses to “Two Good Pieces from IBD”

  1. Tax Foundation data also shows that within a year or two, the Bush tax rates resulted in more progressivity of Federal income tax.

    The upper slices of income individuals pay a greater share of the income tax collected after the Bush tax rates than before under the Clinton tax rates.

    SPQR (768505)

  2. I can’t tell you much about the differential effects of tax rates, but I can tell you that the Bush ‘recovery’ was mostly based on bogus premises — by relying overmuch on real estate inflation and construction industry upticks (fuelled by illegal immigration) and financial chicanery, rather than on a more solid foundation of manufacturing and value-added exports, the Bush recovery was a mirage, a house built on sand. And now the prices have collapsed, the jobs have disappeared, we still don’t make anything on the scale that we should be, and we are still stuck with the bill for the massive social costs of all the illegal immigrants and their illegal ninos, who will never, ever, ever go away.

    Obama naturally has done nothing to improve the economic outlook, and in fact he has made it worse; but at bottom he is at least correct that it was Bush-era policies* which either created, or aided and abetted, the far more serious crisis we are in today. This recession or depression or whatever you want to call it is of course being exacerbated by the evil stupid man currently in the White House, but at its root, we are merely now waking up to the reality caused by the previous evil stupid man in the White House; this recession is a hangover after a binge. But after all, that’s one of the only things W. ever knew about from experience.

    * — yes yes I know, Barney Frank and the Dems etc deserve a very healthy share of blame. But the fact is, it was the President’s job to stop them; and the President wasted all his political capital on absurd land wars in Asia. Buck, stops, etc. Obama is a very bad president, but that does not mean that George W. Bush was not a deeply evil, stupid, cowardly man. What a cockroach.

    Gojira, King of Monsters (5a9950)

  3. Three fourths of the federal budget goes to entitlements, i.e. social security, medicare and medicaid.

    About half of federal spending is financed by borrowing about $1 trillion a year.

    Eight years of two Bush wars did not create the debt. It involved $1 trillion over eight years.

    AZ Bob (1c9631)

  4. but that does not mean that George W. Bush was not a deeply evil, stupid, cowardly man. What a cockroach.

    Oh, grow up Gojira. George W. Bush was far from an ideal President but your characterization of him is offensively stupid.

    SPQR (768505)

  5. . Obama is a very bad president, but that does not mean that George W. Bush was not a deeply evil, stupid, cowardly man. What a cockroach.

    Nonsense

    JD (2e25be)

  6. “your characterization of him is offensively stupid”

    No it isn’t. It is accurate and true.

    “Nonsense.”

    Horsefeathers. So there.

    Gojira, King of Monsters (5a9950)

  7. 2. “Obama naturally has done nothing to improve the economic outlook, and in fact he has made it worse; but at bottom he is at least correct that it was Bush-era policies* which either created, or aided and abetted, the far more serious crisis we are in today.”

    Thank you for participating, dribble cup. No mention of Nixon the first, Volker, Greenspan, Bernanke, et alia.

    Wipe the spludge from your screen so you can begin the study of Macroeconomics, mmmK?

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  8. Gojira, doubling down on the offensively stupid is hardly impressive argumentation.

    SPQR (768505)

  9. @SPQR — Funny, I don’t recall you making an impressive argument other than blanket assertion. Your argument consisted of “grow up,” and “I am offended” and “you are stupid.” Well I daresay, the Oxford Union is anxiously waiting to induct you, please pick up the red courtesy telephone. Or you could maybe get a gig as Vice Chancellor of Diversity and Inclusion over at Local University.

    If this is the Argument Clinic, let me know, I’ll just take the five minute course with Mr. DeBakey. I hear he’s a little bit conciliatory.

    Gojira, King of Monsters (5a9950)

  10. “No mention of Nixon the first, Volker, Greenspan, Bernanke, et alia.”

    Oh for pete’s sake, it’s a blog, not a lecture hall. And if you’re going to insult me, can you please think of something slightly funny and original? I mean, what on earth do you come here for, if you’re just going to crib The Lockhorns or something?

    Gojira, King of Monsters (5a9950)

  11. Gojira, my argument exceeded the sophistication and maturity of your comment by an order of magnitude.

    SPQR (768505)

  12. More assertion. Well at least you know what you’re good at.

    Gojira, King of Monsters (5a9950)

  13. I always kinda secretly liked how Bush spent his vacation time at Crawford, clearing brush. I dunno. I like that.

    This Hawaii BS, not so much.

    Leviticus (17b7a5)

  14. @SPQR: just wrote you a lengthy rebuttal per your rather lofty requirements, and the internet promptly swallowed it. Spoken into the void. Will wait a few minutes and try again to make a serious argument for you, if that is what you’d prefer.

    And who doesn’t, right?

    Gojira, King of Monsters (5a9950)

  15. 10. “if you’re going to insult me, can you please think of something slightly funny and original?”

    Comment by Gojira, Rancid Sprudge Bucket (5a9950) — 12/3/2012 @ 8:32 am

    “it was Bush-era policies* which either created, or aided and abetted, the far more serious crisis we are in today”

    Willful ignorance sans reasoned argument.

    “Obama is a very bad president, but that does not mean that George W. Bush was not a deeply evil, stupid, cowardly man. What a cockroach.”

    Detestible mendacity incapable of reasoned support.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  16. Leviticus, it seems that the Obama family has a history of seemingly arrogant vacation choices. Its hard to tell if they just think they are entitled or if they think that the MSM’s failure to treat them as it treated G.W. Bush is what they are taking advantage of.

    SPQR (768505)

  17. 16. Reparation for our racist crimes.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  18. From the intertubes::

    “The Bush tax cuts were first enacted in 2001, and it’s easy to see the drop in tax rates beginning in that year on this chart. If Romney’s argument is correct, we should see a jump in federal revenues beginning that year as well, but we don’t – in fact, revenue falls rather sharply from 2001 to 2003, when the tax cuts were being phased in.

    There is a huge caveat here: The United States experienced a recession in 2002 and 2003, which accounts for at least part of the drop in revenue. And many argue that the increase in revenue visible after 2003 is evidence that the Bush tax cuts grew the economy. Did they grow the economy so fast that revenue began to exceed what it otherwise would have been without the cuts? At least from a basic analysis like this one, it’s impossible to know for sure if revenue would have been higher had Clinton-era tax rates been kept, but a growing economy is the norm, and the general trend in the long term, clearly visible in the graph, is for revenues to rise as per capita GDP goes up. Furthermore, revenue did not start to rise until after the Bush tax cuts were fully phased-in; during the period when tax rates were falling (from 2001 to 2003), revenue went down. The correlation visible on the graph is striking.”

    In other words, the economy grew DESPITE the taxes cuts, not because of them.

    To imply direct causation would only serve to (further) reveal your ignorance.

    AND

    Why don’t you take a look at the same government income-tax receipt figures for 1993-2000 after Clinton INCREASED the top tax rate? HINT: It also goes up dramatically.

    THEN compare the numbers to the increases in the federal debt over the same periods:

    Clinton: -255B to +236
    Bush: +236 to -458.

    NICE JOB REPUBLICANS.

    Now you can all STFU about the economy…NO ONE IS LISTENING to you anymore weasels.

    P. Tillman (768505) (b8ab92) (fcbc8b)

  19. P. Tillman,

    Why are you adding other commenters’ hashtags to your name?

    Also, is your online name a reference to Pat Tillman? If so, why?

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  20. If the Clinton tax rates are so great, why is it that Democrats don’t want to return to them?

    SPQR (768505)

  21. Hmmm, DRJ, I do find it offensive that PT has put my hashtag in his name.

    SPQR (768505)

  22. He’s been doing this for days, SPQR, and I think he needs to explain it.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  23. “Detestible mendacity incapable of reasoned support.”

    Not at all. Observe, nitwit…

    Broadly speaking:

    1. US manufacturing base has been hollowing out since, oh, I don’t know, name your start date. The 70s? The 80s? This of course has many causes, but in my view is primarily caused by attempting to engage in open trade (I won’t go so far as to say “free” trade) with mercantilist societies in Asia. It is a one-sided proposition, and the mercantilist House is guaranteed to win, as we observe in the ever-ballooning trade deficits with Asian powers, and subsequent debt to them, which has been going on throughout my adult life.

    2. The Clinton years saw a bit of relief, partly through the maturation of the internet into usable hypermodern infrastructure, and the temporary stock boom that followed; rather than getting rich by making things, Americans believed they could get rich by selling each other things on the internet, and trading stock options and equity in the imaginary internet companies. It was soon discovered that this was not sustainable. Kee-rash. Exit Clinton, enter George W. Bush.

    3. Rather than address the fundamental problem, viz. that America was having its economic lunch eaten by mercantilists who actually made things, and taking the painful but necessary steps to get back into that game, Bush rested his “recovery” largely on money acrobatics (tax games) and real estate value inflation, coupled with a surge in illegal immigration to account for the construction at discount prices. Granted I am vastly oversimplifying here, but the upshot was (as any fourth grader could tell you):

    a) trees don’t grow to the sky, so real estate values could not rise indefinitely, which would have been necessary to keep the scheme going;
    b) because real estate, especially residential real estate, is inherently not a productive asset but rather simply a necessity of life, basing an economic rebound on its rising value rather than re-laying the stable foundations of a complex economy is akin to eating one’s seed corn; Americans were essentially trying to sell a stake in the(ir) future, at an inflated price, to what Steve Sailer calls a Greater Fool.
    c) in order to facilitate this ridiculous project, George W. Bush, who had sworn a solemn oath to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States, explicitly broke his oath to the American people by turning a blind eye as the country was swarmed with illegal Third World immigrants, eager to enjoy a First World lifestyle without investing in it, eager to provide cheap labor while having the costs of their prodigiious families socialized on the public teat.
    d) Nothing lasts forever, and the Bush scheme collapsed. But illegal aliens are not like factory machinery: they continue to have costs, as do their many children, and you can’t just junk them and declare bankruptcy. They are here, they are staying, they cost us a hell of a lot of money that we don’t have, and worst of all, now they’re voting.

    4. As if all of this weren’t bad enough, at the same time as he was destroying the economy and the nation’s demographic future, George W. Bush embarked on not one, but two, poorly-thought-out, unfunded, strategically worthless land wars in Asia. Not only did he do that, but he prosecuted both wars in such a losing and incompetent fashion that he eventually earned the undying hatred of a significant portion of the American public. This, in addition to his poorly-thought-out and poorly-explained incursions into homeland civil liberties (even if/when he was right, he failed to make his case in a coherent fashion, the first task of a political leader), racked him up so much enmity among the public, both for himself and his party, that he made possible –are you ready for this?–

    5. The election of Barack Obama, a man utterly unqualified to be president and who, in a different era, would have been laughed out of town as a bounder, an ideologue, and a crackpot.

    So, net legacy of George W. Bush:

    1. Economy not only not fixed, but further ruined.
    2. Populace saddled with absurd debt and falling home equity, viz., nothing to show.
    3. Nation flooded with future-changing, largely-unwelcome Latinos and other Third World immigrants who, now that they’ve got their meat hooks into us, will never, ever, ever go away, and will wind up costing a fortune both in real and in opportunity costs;
    4. Two expensive, destructive wars that killed and wounded thousands of our finest citizens, accomplished essentially nothing, emptied our treasury and tarnished our international reputation;
    5. Ensured the election of a crackpot anti-American president who, with the exception of the wars, is every bit as bad as Mr. Bush.

    Have I missed anything?

    If that doesn’t count as a cockroach (and I only did the short internet version), then I’d be interested to see what does.

    The floor is yours.

    Gojira, King of Monsters (5a9950)

  24. Petey – Why do you think there was a recession at the beginning of Bush’s presidency? Could it have have had anything to do with the bubble economy that generated all those tax receipts during Clinton’s terms?

    Thank you for demonstrating your ignorance once again.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  25. More explication of my point above that the Bush / Obama tax rates are very progressive – more so than the Clinton tax rates were.

    The income tax rates we currently have are already more progressive than most of Europe’s tax systems. We are approaching the point where excessively punitive tax collections will harm our country.

    But the Democrats, who have basically abandoned all substantive ideology other than class envy in the last election cycle, don’t care about the damage they do.

    SPQR (768505)

  26. Gojira, did you miss anything? Yes, a coherent argument. Your wall-o-text isn’t coherent, and does nothing to support your silly comments. Ooooooooo, George W. Bush didn’t do enough to control immigration so he’s “deeply evil, stupid and cowardly”.

    You are a clown.

    SPQR (768505)

  27. 1. Comment by SPQR (768505) — 12/3/2012 @ 7:46 am

    Tax Foundation data also shows that within a year or two, the Bush tax rates resulted in more progressivity of Federal income tax.

    The upper slices of income individuals pay a greater share of the income tax collected after the Bush tax rates than before under the Clinton tax rates.

    Because they had more income!! It compounds.

    This is a point that perhaps is not being made clear enough. Romney sort of alluded to it during the campaign, but never tried to make it very clear, I guess because it is a confession of increased income inequality.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  28. “Have I missed anything?”

    Gojira – Absolutely. Given that the country has experienced real estate recessions periodically for decades, Texas, California, the Rust Belt, the North East, what made the events of 2008 different and attributable to G.W. Bush?

    What ties the horde of illegal immigrants specifically to the policies of G.W. Bush rather than his predecessors or Congress. The Executive is only one branch of government.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  29. 21. Comment by SPQR (768505) — 12/3/2012 @ 9:22 am

    Hmmm, DRJ, I do find it offensive that PT has put my hashtag in his name.

    22. Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 12/3/2012 @ 9:25 am

    He’s been doing this for days, SPQR, and I think he needs to explain it.

    Only the last one counts.

    Is he trying to fool people, and foolish enough to think he is doing that, or does he think this is like a twitter @username?

