Patterico's Pontifications

3/1/2013

Maxine Waters: Sequestration Will Cost Us 170 Million Jobs

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:08 am

Who knew it was so dangerous? I see Dr. Evil with his pinky in his mouth:

To put in perspective just how awful this is, there were about 143 million civilian jobs in January. So a 2% “cut” in federal spending is going to cost us every civilian job in America and then some.

Now that’s bad!

Many of us have to deal with tightening the budget. Our family isn’t the only one that hasn’t gotten cost of living adjustments for years, while inflation causes prices to rise nearly 2% a year. That forces us all to make small adjustments, just like the tiny 2% adjustment the federal government is being asked to make this year. Why is the federal government unable to make adjustments we all make every year?

Instead, Barack Obama is flapping his gums about sending home air traffic controllers and meat inspectors, while Sean Duffy asks Ben Bernanke whether there might be other stuff we could cut. Jump ahead to 2:11:

How many jobs are lost if we cut the 27 million dollars that go to Moroccan pottery classes? Or the $2.2 billion in free cell phones? We pay 700 billion dollars to see how long shrimp run on a treadmill. I believe we pay for the travel expenses for the Watermelon Queen of Alabama.

We actually supposedly pay “only” $700 million, not billion, to see how long shrimp run on a treadmill. (Shrimp run?) You feel better now, right?

Anyway, today will be filled with stories about how the world is ending because of these tiny, tiny cuts that are actually small increases in spending. (Most of the stories will assume the cuts are already taking place, although I believe sequestration officially takes place at 11:59 p.m. tonight.)

Sequestrageddon. It’s coming!

UPDATE: Added “supposedly” on the figure for the shrimp treadmill study since I have no personal knowledge and a commenter disputes the figure. Even $100 spent on such nonsense would be $100 too much.

291 Responses to “Maxine Waters: Sequestration Will Cost Us 170 Million Jobs”

  1. She was big with the “jobs created or saved” crowd.

    AZ Bob (c11d35)

  2. I don’t like the attacks on research. Generally speaking, money spent on research always pays for itself in the long run, often in ways that aren’t predictable in advance. I wish the government wasn’t funding it, but it’s one of the last things I would cut, about on the level of interstate highways and national parks. And taking cheap shots at it just because it sounds funny without the details, well, there’s a reason “Proxmire” is a verb, and not a nice one. When they call us the anti-science party, they’re mostly wrong; but this makes them a little bit right.

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  3. I’d pay to see shrimp run on a treadmill.

    rochf (f3fbb0)

  4. She was big with the “jobs created or saved” crowd.

    Right. So this is the same thing in reverse. “Jobs lost or not created.” And of course the same jobs count several times, just as they did during that exercise. And non-existent zip codes will be losing jobs, just as they gained them then.

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  5. I’m only sad that its not bigger, like a trillion

    EPWJ (1ea63e)

  6. the sequester mostly hurts piggy piggy federal worker trash

    i love the sequester

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  7. BTW, the shrimp treadmill only cost about $1000, and the whole research project of which it was part was given $700K, not $700M, let alone $700B. While I’d personally not be directly affected if the shrimp catch were to collapse, I imagine most of you would be, so I’d imagine you’d be all for finding out whatever we can about their physiology, including how they’re affected by diseases that they could pick up.

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  8. I’d like to claim that Maxine Waters is the dumbest politician in DC, but I’d be wrong. She’s got a crowd of a couple of dozen in the same bottom quintile of IQ with her.

    SPQR (768505)

  9. Hello, squester is it me you’re looking for?

    i can see it in your eyes and also i can see it in your smile – you’re all I ever wanted and my arms is open wide cause of you know just what to say and you know just what to do

    I love you soooooo much

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  10. If you took the actual 2013 reductions in the rate of growth, 45,000,000,000 and divided that by the average American income of $50,050, and applied the evil sequester only to job losses, not cuts to nonsense or ineffective or wasteful or duplicative or fraud or anything – just to salaries, it would result in 899,101 job losses. RepWaters doomsday scenario is double what the actual numbers would tell you, and there is not a chance in hell that the reductions in the rate of growth would be implemented in such a manner.

    How in the world did we survive on 2012 spending levels?

    JD (b63a52)

  11. I would pay to watch 10 pounds of u15 shrimp run on a treadmill.

    JD (b63a52)

  12. Look at the faces of the two women behind her. One even shakes her head “yes” when she runs off the 170 million figure. Between the three of them they have the IQ of a box of paperclips.

    CrustyB (69f730)

  13. Personally I think she mispoke and menat to say 170,000 jobs instead of millions but its interesting that in the mind set she had no clue as to how many jobs there actually are in the economy.

    Be reminded that deep cuts will mean deep job losses – as waaay waaay too many people are employed in govt

    But then again, so what, its the way it is.

    It will eventually – if a million workers in govt are let go that will impact some wages in the priovate sector as oversupply drives down markets

    EPWJ (1ea63e)

  14. EPWJ – There are no deep cuts in this.

    JD (b63a52)

  15. Milhouse, everybody likes spending federal money on the things they like. You like research. I think that’s wonderful. However, we can’t afford it.

    “It will pay for itself” means it’s an “investment” which is always what they say. We can’t afford any more things that will pay for themselves.

    Patterico (eb4f5f)

  16. Anyone who points out that Maxine Waters is an idiot is a racist. Patterico thank you for being a racist. I hope am one too.

    Ipso Fatso (1e3278)

  17. Representative Duffy said:

    How many jobs are lost if we cut the 27 million dollars that go to Moroccan pottery classes? Or the $2.2 billion in free cell phones? We pay 700 billion dollars to see how long shrimp run on a treadmill.

    The obvious question, at least to me, is: why was $27 million appropriated for Moronic Moroccan pottery classes in the first place? Why did the Congress appropriate $2.2 billion for free cell phones for Obama voters? Whose brilliant idea was it to provide $700 million (or was it $700,000?) in funding to see how long shrimp run on a treadmill, and why did the Congress agree to that appropriation?

    As much as I’d like to blame President Obama and the Democrats alone for these kinds of idiocy, the Republicans went right along with this garbage; for the sequester to cut appropriated funds means that the funds had to have been appropriated in the first place . . . and the Republicans control the House of Representatives.

    The Dana who notices these things (3e4784)

  18. I’d like to claim that Maxine Waters is the dumbest politician in DC, but I’d be wrong. She’s got a crowd of a couple of dozen in the same bottom quintile of IQ with her.

    To me, she isn’t dumb, at least if that implies someone who fails basic remedial courses at a public school or does very poorly on the SAT. It’s actually worse than that. Far worse. Her biases make her — and tossing aside the PC term of “mentally handicapped” or “mentally challenged” — outright retarded. A severe lack of common sense (along with the dishonesty that often goes with that) in a person really needs to start being defined as a form of mental retardation.

    Mark (5283c8)

  19. Mr. notices these thingers the squester only barely makes up for chris christie’s porky porky welfare bill for soggy jersey shore trash

    we’re just not making any progress under this fascist regime somehow

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  20. Research always does pay for itself. It’s got a long record of doing so. Research as a whole is currently paying for itself, i.e. the returns of past research are there for all to see. That doesn’t mean it’s a proper function of government, there’s nothing in the constitution about it, but it’s not wasteful. When you’re looking for something to cut, that is not where you should be looking.

    Cut Head Start, which is wasted money, since research has shown that it has no long-term effect (there research goes again proving its usefulness). Cut the NEA, and farm subsidies, and the TSA, and a bunch of other stuff that does no good at all.

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  21. Teh One knows a recession is coming. Tat is why they tried to blame Q4 0.1% growth on the sequester. They are positioning to have these minuscule 2.45% reductions in the rate of growth to be the culprit for Teh One’s looming recession, and use that in the 2014 midterms. The compliant MFM will aid this just like they did with the downgrade. This is their final shot qt getting the House and the Senate back under his reign.

    JD (b63a52)

  22. Whose brilliant idea was it to provide $700 million (or was it $700,000?) in funding to see how long shrimp run on a treadmill,

    It was $700,000 to see how shrimp deal with diseases that could cripple the industry. $1000 of that went to building a treadmill. Don’t do the research and you won’t like the result when feets can’t have his tasty shrimps any more coz they all died from some bacterium.

    Proxmire was a Democrat, and I used to love pointing that out to Democrats. But with this stuff going on I can’t really do that any more. Dammit, we’re not the anti-science party; don’t turn us into one.

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  23. Patterico claims:

    Anyway, today will be filled with stories about how the world is ending because of these tiny, tiny cuts that are actually small increases in spending.

    “Tiny, tiny” depends on where one sits and on ones ideology as well. Consider this projection by Economist Stephen Fuller at George Mason University:

    * GDP: drops 0.7 to about 1.3;
    * Jobs: loss of about 325,000 direct jobs;
    * Unemployment: increase of about 1.5 to 9.5%;
    * Hardest hit: TX, VA, and TX.

    Bernanke also noted:

    Moreover, besides having adverse effects on jobs and incomes, a slower recovery would lead to less actual deficit reduction in the short run for any given set of fiscal actions.

    This is substantial, folks!

    Perry (329aa5)

  24. if your job is cut by the squester I hate to tell you but you weren’t doing anything of value with your day anyway

    this is because you are a LOSER

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  25. 12. Thread winner.

    Of the 47% we now see that no more than half believe a word the Whores of Babylon utter. They just have no faith at all in well-reamed eunuchs.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  26. Mad Maxine is the example and proof that dangerous lunatics are loose in American society rather being locked up for their and society’s own good.

    PCD (1d8b6d)

  27. 22. The difference between Bennie and a stopped clock is?

    Yes, we understand unemployment checks help people. We understand a Federal Employee here or there is contributing to society and is hurt by life style changes.

    But there is no money. And on the whole the Federal government is a millstone around Amerikkka’s neck.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  28. JD,

    I really dont see any cuts – personally – I think 2 trillion should be a absolute spending ceiling and all entitlement checks be proportioned in the last quarter and all federal retirements be limited to 50% of their avg last 5 years career pay after 25 years.

    I also think that the military should be run more efficiently and be expanded on the manpower side.

    EPWJ (1ea63e)

  29. So income drops 3.6% in January and they’re whining about a 2% cut?

    Steve (314c35)

  30. These projections are based on the assumption that the multiplier for the effect of government spending on the economy is greater than 1. That’s not a well-founded assumption.

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  31. #22. I note that TX is going to lose jobs twice.

    This is just more of Obama’s trademark scare-tactic crisis-creation. He’s like the guy who sets fires in crowded theaters and then yells “FIRE!” after chaining all the doors shut. Just to make the management look bad.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  32. Maxine could be worse. She could be your Congressturd instead of mine.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  33. Perry,

    This link shows a different picture that your college professor at the uber liberal George Mason University

    http://eyeonwashington.com/few_map_2010/htm/Texas.html

    lso Fuller is a real estate expert, not an economist

    EPWJ (1ea63e)

  34. The man with Richard Nixon’s middle name wrote:

    Whose brilliant idea was it to provide $700 million (or was it $700,000?) in funding to see how long shrimp run on a treadmill,

    It was $700,000 to see how shrimp deal with diseases that could cripple the industry. $1000 of that went to building a treadmill. Don’t do the research and you won’t like the result when feets can’t have his tasty shrimps any more coz they all died from some bacterium.