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  30. @SPQR: Make your case, rather than slinging insults.

    What have I said, that isn’t true?

    You haven’t even summarized my argument correctly.

    Careful with that word clown, Eugene.

    Rebut coherently and at length, or else be silent and obedient to your betters.

    Gojira, King of Monsters (5a9950)

  31. Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 12/3/2012 @ 9:44 am

    What ties the horde of illegal immigrants specifically to the policies of G.W. Bush rather than his predecessors or Congress. The Executive is only one branch of government.

    He seems to be merely saying the illegal immigrants improved the economy, and he seems to find the economic improvement, therefore, bad, since anything illegal immigrants do, is, by definiton, bad.

    This makes the economic improvement illegitimate, or unwelcome, or temporary. Take your pick.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  32. JD, at 5, the statement you’re responding to isn’t nonsense. It’s entirely correct as a logical matter.

    “Obama is a very bad president” does not mean “George W. Bush was not evil”. The first statement has *no bearing whatsoever* on the second statement; whether the first statement is true or false and whether the second statement is true or false are completely independent variables.

    aphrael (f1d203)

  33. What the charts seem to show is that the most important factor in the deficit is the economy.

    But I knew that anyway. We all should know that.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  34. “Given that the country has experienced real estate recessions periodically for decades”

    Real estate recessions come and go, as you correctly observe; but under Bush the bubble was used as a surrogate for rebuilding an actual economy. In past real estate recessions, there was an actual economic there there. During the Bush years… well, consult your Gertrude Stein.

    The man was about as coherent as that.

    “The Executive is only one branch of government.”

    Tell that to Mr. Obama. It appears you haven’t been observing the twisted monstrosity that the Executive and the Court have turned into in recent decades, and the corresponding impotence of the Legislative.

    How did that big ol’ Tea Party congressional victory work out, anyway?

    Gojira, King of Monsters (5a9950)

  35. This Hawaii BS, not so much.

    Comment by Leviticus (17b7a5) — 12/3/2012 @ 8:40 am

    Well, you know, in the South Side of Chicago you need to take the subway to find fresh fruit and arugula. It’s easier in Hawaii especially when the taxpayers are paying for it.

    nk (875f57)

  36. never let a clear fact get in the way of a filibuster narrative obfuriation

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  37. To all those stalwart and valiant defenders of George W. Bush, rather than hurl vacuous unfunny insults at me, I’d be most interested to hear your detailed vindication of why the Bush legacy is a triumph.

    And if you trot out “BDS” or “he kept us safe,” I swear to Christ I will box your f#ckin’ ears.

    Gojira, King of Monsters (5a9950)

  38. “I guess because it is a confession of increased income inequality.”

    Sammy – No, the collection became more progressive, or “fair” in liberal jargon, as the relative burden on higher income people increased. The point is the the U.S. already collects more taxes from its highest income taxpayers relative to their incomes than any other developed nation.

    Focusing on individual taxpayers paying lower tax rates than their secretaries is a BS way of looking at the issue.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  39. I’m not sure that I disagree all that much with Gojira. Stick around, Gojira. But SPQR is a good guy. There’s no need for hair-pulling.

    nk (875f57)

  40. “Real estate recessions come and go, as you correctly observe; but under Bush the bubble was used as a surrogate for rebuilding an actual economy.”

    Gojira – In who’s mind? Fannie Freddie and Democrats had a major goal of increasing home ownership, particularly minority home ownership, which they pushed down to lending institutions, blackmailing them to relax lending standards. President Community Organizer was part of this movement in the early 1990s and it picked up steam during Clinton’s presidency. Read your history.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  41. ,” I swear to Christ I will box your f#ckin’ ears.
    Comment by Gojira, King of Monsters (5a9950) — 12/3/2012 @ 9:54 am

    For some reason, I do not find your request for dialogue very inviting.

    But please have a Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukkah as well, celebrating with various friends.

    in liberal jargon, as the relative burden on higher income people increased. The point is the the U.S. already collects more taxes from its highest income taxpayers relative to their incomes than any other developed nation.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 12/3/2012 @ 9:54 am

    There you go pointing out clear facts again. You would think somebody in the republican party could copy your example on occasion.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  42. “This makes the economic improvement illegitimate, or unwelcome, or temporary. Take your pick.”

    No, it isn’t ‘take your pick’ in the least.

    “Illegitimate” is somewhat nonsensical in a strict literal sense; in a holistic sense it is true but beside the point (see Wendell Berry). “Unwelcome” would be an ideologue’s play.

    Temporary, is the correct answer — but, placed in structural context, served up with a side order of incurring permanent debilitating demographic obligations in exchange for momentary uplift. Is the meaning of “George W. Bush was a stupid man” beginning to become clearer? Would you trust him with your roll in Vegas?

    Go read Marlowe’s Doctor Faustus for a lesson in how this particular type of bargain always works out.

    Gojira, King of Monsters (5a9950)

  43. “To all those stalwart and valiant defenders of George W. Bush, rather than hurl vacuous unfunny insults at me, I’d be most interested to hear your detailed vindication of why the Bush legacy is a triumph.”

    Gojira – That’s just another of your strawmen. I have not seem anybody claim his administration was a triumph, I think people here are more interested in accuracy. If he’s not a cockroach, that doesn’t mean he has to be Superman.

    Let’s try to keep the hyperbole level down.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  44. I have mentioned before that Romney gave away 57% of his income — 13% to the general revenue and 44% to charity. It is allowed under the tax code, as a tax deduction. I suppose it can be spun that he “paid lower taxes” than his secretary, but it would be a lie.

    nk (875f57)

  45. “I’d be most interested to hear your detailed vindication of why the Bush legacy is a triumph.”

    Gojira – I’d be most interested in seeing you answer questions with facts, but you seem incapable of that.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  46. As far as the wars go, Gojira, the human cost bothers me a lot. F*** the money.

    nk (875f57)

  47. “Fannie Freddie and Democrats had a major goal of increasing home ownership, particularly minority home ownership, which they pushed down to lending institutions, blackmailing them to relax lending standards.”

    Irrelevant to my argument: as I pointed out above, housing is a non-productive asset and as such, its value cannot be used as the foundation for an advanced economy. It is a type of leverage, and a limited one; it is not the thing itself. See under: Downtown Tokyo vs. The Entire State of California, circa 1985. Besides, the Dem push was a political racket and had no bearing on rational policy, no matter what they tell you. As I stated much earlier, Bush was at least savvy enough to sense a bit of this, but because he spent every last red cent of his political capital on his ludicrous pointless wars, he had none left to wage these sorts of domestic battles, which as we now see were the keys to a good or bad ecomomic and social future… and the bad one is the one we got. Thanks, W!

    “President Community Organizer was part of this movement in the early 1990s and it picked up steam during Clinton’s presidency. Read your history.”

    I’m well aware of all that. When someone intrudes onto your turf and you don’t defend your turf, maybe because you’re so ignorant and coke-addled that you no longer even know what your proper turf is, then Guess what? You lose your turf. Law of the schoolyard.

    But I’m betting W. never set foot in a schoolyard, except to score his blow.

    I repeat: a cockroach. So far, I see no defenses worth my time.

    Gojira, King of Monsters (5a9950)

  48. “I’d be most interested in seeing you answer questions with facts, but you seem incapable of that.”

    What questions? What facts?

    So far I have only been responding to accusations of, “You are a poopyhead.”

    “That’s just another of your strawmen.”

    Well we can agree to disagree on the nature of rhetoric. I see no strawmen; when I make an acidic statement about a man whom I believe to be the worst and most destructive president in American history, I am met with: “you are stupid!” “Nonsense!” and other detailed and fascinating counter-arguments. If you want to invite me to the grown-up’s table, I should at least be able to tell it apart from the children’s table. On the evidence thus far, I cannot tell them apart.

    As for hyperbole… well it is a blog, you know. The Journal of Prim Etiquette Studies is published out of Frankfurt, just in case you’re lost.

    Gojira, King of Monsters (5a9950)

  49. Tillman – last chance. Leave everyone else’s names and hashtags alone.

    JD (2e25be)

  50. Last serious comment to you, Gojira, then you become troll to me. Your owned, even if mortgaged, home is wealth. It is your nest egg. It isw the biggest part of your wealth.

    nk (875f57)

  51. So far, I see no defenses worth my time.

    Comment by Gojira, King of Monsters (5a9950) — 12/3/2012 @ 10:10 am

    Missed this. You are not very important to us, either, Gojira.

    nk (875f57)

  52. Getting an Instapundit link is like sleeping in a motel. You pick up bedbugs.

    nk (875f57)

  53. “50.Last serious comment to you, Gojira, then you become troll to me.”

    So now we’re into mysticism here, eh. Okey-dokey.

    “Your owned, even if mortgaged, home is wealth. It is your nest egg. It isw the biggest part of your wealth.”

    I don’t understand what you could mean by this.
    a) if you bought a mortgaged home with no money down (as was common at the height of the boom), then you have no equity in it. It is not your property; it is the bank’s. Or at least it was, until the chaos set in; Lord only knows whose property it is now, but I can tell you with confidence that the one person it definitely does not belong to, is you.

    b) this hasn’t been my argument. My argument has been about the nature of a sound economy in a complex society, which the US once had, but has been steadily frittering away for various reasons. I haven’t even addressed all of the reasons, only the ones relevant here. I don’t care if your home is your nest egg — unless you are operating an illegal sweatshop in the basement (and don’t think I haven’t seen it) then it is not a productive asset, except in the bizarre case of a real-estate value bubble. And even then, it is not strictly speaking productive, it is speculative in the nature of its value.

    If you make high-quality automobiles at a low cost, and sell them to other countries at a high cost, then you are getting somewhere, with respect to your national economy.

    If you can’t make high-quality automobiles at a low cost, nor sell your automobiles anywhere, and are thus reduced to selling your patrimony to foreigners at a temporarily inflated price, and hope that your economy will be based on trading the property back and forth at ever-inflating prices, you do not have a national economy; and very soon, you will also not have a nation.

    What am I not making clear here?

    Gojira, King of Monsters (5a9950)

  54. “You are not very important to us, either, Gojira.”

    You can’t even make a fair distinction between “worth [one's] time” and “important [to one]“. They aren’t the same, you realize.

    Goodness gracious, I give up.

    Gojira, King of Monsters (5a9950)

  55. I’m sorry, Gojira, but you have no clue what you are talking about.

    nk (875f57)

  56. It’s so typical of a left wing moocher such as “P. Tillman” to not only want to live off the hard work of taxpayers, and to not only take a dead Army Ranger’s name as his monniker, but then to sponge on other people’s hashtags, as well.

    We conservatives are not against welfare or disability checks for the truly incapacitated among society, but at least if you’re going to stand on a soapbox and give pedantic lectures from the Book of Alinsky, be a man and try to come up with a monniker that doesn’t mock a dead Army Ranger, and stop playing ghetto games with other commenters’ hashtags.

    If you can’t come up with your own monniker, then maybe it’s because you’re too incapacitated. Or too drunk on Pabst Blue Ribbon. Or is it Old English ?

    Elephant Stone (65d289)

  57. nk #50 – I have to suspect that Gojira’s ego is the biggest part of his wealth (while also being the least valuable part of his wealth) …

    Alasdair (a28b33)

  58. Hmm. You want to continue the conservation. I don’t blame you, I’m a talker* myself.

    But why? If it’s a waste of your time? And the way you talk, who will take you seriously?

    *cop talk for drunks with 0.36 alcohol levels that cannot walk but can still talk.

    nk (875f57)

  59. ==Not at all. Observe, nitwit…==

    When you or your parents paid good money for you to get a law degree or a graduate business degree, (or heck, if you were even on your high school or college debate team) weren’t you taught that calling someone a nitwit is not the way to open minds, or educate or persuade or have your argument or point of view heard and considered? Or have you forgotten that? I ask, because the wall of words that followed your “nitwit” quote was likely not read by many of the rest of the commenters so it was sort of just a big waste of time and effort on your part, no? Why are you here, really, and what is it that you hope to accomplish or convince others of?

    elissa (3bfb05)

  60. #55. and #57. — more blanket assertions, unsubstantiated and not coherently rebutted, followed by bad insult comedy.

    Still waiting for SPQR’s rebuttal.

    Seems like you wait a long time around here for anything other than a poorly-aimed gob of spit.

    Gojira, King of Monsters (5a9950)

  61. 38.“I guess because it is a confession of increased income inequality.”

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 12/3/2012 @ 9:54 am

    Sammy – No, the collection became more progressive, or “fair” in liberal jargon, as the relative burden on higher income people increased. The point is the the U.S. already collects more taxes from its highest income taxpayers relative to their incomes than any other developed nation.

    Well, you could say maybe taxes were lowerdd more on those below the highest brackets than they were on the highest brackets. But most taxatiuon was already on the highest brackets.

    I think the people earning the most income had more income in those years. There was a disproportional rise in income in the highest tax brackets. This always happens when you have ecomnomic growth.

    And, as Jerry Brown has pointed out, it is the reverse when you a have a recession.

    (Jerry Brown was pointing out that because California’s tax system was very progressive, it was also very cyclical – which is bad thing for a state government, because they always raise salaries and pensions when things are good and run into trouble when things start to get bad.)

    When you get a recession, income in the highest brackets drops more than in the lower brackets (even if a greater fraction of people are more likely to lose practically all their income – at least the type of income that is counteed in these kinds of statistics, which is taxable income and definitely excludes government benefits)

    In a recession income inequality drops.

    Liberals like to sometimes talk about income inequality after taxes but all their statistics are before taxes.

    Focusing on individual taxpayers paying lower tax rates than their secretaries is a BS way of looking at the issue.