    If this was valuable research “to see how shrimp deal with diseases that could cripple the industry,” shouldn’t that industry be paying for it? If Happyfoots has to pay an extra 1¢ a pound for his shrimpses, then he has to pay that . . . or choose not to buy shrimp.

    The laissez faire Dana (3e4784)

  35. i love shrimp but we get most of it from industrious asian peoples not whiny squestermonkeys

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  36. It’s amazing how stupid the people that have been elected to office are.

    This woman couldn’t run a taco stand or work at MacDonalds’ due to here stupidity.

    Yet this ignorant buffoon is partly in charge of our country. And the CBC lets’ here get up there and make a fool of herself and them. therefore they either don’t care or are as stupid as she is.

    Or is it here constituents that she’s talking to? If that’s the case then we’re in even bigger trouble.

    Jcw46 (f33482)

  37. See, btw, Peggy Noonan on Obama’s transparent gamesmanship. When she’s on, she’s on.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  38. Her spokesman later clarified that she meant 170 thousand jobs. Still a ridiculous number to project but better than 170 million. I find it sad but so very typical that she could not even make the “clarification” herself but had to hide behind a lackey to cover her butt. One wonders if the clueless low information congressperson and her nodding galpals in the picture are even aware she was called out and had to be corrected.

    elissa (86dd3d)

  39. Y’all have failed, and failed miserably, to see the absolute brilliance of the Honorable Miss Waters’ economic thinking. She has included not only the American jobs to be lost, but the jobs of all of those hard-working Chinese and Guatemalans and Vietnamese and Koreans who will be thrown out of work because Americans won’t be buying their products, and the future jobs lost in China when they can’t make money on the $85 billion that would have been loaned to the United States.

    Of course, y’all are just all raaaaacists, too!

    The Dana channeling Paul Krugman (3e4784)

  40. The man with Richard Nixon’s middle name

    Nope. His middle name was Milhous. No E.

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  41. Since Boehner declined to go to the principal’s office, this is all Team R’s fault.

    JD (b63a52)

  42. i love shrimp but we get most of it from industrious asian peoples not whiny squestermonkeys

    Asian shrimp are vulnerable to disease too.

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  43. ==It’s amazing how stupid the people that have been elected to office are.==

    This is what gerrymandered “safe” districts hath wrought. It bad for the country to have decades worth of congressional lifers in any case, but worse when the congressloon is a mental case or doesn’t appear to have even the basic knowledge or reasoning skills of a GED recipient.

    These are the people who are deciding what’s best for us.

    elissa (86dd3d)

  44. Perry wrote:

    “Tiny, tiny” depends on where one sits and on ones ideology as well. Consider this projection by Economist Stephen Fuller at George Mason University:

    * GDP: drops 0.7 to about 1.3;
    * Jobs: loss of about 325,000 direct jobs;
    * Unemployment: increase of about 1.5 to 9.5%;
    * Hardest hit: TX, VA, and TX.

    Would he be one of the economists who told us that if we passed the 2009 stimulus plan, unemployment would be held to a maximum of 8%, and would be below 6% by mid-2012?

    In The Wall Street Journal’s report on the adjustment in GDP numbers for the last quarter, from -0.1% to +0.1%, it was noted:

    Economists surveyed by Dow Jones Newswires had forecast Thursday’s report would show 0.5% growth.

    If economists can’t get right what has already happened, just how much credence should we give their projections and predictions about what will happen in the future based on this policy proposal or that program change?

    The economist Dana (3e4784)

  45. shouldn’t that industry be paying for it?

    In an ideal world, sure. Just as private companies should be building the highways, and running what are now called national parks, and doing everything that government now does except national defense, local defense (against criminals), criminal justice, and things like embassies.

    But the point is that it’s not wasteful spending. It’s good spending that ought to be done by someone else. And poking fun at it, making it out to be wasteful, is what ignorant anti-science hillbillies do. And the other point is that cutting government funding for research won’t save money, and shouldn’t be done for that purpose and with that expectation. It should ultimately be done because the constitution means something, but only after all actually wasteful (and equally unconstitutional) spending has been cut.

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  46. The man who misspelled President Nixon’s middle name :) wrote:

    Asian shrimp are vulnerable to disease too.

    It’s pretty clear to me that every government program has been justified by someone, somewhere; every government program was once someone’s good idea. And it’s obvious that every government program employs some people, so any government program cut means that someone will lose his job.

    But at some point, we have to cut something; at some point we have to say, “I’m sorry that this chick teaching Moroccan pottery is going to lose her job, but that’s too bad: we have to cut.”

    Perry tells us that 325,000 direct jobs will be lost. Well, that’s $261,538.46 per job; we can give them all maximum unemployment benefits, and save a heck of a lot of money.

    The Dana who wonders if there's any spending that can't be justified (3e4784)

  47. Milhouse wrote:

    shouldn’t that industry be paying for it?

    In an ideal world, sure. Just as private companies should be building the highways, and running what are now called national parks, and doing everything that government now does except national defense, local defense (against criminals), criminal justice, and things like embassies.

    Private companies are building the highways; it’s just that the government contracts them to do so. And it’s private companies which do research on better ways to produce asphalt, on better admixtures to improve concrete, and on improving tensile strength of steel.

    The Dana who probably shouldn't be making fun of Milhouse's name (3e4784)

  48. Perry spouting crap?

    Must be a day that ends in “y”.

    Icy (a46348)

  49. The Milhouse that failed to scale Mount Lisa finds it vitally necessary that the federal government put shrimp on treadmills. One wonders, is the shrimping industry incapable of buying their own crustacean stairmasters, or have they just become dependent on de guvmint to do their research for them?

    Icy (a46348)

  50. Gotta love Perry’s logic:
    The government cannot stop spending money it does not have, because too many people are relying in it to spend money it does not have.

    It truly is a form of mental illness.

    Icy (a46348)

  51. 30.

    #22. I note that TX is going to lose jobs twice.

    Correction: TX,VA,TX => TX,VA,CA

    Perry (329aa5)

  52. Asian shrimp on a treadmill would be a YouTube classic.

    JD (4f721c)

  53. Perry so reliably trots out nonsense.

    JD (4f721c)

  54. All American workers were asked to make do with 2% less take home pay on January 1. If Congress treated the money they spent as their own instead of an endless supply of OPM, they would have no trouble finding 2% of government spending to trim.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  55. This is what gerrymandered “safe” districts hath wrought.

    Living in her district, I have to comment on this. It is gerrymandered, yes, but not in the way you think. In the 90′s, her district was completely black and she’d get numbers approaching 90%. The next district over was a swing district, that changed hands three twice (and would have done so again had the Democrat-controlled Congress not settled a close race by recounting the votes themselves). Jane Harman didn’t like these close races, so they carved out a center-right portion of her district and grafted it to Waters’. Now she’s down to 75% and the other district gets 60% Dems.

    So, yes, there’s a gerrymander, but not to help Waters — she’s immune to opposition. Republicans she beats handily, Democrat opponents have their lives destroyed.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  56. changed hands three twice

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  57. Correction: TX,VA,TX => TX,VA,CA

    I just thought it was the Texas way to have problems listing that third thing.

    Why does Obama hate California?

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  58. Private companies are building the highways; it’s just that the government contracts them to do so. And it’s private companies which do research on better ways to produce asphalt, on better admixtures to improve concrete, and on improving tensile strength of steel.

    And guess what, it’s private people doing the research too — with government grants. Ideally the government shouldn’t be contracting for any of this, because that’s not its proper function. But at least these are useful things the government is doing, as opposed to all the useless and/or harmful things it does, and wastes billions on.

    It’s pretty clear to me that every government program has been justified by someone, somewhere; every government program was once someone’s good idea.

    You’re not getting it. Just because someone thinks something is a good idea doesn’t make it so. Most government programs are not good ideas, even based on the initial justification offered for them. Some seem like good ideas when first proposed, but turn out not to be. This is different. Research is like highways; clearly useful, despite not being a proper function of government. And research is less subject than highways to pork-barreling, though not entirely so.

    And it’s obvious that every government program employs some people, so any government program cut means that someone will lose his job.

    And therefore? If the person wasn’t doing anything useful, then not paying him for it is not a cost, it’s a benefit to the economy. The money he was being paid was being wasted, and now it isn’t. I’m not worried about the researchers’ jobs, I’m worried about the research not being done.

    But at some point, we have to cut something; at some point we have to say, “I’m sorry that this chick teaching Moroccan pottery is going to lose her job, but that’s too bad: we have to cut.”

    I don’t know the facts about this Moroccan pottery business, but teaching Moroccan pottery is probably not a very useful thing; I can’t see how it will ever generate any benefit for the economy. And if so, I’m not sorry that she loses her job; I’d want her out of it even if we had the money to pay her, because that money is wasted.

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  59. I am certainly glad that the billions of dollars of government research money spent on studying anthropogenic global warming was worth it in convincing the government to spend more of our money on further grants to junk science and to subsidize future failed green companies on which the private sector took a pass. I learned from that.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  60. 36.

    See, btw, Peggy Noonan on Obama’s transparent gamesmanship. When she’s on, she’s on.

    Man she sure is on, in an uncharacteristically partisan rant filled with half truths, insults, and outright lies. Shame on Peggy Noonan!

    Perry (329aa5)

  61. Unintended irony is one of Perry’s specialties.

    JD (4f721c)

  62. No Comment!

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  63. Icy wrote:

    Gotta love Perry’s logic:

    The government cannot stop spending money it does not have, because too many people are relying in it to spend money it does not have.

    It truly is a form of mental illness.

    Mental illness? Heck, that’s standard Keynesian economics, and it helped win me a Nobel Prize!

    Paul Krugman, PhD (3e4784)

  64. It is exactly the fact that Peggy’s rant is so pointed and somewhat uncharacterisitic in tone for her that should worry Perry and his kool-ade drinking ilk the most–and I think it does.

    elissa (86dd3d)

  65. Perry gets angry when other people don’t want to give him their money.

    Elephant Stone (90014a)

  66. If we don’t use government money to invest in inefficient technology of the future the Chinese will have won.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  67. Was maxine in charge of counting the votes last november?

    mg (31009b)

  68. OK, I looked up what the Moroccan pottery thing was. It was a USAID program to teach pottery to Moroccans, so they could make a living from it. If we’re going to do foreign aid, that’s not a bad idea for a project. Not the greatest idea ever, but not terrible. Of course it was completely mismanaged, and the money was wasted. But it wasn’t research, and it wasn’t obviously wasteful just from the description.

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  69. 43. The economist Dana wrote:

    If economists can’t get right what has already happened, just how much credence should we give their projections and predictions about what will happen in the future based on this policy proposal or that program change?

    Certainly you are not going to overlook the esteemed Paul Krugman who recently wrote re the sequester:

    Unfortunately, neither party is proposing that we just call the whole thing off. But the proposal from Senate Democrats at least moves in the right direction, replacing the most destructive spending cuts — those that fall on the most vulnerable members of our society — with tax increases on the wealthy, and delaying austerity in a way that would protect the economy.

    Perry (329aa5)

  70. And btw, the proper purpose of foreign aid is not charity, it’s building alliances and goodwill for the USA, in places where we need it.

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  71. Certainly you are not going to overlook the esteemed Paul Krugman

    <sputter /> That’s a good one, Perry.