    It’s BS because it ignores the different treatment of capital gains.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  62. “And the way you talk, who will take you seriously?”

    I have yet to see you or anybody else here make an argument that is “seriouser” than what I’ve put forward. There’s a lot of vehement fuming and name-calling, and a lot of people who say I’m short on facts who provide none of their own.

    You know the funny thing is that I don’t believe anything I’ve said is all that controversial; really all I did was summarize a few points on the Sailer blog. Aside from a bit of pungent language, what is it exactly that bothers you about what I’m arguing? No one will say. ‘Tis a curious thing.

    Gojira, King of Monsters (5a9950)

  63. “As for hyperbole… well it is a blog, you know.”

    Gojira – I.DID.NOT.KNOW.THAT.

    What would I do without you?

    Thanks for stopping by with your serious commentary.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  64. elissa — you conveniently ignore these (and several others), which were aimed at me prior to my nitwit line…

    from the horse’s mouth:

    “Willful ignorance sans reasoned argument.”

    “Detestible mendacity incapable of reasoned support.”

    What can I say? I hit back. Law of the schoolyard.

    As to whether people will or will not read my “wall of words” (otherwise known as the argument I was challenged to provide) that is a matter of your own intellectual integrity, I reckon. I come here to chat. Why do _you_ come here, just to feel superior and ignore what other people argue, if you don’t like it or it’s too long?

    I’ll remind you that my opening gambit insulted no one here, only a public figure who is well used to it by now. I was met with a torrent of abuse, accusing me of all sorts of silly things. So far I have yet to encounter a single coherent counter-argument. There appear to be here several people with strong feelings of disagreement, but they decline to articulate them. Such is life, I guess.

    Gojira, King of Monsters (5a9950)

  65. “I have yet to see you or anybody else here make an argument that is “seriouser” than what I’ve put forward.”

    Gojira – Calling George Bush a cockroach is a serious argument that you don’t see around here every day, so you have that going for, which is nice, but your support for the cockroach argument was unserious.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  66. “So far I have yet to encounter a single coherent counter-argument.”

    Gojira – You are not paying attention.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  67. “Gojira – Calling George Bush a cockroach is a serious argument…”

    How easy you rubes are distracted by a meaningless (yet in this case metaphorically accurate) comment like this.

    Your wingnut media outlets have programmed you on how to respond aggressively to issues you cannot dispute logically or factually. The Party of Faith in BS.

    Myself, I would have used the “parasite” epithet instead…

    P. Tillman (fcbc8b)

  68. Hey, you know who’s a cockroach? P-Dilly’s mom.

    Wait, I may have that wrong, but it’s close.

    Pious Agnostic (7c3d5b)

  69. “your support for the cockroach argument was unserious”

    I made an argument. So long, in fact, that it’s been called a “wall of words”. If you are an intellectually serious person, it will not do for you to simply assert it was unserious.

    Make your argument. I did it; you can, too.

    What is so hard to understand about this?

    Gojira, King of Monsters (5a9950)

  70. Ignore the troll.

    nk (875f57)

  71. Comment by Gojira, King of Monsters (5a9950) — 12/3/2012 @ 9:25 am

    US manufacturing base has been hollowing out since, oh, I don’t know, name your start date. The 70s? The 80s?

    1929? You already had things made in Japan in the 1930s. It used to be synonym for low quality and in the old cartoons something would not work, and then you’d see suddenly, it tyurned over and there was printed there: “Made in Japan”

    This of course has many causes, but in my view is primarily caused by attempting to engage in open trade (I won’t go so far as to say “free” trade) with mercantilist societies in Asia. It is a one-sided proposition, and the mercantilist House is guaranteed to win, as we observe in the ever-ballooning trade deficits with Asian powers, and subsequent debt to them, which has been going on throughout my adult life.

    You are a mercantilist then? (Debt occurs when profits are invested in U.S. Treasury bonds and notes. It’s basically only the government of China that is doing this.)

    It was soon discovered that this was not sustainable. Kee-rash. Exit Clinton, enter George W. Bush.

    The crash occured because some Internet companies didn’t have any real business models.

    3. Rather than address the fundamental problem, viz. that America was having its economic lunch eaten by mercantilists who actually made things,

    We make books, and that’s something Communist China can’t make, excceot for chiuldren’s books.

    Of course now…

    taking the painful but necessary steps to get back into that game, Bush rested his “recovery” largely on money acrobatics (tax games) and real estate value inflation, coupled with a surge in illegal immigration to account for the construction at discount prices.

    Construction at discount prices? I thought we had ahousing bubble. And actually construction is way way inflated. You could make houses out of shipping containers.

    a) trees don’t grow to the sky, so real estate values could not rise indefinitely, which would have been necessary to keep the scheme going;

    People thought real estate prices, by the very nature of things, could never drop, because people could not sell at a loss, because most of it was mortgaged. You could get a slowdown in sales, but never a price drop.

    Of course that didn’t apply once houses got foreclosed. And they did because many people were being sold variable rate mortgages.

    There was also some fraud, but just the price bubble alone could have caused the crash. Many houses were sold to people with good credit ratings based on appraised values. Such people intended if they couldn’t pay, to sell the house. That’s what the banks expected. They also exdpected to be able to refinance but theres a problem: Underwater houses are difficult to refinance..

    b) because real estate, especially residential real estate, is inherently not a productive asset but rather simply a necessity of life, basing an economic rebound on its rising value rather than re-laying the stable foundations of a complex economy is akin to eating one’s seed corn; Americans were essentially trying to sell a stake in the(ir) future, at an inflated price, to what Steve Sailer calls a Greater Fool.

    You mean it is a consumer good, not an investment. I guess you could say it is like silver or gold.

    c)

    is not true. Really.

    eager to enjoy a First World lifestyle without investing in it

    What does that mean?

    eager to provide cheap labor while having the costs of their prodigiious families socialized on the public teat.

    How so, especially illegal ones? The only big benefit is public schools. But the tax base for schools is local, and depends on what is there.

    d) Nothing lasts forever, and the Bush scheme collapsed. But illegal aliens are not like factory machinery: they continue to have costs, as do their many children, and you can’t just junk them and declare bankruptcy. They are here, they are staying, they cost us a hell of a lot of money that we don’t have, and worst of all, now they’re voting.

    More poor people in the United States? That’s the problem?

    Actually anybody except the superrich cost money.

    The cause of the deficit is the recession. Now are you saying the cause of the recession is the presence of people? I would think, if anything, that could keep the housing bubble going longer.

    4. As if all of this weren’t bad enough, at the same time as he was destroying the economy and the nation’s demographic future, George W. Bush embarked on not one, but two, poorly-thought-out, unfunded, strategically worthless land wars in Asia. Not only did he do that, but he prosecuted both wars in such a losing and incompetent fashion that he eventually earned the undying hatred of a significant portion of the American public. This, in addition to his poorly-thought-out and poorly-explained incursions into homeland civil liberties (even if/when he was right, he failed to make his case in a coherent fashion, the first task of a political leader), racked him up so much enmity among the public, both for himself and his party, that he made possible –are you ready for this?–

    It sounds like you like Ron Paul. The wars had a reason. Waging them badly is just a mistake. They did not cause the deficit.

    5. The election of Barack Obama, a man utterly unqualified to be president and who, in a different era, would have been laughed out of town as a bounder, an ideologue, and a crackpot.

    We often get bad presidents.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  72. “Make your argument. I did it; you can, too.”

    Gojira – I did, you dodged.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  73. . I come here to chat.

    This is not in evidence.

    JD (2e25be)

  74. I disclaim all responsibility for Gojira’s lack of knowledge of the U.S. economy.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  75. The housing bubble meant the destruction of money (debt you can count on = money) and that caused a problem. This was not caused any decades long trends, real or imaginary.

    I noticed you seem to be arguing Bush caused houses to be cheaper to construct (and sell for less? Profit for developers? what’s wrong with that anyway?)

    Most of the rest doesn’t make any sense, either.

    The great increase in debt is not because more people are receiving government benefits, besides what is attributable to the recession. I mean this happened suddenly.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  76. “I did, you dodged”

    Where? I didn’t see it.

    Sammy Finkelman — thank you at last for some substance. I think you’re wrong in important places, naturally, but I will digest your post and reply. Unlike others here.

    Gojira, King of Monsters (5a9950)

  77. Illman -DRJ has asked you some very clear and direct questions. Why do you avoid them?

    JD (2e25be)

  78. Sammy vs. Gojira.

    I’d pay to see that in the theater.

    Pious Agnostic (40defc)

  79. “c)

    is not true. Really.”

    George W. Bush: “Family values don’t stop at the Rio Grande.” The numbers during the Bush years speak for themselves.

    So what you said is a flat out lie. You’ve been caught lying.

    And besides, “Really” isn’t an argument.

    Explain why I should take you seriously any further.

    Gojira, King of Monsters (5a9950)

  80. “78.Sammy vs. Gojira.

    I’d pay to see that in the theater.”

    I think that Toho Studios shot that one around 1978. It was followed by “Sammy vs. Mecha-Sammy.”

    :-) (for once)

    Gojira, King of Monsters (5a9950)

  81. Pious Agnostic,

    I’ll make some phone calls and see if that’s not something that could be made into at least a Lifetime Cable Channel Movie of the Week.

    Elephant Stone (65d289)

  82. “Where? I didn’t see it.”

    Gojira – Of course you didn’t, because you don’t want to answer inconvenient questions.

    What specific Bush era policies led to the housing meltdown? You leave this curiously undeveloped in your argument, merely an assertion.

    Why did the last comprehensive immigration bill fail in Congress, the one push by both McCain and Bush?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  83. Comment by nk (875f57) — 12/3/2012 @ 10:30 am

    Your owned, even if mortgaged, home is wealth. It is your nest egg. It isw the biggest part of your wealth.

    His argument, to the extent I discern one, is that the prosperity of the 2000-2009 decade arose because there was an increase in home values, but this was not an actual increase in wealth, just a bubble, and it had to collapse.

    (That kind of an argument goes: people spent money because they thought they were wealthier)

    Instead, he says, they (or the people who borrowed money from banks) should have built factories that made things without employing actual workers – maybe using robots – and exported the goods and collected gold and silver from places like China. Or maybe copper and iron and oil.

    These factories would have represented real wealth. They make things. Houses don’t make more things. So it is the wrong place to invest money.

    There’s no place in his universe for intellectual property, by the way.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  84. “The numbers during the Bush years speak for themselves.

    So what you said is a flat out lie. You’ve been caught lying.”

    Gojira – What numbers? You have not presented any numbers.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  85. shorter-Gojira – My unsupported assertions are a serious argument. Yours are not.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  86. Intellectually curious and serious debaters know how to position and distill an argument to make it more cogent, attractive and readable/understandable. That is always–always the opening “gambit” writer’s or speaker’s responsibility– not the reader’s or listener’s responsibility. Serious debaters know to search for even the tiniest element of common ground or agreement to get the trust and interest going, and then they continue to develop their alternate POV or new idea by enticing and seducing people to listen further. This is how minds are shaped and changed with respect to issues.

    But if readers are busy or bored or insulted or if they just don’t seem to care about your views or they find your personality off-putting, then they’ll pay you no mind and nothing at all is accomplished.

    elissa (3bfb05)

  87. “But if readers are busy or bored or insulted or if they just don’t seem to care about your views or they find your personality off-putting, then they’ll pay you no mind and nothing at all is accomplished.”

    elissa – And sometimes even commenters who claim to be SOOOOPER SEEERIOUS lose credibility by dodging or ignoring legitimate questions.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  88. I guess we should be happy that it is only using one name, instead of the 3 in one thread like it did previously. Rocky Raconteur and up the junction were cute concern trolls.

    JD (318f81)

  89. Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 12/3/2012 @ 11:38 am

    Why did the last comprehensive immigration bill fail in Congress, the one push by both McCain and Bush?

    It really died because they conceded one point at the beginning that doomed it – that total immigration to the United States would not go up, or would not go up too much.

    Any bill that reduces family reunification possibilities, now or in the future, is not going anywhere. In fact pretty much any bill that harms any prospects for immigration that currently exist is not going anywhere. Democrats right now don;t even want to increase legal immigration if they lose a bargaining chip with Republicans (Obama came out against a bill that only llows certain graduates of U.S. universities to stay)

    Obama had a lot to do with destroying the 2007 bill. What sunk it in the end (not that it didn’t have other problems) was the concept of temporary workers. This would man workers who could not quit their jobs. Unions opposed that. But Obama didn’t indicte this was a problem for him at the start.

    Sammy Finkelman (7fb436)

  90. “It really died because they conceded one point at the beginning that doomed it – that total immigration to the United States would not go up, or would not go up too much.”

    Sammy – I believe it died because the American public deluged Congress with phone calls and emails telling them to address border security before even contemplating comprehensive immigration reform.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  91. Gojira is a piece of fecies troll.

    nk (875f57)

  92. I have one for Gojira:

    President Bush never had sufficient political capital on any non-defense domestic issue to overcome a Senate filibuster.

    Chris Dodd and Barney Frank made it clear that they would filibuster any attempt at mortgage reform in 2001 (when McCain brought it up), 2003, 2005, and 2007 (when Bush and McCain were trying to work it).

    As evidence, look at Bush’s failure on Social Security, a larger but less immediate problem (although the immediacy wasn’t known at the time) than the mortgage problem. He failed miserably and had to withdraw from the field, political capital wasted.

    I hereby state that you might have liked him to appear to try harder on the mortgage problem when he had the chance, but that it was clearly impossible in the face of the Senate filibuster. It was wise of him to recognize that.

    luagha (5cbe06)

  93. The chart above states that the Bush Tax Cuts were enacted in 2003.

    However, Bush enacted tax cuts in two rounds and spread over the years 2001-2003.

    Making this point…

    “Revenue increased after the the tax cuts went into effect…”

    A lie.

    As is this:

    “…and the budget gap narrowed.”

    As I showed above (I doubt many of you even looked at the data to verify the claims).

    Increases in the federal debt over the same periods:

    Clinton: -255B to +236
    Bush: +236 to -458.

    Sooooo, contrary to Mr. Government Attorney’s claim, this data if anything contradicts the point of the entire article. Par for the course in Wingnuttia…lies and willful self-delusion.

    P. Tillman (fcbc8b)

  94. “Serious debaters know to search for even the tiniest element of common ground or agreement to get the trust and interest going (RACISM, CLASS HATRED), and then they continue to develop their alternate POV or new idea by enticing and seducing people to listen further (DEFICIT! BENGHAZI!). This is how minds are shaped and changed with respect to issues.”

    Where did you find this, in one of Hannity’s or Limbaugh’s books?

    You delusional sociopaths are like living characters straight out of The Onion. Future generations (if they arise after you people helped crap all over the planet) will look back with wonder and bemusement.

    P. Tillman (fcbc8b)

  95. Comment by Gojira, King of Monsters (5a9950) — 12/3/2012 @ 11:34 am

    c) in order to facilitate this ridiculous project,

    Of increasing real estate values, apparently. I didn’t know George W. Bush had this project. Probably neither did anybody else, until today.

    George W. Bush, who had sworn a solemn oath to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States,

    Only the constitution. Not the laws. Read the oath:

    Article II, Section 1, Clause 7.

    “….I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

    Abraham Lincoln was well aware of the distinction between faithfully the laws of the United states (which you seem to think the oath says, but it does not – it’s execute the office) and preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution of the United States.

    http://eweb.furman.edu/~benson/docs/lincoln.htm

    To state the question more directly, are all the laws but one to go unexecuted and the Government itself go to pieces lest that one be violated? Even in such a case would not the official oath be broken if the Government should be overthrown, when it was believed that disregarding the single law would tend to preserve it? But it was not believed that this question was presented

    explicitly broke his oath to the American people

    No, the oath is to God, or perhaps it is not an oath at all.. (he could use the word affirm)

    And explicitly break it?

    by turning a blind eye as the country was swarmed with illegal Third World immigrants,

    No, it wasn’t swarmed. And he didn’t turn a blind eye. It was much harder to cross the Mexican border in 2008 than in 2000. And the proof is the number of people who died trying.

    eager to enjoy a First World lifestyle without investing in it,

    I don’t understand what this means at all.

    eager to provide cheap labor while having the costs of their prodigious families socialized on the public teat.

    SF: “c)

    is not true. Really.”

    George W. Bush: “Family values don’t stop at the Rio Grande.” The numbers during the Bush years speak for themselves.

    He was proposing to change the law. Nor was the law enforceable as written. Nor does the fact something is law, make it just or wise or reasonable or necessary and it doesn’t make a violation of it an element in rising housing prices.

    You;r saying that when he was talking about family values he didn’t really mean it. He wanted more people in order to sell more houses at higher prices, or something.

    So what you said is a flat out lie. You’ve been caught lying.

    And besides, “Really” isn’t an argument.

    Even if it were conceded he deliberately wanted more people to come to the United states in violation of law, you can’t make the rest of your argument.

    Explain why I should take you seriously any further.

    You might want yourself to be taken seriously.

    Sammy Finkelman (7fb436)

  96. Clinton: -255B to +236
    Bush: +236 to -458.

    Pure fiction. Any surplus was “projected” assuming ongoing irrational exuberance which need shortly thereafter.

    JD (318f81)

  97. Revenue increased after the the tax cuts went into effect…”

    Nit right away, but by 2007, revenues were back up.

    Neither the tax cuts, nor the wars, nor the prescription drug benefit, but only the recession caused these huge recent deficits.

    Sammy Finkelman (7fb436)

  98. Illman – going to keep ignoring DRJ?

    JD (318f81)

  99. but only the recession caused these huge recent deficits.

    Oh. And massive spending increases.

    JD (318f81)

  100. More fun from the chart:

    Government outlays

    2001-2009: 1860-3517 Billion (+1675B; 90% increase over 2001)
    2010-2013: 3456-3803 B (+ 347B; 10% increase over 2010)

    So tell me again what all you stuck picks are squealing about??

    P. Tillman (fcbc8b)

  101. “Illman – going to keep ignoring DRJ?”

    What’s it to you psychopath?

    P. Tillman (fcbc8b)

  102. “Nit right away, but by 2007, revenues were back up.”

    So your theory is that the lowered tax rate (by around 3%) for upper income (mostly) taxpayers contributed to an economic boom that raised the tax base and lifted the economy enough to generate higher overall receipts?

    If you can provide some support for this please do. You know, facts, data, analysis, etc.

    And you might want to read this before jumping ahead to invoke the Laffer (appropriately named) curve:

    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/10/the-laffer-test-somewhat-wonkish/

    Yes I know! The NYT Liberal Krugman! Refute his data and not his supposed political bias or acknowledge your own.

    P. Tillman (fcbc8b)

  103. So P-Dilly, did you lash out at elissa because you were hoping to lure somebody in to white-knight her? Do you get a bonus if that happens?

    Pious Agnostic (20c167)

  104. Krugman’s Laffer article doesn’t have any data in it. It’s just a thought experiment.

    He neglects that the 70% and 91% rates that he mentioned were in fact roundly characterized by avoidance measures.

    He also neglects to understand that the Laffer Curve is not the only thing affecting revenues. For example, Clinton got the Internet boom. For sure, it made his balance sheet much much nicer, and shifted the effects of the Laffer Curve under him. Obama is receiving the Fracking boom, which is helping his economy look not as bad as it might, again, shifting the Laffer Curve for him. If he actually got out of the way of the Fracking Boom (and just enforced laws fairly) the way Clinton mostly got out of the way of the Internet boom, he’d get much more effect out of it.

    Oh, but I said ‘just enforced laws fairly’ about Obama. Pardon me.

    luagha (5cbe06)

  105. Government outlays

    2001-2009: 1860-3517 Billion (+1675B; 90% increase over 2001)
    2010-2013: 3456-3803 B (+ 347B; 10% increase over 2010)

    Dishonest bracketing. Stats, stats and damned lies. Tis puts the 2009 budget that the Dems refused to pass under Bush, and added tons of pork barrel spending, and the stimulus to, in Bush’s column. It exaggerates Bush’s spending over 8 years, and minimizes Barcky’s over 4 years.

    JD (318f81)

  106. Let’s see how long it takes for Sammy, or anyone else, to come up with a meaningful reply.

    My experience in places like this is that asking such questions provokes 1) a stampede for the door by the Converted to avoid potentially lethal contact with reality, or 2) a non-stop litany of diversionary counter-attacks, ad hominem or ideological, or 3) relentlessly question the veracity of one small unimportant detail.

    P. Tillman (fcbc8b)

  107. Illman is having another lying hate-fest today.

    JD (318f81)

  108. “Dishonest bracketing.”

    So re-draw the boundaries of the playing field as you suggest and then tell us what the result is psychobabble.

    Go ahead, or I’ll do it for you just to prove how effete your reply is.

    (Also, thanks for leading with tactic #3.)

    P. Tillman (fcbc8b)

  109. My experience in places like this … Is that people tend to be skeptical of anything from a hate-filled lying liar who usurps and sullied the name of an American hero to spew it’s bile, or a demonic dwarf that has substituted over the top partisanship for economic theory. either way, what you should have learned from your experiences, you didn’t.

    JD (318f81)

  110. Yes, Tactic #3. Pointing out where you are being aggressively dishonest. I don’t have to make any case. It is your claim, and you chose to try to make it dishonestly. Did you steal that from mediamutterz or thinkregress?

    JD (318f81)

  111. P. Tillman,

    I’m waiting for your answer, please.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  112. I first asked you a question a couple of days ago, and I’ve waited patiently today as well. If you don’t plan to answer anything I’ve asked you, please tell me now.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  113. I’ll get you started in case you don’t know how to do it (even though your claim is a bunch of crap…a lie as usual):

    1860 – 2982 = ?? /1860 x 100

    3800 – 3500 = ???/3800 x 100

    P. Tillman (fcbc8b)

  114. “I’m waiting for your answer, please.”

    OK, I’ll bite…what question?

    P. Tillman (fcbc8b)

  115. “I don’t have to make any case. ”

    How convenient, because you CAN’T make a case.

    P. Tillman (fcbc8b)

  116. “If you can provide some support for this please do.”

    Petey – Looking at any government source for individual income taxes will show that federal income tax receipts from individuals began rising in 2004 over 2003. I have no idea what stats you are looking at.

    Looking at the end of the Clinton years and the beginning of the Bush years will also show you how tax receipts from capital gains fell off a cliff when the stock market bubble popped.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  117. “My experience in places like this … Is that people tend to be skeptical of anything from a hate-filled lying liar who usurps and sullied the name of an American hero to spew it’s bile, or a demonic dwarf that has substituted over the top partisanship for economic theory. either way, what you should have learned from your experiences, you didn’t.”

    And we now have an example of tactic #2!

    LOL….keep ‘em coming!

    P. Tillman (fcbc8b)

  118. P. Tillman,

    My comment 19 in this thread, and thank you for proving you don’t read the comments carefully (or at all).

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  119. “Petey – Looking at any government source for individual income taxes will show that federal income tax receipts from individuals began rising in 2004 over 2003.”

    But during the years when the tax cuts were enacted they went down.

    If you can SHOW how they can then go up (and please, not simply by appealing to “common sense” or some other idiocy), please do go ahead…maybe you want to consult with Sammy to coordinate your obfuscation…er, reply.

    AND…look at the receipts during Clinton’s years with tax rates went up.

    A “theory” can’t only apply to one very specific narrow set of circumstances if it is valid or useful (but then again, you’re the folks who employed people to tell you that the data showed Romney was gonna win the POTUS so….BWAHAHAHAHAHA!).

    P. Tillman (fcbc8b)

  120. What chart is Illman referring to and where did it provide a link to same?

    JD (318f81)

  121. “Why are you adding other commenters’ hashtags to your name?”

    Well I really don’t have an answer to that one DRJ.

    “Also, is your online name a reference to Pat Tillman? If so, why?”

    I don’t think I need to explain my personal choices to you or any other sociopath.

    There, satisfied??

    P. Tillman (fcbc8b)

  122. “Krugman’s Laffer article doesn’t have any data in it. It’s just a thought experiment.”

    laugha – Hilarious! Petey provides yet another self-refuting link. Positively Gleenwaldian.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  123. ” thank you for proving you don’t read the comments carefully (or at all).”

    OUCH! You really nailed me that time! Do you really think anyone has the time to sort through, think about, and respond to the piles of BS produced here by people like you every day? LOL.

    P. Tillman (fcbc8b)

  124. I cannot imagine why tax revenues went down in 2001 or 2002. It is a complete mystery why that might have happened.

    JD (318f81)

  125. It is also a mystery why Illman was using other people’s hashtags, and why it sullied the name of a real hero. /spit

    JD (318f81)

  126. 25 min until Petey’s curfew

    JD (318f81)

  127. Thanks, P. Tillman.

    Patterico — him or me.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  128. On second thought, I don’t like ultimatums and I know you don’t either.

    Goodbye and good luck. You’ll need it with commenters like this.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  129. I love how the troll postd a fundamentally dishonest assertion, then declares any effort to point out why it was dishonest out-of-bounds. That is a nifty little game you are playing.

    JD (318f81)

  130. “laugha – Hilarious! Petey provides yet another self-refuting link. Positively Gleenwaldian.”

    How could I have forgotten this tactic: 4) shoot the messenger, ignore the message.

    Combined artfully here with tactic 2.

    P. Tillman (fcbc8b)

  131. Ay attempt to show how dishonest Illman is being is simply a reichwing tactic. Convenient, that.

    Enough with the asshattery to DRJ. Patterico previously approved a ban of Petey, and absent a clear answer to DRJ, or an actual apology for being such a douchenozzle to her, it will be implemented.

    JD (318f81)

  132. “I love how the troll postd a fundamentally dishonest assertion, then declares any effort to point out why it was dishonest out-of-bounds. That is a nifty little game you are playing.”

    Tactic 2 again.

    You boob, adjusting the figures as you suggest makes it look worse for Bush.

    Not only did I not suggest it was out-of-bounds, nitwit, but I even tried to help you with the math.

    Getting about ready to apply Tactic 1 I am guessing.

    P. Tillman (fcbc8b)

  133. “But during the years when the tax cuts were enacted they went down.”

    Petey – Individual federal income tax receipts temporarily peaked in the year 2000 and then declined for three years, 2001, 2002 and 2003. They recovered to the 2000 level in 2006 in spite of the lower Bush rates. Check for yourself the data are there. Check also the significantly lower receipts from capital gains due to the significantly lower reported capital gains recognized on individual income tax returns after the Clinton stock market bubble popped. Try to learn something.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  134. You boob, adjusting the figures as you suggest makes it look worse for Bush

    Lie. Putting Tarp2, Porkulus, and the last budget the Dems had the stones to pass in the Dem column does not make Bush look worse, on any planet.

    JD (318f81)

  135. Oh I see I left out tactic 5….banishment!

    LOL!

    Really, could you all be even more pathetic and sad.

    Please go ahead and ban me fool. It’s a variation of tactic 1….RUN AWAY!

    P. Tillman (fcbc8b)

  136. “Lie. Putting Tarp2, Porkulus, and the last budget the Dems had the stones to pass in the Dem column does not make Bush look worse, on any planet.”

    Now all of a sudden you have some secret source of numbers that are not entered on the charts???

    P. Tillman (fcbc8b)

  137. Daleyrocks – I cannot imagine, other than the tech bubble bursting, what else may have happened in 2001 that may have had a dramatic effect on the economy.