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  72. Obama just gave us all a 2 percent tax increase in January and told us – shut up and get over it.
    Now they want to complain about a 2 percent cut to their spending – shut up and get over it.

    Neo (d1c681)

  73. 64.

    Perry gets angry when other people don’t want to give him their money.

    No, I get angry when Republican driven tax policy moves wealth to the 1% takers from the 99% givers.

    Perry (329aa5)

  74. Um, what? It’s the richest 1% who pay the lion’s share of the taxes. Far more than their fair share, i.e. far out of proportion to the benefit they get from the government.

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  75. It is unfortunate that one of the 170MM jobs to be lost will not be Maxine’s.
    The bright spot though, is that she becomes more and more irrelevant to the political equation each passing day.

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  76. The top 1% pay more than 1/3 of the income tax. They pay about 16 times what the bottom 50% do. That means, on average, each member of that top 1% pays about 800 times what each member of the bottom 50% does. Now the rich benefit more from government than do the poor, but 800 times more?!

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  77. R.I.P. Bonnie Franklin

    Icy (b27e2a)

  78. R.I.P. Zippy Sequester Strawmen!

    Amalgamated Cliff Divers, Local 157 (f7d5ba)

  79. Perry gets angry when other people don’t want to give him their money.

    And probably like a typical “limousine liberal” (and one does not have to be wealthy to be guilty of that form of two-faced behavior), he’ll do back flips to avoid paying taxes (eg, as is the ironic case of many of those in Obama’s White House, including the current Secretary of the Treasury), or, as is very evident among the Hollywood crowd (devoted liberals/Democrats to a “T”), will take their business (and employment opportunities) to locations where tax breaks are handed out and workers take less—ie, fleeing from uber-blue California, super-blue Los Angeles.

    Mark (5283c8)

  80. Perry,

    You’re really just an old piece of crap.
    And your seething jealousy of productive people is rather unbecoming.

    Money is not the most important thing in the world, but if you are salivating over it, why don’t you go earn some ?

    Be a man—not a moocher.

    Besides, anyone with an IQ over 125 knows that no tax policy moves money from poor people to “rich” people.

    Poor people are exempt from federal income tax.

    Elephant Stone (d4f5a6)

  81. “Now the rich benefit more from government than do the poor”

    Milhouse – Spoken like a true Marxist.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  82. No, I get angry when Republican driven tax policy moves wealth to the 1% takers from the 99% givers.

    Give us a couple of examples of what you’re referring to. Even a link to media mutters or think regress would be very instructive.

    Amalgamated Cliff Divers, Local 157 (f7d5ba)

  83. I had to make a bank run a few minutes ago, and traffic in our rural area was way backed up. I blame the sequester!

    Oh, and also George Bush.

    The held up in traffic Dana (3e4784)

  84. What ??? There were Moroccan pottery classes, and nobody told me about them ?

    Neo (d1c681)

  85. Perry – you already got your tax hike on he evil rich.

    JD (4f721c)

  86. Perry, you really aren’t very bright. Bush’s tax cuts actually moved more of the tax burden onto the upper income brackets. IRS data shows that after Bush tax rates, the upper bracket paid more of the taxes collected than before. Basically all your beliefs are based on lies.

    SPQR (86db04)

  87. Krugman isn’t “esteemed” except among partisan hacks. He is a joke among economists and his economic prescriptions ridiculed as failed

    SPQR (86db04)

  88. 74. Milhouse:

    The top 1% pay more than 1/3 of the income tax. They pay about 16 times what the bottom 50% do. That means, on average, each member of that top 1% pays about 800 times what each member of the bottom 50% does. Now the rich benefit more from government than do the poor, but 800 times more?!

    This is true, but an extremely important reason for this distortion is the skew toward the top earners which has occurred significantly during Reagan terms, especially his first term, in which the drastic lowering of taxes on the wealthiest of us had occurred, exacerbated by Bush in his first term.

    Folling is a list of the top tax bracket in certain fiscal years:

    f/y 1945: 94% Post WWII Truman
    f/y 1980: 70% Reagan first year
    f/y 1987: 38.5% Reagan last year

    Of course there is more to the tax burden on our wealthiest than merely stating the upper bracket, but at least the top bracket is an indicator. Lower taxes on capital gains and dividends is another important factor to consider. I imagine most of you knew these income tax facts already; but maybe not.

    You can consult the tax tables over time for more details.

    Perry (329aa5)

  89. “Perry, you really aren’t very bright. Bush’s tax cuts actually moved more of the tax burden onto the upper income brackets.”

    SPQR – Perry is obviously from the finite pie school of libtard economics. In order for somebody’s income to grow it has to come out of the pocket of somebody else, because the overall size of the pie never changes.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  90. SPQR:

    Krugman isn’t “esteemed” except among partisan hacks. He is a joke among economists and his economic prescriptions ridiculed as failed

    Your problem is, Krugman has been right, spelled with a lower case “r”.

    Perry (329aa5)

  91. “Of course there is more to the tax burden on our wealthiest than merely stating the upper bracket, but at least the top bracket is an indicator.”

    Perry – It’s clear you know nothing about tax preparation. Brackets mean nothing when then are a plethora of ways to shelter income and avoid taxation through deductions, many of which were eliminated in 1986. You need a better game, junior.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  92. Perry, you are wrong. Because you are an idiot and have no clue about historic tax rates. Marginal rates had no relation to effective rates prior to Reagan reforms.

    SPQR (86db04)

  93. What really irks me about liberals complaining about big business — along with successful people in the private sector — is that I’m not forced to pay for its goods and services — and its staffers and executives. But I’m mandated (forced) to pay X number of dollars to government at the local, state and federal level, whether I get much or anything in return.

    There are a few private-sector companies, such as utilities, that are quasi-mandatory, meaning they provide the public with essentials like, for example, electricity and fuel. But I won’t lump them together with government until they start saying “you have to use X amount of electricity per day, and you MUST pay for it, and you must put in X amount of gas into your car, and pay for it, whether you like it or not!”

    I’ll get just as pissed at the private sector too when it starts saying — totally and unrepentantly — “you must buy X amount of groceries at our store, you must use X amount of services that we offer at our offices, you must pay us X number of dollars for our staffers and executives, whether we do much or anything for you!”

    Mark (5283c8)

  94. daleyrocks:

    “Perry, you really aren’t very bright. Bush’s tax cuts actually moved more of the tax burden onto the upper income brackets.”

    Not correct, but a very common myth repeated over and over by the Right. And don’t forget the lowering of the taxes on capital gains and dividends during Bush-43. Who pray tell did that tax cut impact the most in lowering the tax total burden?

    Perry (329aa5)

  95. Perry, IRS data shows that the “rich” paid more of the income tax burden in relation to their share of income in Bush admin than in Clinton.

    SPQR (86db04)

  96. Folling is a list of the top tax bracket in certain fiscal years:

    Another thing that irks me about most liberals is they spend most of their time fussing over the upper-income person paying too little in taxes instead of the middle-income person paying too much. Notice how just about any person of the left rarely, if ever, groans about the tax burden imposed by government on John Q Public?

    Mark (5283c8)

  97. But the facts don’t matter to Democrats.

    SPQR (86db04)

  98. Perry, you really don’t know anything about taxes or economics.

    There are fifty million Americans on food stamps. That’s an awful lot of people who not only do not pay federal income taxes, but who additionally are having their Ramen Noodels and milk paid for by “the rich.”

    Elephant Stone (d4f5a6)

  99. Noodles

    Elephant Stone (d4f5a6)

  100. Search this site for “SPQR” and “Tax Foundation” and you will see I have been linking to real data for years to debunk Democratic lies.

    SPQR (86db04)

  101. Aggressive ignorance. Perry.

    JD (4f721c)

  102. And Paul Krugman still gets paid by NYT to write columns filled with falsehoods … assuming he even bothers to read them before they are published.

    SPQR (86db04)

  103. 78. Elephant Stone:

    Poor people are exempt from federal income tax.

    True, but not the middle. Moreover, to talk accurately about taxes, including federal income taxes, the total tax burden on folks has to be considered: State and local sales taxes, state income taxes, property taxes, telephone taxes, gasoline taxes, annual car taxes (VA), and so on. Many of these taxes are flat taxes, therefore impact the middle and poor more than the wealthy.

    I find that those on the Right frequently avoid talking about the total tax burden, because doing so greatly weakens their argument.

    Perry (329aa5)

  104. Perry, it weakens nothing you troll. You keep moving goalposts because you are as ignorant as Maxine Waters.

    SPQR (86db04)

  105. Perry – does your head hurt?

    JD (4f721c)

  106. 99. SPQR

    And Paul Krugman still gets paid by NYT to write columns filled with falsehoods

    Opinions on here are a dime a dozen. How about some examples?

    Perry (329aa5)

  107. How much money that people earn do you feel the government is entitled to, Perry? 60%?

    JD (4f721c)

  108. Back during the evil Bush regime, the top 1% of earners took in 19% of all income, as measured by adjusted gross income, but paid 37% of all federal income taxes. The top 10% of earners took in 44% of total income, and paid 68% of all federal income taxes. Perry might combitch about lower capital gains and dividend tax rates, but the most productive people were still paying a much greater share of taxes than their share of income.

    That isn’t good enough for our friends on the left; they somehow think that the evil rich should pay for everything, and the noble, hard-working poor get everything.

    The Dana who looked it up (3e4784)

  109. “Not correct, but a very common myth repeated over and over by the Right.”

    Perry – It was SPQR’s comment and he is correct. Prove him wrong. You have nothing.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  110. There are fifty million Americans on food stamps. That’s an awful lot of people who not only do not pay federal income taxes, but who additionally are having their Ramen Noodels and milk paid for by “the rich.”

    Correct. By the middle as well. That is a sad reality about our today’s America, having lots to do with the loss of jobs overseas for decades, indicating our deficiencies in education and investments in infrastructure, not to mention the trillions we have wasted on unnecessary wars of choice.

    Perry (329aa5)

  111. TRIGGER ALERT!!! PERRY IS MOLESTING STRAWPEOPLE!!!!!!

    JD (4f721c)

  112. How much money that people earn do you feel the government is entitled to, Perry? 60%?

    Crickets

    JD (4f721c)

  113. Perry,

    “Loss of jobs overseas for decades” or since Harry and nancy took over the country in nov 2006?

    Only unions are to blame for that – paying button pushers more than doctors or engineers might have been the reason

    EPWJ (1ea63e)

  114. “Investments in infrastructure” is a neat little euphemism for a union lard-butt holding a “Slow” sign for 40 minutes every hour until he goes on his contractually-mandated 20 minute break. Or the crew “foreman” who sits in the truck eating donuts.

    JVW (4826a9)

  115. “I can’t do some kind of Jedi Mind Meld on congressional Republicans,” Obama said.

    Star Trek had the “Mind Meld”
    Star Wars had the “Jedi Mind Trick”

    This is what “Choom” does to you.

    Neo (d1c681)

  116. Perry,

    Since taxes of various kinds hurt middle class people, let’s eliminate them.
    Um, eliminate the taxes, I mean.

    You are such a silly little utopian.
    You sit there and advocate for increasing all of these various taxes throughout the years, then you whine when people are asked to pay those taxes.

    If you’re for everyone paying their “fair share,” then stop bitching that “middle class” people have to pay sales taxes, property taxes, and income taxes…just like normal people are supposed to do.

    You’re not really even in favor of “fair share” or “equality,” rather, you’re just for getting a free ride from Thurston Howell III.

    Freeloader.

    Elephant Stone (d4f5a6)

  117. We should have progressive sales taxes, and progressive rates based on the cost of an item being purchased, and the income of the person buying it.

    JD (4f721c)

  118. Today is Platypus day, per Disney. The world’s most famous platypus is more entertaining than his namesake here.

    Is Woodwardgate already history, and dim buried history at that?

    President Obama today brought out his straw man machine to ask the rhetorical question of what more could he possibly do than to offer the balanced approach to the debt that he offered to the Republicans in Congress? And, BTW, all bad economic news for the next 6 months is the fault of Republicans not preventing the sequester.

    Had he been pinnochio, there would now be a wooden pole to the moon.

    It is shameless that someone can be so dishonest and be applauded for it. If the press had an interest in honesty they should all boycott presidential staff briefings until he agrees to tell the truth.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  119. “That is a sad reality about our today’s America, having lots to do with the loss of jobs overseas for decades, indicating our deficiencies in education”

    Perry – What political party exercises the most control over education in this country and what has been the trend on “investments” in education relative to population growth and inflation over the past several decades?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  120. Perry, if our jobs are going overseas, its because Democrats have destroyed out competitiveness, if our education system has failed our students; its because of Democrat’s destructive policies of spending more money on union-protected failed teachers, dead head bureaucrats.

    But little of that is really true. What is true is that for all your high-minded “progressive” crap, you think the Third World should live in dirt floor hovels to protect your living standard. Because all Democrats are really racist xenophobes at their core.

    But we’ll watch you run away from yet another discussion you are losing because your ignorance shows, like your ass above droopy jeans waistband.

    SPQR (47fc98)

  121. Besides, if Warren Buffet was 1/2 the concerned citizen he makes out to be, he would volunteer a large contribution of his otherwise non-taxed holdings and low-taxed investment income.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  122. CAUTION!!!! MOVING GOAL POSTS

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  123. 105. Dana who looked it up, but didn’t bother to consider any but the federal tax picture!

    That isn’t good enough for our friends on the left; they somehow think that the evil rich should pay for everything, and the noble, hard-working poor get everything.

    The “noble, hard-working middle and poor have been screwed for decades.

    And Dana also did not bother to mention the skewing of income from the middle and poor to the wealthiest of us all. Nor did he mention the Wall Street corruptions, mostly still unpunished, which moved wealth away from the middle and poor and into the clutches of the Wall Street financiers.

    It is the usual trick of the Right, to isolate on one factor which they can configure to be in their favor, and ignore the rest.

    Certainly there are multiple factors which have empoored the lower workers and enriched the upper wealthy mini-minority, to the disgrace of our nation, in my view. Fortunately there are some in power who know better and want better, which is exactly why the Right have been obstructing governance.

    The current sequester stand-off, with the refusal of the Right to put revenue on the table, motivated by their desire to protect the wealthy, is a perfect example of the class warfare they practice, to the detriment of the middle and poor Americans. Are we citizens of the same country? You’d never know it!

    Perry (329aa5)

  124. Wow, I just did the search for how many times I posted the Tax Foundation data link on the distribution of income tax collections. On this blog alone.

    It was a lot more than I’d guessed.

    And every time, some Democrat troll calls me a liar. typical of their dishonesty.

    SPQR (47fc98)

  125. “And Dana also did not bother to mention the skewing of income from the middle and poor to the wealthiest of us all. Nor did he mention the Wall Street corruptions, mostly still unpunished”

    Perry – Eric Holder and Barack Obama are free to punish their Wall Street buddies. Do you ever wonder why they haven’t?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  126. No one should be surprised that its the Democrat administrations that are the most filled with Wall Street cronies, “banksters”, corrupt mortgage financiers and tax cheats.

    SPQR (47fc98)

  127. ==I find that those on the Right frequently avoid talking about the total tax burden,==

    The mere fact that it’s called a tax burden (because it is a burden) and even Perry is joining in sort of says it all.

    elissa (86dd3d)

  128. Perry wrote:

    Moreover, to talk accurately about taxes, including federal income taxes, the total tax burden on folks has to be considered: State and local sales taxes, state income taxes, property taxes, telephone taxes, gasoline taxes, annual car taxes (VA), and so on. Many of these taxes are flat taxes, therefore impact the middle and poor more than the wealthy.

    A flat percentage rate tax, such as Pennsylvania’s 3.07% state income tax rate, affects the top producers exactly the same amount as it impacts the less productive. Of course, that isn’t quite true, because the Keystone State does have some income tax forgiveness provisions for the mostly indolent.

    About the only tax of which I can think which has a lower percentage impact on the higher earners is the Social Security tax, which stops at the threshold of $113,000, but, even there, such people are in tax brackets which are so much higher than for the lower earners that the top earners pay a higher percentage.

    Property taxes? Probably the most misused tax form we have, due to variations in property valuations, but the higher your property is valued, the more you pay in taxes.

    The Dana who sometimes shakes his head at Perry's arguments (3e4784)

  129. Hmmm, who was it again that made sure that credit card companies did better in Chapter 7 bankruptcy in the 2005 reforms? Oh, right Senator Joe Biden(D-MBNA).

    SPQR (47fc98)

  130. Dana who … , but the Social Security tax does not count, since benefits are capped above a certain income as well.

    SPQR (47fc98)

  131. ==I find that those on the Right frequently avoid talking about the total tax burden,==

    elissa – I find that those on the left avoid talking about talking about the share of taxes paid by different income groups and instead focus on meaningless numbers such as marginal tax rates.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  132. President Obama’s Leadership: “What do you want me to do?”

    SPQR (47fc98)

  133. Perry wrote:

    And Dana also did not bother to mention the skewing of income from the middle and poor to the wealthiest of us all.

    That’s international trade, for you. American workers are now having to compete with Koreans and Vietnamese and Chinese and Mexicans. The wealthier people are able to invest in things that the poor and middle class cannot. Perhaps you’d rather go to a strict protectionist regime?

    Nor did he mention the Wall Street corruptions, mostly still unpunished, which moved wealth away from the middle and poor and into the clutches of the Wall Street financiers.

    You’ve had a liberal Democratic regime for four years now, one filled with people with unremitting hostility to the wealthy — except, of course, when they think that they can profit from the wealthy — yet those “Wall Street corruptions” you mentioned haven’t been prosecuted. Either the Obamabots are just as corrupt as you believe Wall Street to be or perhaps, just perhaps, there aren’t many actual crimes to prosecute.

    You may not be aware of this, but getting rich isn’t an actual crime.

    The Dana who actually understands ecnomics (3e4784)

  134. The current sequester stand-off, with the refusal of the Right to put revenue on the table,

    You got your revenues less than 2 months ago.

    The rest of your leftist class warfare and jealousy is just plain tired. People do not become rich at the expense of the poor and the middle class.

    TRIGGER ALERT!!!!!

    JD (4f721c)

  135. daleyrocks, it really shows Perry’s inherent stupidity if he thinks that we approve of the tax burden on the lower economic classes. That was what was actually good about Bush’s tax rates, they lowered taxes on the middle class. That the legislation also pulled so many people off the bottom of the income tax rates entirely has unfortunately taken too many people out of the taxpayer class entirely.

    SPQR (47fc98)

  136. It sounds like Perry’s issue is that some people have more money than other people. Perhaps a psychologist could figure out why that angers Perry so much.
    And it’s not fair, because some of those rich folks can inherently afford to pay for a ticket to a Barbra Streisand ticket, while most poor people cannot.
    Perry, you would reduce your blood pressure if you could accept that there are differences among people in regards to intelligence, work rate, ambition, discipline, organization, skill, talent, and vision.
    As a result, some people will end up with more money than other people.

    That’s life.
    Get over it.

    Peacocks are prettier than pigeons. And cheetahs outrun zebras most of the time.

    Instead of wanting to take punitive action against rich folks, why not work to facillitate a society where poor folks can become rich, through determination, discipline, and merit ?

    Elephant Stone (d4f5a6)

  137. There are no Wall Street prosecutions because Obama’s DOJ has stonewalled. That was clear in congressional hearings where the DOJ had no coherent answer. Even the Left is starting to figure out that Obama is corrupt, see the recent Frontline documentary on the topic.

    SPQR (47fc98)

  138. The sequester is Boehner’s fault because he did t go to a meaningless finger pointing meeting this afternoon. .

    JD (4f721c)

  139. “daleyrocks, it really shows Perry’s inherent stupidity if he thinks that we approve of the tax burden on the lower economic classes.”

    SPQR – I agree. Perry’s basic problem is that he’s angry because he is dumb and believes he is a victim because the world is structured against him and his ability to achieve success. Because of his stupidity he also assumes he knows what other people think and believe and couldn’t be more wrong, but it amplifies his anger.

    He needs to spend more time worrying about himself and his own issues than other people.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  140. “Instead of wanting to take punitive action against rich folks, why not work to facillitate a society where poor folks can become rich, through determination, discipline, and merit ?”

    Because such a society would value “activists” labor at its true worth – nothing. They would not be allowed to be in the roles of productivity-destroying power they crave.

    SPQR (47fc98)

  141. The real meaning of the fact that every Democrat Senator voted to confirm Jack Lew as Treasury secretary just goes right over Perry’s head.

    Not a high bar, I know.

    SPQR (47fc98)

  142. Maxine Waters: Sequestration might cost me MY job!

    C. S. P. Schofield (adb9dd)

  143. Yeah, why would Obama nominate a Treasury Secretary (Jack Lew) who has secret accounts on the Cayman Islands ?
    Don’t left wingers believe that only sleazebags have accounts on the Cayman Islands ?

    Maybe Perry or Kimberlinman will be able to justify that for us, but I doubt it.

    Elephant Stone (d4f5a6)

  144. “Now the rich benefit more from government than do the poor”

    Milhouse – Spoken like a true Marxist.

    Huh? It’s a truism. How can you deny it?

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  145. …not to mention the trillions we have wasted on unnecessary wars of choice.

    Ohnoes, the dreaded unnecessary wars of choice! All wars are wars of choice. Which wars are those? Should we not have gone to war in Afghanistan, you know , the zippy described “good war”?
    You must really hate what we did in Eqypt and what we’re doing in Libya, and now Syria?

    Amalgamated Cliff Divers, Local 157 (f7d5ba)

  146. And don’t forget the lowering of the taxes on capital gains and dividends during Bush-43.

    Dividends have already been taxed in the hands of the company that earned the money. Taxing them at all in the recipient’s hands is unfair. Taxing them at a lower rate than ordinary income is just a gesture toward the idea of fairness, without actually being fair. I’ll agree to taxing dividends at the same rate as all other income the day that company tax is abolished. Or if the taxes a company pays can be imputed to the shareholder, as is done in Australia.

    Capital gains ought to be taxed at the same rate as ordinary income, but only after indexing for inflation, and only if the tax rate on ordinary income is flat. With progressive tax rates, the inflation-adjusted gain needs to be averaged over the years the asset was held, because it wasn’t all earned in the year of sale. Until the IRS does this, the discounted rate is again a gesture toward fairness.

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  147. And Paul Krugman still gets paid by NYT to write columns filled with falsehoods

    Opinions on here are a dime a dozen. How about some examples?