    JD (318f81)

  138. You won’t produce your “chart”.

    JD (318f81)

  139. Last chance. You will find that many things are tolerated, you being the obvious example. but when you start running off honest respected and kind co mentors with your asshattery,a dim view is taken. Especially given your history here.

    JD (318f81)

  140. 13 min until Petey’s parents get home.

    JD (318f81)

  141. “You won’t produce your “chart”.

    Are. You. Friggin’. Serious???

    Turn to Pages 411-413 of his 2012 Economic Report of the President, published by the Council of Economic Advisers.

    Read More At IBD: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-perspective/113012-635352-bush-tax-cuts-did-not-cause-deficits.htm#ixzz2E1n9qCEy

    From the article linked in the thread.

    OMG…my head hurts.

    P. Tillman (fcbc8b)

  142. “Last chance.”

    For what exactly? To stop pointing out your stupidity?

    P. Tillman (fcbc8b)

  143. “Patterico — him or me.”

    Correction: Thin-skinned whiny sociopath.

    P. Tillman (fcbc8b)

  144. “Daleyrocks – I cannot imagine, other than the tech bubble bursting, what else may have happened in 2001 that may have had a dramatic effect on the economy.”

    JD – It is a mystery, given that the 2001 Bush tax cuts were being phased in through 2006.

    The 2003 tax bill accelerated the phase in and allowed qualified dividends to be taxed at 15%, both retroactive to the beginning of 2003 and abracadabra, tax revenues began climbing the following year. Another mystery.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  145. “OMG…my head hurts.”

    Petey – We already knew that from the content of your comments. Seek help.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  146. JD – Gender bending midget over the hill legend in his own mind pristine lake polluter?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  147. “Petey – We already knew that from the content of your comments. Seek help.”

    Tactic 2. Again.

    You people can’t even man-up to face a strong challenge to your world views. Pathetic really.

    P. Tillman (fcbc8b)

  148. “Correction: Thin-skinned whiny sociopath.”

    - P.Tillman

    You are so gone, dude. Good riddance.

    Leviticus (17b7a5)

  149. P.Tillman, you don’t present a “strong challenge” to my world view. Your comments show that you don’t live on the same planet as humanity – you inevitably describe past history that never happened. You make crap up.

    SPQR (768505)

  150. By a strong challenge Petey means aggressively dishonest numbers.

    JD (2e25be)

  151. Could we have a cage match between Pillman, Monsterman, and SF?
    Three men in, no one out!

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  152. “By a strong challenge Petey means aggressively dishonest numbers.”

    LOL…too bad your “honest” numbers refute your own point.

    You didn’t even realize I was taking the data from the very same chart used to mount this dubious argument to begin with.

    Yours, otoh, seem to have been pulled out of someones arse…

    P. Tillman (fcbc8b)

  153. “you inevitably describe past history that never happened. You make crap up.”

    OMG, priceless coming from a Wingnut!

    P. Tillman (fcbc8b)

  154. “You didn’t even realize I was taking the data from the very same chart used to mount this dubious argument to begin with.”

    Petey – Guess what, the numbers support what I’ve been saying all along, rather than your dishonest version of reality.

    Sucks to be you.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  155. “Guess what, the numbers support what I’ve been saying all along, rather than your dishonest version of reality.”

    “The 2003 tax bill accelerated the phase in and allowed qualified dividends to be taxed at 15%, both retroactive to the beginning of 2003 and abracadabra, tax revenues began climbing the following year. Another mystery.”

    Both coming from the same “mind”.

    Hard to face objective reality: lowering taxes reduces government revenue. Period.

    And where’d Sammy run off to? He was supposed to tell us all how the opposite can be true. With direct evidence, not just by coincidence or voodoo.

    Guess who said this:

    “Maybe the economy would have recovered without the tax cuts.”

    ??

    P. Tillman (fcbc8b)

  156. Hard to face objective reality: lowering taxes reduces government revenue. Period.

    Objectively untrue.

    JD (2e25be)

  157. “Both coming from the same “mind”.”

    Petey – How many angels are dancing on the top of your pinhead?

    There are no contradictions in what I wrote, only your inability to understand it. Individual income tax receipts dropped temporarily due to the accelerated phase in of the rate declines in 2003, but began recovering the following year.

    Thought experiment – What did unemployment and economic growth average during the Bush era? What has it done under Obama?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  158. “Hard to face objective reality: lowering taxes reduces government revenue. Period.”

    Petey – Why did Obama decide to extend the Bush tax cuts at the end of 2010 when he still had veto proof majorities in both houses of Congress?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  159. The decreased revenues from the tech bubble burst and the recession following 9/11 had no effect on revenues. Only static scoring did.

    JD (2e25be)

  160. Static scoring RAWKS!

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  161. “Hard to face objective reality: lowering taxes reduces government revenue. Period.”

    Unserious boob.

    Birdbath (716828)

  162. More than half of the U.K.’s millionaires (or something) left the country while it had its recent wealthy people surcharge bracket in place, because of teh chirren and teh static scoring, but mostly because of teh chirren.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  163. Daley – they could double tax revenues by simply doubling every tax rate.

    JD (2e25be)

  164. “Hard to face objective reality: lowering taxes reduces government revenue. Period.”

    Petey – Tell that to that teabagger JFK.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  165. “Daley – they could double tax revenues by simply doubling every tax rate.”

    JD – If the static scoring models say it, it must be true!

    TO INFINITY AND BEYOND!!!!!!!!!!!!

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  166. Plus that scumbucket Warren Buffet should finally give his secretary a raise.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  167. UK millionaires didn’t leave the country – there must be some otehr explanation for the statistic.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  168. “UK millionaires didn’t leave the country – there must be some otehr explanation for the statistic.”

    Sammy – My bad, it was two-thirds, not half. Let me know when you figure it out.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  169. “UK millionaires didn’t leave the country…”

    Where’d they go, then?

    Birdbath (716828)

  170. 23. I rest my case, willfully ignorant, and the charge against Booosh(cockroach) totally vapid and unfounded.

    Evidently central to your proof Booosh allowed inmigrantes to proliferate? What about Reagan’s amnesty, what about Texican maliquadores? Sh*thead.

    May I suggest a GED focussing on the English language you appear to be using? To wit, “America was having its economic lunch eaten by mercantilists who actually made things“.

    Non sequitir is not a method of proof.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  171. Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 12/3/2012 @ 2:40 pm

    If he did, she would just end up in a higher tax-bracket, resulting in her paying even more in taxes than Warren.

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  172. Hard to face objective reality: lowering taxes reduces government revenue. Period.

    And where’d Sammy run off to? He was supposed to tell us all how the opposite can be true. With direct evidence, not just by coincidence or voodoo.

    Complete BS. Bill Clinton lowered the capital gains tax rate from 28% in 1997 to 20%, and then later George Bush lowered it again to 15%. In both cases tax revenues increased. Each time, like clockwork. In fact when the capital gains tax rate increased to 28% originally the revenues collected from that tax went down.

    Obama admitted during debates in the 2008 primary he’d raise the capital gains tax rate regardless if its effect on revenue due to “fairness.” As he put it at the time he doesn’t care if revenues decrease as long as hedge fund managers are paying a higher rate on capital gains then their secretaries are paying on their ordinary incomes.

    Naturally he doesn’t give a hoot in hell if those same secretaries were planning to retire and live off their income. Obama’s war on women was pure fiction, but he’s waging a war on the elderly. They’re getting squeezed by high fuel, food, and electricity rates, they’re making less off their investments, and now Obama wants to tax their reduced income at a higher rate.

    It’s also no surprise that capital is sitting on the sidelines. Or not flowing into this company at all. The increase in income tax rates for the top two brackets may not be large enough to have a huge effect on people’s economic behavior (and they also won’t raise a fraction of the revenue Obama’s lying and claiming they will), but doubling the capital gains tax will. Revenues will go down, because you’re going to get less investment or people will shift to tax-free investments. It’s what they’ve always historically done.

    Speaking of history, it’s pure fiction that lowering income tax rates by definition means you’ll get lower revenues. It would result in less revenue if you lower the rates too much. Obviously if you lower the rate to zero you’re not going to see any revenue.

    But history again shows that lowering rates while eliminating deductions either has a stimulative effect or worst case no effect on revenues. We have two examples. JFK did it in the the 1960s, and Reagan did it in the ’80s.

    It was funny watching slow Joe Biden insist that Romney’s tax reform plan, which was the based upon the same principles that JFK and Reagan based their plans upon, had “never been done.” Because not only had it been done twice, and it worked, but Biden voted for the Reagan plan that he claimed had never been done in 1986.

    Steve57 (1922f2)

  173. If it wasn’t for “minders”, Sloe-Joe would never find his way home.

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  174. 168. “UK millionaires didn’t leave the country – there must be some otehr explanation for the statistic.”

    Sammy – My bad, it was two-thirds, not half. Let me know when you figure it out.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 12/3/2012 @ 2:52 pm

    Many didn’t leave the British Commonwealth, though. Quite a few moved to the Crown Dependancies of the Channel Islands. Which have their own laws.

    The tax rates in France are having similar effects.

    France’s proposed tax hikes spark ‘exodus’ of wealthy

    The latest estate agency figures have shown large numbers of France’s most well-heeled families selling up and moving to neighbouring countries.

    Many are fleeing a proposed new higher tax rate of 75 per cent on all earnings over one million euros. (£780,000)

    The previous top tax bracket of 41 per cent on earnings over 72,000 euros is also set to increase to 45 per cent.

    Sotheby’s Realty, the estate agent arm of the British auction house, said its French offices sold more than 100 properties over 1.7 million euros between April and June this year – a marked increase on the same period in 2011.

    Hard cold reality is a concept that libtards always fail to grasp, even if they toss the words around.

    Steve57 (1922f2)

  175. “Why are you adding other commenters’ hashtags to your name?”

    Well I really don’t have an answer to that one DRJ.

    “Also, is your online name a reference to Pat Tillman? If so, why?”

    I don’t think I need to explain my personal choices to you or any other sociopath.

    There, satisfied??

    Comment by P. Tillman (fcbc8b) — 12/3/2012 @ 1:30 pm

    Patterico, JD, Admin Guy, clean up is needed. Please? Get rid of the s***. It’s important. There are other commenters, here, that do not want to step in it.

    nk (875f57)

  176. Pretty soon it’s going to be all these millionaires bouncing off of each other with nowhere to go. The country that finds a place for them is going to be very happy.

    Birdbath (716828)

  177. Putting the FY 09 budget deficit into the Bush admin is a common lie among Democrats. Normally, the fiscal year begins in October of the previous nominal year (ie., FY 09 begins in October of ’08) but the Democrats refused to pass a budget until Obama was sworn in in January of ’09 and then they added to FY 09 roughly $400 billion more deficit spending in the immediate spending of the trillion dollars faux “stimulus” bill that was pure Democrat pork.

    SPQR (768505)

  178. Good thread. My monitor was smoking there for a bit.

    navyvet (02dd07)

  179. More poor people in the United States? That’s the problem?

    Well, it certainly doesn’t represent an advantage. School districts in the US with a student body made up heavily of immigrants from Central and South America, in which rates of academic achievement are persistently, habitually very mediocre, reflect the type of exhaustion and lowly ranking associated with a society like Mexico. Therefore, if more of America becomes increasingly more like our neighbor to the south, then our future ain’t going to be a very bright one.

    Speaking of which, California — now ranked as one of the most poorly managed states in America — has a well-known industry that illustrates the way that taxes, high or low, can influence people who are in charge of doing business. Namely, the entertainment industry or “Hollywood.” BTW, just about every niche of that industry — from the bigwigs in the boardroom to the proletariat on the “shop floor” — is full of dyed-in-the-wood liberals, full of staunchly registered Democrats.

    The industry of showbiz has been continuously waving “farewell” to LA/California for quite awhile now, due largely to tax breaks offered to “Hollywood” by other states/cities in this country. Lower costs of production in general also are a big factor behind the entertainment business choosing to high tail it out of the West Coast to other parts of the world too.

    TV/movies are to LA/California what automobiles are (or have been) to Detroit/Michigan, or what textiles have been to parts of the South. But with the demographics of the “Golden State” becoming more and more blessed with high-achieving, talented, skilled people (snerk), it will somehow make up for the loss.

    Mark (56b304)

  180. Did that insufferable little twit Tillman tell sometime here to “man up?” Ha, that might be his best one yet.

    Smackwater Jack Klompus (faff2e)

  181. someone that is

    Smackwater Jack Klompus (faff2e)

  182. Petey did get 16 minutes of overtime today. Or the librarian was late on policing time spent by vagrants at the computer. Or its mom came home late from her job, which could be understandable.

    Insulting DRJ is pretty unforgivable, though.

    Ag80 (b2c81f)

  183. I know you pipple think I’m bald because I ran around with my hair afire:

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-12-03/time-bernanke-reevaluate-his-sworn-testimony-congress

    It’s now time to PANIC.

    Fed will be buying 100% of all long term Treasuries. Fed will own 60% of all US Debt in three years. Fed ink investment will be 24% of GDP beginning this month.

    The end is nigh.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  184. Another pipe dream that would make so much sense:

    http://azizonomics.com/2012/08/07/the-cantillon-effect/

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  185. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/10/the-laffer-test-somewhat-wonkish/

    This is completely wrong, because it assumes most very high income is wages or salary, and furthermore, that what would cause income from wages or salary it to go up is putting in more hours.

    Taxes paid pretty soon go up when the rate goes down because when there is less taxation, more remains to reinvest, and there are more capital gains on stocks and fees from stock trading because the prices are higher.

    Sammy Finkelman (7fb436)

  186. 184. How would this work?