    Just pick a column of his at random. There’s your example.

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  148. the most productive people were still paying a much greater share of taxes than their share of income.

    And even if it were the same share, that would still be a lot more money, and the justification for that isn’t obvious. If Mr Adams earns 10 times more than Ms Brown, he surely benefits more than her from the government, and therefore ought to pay more for it than she does, but surely not 10 times more. A flat-rate income tax would be a great improvement on what we have now, but it would still be slightly unfair to the rich.

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  149. And Dana also did not bother to mention the skewing of income from the middle and poor to the wealthiest of us all.

    What is this “skewing”, pray tell? What does the word mean, in this context? How does income “skew”? Are you claiming that income that rightly belongs to one person is being diverted to another? And that the rightful income of less wealthy people is being diverted to wealthier ones? If so, please explain how this happens. What makes the money you describe belong to someone other than the one who ends up with it? It seems to me that quite the opposite is true; the top 1% are that way because they produce most of the income, but some of what they earn is “skewed” away from them by the tax system, and to the benefit of the poorest, who produce very little.

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  150. Maybe Maxine Waters multiplied by 10 – 17 million jobs (the unemployed?) for 10 years?

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  151. OBAMA’S Sequestration is Hurting the Nation!

    jiffyweb (fafa86)

  152. Milhouse, Perry is too stupid to realize that Krugman was caught calling something a ridiculous myth in his column, when his own economics textbook made the same statement (specifically about unemployment insurance reducing the incentive to find employment).

    SPQR (768505)

  153. Sammy, are you now attempting to make sense out of Maxine Waters’? There’s a Sisyphean task for you. Don’t let up, it will take a lot of your legendary hard work.

    SPQR (768505)

  154. Do we at least know what the results of the shrimp study were? Can shrimp run on a treadmill? Are trying to make them run faster? Maybe we should next study Congress on a treadmill. I’d pay to see that too.

    rochf (f3fbb0)

  155. I wonder if maxine could bring me up to date on ebonomics?

    mg (31009b)

  156. “Huh? It’s a truism. How can you deny it?”

    Milhouse – What kind of an argument is that? Explain yourself.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  157. mg, Maxine Waters is illiterate in Ebonics too.

    SPQR (768505)

  158. “If Mr Adams earns 10 times more than Ms Brown, he surely benefits more than her from the government”

    Milhouse – In what specific ways does Mr. Adams benefit more from the government than Ms. Brown?

    Don’t they both get to use the same public roads, transportation, parks and other resources?

    Are the laws different for rich people and poor people, a different civil and criminal code applying by income level?

    Do Mr. Adams and Ms. Brown enjoy different levels of protection from our armed forces?

    What are these benefits of which you speak?

    In point of fact, the more income you make, the more money the government takes from you, which I would definitely not call a benefit.

    The more money you make, the number of government benefits you are eligible for declines.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  159. “Can shrimp run on a treadmill? Are trying to make them run faster?”

    rochf – I’ve seen a chicken dance on a record player. I wouldn’t pay to see it again. The prospect of shrimp on a treadmill would not cause me to change my Saturday night plans. If you’ve got a flea circus, then we might be in business.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  160. Comment by SPQR (768505) — 3/1/2013 @ 3:39 pm

    Well, there’s a Racist statement if I’ve ever read one.
    SPQR, consider yourself denounced, and deloused too.

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  161. Maxine Waters and Hank Johnson are Congress’ version of comic relief.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  162. Well those with memory recall her ‘egging’ on the rioters in LA, and just a few years later, carrying
    the water for the Christics, and John Kerry, recycling that CIA cocaine conspiracy theory,

    narciso (3fec35)

  163. I had garlic shrimp tonight. Very good! They couldn’t outrun the fisherman apparently, and that’s all that counts.

    Also, I went shopping for ski clothes today and there was nothing left in my size. Eek, sequestration! The hoarding and the shortages have begun!

    Patricia (be0117)

  164. Perry, you didn’t come here to hunt, did you?

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  165. 159. I had garlic shrimp tonight. Very good! They couldn’t outrun the fisherman apparently, and that’s all that counts.

    Also, I went shopping for ski clothes today and there was nothing left in my size. Eek, sequestration! The hoarding and the shortages have begun!

    Comment by Patricia (be0117) — 3/1/2013 @ 6:56 pm

    Me and the babe just stocked up on wine and propane. So we could fort up. What with the plague of locusts and the raining of frogs I hear sequestration is going to bring.

    Steve57 (60a887)

  166. Strawberry ice cream, too.

    Steve57 (60a887)

  167. Sequester HELL arrives in 1 hour 26 minutes.

    JD (b63a52)

  168. Good thing I laid in a supply of smokes.

    Steve57 (60a887)

  169. Is it true I’m going to get gingivitus, drug-resistant gonorrhea, and punished with a baby if the rethuglicans go through with sequestration?

    Steve57 (60a887)

  170. Yes. In 43 minutes.

    JD (b63a52)

  171. ohnoes we all gonna get squestered like that poor man in florida

    if I get squestered first don’t nobody jump in after me please

    I done made my peace wif it

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  172. 167. May we assume that’s pronounced ‘SKWEE-stirred’?

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  173. if I get squestered first don’t nobody jump in after me please

    What if I used to be a rescue swimmer and it’s kind of a habit?

    And besides, sir, you will use your damned seat cushion as a flotation device or I’ll make you do shots with me.

    Steve57 (60a887)

  174. In less than 25 minutes, 100,000+ kids will lose their daycare, 170,000,000 people will lose their jobs, and planes will start falling out of the sky.

    JD (b63a52)

  175. JD, you forgot about al Qaeda stealing our unguarded secrets and the terrorists seizing control of our nuclear powerplants what with our borders being unwatched.

    Steve57 (60a887)

  176. SKWEE-stirred!

    yup yup!

    hey great tip about the cushion

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  177. Also, who’s going to pay for my Cialis? I’ve got a date.

    Steve57 (60a887)

  178. everyday I’m squestering

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  179. 172. hey great tip about the cushion

    Comment by happyfeet (8ce051) — 3/1/2013 @ 8:50 pm

    Don’t thank me. There’s a pic of Michelle Obama’s derriere floating around the interwebs that reminded me of the flotation.

    Steve57 (60a887)

  180. wiggle wiggle wiggle wiggle wiggle yeah

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  181. I hear Maxine Waters hates me personally.

    Steve57 (60a887)

  182. 10 minutes into the sequester and I have not seen one starving child or dead old person yet.

    JD (b63a52)

  183. Dennis Rodman apparently got ****faced with Kim Jong Un.

    I think “The Onion” is officially out of business. You could come up with 20 or 30 headlines that you’d think belongs on “The Onion” and they’d be obsolete by 9 tomorrow morning.

    Steve57 (60a887)

  184. 178. 10 minutes into the sequester and I have not seen one starving child or dead old person yet.

    Comment by JD (b63a52) — 3/1/2013 @ 9:10 pm

    I just ran down Bambi’s mom secure in the knowledge all the first responders have been fired.

    Steve57 (60a887)

  185. According to news reports smallpox is making a comeback and SARS is ravaging the eastern seaboard.

    Steve57 (60a887)

  186. Skynet has become selfaware, and it will launch in an hour, angry over the sequester, or something,

    narciso (3fec35)

  187. The Taliban is now gunning down polio vaccinators in LA.

    Steve57 (60a887)

  188. taco bell has horse meat

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  189. 178. 10 minutes into the sequester and I have not seen one starving child or dead old person yet.

    Comment by JD (b63a52) — 3/1/2013 @ 9:10 pm

    I just saw a starving child cannibalizing a dead old person.

    Steve57 (60a887)

  190. ‘I saw a werewolf drinking pina colata at sunset,’

    narciso (3fec35)

  191. los angeles is crawling with incurable tuberculosis

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  192. 184. taco bell has horse meat

    Comment by happyfeet (8ce051) — 3/1/2013 @ 9:20 pm

    So what? Wendy’s is now serving monkey due to the sequester. See what happens when the reghuglicans start lynching USDA meat inspectors because they hate clean water? Or, something.

    Steve57 (60a887)

  193. In honor of the sequester.

    The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald

    Ore carriers are now sinking on the Great Lakes.

    Steve57 (60a887)

  194. I hear BP is now planning to blow up another oil rig in the gulf. And Chevron is going to run a supertanker into the Golden Gate bridge.

    Steve57 (60a887)

  195. the CHUD will rise from the sewers, seing their chance.

    narciso (3fec35)

  196. Spending cuts due to ground Navy’s Blue Angels flying team

    Civilization as we know it has ended.

    I’m thinkin’ I’ll head down to Taco Bell for a horse meat chimichanga.

    Steve57 (60a887)

  197. Maybe if he hadn’t spent all that time shooting skeet at Camp David he would have been able to prevent the sequestor. Prezzy’s really need to be better prioritizers than he has shown himself to be.

    elissa (86dd3d)

  198. great song

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  199. Damned sequestration. Now the USG is no longer capable of performing its mandatory Constitutional duty of maintaining a flight demonstration team.

    Dogs and Cats! Sleeping together!

    Steve57 (60a887)

  200. Now I, Sequestor, am master of the universe!

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  201. 194. great song

    Comment by happyfeet (8ce051) — 3/1/2013 @ 9:36 pm

    I believe Gordon Lightfoot is only dead due to sequestration.

    Too bad. We’re going to need balladeers to write songs about all teh death the rethuglicans will be inflicting on the merchant marine now that they’ve killed the Coast Guard.

    Steve57 (60a887)

  202. Originally, the word comes from the late Latin word “sequestrare,” meaning “to place in safekeeping.

    Sequester would make a good name for a male cat, I think.

    elissa (86dd3d)

  203. something in a squester hates a canadian Mr. 57

    a lot of people don’t know that

    a lot of people are in for a VERY rude surprise

    specially canadians

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  204. ==Too bad. We’re going to need balladeers to write songs about all teh death the rethuglicans will be inflicting ==

    Woody Guthrie made quite a name for himself as a balladier of the great depression. ‘Course that time wasn’t nearly as bad as the Sequestor hardships will be.

    elissa (86dd3d)

  205. Maybe if he hadn’t spent all that time shooting skeet at Camp David he would have been able to prevent the sequestor. Prezzy’s really need to be better prioritizers than he has shown himself to be.

    Comment by elissa (86dd3d) — 3/1/2013 @ 9:36 pm

    Now you know why DHS just bought 1.6 billion rounds of ammo.

    Obama’s gotten into shooting.

    And I hear Biden is going to be teaching a self-defense class.

    Steve57 (60a887)

  206. Keep in mind, friends, Obama’s 2009 Stimulus package saved or created 458 million new jobs, so it is credible that 170 million of those jobs will now be lost.

    Elephant Stone (abe6af)

  207. 199. something in a squester hates a canadian Mr. 57

    a lot of people don’t know that

    a lot of people are in for a VERY rude surprise

    specially canadians

    Comment by happyfeet (8ce051) — 3/1/2013 @ 9:45 pm

    So know due the cruel, heartless reghuglicans we can no longer afford Canajuns?

    And here I was thinking women, children, and minorities would be hardest hit.