    You could make it work maybe by issuing everyone with a Social Security number special checks that could only be used to pay high interest credit card debt – no – how about if people give permission for their credit records to be accessed, the X amount of dollars owed carrying the highest interest rate is paid down and if someone didn’t have any debt they’d get a check?

    Anyway some people don’t like this idea of actually using the money the Federal Reserve Board is creating. They could just give it to the government instead of charging interest. How much would be safe to do?

    Sammy Finkelman (7fb436)

  187. Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 12/3/2012 @ 2:52 pm

    Sammy – My bad, it was two-thirds, not half. Let me know when you figure it out.

    1. A lot of income is under people’s control, and the timing even more so. Income could have been advanced to the previous year, and because of a belief tax rates may go down, postponed also.

    2. The recession caused less income.

    3. Legal tax avoidance gimmicks.

    Sammy Finkelman (7fb436)

  188. Before you say the end is nigh – what are the statistics for the Fed buying of federal debt and debt as a percentage of GDP for the 1940s?

    Sammy Finkelman (7fb436)

  189. Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 12/3/2012 @ 12:15 pm

    Sammy – I believe it died because the American public deluged Congress with phone calls and emails telling them to address border security before even contemplating comprehensive immigration reform.

    That was a given from the start. By the way, that’
    s a condition that can never be met.

    George W. Bush argued you’d never control the border until you liberalized immigration.

    What caused trouble was the idea that nobody should gain any advantage from having broken the law in the past. Now you can’t do that, and also legalize most people here, unless you make immigration in general much easier. But if don’t want to increase the level of immigration, you can’t do that. Stalemate.

    There won’t be any bill passed until Republicans give up their absolute opposition to granting amnesty to those who will immigrate illegally to the United States in the years to come.

    Sammy Finkelman (7fb436)

  190. Sammy @187 – I said when you figure it out, not when you begin to guess.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  191. That’ the sticking point. The Democrats don’t want to promise future amnesty, but there are some lobbies pushing the Republicans in trying to guarantee it can’t happen again – and you can’t.

    So for a bill to pass with bipartisan support the Republicans will have to give up their absolute opposition to amnesty for people who will come to the United States illegally in the future.

    People won’t let anyone get away with claiming this is the last time – 1986 was supposed to be the last time.

    Another way out is no amnesty at all, but laws so liberal it doesn’t matter.

    Sammy Finkelman (7fb436)

  192. “That was a given from the start.”

    Sammy – Completely wrong again. The public wanted to address the border before striking any deal. The politicians ignored them. Then the politicians heard from the public.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  193. 183, 188. Ooopsie Fed balance sheet at end of 2013 will be a quarter of GDP, not the flow of funds.

    However, the 10-year price and 30-year mortgage rates are headed in opposite directions.

    I don’t know the stat you query but assume it was 0. Regardless we know for certain the Fed will never put these treasuries back in play.

    Repo rates will kill them quickly. I’ll look for the scenario tomorrow. Its by a former Goldman trader now retired at 36 living in Majorca or nearby within last two weeks at zerohedge.

    Greece repurchasing as we speak, source of funds unknown.

    Argentina, Spain and Greece(once again) will default in 2013 and bond prices are going thru the roof. The Netherlands and Switzerland are now paying negative rates on demand deposits, let alone CDs.

    We are off to the races.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  194. EU coming apart in every sense:

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/12/cliff_dwellers.html

    Tilly is likely from one of those ero-farms.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  195. The “fairness issue” seems to be the accepted leftist and media mantra when it comes to taxes and wealth redistribution. So why does it not seem to matter to them, and why is “fairness” never mentioned with respect to immigration balance and opportunity? How is it “fair” that millions and millions of indigent Mexicans can pour across the wide open border from a single country and be given sanctuary and education and quasi citizenship, while equally desperate and decent and hardworking people from Botswana or Belarus or Manila or a thousand other places must be processed at ports for papers and wait in line for years for citizenship? That doesn’t seem fair to me!

    elissa (0af317)

  196. George W. Bush argued you’d never control the border until you liberalized immigration.

    I’ve mentioned previously that just about every major blunder of a Republican White House — going back to at least Herbert Hoover — has been when it allowed its liberal side (ie, its “compassionate conservatism”) to get the better of it.

    I recall Bush naively spouting off the line that “Islam is a religion of peace.” Such political-correctness cant (ie, catering to one’s liberal feelings) is a big reason that even the US military incubated the Fort Hood massacre.

    Not understanding the pernicious and widespread nature of left-leaning sentiment is a huge reason that Bush’s trusted adviser, Karl Rove, presumed that the Latino vote in the US was somehow more liberal than it otherwise would be due to the effects of anti-illegal-immigration rhetoric. Uh, hey, Karl, I guess Mexico is very socialistic in its own right because of that nation’s anti-illegal-alien controversies?

    EU coming apart in every sense:

    That’s why to be a liberal in the context of today means one has to be very leftwing—and, well, very dumb.

    Mark (56b304)

  197. elissa @195, all good points. But on the tax issue why is it “fair” for the top 10% of taxpayers to pay 70.5% of the taxes, while the remaining 90% pay only 29.5%.

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/admin/ed-assets/2012/12/Progressive-Tax-1.jpg

    As noted on the chart they didn’t factor in refundable tax credits, so the top 10% actually pay a larger percentage as many in the bottom 50% actually have zero tax burden.

    Steve57 (1922f2)

  198. That was a given from the start.”

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 12/3/2012 @ 8:02 pm

    Sammy – Completely wrong again. The public wanted to address the border before striking any deal. The politicians ignored them. Then the politicians heard from the public.

    It’s not the public, it’s from people riled up, but anyway, in 2007, they knew this already..

    That’s why it was called comprehensive immigration reform. Combine amnesty with border control.

    Now the argument is the border control won’t happen. The people making this argument know it will never happen, no matter what, or never enough to satisfy them, so what they are really for is the status quo. Or they came up with self-deportation.

    of course it was impossible to control the border before doing anything. George W. Bush whole idea was that it was impossible and that the key to controlling the border, was to allow a legal method of immigration. Then, and only then, could you hope to control the border. That was what he thought.

    The bill fell apart not on border control, but because of an inability to agree on legal immigration.

    And border control wasn’t the question anyway.

    The question was whether this would be the last amnesty.

    It can always be proven to most people’s satisfaction that the circumstances that exist now will continue to exist in the future, and if there is a case for amnesty now, there will be a case for amnesty in the future. So if you support amnesty, you must support amnesty for those who will come in the future. Politicians try to avoid that, but the vehemence of the opposition to amnesty will eventually push them in that direction.

    The public probably doesn’t understand what the law is right now, and thinks that immigration is easier than what it is. But it tends to be against giving any special advantage to people who broke the law or that arises from breaking the law (it is probably quite amenable to removing special disabilities, though.)

    It really doesn’t mind increasing legal immigration, although a question about the ideal number will produce ridiculously low numbers. There’s lot of innumeracy going around.

    We are at an interesting point right now, where illegal immigration is down, so maybe there can be some claim the border is controlled. Senator Schumer wants tighter regulation of whom a business can hire and putting businessmen in jail maybe. He wants biometric Social Security cards. Dies he also want every itty bitty business to have card readers? What happens now when a card gets lost or stolen?

    There will be no progress until people get over their hangup about future amnesties.

    Sammy Finkelman (7fb436)

  199. There will be no progress until people get over their hangup about future amnesties the idea we’ll ever see any progress.

    FTFY, Sammy. And, yes, it’s a non-sequitur. But then so’s what you wrote.

    Steve57 (1922f2)

  200. The NYT has an idiotic article that’s still worth reading.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/30/us/most-americans-face-lower-tax-burden-than-in-the-80s.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0&hp

    Tax Burden for Most Americans Is Lower Than in the 1980s

    So more Americans are paying less, exactly as the chart I linked to shows. And the NYT observes that the government still rakes in the same percentage of total income because higher income earners pay taxes at higher rates. And that there are more millionaires paying more taxes at higher rates than in 1980.

    Thus the higher wage earners are making up for the fact that 90% of taxpayers have who’ve seen their tax burdens fall as the wealthier pay more taxes at higher rates and therefore wealthier are paying a greater percentage of the federal income tax burden.

    What do the idiots at the NYT conclude?

    The tax code has become less progressive. Because according to their logic apparently the share wealthiest 10% of the income tax burden wouldn’t have risen from 54.7% to 70.5%, it would have risen to more than that if their tax rates hadn’t been cut as well.

    Which is stupidity squared. But more importantly it reflects the attitude. To the socialists at the NYT, the WH, or Congress it doesn’t matter how much more they pay. It’ll never be enough.

    Steve57 (1922f2)

  201. “That’s why it was called comprehensive immigration reform. Combine amnesty with border control.”

    Sammy – There is a reason its supporters were called the Open Borders Lobby.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  202. “The tax code has become less progressive. Because according to their logic apparently the share wealthiest 10% of the income tax burden wouldn’t have risen from 54.7% to 70.5%, it would have risen to more than that if their tax rates hadn’t been cut as well.”

    Steve57 – IOW, it’s just not fair enough yet, even though they never define the term.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  203. ==It’s not the public, it’s from people riled up,==

    This is an interesting distinction you attempt to make. I almost hesitate to ask, SF, but please try again. What does this statement mean and/or what are you trying to suggest by it?

    The rest of your comment @198 almost suggests you do not understand the definition of the word “amnesty”. If legal immigration laws (which I believe almost all citizens and politicians of this country support for various reasons including economic) were managed and under control and updated– and if there was an honest, concerted effort to close the open border–and if existing illegals here were dealt with humanely and practically through a variety of appropriate pathway programs and targeted amnesties as well as immediate deportation of habitual and especially violent undocumented criminals– then why would you be so worried about needing and planning for future amnesties for illegals?

    Emma Lazarus wrote a beautiful, moving poem called “Give Me Your Tired, Your Poor”. But I think even she would have understood there were limits to whom and how many immigrants could be absorbed and acclimated and acculturated by our communities at any given time. I mean, Ellis Island was there for a reason.

    elissa (e9fd77)

  204. 193, 188. Beginning the follow up on Fed’s inability to unwind its balance sheet:

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/12/cliff_dwellers.html

    Background:

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/12/cliff_dwellers.html

    So Fed this AM is goosing the 10-year. If this continues, as zerohedge contends, the Fed will be caught in an inflationary feedback loop. It may take some years but this is a berry, berry bad beginning.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  205. 204. One of the commenters suggests that this is December normal, a strong month for Treasuries, that the Market is increasing the supply by boosting the price of old 10-year T-Bills by boosting the current issue.

    If that’s true, that it’s not the Fed’s initiative, then we should see the effect go away.

    Despite the flush of cash in the system, collateral, e.g., 10-year T-Bills, are in short supply to foot overnite loans in the banking system, especially in the comparatively large EU system where rules were lax and now firming up.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  206. “That’s why it was called comprehensive immigration reform. Combine amnesty with border control.”

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 12/3/2012 @ 10:37 pm

    Sammy – There is a reason its supporters were called the Open Borders Lobby.

    Make that amnesty, border control, and liberalized immigration laws.

    Of course the idea that borders should really be open is part of the logic behind amnesty, and disagreement with that, behind the opposition.

    Sammy Finkelman (3ba0b7)

  207. Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 12/3/2012 @ 8:02 pm

    The public wanted to address the border before striking any deal.

    Barack Obama playd that game till the middle of 2011. It didn’t work. It’s never enough. Which is he idea behind making that a condition.

    Now the argument for border control is that otherwise the amnesty would not be the last amnesty. Well, actually it can never be the last amnesty anyway. Push too hard and they’ll write the next amnesty into the law, too.

    Sammy Finkelman (3ba0b7)

  208. You know all these future budget calculations are ridiculous. What actually will happen depends a lot on future economic growth – both tax collections, and many entitlements. And nobody can predict this well. Nobody has in the past. Ronald Reagan wanted to stop at five years out.

    One very important thing to do would be to refinance the government debt even though it raises the immediate deficit. But I guess none of that affects the calculations, since the government’s borrowing costs are probably a fixed assumption in the CBO calculatons.

    Neither can you cut costs by changing the program. Nor will it go up by changing it another way. Some assumption is probably being made for health care inflation, and it’s a given..

    Some ideas are so buried in the bureaucracy that nobody even knows about them. For instance Medicare could pay for certain standard operations (this could be a danger too) in foreign countries, particularly Mexico.,

    Sammy Finkelman (3ba0b7)

  209. I’ve been reading Nietzsche again here lately, who is really where Ayn Rand got most of her ideas, and you guys don’t really even want a democracy. What you really want an aristocracy! You should at least be honest with yourselves about that.

    Tillman (51d7aa)

  210. It is so cute when leftists deign to tell us what we want. Yet it is so rarely anywhere even remotely right.

    JD (318f81)

  211. Tillman, you are a brazen liar – twice actually. Nietzchean ideas were not the basis of Ayn Rand’s and no one here wants to abandon a democracy.

    SPQR (768505)

  212. Why do you hate democracy and want an aristocracy and corrupt plutocrats SPQR?

    JD (318f81)

  213. JD, I see a lot of the Republican party’s agenda and attitudes in reading Nietzsche. It’s really revealing, I should write an article about it. He couldn’t stand democracy. For example, he said that it propped up the mediocre at the expense of the truly great men, pulling them down.

    Tillman (51d7aa)

  214. SPQR, what do you know of Nietzsche?

    Tillman (51d7aa)

  215. You should write an article about your fevered dreams. And post it on your blog.

    JD (318f81)

  216. “Doomsday” (meaning it’s the last alternative to some people) Fiscal Cliff scenario, and comments about it:

    http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/12/if-were-doing-doomsday-lets-really-do-doomsday

    Sammy Finkelman (3ba0b7)

  217. Tillman, more than you evidently. But then, that’s because I’ve actually read Nietzsche.

    SPQR (768505)

  218. What have you read, SPQR?

    Tillman (51d7aa)

  219. If we had a consumption tax, maybe Lindsey Lohan wouldn’t be in trouble with the IRS. And this happened to other celebritites too, especially in years when the income tax rates were higher.