    Steve57 (60a887)

  208. ‘They asked Keynes, was there anything, he recalled was like the sequester, he replied ‘the Dark Ages’

    narciso (3fec35)

  209. i shot a squester in the air Mr. 57 it fell to erf I knew not where

    everyone needs to duck and cover

    not just canadians

    I’m sorry if I misled anybody

    yeah we’re all gonna die

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  210. I was thinkin’ “Dukes of Hazard.”

    Steve57 (60a887)

  211. Man… I love having happyfeet around this blog.

    Leviticus (17b7a5)

  212. yeah we’re all gonna die

    Comment by happyfeet (8ce051) — 3/1/2013 @ 9:55 pm

    I got smokes and propane and wine recipes and a keg of black powder for the 10 gauge and the Hawken gun.

    If you bring horses, I’ll let you into the bunker.

    Steve57 (60a887)

  213. obamawhore marissa mayer’s yahoo! asks:

    Is our government a global embarrassment?

    don’t know what to tell you, hooch

    above my paygrade

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  214. 209. above my paygrade

    Comment by happyfeet (8ce051) — 3/1/2013 @ 9:58 pm

    Unfortunately it’s not above Kim Jong Un’s or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s.

    Steve57 (60a887)

  215. Runnin’ for the border, Steve57! The Taco Bell drive-thru lady asked me if I “want oats with that”. If you thought their food went thru yer system at a speedy rate before, you ain’t et a thoroughbred burrito yet.

    I just hope they ain’t all mudders…

    Colonel Haiku (047fa4)

  216. The tech bubble fraudster and part time trig denialist, they will let any hack scribble over there.

    narciso (3fec35)

  217. it’s not like tockerbell had some kind of orgiastic plenitude of meat in its tacos

    they’ve always had a l’il dab’ll do ya philosphy about that

    thank you Mr. leviticus back atcha!

    here is a music for friday night nobody is brothers they just sing is all

    caveat midgeticuses Mr. JD

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  218. Si, coronello, es verdad.

    My plan to sneak into Mexico involves convincing them I’m with ATF and then running guns.

    Steve57 (60a887)

  219. Either that or I’m going to pay more attention to where Hanoi John f’n Kerry parks his yacht so I know where the IRS doesn’t collect taxes and there’s no extradition treaty.

    Steve57 (60a887)

  220. here are some affectionately-priced hand-painted margarita glasses suitable for your first squestor celebration and/or your next quinceañera!

    viva la squestor!

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  221. I found a headline that would be obsolete on “The Onion” twelve hours early:

    Colorado parents of transgender girl contest school restroom ban

    (Reuters) – The parents of a 6-year-old transgender girl in Colorado filed a complaint with the state’s civil rights agency on Wednesday challenging a decision by local education officials to deny their child access to the girls’ restrooms in her school.

    Who exactly is the adult in this relationship?

    Coy had been using the girls’ facilities, with the school’s knowledge, until late December, when the principal informed her parents she would no longer be permitted access to them. Instead, she was restricted to using either the boys’ restrooms or gender-neutral facilities reserved for employees or those in the school’s health room, her parents said.

    The parents and lawyers representing the family urged the principal to reconsider, contending that singling out their daughter as the only girl in the school banned from using the girls’ bathrooms was stigmatizing and psychologically damaging.

    “Since her earliest ability to express herself, she has told the world what would be obvious to anyone who spends a minute with her that she is a little girl,” said Michael Silverman, executive director of the New York-based Transgender Legal Defense & Education Fund, which filed the complaint on behalf of the Mathis family.

    “Forcing Coy to be the only girl in school that has to use a different bathroom from every other student is the equivalent of painting a bull’s-eye on her back,” he told Reuters.

    You know if my babe wants to get snot slinging drunk I’m going to suggest she drops the kids off at here sister’s so I can join her.

    Steve57 (60a887)

  222. It isn’t like the colorful little tyke was set up, or anything. “Coy.”

    Really.

    “Coy.”

    Steve57 (60a887)

  223. I’m thinking if you’re going to turn out a transgender kid by the time he/she/whatever is six you’ve got to be working overtime at it.

    Steve57 (60a887)

  224. “Umm, kiddo, you’re the wrong sex.”

    Yeah, that’s something a six year old comes up with on their own.

    Like gun control and socialized medicine.

    Steve57 (60a887)

  225. it can’t be a bad sign for the gays that transgender is the new gay can it?

    amicus brief ftw!

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  226. amicus briefs or amicus boxers. Who am I to judge.

    gus (694db4)

  227. 221. it can’t be a bad sign for the gays that transgender is the new gay can it?

    amicus brief ftw!

    Comment by happyfeet (8ce051) — 3/1/2013 @ 10:32 pm

    It’s like they skipped over being black or hispanic and went straight to asian which won’t get you a cut out into dartmouth.

    Steve57 (60a887)

  228. i’m just ready to ride this chevy I think

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  229. Like I said, Mr. Feets, bring horses and you’ve got a spot in the bunker.

    Steve57 (60a887)

  230. in fair burbank lieth an Equestrian Center yet unbefouled by the likes of a petulant pikachu

    for a spot in yon bunker I shall befoul it

    this I promise you

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  231. Just keep in mind we can’t light up the Cubans around the keg of black powder. I’m not really strict about a lot of things, but I hate getting blown up.

    Steve57 (60a887)

  232. She’s just upset because most of those jobs will come from her district.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAH

    Jcw46 (f33482)

  233. Who else is surprised to learn the Pope has an Air Force.

    Pope’s last words: Thank you for your friendship and love

    After the 15-minute helicopter trip to Castel Gandolfo, Pope Benedict XVI offered a word of thanks to the thousands of people who traveled there to support him in has last hours as Pope.

    Steve57 (60a887)

  234. N.Y. gun law mandates magazines that don’t exist

    Like this is an accident.

    Steve57 (60a887)

  235. narciso wrote:

    ‘I saw a werewolf drinking pina colata at sunset,’

    Werewolves of London

    The helpful Dana (af9ec3)

  236. taco bell has horse meat

    I understand horse meat actually is rather tasty, perhaps better than beef. But, of course, in California — a truly humane, wonderful, compassionate, beautiful, humane, compassionate state — it’s illegal to sell one’s horse to a rendering plant.

    An under-aged single girl wants an abortion without parental consent? Hell, yes. But sell a horse the way its owner deems appropriate? No. Hell, no!

    Heartfelt and compassionate.

    Oh, and it’s now also illegal in California for restaurants to sell pate, otherwise known as duck liver. It’s deemed an inhumane and unkind form of food.

    Beautiful and caring.

    Mark (93f57a)

  237. It’s the slippery slope thang. Today horses, tomorrow cats and dogs in your tacos and lasagna?

    elissa (1d03e3)

  238. “Just” $700K of tax money spent on shrimp?

    If this was so bloody important to the shrimp industry I imagine they could have devised a test that would have cost a whole lot less than $700K.

    And actually this little bit of extravagant nonsense appears to have cost $3,000,000 over a decade. (http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/federalbudgetprocess/a/How-Much-Shrimp-Treadmill-Study-Cost-Taxpayers.htm)

    Frankly, I am all in favor of the government studying how I would fare on an income of $3,000,000 over a decade. If “research” always pays off then I am ready to go for the good of the nation. Start sending your checks now. After all, it is only patriotic…

    WarEagle82 (2b7355)

  239. Heh. After her 170 million video, then her 750 thousand tweet Maxine is now planted firmly at 170 thousand. Update on Ms. Waters’ math over at weaselzippers:

    Mr. Cooke (NRO) subsequently heard from Eric Orner, Waters’ deputy communications director. Mr. Orner told Cooke in a statement that the 170 million jobs comment was a “slip of the tongue.” He also scolded Cooke for posting the video at all…

    Here it is:
    I just noticed a post by National Review On-Line contributor Charles C. W. Cooke about House Financial Services Committee Ranking Member Water’s obvious slip of the tongue (she accidentally said 170 million , when she meant 170 thousand) when referring to the number of jobs that may be lost as a result of sequestration. I think this was below your standards, and hope you’ll reconsider the post.

    Eric Orner
    Deputy Communications Director
    Financial Services Committee
    Representative Maxine Waters, Ranking Member

    Cooke’s response? “Never mind. When the very fabric of the republic collapses at 11:59p.m. tomorrow, this will all be rendered moot.”

    http://weaselzippers.us/2013/03/02/maxine-waters-170-million-750000-170000-heck-i-mean-a-bunch-of-jobs-will-be-lost-dont-report-what-i-say-or-my-staff-will-contact-you/

    elissa (1d03e3)

  240. Maxine Waters and much of the populace of the city of Detroit have one crucial, major, very telling thing in common. Their racial background?! Nope. They’re all profoundly, gut-wrenchingly, absurdly, ludicrously, nonsensically of the left, dyed-in-the-wool Democrats forever and ever, and ever.

    huffingtonpost.com, February 19, 2013:

    A state-appointed review team has determined Detroit is in a financial emergency, paving the way for Republican Gov. Rick Snyder to appoint an emergency manager who would need to come up with a new plan to get the city out of its fiscal crisis.

    The review team pointed to the city’s ongoing cash crisis, which have threatened to leave the city without money to pay its workers or other bills. It noted that the city’s deficit could have reached more than $900 million in fiscal year 2012 if the city had not borrowed enormous amounts of money; that Detroit has long-term liabilities, including underfunded pensions, of more than $14 billion; and that the city’s bureaucratic structure makes it difficult to solve the financial problems.

    James McTevia, president of a Michigan-based firm that specializes in turnaround management, said an emergency manager could halt the city’s borrowing, freeze debt and restructure finances, including voiding contracts. “The checkbook needs to be taken from the politicians,” he said.

    If Snyder moves ahead and appoints an emergency manager, Detroit would be the sixth and largest city in Michigan to have one. The cities of Benton Harbor, Ecorse, Pontiac, Flint and Allen Park are currently under state oversight. School districts in Detroit, Highland Park and Muskegon Heights also have managers.

    Mark (93f57a)

  241. Point of order: if you are a “transgender girl,” does that mean you are a girl becoming a boy or a boy becoming a girl?

    Patricia (be0117)

  242. I believe “transgender girl” means that you are a boy (with XY chromosomes and male physical appearance, including genitalia) who self “identifies” as a girl. It does not necessarily include surgery or hormone treatments.

    These descriptions do not include rare genetic conditions where there is a mismatch between chromosomes and external genitalia and hormones.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  243. whadda about them li’l cowpokes who have the gun and the holster, MD?

    Colonel Haiku (345386)

  244. Then what do we call an American President who identifites as a European socialist ?

    Elephant Stone (728e31)

  245. who have the gun and the holster, MD?
    Comment by Colonel Haiku (345386) — 3/2/2013 @ 8:46 am

    You’re talking about ambiguous genitalia? I think when one talks about situations where the demonstrable physical biology is confused it is a different situation than when someone has a mis-match between their physical make-up and their emotional/mental perspective.
    I imagine there are areas of significant overlap as well, but the situation in Colorado mentioned above and state law in Mass don’t have anything to do with confused biology (unless you think a boy identifying as a girl is hard wired in the brain, even if every cell is XY with normal biochemistry and normal hormone levels and receptors).

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  246. Then what do we call an American President who identifites as a European socialist ?

    “Bisexual.”

    Mark (93f57a)

  247. MD in Philly – Sometimes I feel like a mint. Sometimes I don’t.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  248. “transgender” simply means a horribly confused person about to submit to expensive, genital mutilation that “progressives” (a very different type of horribly confused person) would condemn if it happened outside the borders of Europe or North America.