    Sammy Finkelman (3ba0b7)

  220. Passive aggressive bluster from the trolls is so damn predictable.

    JD (318f81)

  221. And tiresome.

    JD (318f81)

  222. Why do all the left wing nuts take Pat Tillman’s name for a monniker ?

    Elephant Stone (65d289)

  223. BTW, not all of his ideas are immoral – he really likes individualism and self-reliance, which are not bad traits at all. (Makes me think: Texas.)

    Tillman (51d7aa)

  224. Tillman, I’ve read all of Nietzsche’s works at one time or another. Sitting on my shelf at the moment are Beyond Good and Evil ( an attack on Christian morals ), Geneology of Morals, Ecce Homo, Zarathustra and another omnibus edited by Kaufman who is basically the authority on Nietzsche.

    SPQR (768505)

  225. Elephant, Tillman is my real last name, but no relation to Pat. (I don’t know P. Tillman either by the way.)

    Tillman (51d7aa)

  226. Actually–having the highly conspicuous overkill and the waste of 54 Christmas trees in one single house are more along the lines of an aristocracy and an aristocrat family’s view of itself and its own entitlement I think.

    elissa (e9fd77)

  227. No doubt next Tillman will tell us how Nietzsche’s attacks on christian morality are Republican positions too …

    SPQR (768505)

  228. SPQR, Beyond Good and Evil is what I’m finishing up (again). But it’s more than just an attack on Christianity. He attacks a lot, it’s just his character. Also, reading it about 15 years ago was completely different than now. Back then, I didn’t realize how political it was (or ignored that part of it).

    Tillman (51d7aa)

  229. SPQR–If what they say doesn’t have to make sense or need to illustrate congruency from comment to comment, there’s no limit to what trolls can write. Obviously.

    elissa (e9fd77)

  230. SPQR, and Ayn Rand loved Christianity?

    Tillman (51d7aa)

  231. Tillman, your attempt to cast Republican ideology as either based on Ayn Rand or Nietzsche is simply brazen lying.

    SPQR (768505)

  232. We will get some quotations from “The Will to Power” from Tillman next …

    SPQR (768505)

  233. Rethuglikkkans want an arstocracy.
    Bush and his friends like cheap illegal labor.
    Bush deregulation caused the financial crisis.
    Rethuglikkkan party is just old white men.
    Rethuglikkkans hate democracy.

    JD (2e25be)

  234. JD, the aristocracy comment is especially revealing of the stupidity of the troll given that its the Democrats who worship the Kennedy family.

    SPQR (768505)

  235. “Barack Obama playd that game till the middle of 2011. It didn’t work. It’s never enough. Which is he idea behind making that a condition.”

    Sammy – No he didn’t. He sued Arizona for passing a law to enforce our existing immigration laws.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  236. SPQR, you should know that Ayn Rand has had influence on Republican ideas. She still does.

    Tillman (51d7aa)

  237. SPQR, the Democrats have had some influence from Karl Marx, for one. I’m just being honest here – even while I’m being called a liar by you. :-D

    Tillman (51d7aa)

  238. When was the Republican Party founded?

    By whom?

    When did Ayn Rand write her books?

    elissa (e9fd77)

  239. 209. I’ve been reading Nietzsche again here lately, who is really where Ayn Rand got most of her ideas, and you guys don’t really even want a democracy. What you really want an aristocracy! You should at least be honest with yourselves about that.

    Comment by Tillman (51d7aa) — 12/4/2012 @ 8:30 am

    A little learning is a dangerous thing when it’s wasted on a fool.

    And guess what, Tillman? I don’t want a democracy. We have a representative republic. The Constitution requires all states entering the union to have that form of government as well. Because only that form, and definitely not a democracy, is compatible with our Constitution.

    Article IV Section 4.

    The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.

    So the real question is, why do you advocate and work toward subverting the Constitution?

    Steve57 (1922f2)

  240. When does this odious little troll have to sign off—as if a caretaker has come home from work?

    He or she only posts to fight. Ignore the little jerk.

    I much prefer DRJ. We should have a vote, Patterico. You have enough creepy trolls as is.

    Simon Jester (f965e8)

  241. Just to be clear, P. Tillman is the trollish rent boy whose impenetrable stupidity is probably a posture assumed because it’s paid to be that way.

    And Tillman isn’t paid, as far as we know. And isn’t quite as venomously insulting. Right?

    Pious Agnostic (7c3d5b)

  242. 237. SPQR, the Democrats have had some influence from Karl Marx, for one. I’m just being honest here – even while I’m being called a liar by you. :-D

    Comment by Tillman (51d7aa) — 12/4/2012 @ 9:35 am

    Not to mention Lenin. Lenin had a great deal of influence on Italian Fascism. And Italian Fascism had a great deal of influence on FDR’s New Deal. FDR was a great admirer of Mussolini and Mussolini influenced his economic thinking. Mussolini himself thought FDR’s New Deal was following exactly the Italian Fascist model.

    But then most Leftists don’t know that. The ones that do in academia have made it their mission to revise history to destroy the trail. They’re the ones, particularly the economists, who deny there is even an identifiable fascist economic system.

    But there is. Mussolini’s Italy was sometimes called the corporate state. And we are following it precisely under the second coming of FDR.

    And part of the effort to hide the evidence is for the left to shriek the “right” is fascist while they implement fascism. And while they implement the economic (and social) theory they just don’t use the terminology.

    Hey, look over there! Petraeus had an affair!

    Steve57 (1922f2)

  243. SPQR, you should know that Ayn Rand has had influence on Republican ideas. She still does.

    Comment by Tillman (51d7aa) — 12/4/2012 @ 9:33 am

    I should know something that is not really true? Great logic there. The GOP isn’t Objectivist in any sense. Its why the Libertarians have their own party.

    SPQR (768505)

  244. “Barack Obama playd that game till the middle of 2011. It didn’t work. It’s never enough. Which is he idea behind making that a condition.”

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 12/4/2012 @ 9:25 am

    Sammy – No he didn’t. He sued Arizona for passing a law to enforce our existing immigration laws.

    He didn’t want things outside of his own control.

    What he was doing at the time was:

    1) attempting more control of he border, but only the border.

    2) Increased deportations, but only of “undeserving” illegal immigrants, mainly “criminals”.

    That didn’t work. ICE was not really obeying his instructions.

    Sammy Finkelman (2b1acb)

  245. I thought the ideas of Nietzsche went into Nazism, not anything else.

    Maybe he did influence Ayn Rand’s religious ideas. I guess that requires some looking at both of their writings. But it is not her religious ideas that appealed to Paul Ryan.

    I thought anyway Ayn Rand got her religious ideas from the Bolsheviks or their precursors in Russia.

    Sammy Finkelman (2b1acb)

  246. Comment by elissa (e9fd77) — 12/4/2012 @ 9:35 am

    When was the Republican Party founded?

    In 1854. But the Republican Party wasn’t at all conservative in 1854.

    It became connected with business maybe starting in the late 1860s and the Democratic Party was pretty similar. Interestingly the Democratic Party (in 1836) used to be for “hard money” but t=it was quite different in 1896. The Democratic Party used to be for low tariffs but I’m not sure from when. It was a big issue in 1892.

    The Democratc Party started being “liberal” in 1896 – the Republican Party became really conservative maybe in 1932 or 1936.

    If FDR hadn’t tried to raise income taxes so high he wouldn’t have had the kind of opposition he did. But he imposed them in the 1930s.

    When did Ayn Rand write her books?

    Sammy Finkelman (2b1acb)

  247. Got to give this thread an A, at least for entertainment value. Have to give out a few props…

    Funny as it may sound, must give props to Gojira, at least while he was here. Trolling on this site and defaming 43 was sort of “farting in church”, but it did get a few people out of their seats to go give him a swat. And at least he stuck around for a while and thrust and parried with the locals. Troll, but a well-spoken troll. And he did have a nomination for thread-winning line — and I quote:

    “The election of Barack Obama, a man utterly unqualified to be president and who, in a different era, would have been laughed out of town as a bounder, an ideologue, and a crackpot.”

    I did notice that none of the trolls rose up to hit the “fairness” question that elissa raises in 195:
    “195.The “fairness issue” seems to be the accepted leftist and media mantra when it comes to taxes and wealth redistribution. So why does it not seem to matter to them, and why is “fairness” never mentioned with respect to immigration balance and opportunity? How is it “fair” that millions and millions of indigent Mexicans can pour across the wide open border from a single country and be given sanctuary and education and quasi citizenship, while equally desperate and decent and hardworking people from Botswana or Belarus or Manila or a thousand other places must be processed at ports for papers and wait in line for years for citizenship? That doesn’t seem fair to me!”

    She, of course, is right. Likely that the trolls recognized that tar baby, and did not want anything to do with an unwinnable fight. Chickens.

    Overall, a far higher level of discourse here than most places on the web. Folks need to remember, though, that a bit of trolling makes things interesting — we do not want them All to go away. Erudite but obnoxious (Gojira) is enjoyable. Asshattery (P. Tillman) is a channel-changer.

    But time is short, and the lull is over….back to my machiavellian ways as an evil mortgage lender.

    Watcherdownsouth (e47a22)

  248. “2) Increased deportations, but only of “undeserving” illegal immigrants, mainly “criminals”.

    That didn’t work. ICE was not really obeying his instructions.”

    Sammy – Comedy Gold. ICE was standing up to Obama and disobeying his orders. Pull my other finger.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  249. SPQR, I don’t know where you’ve been, but I’ve had more than one conservative ask me to read Atlas Shrugged. I think a lot of conservatives have seen the movie too. (It is a long tome, after all.)

    Tillman (51d7aa)

  250. Yes, having a Republican suggest you read a book is exactly the same as something being the basis for the Party’s ideology.

    And it is funny how Illman and the one sans the P. Have showed up at the exact same times today. The hate-filled Illman is venting it’s spleen in moderation for it’s attacks on DRJ and others since, well, since it got here. This one is kinder, in a more passive aggressive sense. Republicans are stupid, can’t read big books, have to watch the movie, being just the most recnt example.

    JD (318f81)

  251. Not only can Romney cause cancer with his Mormon Death Stare, but now the civility now leftists like Petey are claiming Republicans ARE cancer. Sweet. And you call Obama racist names.

    JD (318f81)

  252. Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 12/4/2012 @ 1:03 pm

    Sammy – Comedy Gold. ICE was standing up to Obama and disobeying his orders. Pull my other finger.

    Some agents even sued.

    I’ll get some links.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  253. JD, I haven’t read that 1,000 page joker either. So no, I wasn’t making fun of anyone.

    Tillman (51d7aa)

  254. As for recommending reading the book, it was in the context of believing in their way of thinking that it came up of course, not out of the blue.

    Tillman (51d7aa)

  255. I think a lot of conservatives have seen the movie too. (It is a long tome, after all.)

    Why limit it to conservatives then? And how can you categorize it as a joker when you have not read or watched it?

    JD (318f81)

  256. JD–Our contributing trolls are not exactly craft beer or artisan cheese quality, are they?

    elissa (e9fd77)

  257. As for recommending reading the book, it was in the context of believing in their way of thinking that it came up of course, not out of the blue.

    Which speaks to those individuals, not the principles of the party which was what you claimed.

    Now excuse me, I am going to go try to work on that aristocracy I want to see implemented.

    JD (318f81)

  258. Elissa – Flat Natural Light and string cheese.

    JD (318f81)

  259. What seemed inplausible in 1957, as Whittaker Chamber, put it, seems almost too tame in 2012, Chambers ridiculed her, but ultimately he agreed
    with her, ‘he was joining the losing side. the Dog eat Dog act, doesn’t seem so far fetched, among other aspects,

    narciso (ee31f1)

  260. SPQR, I don’t know where you’ve been, but I’ve had more than one conservative ask me to read Atlas Shrugged. I think a lot of conservatives have seen the movie too. (It is a long tome, after all.)

    Comment by Tillman (51d7aa) — 12/4/2012 @ 1:16 pmj

    I’ve been in the real world. I recommend it when you return from Jupiter.

    GOP =/= Conservative

    The GOP has social conservative elements, fiscal conservative elements, and quasi-libertarian elements. Some of them see useful lessons in Ayn Rand’s writings. The attempt by trolls like you to then try to equate the GOP as a whole with Ayn Rand followers is simply a lie.

    That you conflate the two only reinforces your ignorance … even as you attempt to claim others are ignorant. Fail.

    SPQR (768505)

  261. Here you are:
    Ayn’s influence on conservatives

    Tillman (51d7aa)

  262. I thought the ideas of Nietzsche went into Nazism, not anything else.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (2b1acb) — 12/4/2012 @ 12:15 pm

    Great, Sammy, yet another opinion of yours based on what you found in your lower colon. Nazism had just about zero ideas borrowed from Nietzsche. Because Nietzsche’s sister after his death published a book “Will to Power” that was badly cribbed from unpublished notes of his to support the proto-nazi beliefs she sponsored does not mean that they were legitimate Nietzschean philosophy. Ferdinand Nietzsche would have despised the Nazi’s. Not least their anti-semitism as he wrote admiringly of the Jewish people often.

    Sammy, sometimes its best if you don’t feel the need to comment on everything that pops into your head.

    SPQR (768505)

  263. Ahh, autocorrect bites me on Nietzsche’s name.

    SPQR (768505)

  264. Well that didn’t work,
    Here: http://tinyurl.com/9n3jwcn

    Tillman (51d7aa)

  265. Nobody ever considered the difference between the individual and the collective until Rand wrote about it.

    JD (2e25be)

  266. ‘Trouble is JD, that’s not all Rand that said. Not all of it was wrong, but I don’t like most of it.

    Tillman (51d7aa)

  267. Shocking, that the troll is going to try to attribute everything Rand said to those that agree with the central tenet. I mean, I am shocked. Almost as shocked as you putting up a Paul Ryan Randian link. Well played. Nobody saw that coming.

    JD (2e25be)

  268. Nietzche believed in the use of force (coercion,) and he was amoral, no surprise that fascism and communism would rise from his philosophy. Rand believed in individual exertion,

    narciso (ee31f1)

  269. JD, get mad at the folks in your party that like the woman’s politics rather than getting mad at me. It’s too easy to shoot the messenger.

    Tillman (51d7aa)

  270. Comment by SPQR (768505) — 12/4/2012 @ 1:57 pm

    Nazism had just about zero ideas borrowed from Nietzsche. Because Nietzsche’s sister after his death published a book “Will to Power” that was badly cribbed from unpublished notes of his to support the proto-nazi beliefs she sponsored does not mean that they were legitimate Nietzschean philosophy. Ferdinand Nietzsche would have despised the Nazi’s. Not least their anti-semitism as he wrote admiringly of the Jewish people often.

    So it was not Nietzsche, but pseudo-Nietzsche?

    Sammy, sometimes its best if you don’t feel the need to comment on everything that pops into your head.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  271. There you go. Let it out. Praise the collective while oppressing the individual. At least be honest about it.

    Oops, i am supposed to be off starting an aristocracy. Because I hate democracy.

    JD (2e25be)

  272. I’ve read Atlas Shrugged twice–once a couple decades ago and again a couple years ago. It was a completely different experience the second time, but well worth the time and effort both times. And yes, I’ve recommended it to people. Like other important books it makes you think and observe and consider what you accept and what you reject from the people around you. Written by a woman whose life experiences informed her POV and worldview, like many such personal philosophical books–it makes you more mindful of everything.

    All that said, I completely agree with those here who are protesting Tillman’s assertion that it is somehow a Republican “bible”. Frankly, only misinformed fools and shallow brains believe that could be the case. But I also must take issue with the left’s current, and very obvious attempts to demonize Ayn Rand and smear the book and anyone who reads it or refers to it (such as Paul Ryan and others –even me).

    elissa (e9fd77)

  273. 269. And he also died rotting in a sanitarium. The only reason to read Nietzsche is to understand the possession. Logic has no part in him.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  274. elissa, I didn’t say that it was a Republican “bible.”

    Tillman (51d7aa)

  275. JD – Can I be an Archduke in your aristocracy if all the positions have not been filled yet?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  276. I will settle for nothing less than Her Royal Highness, the Queen, JD. please keep that in mind.

    Dana (292dcf)

  277. Like ArchDuke Ferdinand?

    JD (318f81)

  278. Dana – I was thinking Her Royal Choo Chucker, and Keeper of the Kitchen

    JD (318f81)

  279. elissa, I didn’t say that it was a Republican “bible.”

    Piffle

    JD (318f81)

  280. Hayek, who was against all forms of statism, is more to the point, yet he is not as popular as Rand,

    narciso (ee31f1)

  281. I am not positive the place you’re getting your info, but great topic. I needs to spend a while finding out much more or understanding more. Thanks for magnificent information I was searching for this information for my mission.

    bpong (e90cce)

  282. 262, 265, (in light of including 273)

    You do understand that the link in no way supports your claim that Rand is somehow a muse of conservatism?

    At most it indicates points of contact, as might be presumed by their common hatred of communist authoritarianism.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  283. What

    Whatever the connection, if any, between those handled ‘Tillman’, amusing presumption is common to the species.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  284. One could argue though, that Huxley is more apropo then Rand or Orwell,

    narciso (ee31f1)

  285. Well I was speaking of the therapeutic state, but Max, probably is closer to the actual result,

    narciso (ee31f1)

  286. 287. Oh, thought you were referring to “Brave New World”, rather “Doors of Perception”?

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  287. 281. Hayek, who was against all forms of statism, is more to the point, yet he is not as popular as Rand,

    Comment by narciso (ee31f1) — 12/4/2012 @ 3:05 pm

    I wouldn’t know if he was more to the point than Rand, as I’ve never read Rand, but I did think Road to Serfdom was to the point when I read it years ago.

    Milton Friedman as well.

    Speaking of influential economists, we all know that Keynes was very influential among FDR’s “Brain Trust.” But he had a great deal of influence on another group of people:

    I may, therefore, perhaps expect to meet with less resistance on the part of German readers than from English, when I submit to them a theory of employment and production as a whole which deviates in important particulars from the orthodox tradition. But could I hope to overcome the economic agnosticism of Germany? Could I convince German economists that methods of formal analysis constitute an important contribution to the interpretation of contemporary events and to the shaping of contemporary policy? It is, after all, a feature of German character to find satisfaction in a theory. How hungry and thirsty German economists must feel having lived all these years without one! It is certainly worthwhile for me to make the effort. And if I can contribute a single morsel to a full meal prepared by German economists, particularly adjusted to German conditions, I will be satisfied. For I must confess that much in the following book has been mainly set forth and illustrated in relation to conditions in the Anglo-Saxon countries.

    The theory of aggregated production, which is the point of the following book, nevertheless can be much easier adapted to the conditions of a totalitarian state [eines totalen Staates] than the theory of production and distribution of a given production put forth under conditions of free competition and a large degree of laissez-faire.

    That’s from the forward to the German edition of Keynes’General Theory, which was published in that country in 1936.

    Any guesses who was running Germany in 1936?

    And it was popular in both countries and with both groups, and remains the economic bible of American liberals, for the same reason. For while Keynes went on to claim his General Theory could be adapted to a free-market system, he had already admitted it was much easier to implement in an authoritarian, centrally planned system.

    It was welcomed precisely because it provided a theoretical justification for just such an authoritarian centrally planned system. For when you’re in economic crisis “we can’t wait.”

    And when you get down to it, there really was not much difference between Hitler’s Reichswirtschaftministerium and FDR’s National Recovery Administration. Both centrally planned the economy. They decided what would be produced, how much would be produced, what minimum price the commodity or goods could be sold for, minimum wages, maximum working hours, etc., all set forth in thousands of codes, supplementary codes, administrative rules, etc., enforced by draconian fines and punishments for any infractions that had the effect of crushing small business so that big business didn’t have to worry about any up-and-coming competition threatening their government established monopolies. (Although the National Recovery Act paid lip service to prohibiting monopolies and “monopolistic practices” the trade groups and industrial advisory committees that formulated the “fair trade codes” wrote them to give the largest players a huge advantage and instead encouraged monopolies).

    But hey, it’s “Keynesian” so it must be SCIENCE!

    Steve57 (1922f2)

  288. “JD, get mad at the folks in your party that like the woman’s politics rather than getting mad at me. It’s too easy to shoot the messenger.

    Comment by Tillman (51d7aa) — 12/4/2012 @ 2:20 pm”

    Nope, you are not a messenger, you are a fabricator. And who better to put up against a wall?

    SPQR (768505)

  289. Well it’s actually worse then it reads, Steve, Germany since the 1880s was run along a corporatist
    framework, devised by Schmoller and Wagner,

    narciso (ee31f1)

  290. narcisso @291, I realize that. Just as the Reichswirtschaftministerium wasn’t Hitler’s creation. It came into being in 1919, preceded by the Reichswirtschaftamt in 1917.

    Socialism in its various forms had already crawled out of the primordial goo of 19th century Europe before Mussolini, Hitler, and Lenin rose to power.

    Steve57 (1922f2)

  291. This was Hayek and before him, Von Mises, complaint with the Bismark way of countering socialism, which was really preceded by List, which Fallows was (is)
    a fan of.

    narciso (ee31f1)

  292. It’s odd, narcisso, that the founder of the modern welfare state, Bismarck, disliked socialism. But then I suppose since there hadn’t been a modern welfare state they wouldn’t have anticipated that it leads to socialism.

    Had anyone anticipated that Bismarck wouldn’t have gotten the support of the German industrialists, who supported his welfare policies because they realized they were meant to buy off the working class and also stem the flow of workers emigrating to the US for higher pay.

    Steve57 (1922f2)

  293. “I haven’t read that 1,000 page joker either.”

    You refer to a book you admittedly did not read as a “joker.” Your credibility just shot through the roof into orbit.

    Jack Klompus (28be37)

  294. 295. “I haven’t read that 1,000 page joker either.”

    You refer to a book you admittedly did not read as a “joker.” Your credibility just shot through the roof into orbit.

    Comment by Jack Klompus (28be37) — 12/4/2012 @ 8:37 pm

    You know how liberals are, Jack. They are oh so open-minded.

    Me? I’m close-minded. So naturally I “intolerantly” conclude I can’t conclude anything about Rand since I’ve never read hear.

    If only I were more tolerant. Then I could uncritically accept the direction of people who want to tell me what to think about things what I should say about things I have no first-hand knowledge of.

    Like Tillary!

    It must be a personal failing on my part. Since I’m not an open-minded liberal like Tillary!, blind obedience to the opinions I’m told I ought to hold by those who tell me they’re my moral and intellectual superiors comes hard to me.

    Steve57 (1922f2)

  295. There’s always P.J. O’Rourke’s abridged version of ‘Wealth of Nations’

    narciso (ee31f1)

  296. Nietzsche was likely the best of the existentialists, not that that is saying much. He was not amoral, he simply questioned how life should be lived. Wagner was the anti-Semitic Nazi idol and Nietzsche dedicated a polemic against him.

    nk (875f57)

  297. Both Nietzsche and Rand were dependent sicklings, BTW.

    nk (875f57)

  298. Why do I have this nagging feeling Boehner is going to eagerly leap for a bipartisan deal with good cop Hoyer only to be de-pantsed by Reid?

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  299. boehner is just concerned with maintaining his position as head congresswhore

    he starts from the proposition that our cowardly and amoral government is entitled to almost a trillion dollars of money from job creators that it can turn around and squander on food stamps and coward mccain’s libya fetish and disability checks and piggy piggy united autoworker whores

    happyfeet (5e57dd)

  300. I wonder if Nietzsche had read the Scots, and read them early, whether he’d have been able to remain a Romantic.

    Wittgenstein devoted a career to the question Nietzsche takes as his release from Convention, an essential solipsism due to his feeling of an incapacity of Language.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  301. Nietzche believed in the use of force (coercion,) and he was amoral,

    Not unlike Mao!

    BTW, do you think we could be Good Little Progs if we recovered our Little Red Books in black?
    It seems the message is the same.

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  302. The Truth doesn’t even matter anymore:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323401904578157233680080150.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

    Thanks Nietzsche.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  303. Jen Rubin wants the GOP to just die already:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2012/12/04/does-the-no-crowd-matter/

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  304. This is very important for me. I highly appreciate your opinions. Thanks., family survival online course, %]]],

    LowellSaik (a81be6)

  305. 304.The Truth doesn’t even matter anymore:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323401904578157233680080150.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

    Thanks Nietzsche.

    Comment by gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 12/5/2012 @ 11:02 am

    Well, as I commented on the MSNBC thread the truth doesn’t poll well.

    Now it only matters to the extent that it must be vigorously suppressed so that the economic and historical illiterate’s who voted for the historic first black president never have to be confronted with the consequences of their actions.

    So now the truth is racist. Unfortunately reality is an equal opportunity bitch.

    Steve57 (1922f2)

  306. This is going on all over the country:

    http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/real-estate/tax-rule-spurs-hamptons-manse-panic-article-1.1213534

    Hamptons mansion sales spike ahead of possible jump in tax rates

    And this is going on all over the country:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324705104578149012514177372.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

    Costco’s Dividend Tax Epiphany

    Obama’s fans in the 1% vote to beat Obama’s tax increase.

    These people didn’t get rich being stupid. But they do think, like Obama, that the not-so-rich are stupid. And after the last election there’s quite a bit of evidence for it, true.

    If anyone thinks the Hamptons are populated with GOP stalwarts, I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

    And COSTCO’s CEO spoke at the Democratic National Convention.

    In the interest of fairness, you can read his response to the WSJ’s criticism here:

    http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/blog/2012/12/costcos-sinegal-reacts-to-wsj.html?page=all

    Note you’re not reading his response in the WSJ, despite the fact the WSJ asked him to respond.

    Because he didn’t respond to the WSJ’s main criticism. The CEO, Sinegal, claims COSTCO is “cash rich” and only borrowed the money to pay out dividends before the end of 2012 (profiting Sinegal personally an extra $4M out of the $14M gross than if he had done it after Jan 1st) because of low interest rates.

    Naturally the Puget Sound Business Journal didn’t ask why, if they’re so cash rich, did Fitch downgrade the companies credit rating from A+ to AA- when they heard of the borrowing. And S&P had been watching to see if the company rated an upgrade, but pulled their watch on the same news.

    He could only avoid the fact he had weakened the COSTCO’s balance sheet and damaged the company in order to take a low-tax profit when he could by guaranteeing he got softballs from an unprepared reporter.

    But that’s just an amusing aside.

    The main point is that if anyone thinks raising taxes on these people raises revenue, they must be members of Obama’s choom gang.

    The people who may pay more are those who are just getting into the $200/$250k tax bracket and can’t use the tax avoidance schemes of the Sinegals and the Buffets of the world.

    Or of the Hamptons.

    Steve57 (1922f2)

  307. And in diametric opposition to the post’s tax cut analysis, the point of Dear Leader’s current campaign:

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-12-05/guest-post-thought-experiment-why-obama-wants-fiscal-cliff

    Cloward-Piven.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.9195 secs.