    WarEagle82 (2b7355)

  249. “If Mr Adams earns 10 times more than Ms Brown, he surely benefits more than her from the government”

    Milhouse – In what specific ways does Mr. Adams benefit more from the government than Ms. Brown?

    Come on, this should be obvious. The more you have, the more you benefit from the main function of government, which is to protect you from getting ripped off. Someone with only $20 in his pocket benefits less from not being robbed than does someone with $200 and an expensive watch. Someone with nothing in his house worth stealing benefits less from not being burgled than does someone who lives in a mansion with all sorts of easily fencible stuff. National defense is also mostly defense of property rather than lives; in many cases a poor person would lose far less than a rich one if his country were to be defeated by an enemy. The fewer imported goods someone buys, the less he benefits from the protection of international trade and the shipping lanes. The fewer goods he buys that have been shipped from elsewhere, and the less he travels, the less he benefits from highways. And of course the less one has the less likely one is to be sued, or to have occasion to sue someone, and thus to benefit from a fair system of justice. Even a poor person’s life is in some senses, though not in all, worth less than that of a rich person — a rich person’s estate will recover more for his wrongful death than will the estate of a poor person.

    In almost every way that people benefit from the legitimate functions of government, the rich benefit more than the poor. But the benefit one receives does not rise in strict proportion with ones wealth, because government also protects people’s lives, and everyone’s life is worth more or less the same, to himself if not to his dependents.

    The fairest method of taxation would therefore combine a flat-rate poll tax with a flat-rate wealth tax, in a ratio that would capture this distinction. If everything is instead funded by a flat-rate income tax, then the rich are paying slightly more than their true fair share, but not all that much so. What we have today, though, is a “progressive” income tax, under which the rich, instead of paying a slightly lower percentage than the poor, pay a higher percentage. If Mr Adams earns 10 times as much as Ms Brown, strictly speaking his fair share is probably something like 8 or 9 times what Ms Brown pays; if instead he pays 15 or 20 times what she does, that is grossly unfair on him.

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  250. I had garlic shrimp tonight. Very good! They couldn’t outrun the fisherman apparently, and that’s all that counts.

    No, that’s not all that counts. They have to be there when the fisherman comes, and to ensure that we need to know how not to cause their population to collapse, which means we need to know how they react to changes in their environment such as introduced bacteria. That’s important research, no matter who funds it.

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  251. Now you know why DHS just bought 1.6 billion rounds of ammo.

    Joking aside, you know that isn’t true, right? Just checking.

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  252. ‘They asked Keynes, was there anything, he recalled was like the sequester, he replied ‘the Dark Ages’

    Racist.

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  253. “Umm, kiddo, you’re the wrong sex.”

    Yeah, that’s something a six year old comes up with on their own.

    Actually that is exactly the sort of thing a six-year-old is likely to come up with on his own; it’s up to his parents not to make a huge deal out of it, but at the same time to say firmly “yes, dear, but you still have to use the boys’ bathroom”.

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  254. Who else is surprised to learn the Pope has an Air Force.

    Ah, but how many divisions has he?

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  255. We actually supposedly pay “only” $700 million, not billion, to see how long shrimp run on a treadmill.

    No, no, no!! Didn’t you get the MEMO?

    “Shrimp” is this years double-extra-sekrit GOP code for “bureaucrats”… And “treadmill running” is the DES GOP code for “spending”.

    Man, you are just SSSSOOOO outta touch!!

    :-P

    Smock Puppet, 10th Dan Snark Master and Gender Bïgǒt (98ae1f)

  256. UPDATE: Added “supposedly” on the figure for the shrimp treadmill study since I have no personal knowledge and a commenter disputes the figure. Even $100 spent on such nonsense would be $100 too much.

    Good grief, Patterico. Whether government should be paying for this or any research or not, how can you call it nonsense? And how can you then protest when the other side calls us “anti-science”? Ideally the government should not be sponsoring any research that is not directly connected to its proper functions: military, law enforcement, justice. It should not be funding agricultural research, medical research, basic physics, or any of that good stuff. Private people should be funding it. But that doesn’t change the fact that such research is valuable and worthwhile, and produces more wealth than it consumes, though not necessarily for the same people who funded it.

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  257. “Come on, this should be obvious. The more you have, the more you benefit from the main function of government, which is to protect you from getting ripped off.”

    Milhouse – In my opinion you have a very twisted view of the world. You are the commenter who stated he would only obey the laws he chose to obey and that there were no obligations of being a citizen in this country. Yet here you are expressing a very government centric view of our society and no, your argument from its origin is not obvious, it is tortured and obscure.

    You have not denied there is only one set of laws for both the rich and the poor in this country and that both the rich and the poor can enjoy the benefits of government funded roads, bridges, parks, libraries and other resources.

    You make you argument purely pecuniary even though there is no more, if any, obligation on the part of the government to ensure that the rich are not ripped off than the poor.

    The government is supposed to establish justice, establish domestic tranquility and provide for the common defense. I don’t recall the prevent getting ripped off clause and when something doesn’t happen I don’t automatically turn around and thank the government.

    The last time I was robbed was in Grand Central Station in 1981 and it was my fault because I was careless with my wallet. Since then I have tried to take more care securing my possessions and my home. I try to avoid deliberately putting myself in high risk situations whenever possible. I don’t thank the government that I have not been a victim of crime since then. Situational awareness, which is not a function of net worth, is the critical element and the government as you are well aware cannot protect people from bad decision making.

    It’s tough for a rich or poor person to lose more than 100% of their net worth by getting “ripped off” by bad investment decisions or investment scams. It’s a sad day when I have to look to the government to protect me from my own decisions after the fact. And if I didn’t get ripped off, am I really going to give the government credit for my decisions? Not likely.

    So under your argument both rich and poor can lose 100% of what they have. If neither rich nor poor get ripped off for anything, nothing happens, they both keep 100%, you believe all credit is due our omnipotent, all knowing, all seeing government, and because the dollar amounts involved are higher for rich people, the 100% benefit is greater.

    I misspoke, you apply a mysterious unquantified haircut to the rich benefit.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  258. You are the commenter who stated he would only obey the laws he chose to obey and that there were no obligations of being a citizen in this country

    That’s right. Government exists to prevent people from harming each other, but harming others was wrong before there were governments, and will remain wrong if governments ever disappear. Governments are established because some people do wrong, and need to be stopped. That is all. They have no power to change what is right and wrong. Their job is to ban only things that are already wrong, and when they fail in this task by legalising something that is wrong, it remains wrong nonetheless; when they fail by banning something that is not wrong, it doesn’t magically become wrong. The rightness or wrongness of an action must be measured without regard to what laws have been made on the subject.

    You have not denied there is only one set of laws for both the rich and the poor in this country and that both the rich and the poor can enjoy the benefits of government funded roads, bridges, parks, libraries and other resources. /blockquote>Government doesn’t exist to provide these things, it exists to provide protection, which benefits the rich more than the poor. But these things too often benefit the rich more than the poor. The more you travel, and the more goods you buy that have been shipped, the more you benefit from roads and bridges. If you don’t travel and don’t buy anything, you don’t benefit from them. Thus the benefit you get from them goes up in proportion to your wealth. Parks and libraries too, benefit people more the more leisure they have, and that has at least some correlation with wealth. Housing that is near parks is often worth more, thus providing those who can afford it with another benefit.
    You make you argument purely pecuniary even though there is no more, if any, obligation on the part of the government to ensure that the rich are not ripped off than the poor.

    The rich have more to be ripped off, and thus obviously benefit more from protection against this.

    The government is supposed to establish justice, establish domestic tranquility and provide for the common defense.

    In other words to prevent people from being ripped off. To protect them from force and fraud. To stop others from killing them, beating them, robbing them, damaging their property, and cheating them. That’s what government is for. And the more you have the more you benefit from that. This is obvious, and you’re being obtuse not to see it.

    I don’t recall the prevent getting ripped off clause

    You just quoted it!

    and when something doesn’t happen I don’t automatically turn around and thank the government.

    “Pray for the welfare of the kingdom, for if they did not fear it people would swallow one other alive.” What do you think “to secure these rights” means?

    It’s tough for a rich or poor person to lose more than 100% of their net worth

    100% of the rich person’s worth is a lot more. Thus the rich person benefits more from anything that keeps people’s wealth safe. Put simply, if someone were to offer to escort you safely through a bad neighbourhood for $50, and you were only carrying $40, then it would make no sense to pay him. If you were carrying $60, it might make a little bit of sense, depending on how bad it really was. And if you were carrying $100,000 worth of jewellery then $50 for protection would seem quite reasonable.

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  259. You are the commenter who stated he would only obey the laws he chose to obey and that there were no obligations of being a citizen in this country

    That’s right. Government exists to prevent people from harming each other, but harming others was wrong before there were governments, and will remain wrong if governments ever disappear. Governments are established because some people do wrong, and need to be stopped. That is all. They have no power to change what is right and wrong. Their job is to ban only things that are already wrong, and when they fail in this task by legalising something that is wrong, it remains wrong nonetheless; when they fail by banning something that is not wrong, it doesn’t magically become wrong. The rightness or wrongness of an action must be measured without regard to what laws have been made on the subject.

    You have not denied there is only one set of laws for both the rich and the poor in this country and that both the rich and the poor can enjoy the benefits of government funded roads, bridges, parks, libraries and other resources.

    Government doesn’t exist to provide these things, it exists to provide protection, which benefits the rich more than the poor. But these things too often benefit the rich more than the poor. The more you travel, and the more goods you buy that have been shipped, the more you benefit from roads and bridges. If you don’t travel and don’t buy anything, you don’t benefit from them. Thus the benefit you get from them goes up in proportion to your wealth. Parks and libraries too, benefit people more the more leisure they have, and that has at least some correlation with wealth. Housing that is near parks is often worth more, thus providing those who can afford it with another benefit.

    You make you argument purely pecuniary even though there is no more, if any, obligation on the part of the government to ensure that the rich are not ripped off than the poor.

    The rich have more to be ripped off, and thus obviously benefit more from protection against this.

    The government is supposed to establish justice, establish domestic tranquility and provide for the common defense.

    In other words to prevent people from being ripped off. To protect them from force and fraud. To stop others from killing them, beating them, robbing them, damaging their property, and cheating them. That’s what government is for. And the more you have the more you benefit from that. This is obvious, and you’re being obtuse not to see it.

    I don’t recall the prevent getting ripped off clause

    You just quoted it!

    and when something doesn’t happen I don’t automatically turn around and thank the government.

    “Pray for the welfare of the kingdom, for if they did not fear it people would swallow one other alive.” What do you think “to secure these rights” means?

    It’s tough for a rich or poor person to lose more than 100% of their net worth

    100% of the rich person’s worth is a lot more. Thus the rich person benefits more from anything that keeps people’s wealth safe. Put simply, if someone were to offer to escort you safely through a bad neighbourhood for $50, and you were only carrying $40, then it would make no sense to pay him. If you were carrying $60, it might make a little bit of sense, depending on how bad it really was. And if you were carrying $100,000 worth of jewellery then $50 for protection would seem quite reasonable.

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  260. Milhouse wrote:

    UPDATE: Added “supposedly” on the figure for the shrimp treadmill study since I have no personal knowledge and a commenter disputes the figure. Even $100 spent on such nonsense would be $100 too much.

    Good grief, Patterico. Whether government should be paying for this or any research or not, how can you call it nonsense? And how can you then protest when the other side calls us “anti-science”? Ideally the government should not be sponsoring any research that is not directly connected to its proper functions: military, law enforcement, justice. It should not be funding agricultural research, medical research, basic physics, or any of that good stuff. Private people should be funding it. But that doesn’t change the fact that such research is valuable and worthwhile, and produces more wealth than it consumes, though not necessarily for the same people who funded it.

    How is it anti-science, except in the demagoguery of the Democrats, to state that some research should not be carried on by the government? While I cannot speak for our esteemed host, I certainly have no objections to research into how fast shrimp can move . . . as long as it is paid for by private sources.

    We have a trillion dollar deficit, and a national debt which exceeds a whole years GDP, and one of the last things we can afford is the attitude that things such as this are, well, sort of OK.

    The taxpayer Dana (af9ec3)

  261. It is a shame that we have gerrymandered so much, and let unions control minority schools so completely, that black people would actually vote for such an incompetent twit such as her-repeatedly. The ignorant voting in the ignorant. We know what happens when US blacks have a lock on politics in an area- Detroit. We know what happens when these same incompetents go to Washington, socialism, corruption and stupidity. 1/3 of the Congressional Black Caucus under investigation for corruption, fears that Guam may tip over, Obamacare? Enough already. If everyone is equal it is time to prove it by finding black politicians on the left side of the isle that are not an embarrassment to the country.

    Smarty (29fba4)

  262. It is bad enough when the govt. gives out grants for stupid things, like “art” and “diversity training” and shrimp on treadmills,but when they actually fund research that should pay dividends way in the future (which is itself good) but then give it away to other countries so that they can profit from it with us picking up the R&D bill. That is just a transfer of wealth from the taxpayer (and their grandchildren at this point in debt)to socialist/foolish nations.

    Smarty (29fba4)

  263. “That’s right. Government exists to prevent people from harming each other, but harming others was wrong before there were governments, and will remain wrong if governments ever disappear. Governments are established because some people do wrong, and need to be stopped.”

    Milhouse – Ah, so there is some sort of social compact or obligation between citizens to prevent harming each other which you previously denied existed. After all, the government works for us and makes the laws we wish it to make. If as you claim the most important job of government is to prevent us from being ripped off, it seems to be doing a piss poor job. It does a much better job at punishment.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  264. I think this sums it up;

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/03/who
    re_you_going_to_trust_the_stock_market_or_the_media_innumerates.html

    narciso (3fec35)

  265. “Thus the rich person benefits more from anything that keeps people’s wealth safe. Put simply, if someone were to offer to escort you safely through a bad neighbourhood for $50, and you were only carrying $40, then it would make no sense to pay him. If you were carrying $60, it might make a little bit of sense, depending on how bad it really was. And if you were carrying $100,000 worth of jewellery then $50 for protection would seem quite reasonable.”

    Milhouse – I don’t even understand the above hypothetical within the context of your argument. Why would anyone, rich or poor, contemplate hiring private security if as you argue it is the government’s job to prevent them from being ripped off?

    Also, doesn’t the answer to the question depend on the hat you are wearing? Do you think Mr. Adams would seriously believe he is getting 10x the benefit from the government for the taxes he pays than Ms. Brown? I seriously doubt it. After all, your answer only addresses preventing “getting ripped off,” a small portion of what the money we pay to the government is used for.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  266. Daleyrocks–no flea circus here unless you count Chicago–watching the politicans fall all over themselves here in Illinois is also equally entertaining, although I think I might prefer to watch the shrimp run on a treacmill. At least after that exercise, the shrimp can serve the common good by serving as dinner, whereas the politicians–not so much.

    rochf (f3fbb0)

  267. Whether government should be paying for this or any research or not, how can you call it nonsense? And how can you then protest when the other side calls us “anti-science”?

    How is it anti-science, except in the demagoguery of the Democrats, to state that some research should not be carried on by the government?

    Can’t you read? No research should be paid for by the government, but that doesn’t justify Patterico calling this valuable research nonsense and implying that it was wasteful.

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  268. It is bad enough when the govt. gives out grants for stupid things, like “art” and “diversity training” and shrimp on treadmills,

    Once again, this research was not stupid, and calling it that brands you as anti-science.

    but when they actually fund research that should pay dividends way in the future (which is itself good) but then give it away to other countries so that they can profit from it with us picking up the R&D bill.

    How does one “give away” research? Knowledge isn’t owned by anyone, and can’t be “given away”.

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  269. Milhouse – I don’t even understand the above hypothetical within the context of your argument. Why would anyone, rich or poor, contemplate hiring private security if as you argue it is the government’s job to prevent them from being ripped off?

    The government is the security we hire. That’s what it’s for. In the absence of government we’d have to hire our own. And even in the presence of government we often have to hire our own anyway, as evidenced by the existence, under governments, of high-crime areas. If government was actually doing its job, there wouldn’t be such a thing, but there is.

    Do you think Mr. Adams would seriously believe he is getting 10x the benefit from the government for the taxes he pays than Ms. Brown? I seriously doubt it. After all, your answer only addresses preventing “getting ripped off,” a small portion of what the money we pay to the government is used for.

    What else do we pay governments to do? What legitimate functions of government are not covered by that description?

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  270. I think Govt funding putting shrimp on a treadmill is objectively stupid. This does not make anyone anti-science. arguing about who pays for something is different than questioning the validity of the science.

    And I don’t care who you are, shrimp jogging on a treadmill is funny.

    JD (b63a52)

  271. JD–can you say surf and turf?

    rochf (f3fbb0)

  272. Rochf – I am going to make a YouTube video.

    JD (b63a52)

  273. Just a question… does making these shrimp run on a treadmill help lower their cholesterol, which, in turn, should help to lower mine when I eat the inevitable weekly shrimp cocktail?

    Colonel Haiku (fd4f20)

  274. it’s the circle of life Mr. Colonel

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  275. Sounds like a “win-win”, feets…

    Colonel Haiku (fd4f20)

  276. “What else do we pay governments to do? What legitimate functions of government are not covered by that description?”

    Milhouse – Why not check the Constitution or a budget and find out for yourself. See if a rich person gets 10x the value of shrimp on a treadmill than a poor person.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  277. “Milhouse” has way too much time on his hands and way too little cerebral activity…

    What a confused person. He must benefit from too much government…

    WarEagle82 (2b7355)

  278. WarEagle82, go take a long walk off a short pier. Your personal attack was completely uncalled for, and you don’t even know what cerebral activity means, let alone who has too much or little of it.

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  279. “What else do we pay governments to do? What legitimate functions of government are not covered by that description?”

    Milhouse – Why not check the Constitution or a budget and find out for yourself.

    Which one? The constitution pretty much says what I did. Government budgets (when they bother with one) often include all sorts of illegitimate functions for which nobody should be paying anything at all, so it’s ridiculous to even discuss who should pay more than whom.

    See if a rich person gets 10x the value of shrimp on a treadmill than a poor person.

    Much more than that. It’s my impression that shrimp are at least something of a luxury good. If so, poor people don’t benefit much from the preservation of the industry unless they work in it.

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  280. I think Govt funding putting shrimp on a treadmill is objectively stupid. This does not make anyone anti-science. arguing about who pays for something is different than questioning the validity of the science.

    You contradict yourself. Arguing about who should pay for something is indeed different from questioning its validity; but calling something stupid, let alone “objectively stupid” is not. And that is what you and Patterico did, so how can you claim not to be anti-science?

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  281. I said government funding it is objectively stupid, not the act itself. I find the idea itself quite amusing.

    JD (b63a52)

  282. “Which one? The constitution pretty much says what I did. Government budgets (when they bother with one) often include all sorts of illegitimate functions for which nobody should be paying anything at all, so it’s ridiculous to even discuss who should pay more than whom.”

    Milhouse – Legitimate is in the eye of the beholder which is why I’m not going to accept your diversionary invitation to move the goal posts and discuss what is “legitimate” government spending. Since I’ve already outlined in previous comments many areas of government spending in which both rich and poor benefit and which rich are actually excluded from benefiting that you have ignored, a belated off-topic return to the subject is something I have no interest in exploring. There is a presumption that laws made by Congress are constitutional unless proved otherwise. The concept of legitimate spending includes both objective and subjective elements. I prefer to deal with reality or spending as it is, not some Paulian fantasy world.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  283. I said government funding it is objectively stupid,

    What’s stupid about government funding research? It may be wrong, and I think it is wrong, but how is it stupid? Research generally creates much more wealth than it consumes (though the benefits are not always easily captured by the one funding it). Do you think it’s also stupid (rather than merely wrong) for government to fund cancer research? Space research? Basic physics?

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  284. There is a presumption that laws made by Congress are constitutional unless proved otherwise.

    Then the same presumption should tell you that the “progressive” taxes imposed by Congress are constitutional and just and fair, and we should all just shut up and bend over. If we’re talking about the proper levels of taxation, and how it ought to be apportioned, then of necessity we’re talking about what ought to be, not what is. And a Congress that allocates taxes fairly will also be one that collects taxes only for the legitimate function of government, which is to protect people from other people.

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  285. If you don’t see the humor in government paying to watch shrimp run on a treadmill …

    I think the Commercial Association of Shrimp Harvesters should fun this.

    JD (4f721c)

  286. “Then the same presumption should tell you that the “progressive” taxes imposed by Congress are constitutional and just and fair”

    Milhouse – I am unaware of this presumption. Carry on. By yourself.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  287. “Then the same presumption should tell you that the “progressive” taxes imposed by Congress are constitutional and just and fair”

    Milhouse – For the record, that’s actually the argument you have made in saying the rich benefit so much more from government than the poor. A “truism,” I believe you called it, so how could it not be just and fair. D’oh!

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  288. Absolutely it depends on who’s paying for it. Absolutely it does. Can’t you get that through your head? Expenditures that are just fine if private people are paying for them become intolerable nonsense if taxpayers must pay for them.

    No, I can’t “get that through my head”. Either an expenditure is valuable or it’s nonsense. Either it’s wise or it’s foolish. Who’s paying for it doesn’t affect that. If it’s foolish, then it would be just as foolish if a private person paid for it. If it’s wise, then it’s just as wise if the government pays for it. That the government shouldn’t make even wise expenditures if there’s someone else who can do them doesn’t change this.

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  289. Expenditures by private individuals is tolerable nonsense, by government it is intolerable. That is the point you keep ignoring just to call others “anti-science”. When you stop toting those goalposts around while yelling “Squirrel!”, you will see that pretty much everyone here has said almost the exact same things you have.

    1. Research is valuable (most of the time, some is just plain stupid or corrupt).
    2. Government is too invested in funding research that should be done by private parties.
    3. Shrimp on a treadmill may or may not be valuable research, but it sure is funny.

    Wait, scratch number 3. I don’t recall you ever finding something funny.

    Stashiu3 (1680c0)

  290. And this relates to Maxine’s claim of 170MM jobs lost due to Sequestration how?
    What we could fund is a scientific examination of Maxine’s head to see if she has a brain, and if so, why it functions so strangely.

    askeptic (b8ab92)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.5937 secs.