Elections have consequences, II

Slouching towards Bethlehem

Slouching towards Bethlehem

Obama meets with his new tax advisers Rachael Meadow and Al Sharpton at White House for counseling on how to deal with the budget and exactly how much to raise taxes on the rich.  Which is pretty rich in itself, since the Reverend Al doesn’t seem to pay any taxes at all and Miss Meadow, as an entertainer, surely has access to every tax loophole afforded to her class by her fawning friends in Washington.


Filed under Uncategorized

28 responses to “Elections have consequences, II

  1. Balzac

    Grover Norquist insisted Democrats in Congress and the establishment press are playing an elaborate game designed to blame Republicans for budget deficits and keep serious discussion of spending cuts and entitlement reform off the table.

    “Congressional Democrats know raising taxes on the rich will not produce enough tax revenue to reduce significantly the trillion-dollar annual budget deficits being run by the Obama White House,” he said.

    “The reason the Democrats scream ‘tax the rich, tax the rich,’ is because they are going to pivot very soon to place a 3 trillion-dollar tax increase on the middle class, and they want ringing in the public’s ears that there wouldn’t have had to do this if the Republicans in Congress had acted right away to place a decent size tax on the rich.”

    Norquist believes the Democrat strategy risks a tax revolt.

    “The size of Tea Party Two is going to dwarf Tea Party One,” he predicted.

    Once again Grover notices that the liberal emperor has no clothes. If the Dems didn’t have the adult supervision of the House Republican majority, they would indeed create the massive energy tax and the larger value-added tax. These would finally kill off American capitalism.

    Honestly, for thinking people who like this country, is there any alternative to joining the Tea Party?

  2. Wait, Tingles Matthew’s wasn’t invited? Ouch. Nor Mika “I Love You Barack” Brzezinski?

    Balzac, excellent comment. Your first paragraph says it perfectly. Only problem is that the average joe will never hear one word that Norquist has to say, or if they do, it is through the eyes of Rachel Maddow or Lawrence O’Donnell who call Norquist every dirty word in the book. Not to mention the mainstream media only talks about the Tea Party as if it is deader than Abe Lincoln. Never in terms of gaining strength. WaPo article today makes my point.

  3. Al Dente

    Perhaps they could offer advice on nuclear power, foreign policy, and what to do about dykes in New Orleans. Brothers and sisters, we are doomed.

  4. Walt

    Dude –
    So how is the new uncensored posting experiment working out? Have you had to smite..smote?….smitten?…Have you had to trash many nasty posts? Bury them deeper than I would dive on Steph?

    I would be surprised if that is the case. One of the things… actually the only thing, I like about your blog is it is a very diverse group of opinions, especially for the milquetoast, lily white, silver spoon up the ass Greenwich reader who posts on this blog. And I like the civility of it all. It is so PROPER!! do you agree, you no talent fat assed loser hack?

    So I hope the reader is behaving, not sinking to unneeded name calling and mudslinging. That proof and post frigging moron, who couldn’t write pulp fiction if he was spawned by Quentin Tarantino. “Mmm-mmmm. That IS a tasty burger!!” I LOVE THAT FLICK DUDE!!

    Anyhows, differences of opinion and diversity are healthy. That is what makes the world go round, so long as we all do it with respect.
    Do you agree, you little needle dicked loser?

    And can we post videos yet, or are they still blocked?
    Your Pal,

  5. Babylon Sister

    I believe Robert Ringer said it best: “The Republican Party is rotted from within, and Republicans who do not favor the status quo have only two options for changing things: (1) Start a new party or (2) cleanse the Republican Party of establishment Republicans. And since the latter is not going to happen, I still believe that the former is the only (long-term) hope for true conservatives and libertarians”.


  6. JRH

    I hold no brief for Al Sharpton, but Rachel Maddow is a Rhodes Scholar who spends an hour every night on television talking about the rather wonky details of public policy disputes. She is undeniably liberal, but unlike some of her counterparts on a certain other news channel, she doesn’t pretend not to be an advocate. Disagree with everything she says, if you want, but she’s smart and her show is, to the extent possible on cable television, substantive.

    • JRH: I have never found a correlation between people’s book smarts and their ability to reason. Some of the most well “educated” people I know are dumb as posts when it comes to making life choices. Maddow may be a Rhodes Scholar, and other channels certainly and undeniably have their partisan anchors, but Maddow shouts at the screen and treats those who don’t agree with her as useless idiots. Substantive is a matter of opinion, and in my opinion, she’s anything but.

  7. Anonymous

    Agree that spending cuts should clearly be the priority in order to balance the budget, but let’s be fair. When you consider that income gains have continued to concentrate among fewer and fewer people for decades, and PERCENTAGE gains rise as you go up the pay scale to the point where the Forbes 400 now control as much wealth as the bottom 150,000,000 Americans, a progressive tax policy is an important message to send to the people, many of whom I dare say, are (fellow) downwardly-mobile readers of this blog.

    • Liberté, égalité, fraternité!

      Anonymous, please tell me: what “important message” does a pregressive tax policy send? It’s essentially a penality for productivity. So…what other “important messages” do you think our government is entitled to impose?

      • Anonymous

        The message is “we’re going to take back a small amount since all of the cheap labor and technological efficiency gains have ended up in the ivory tower.” Penalties for productivity? What a crock. Do you feel sorry for a CEO who makes five-fold what they did fifteen years ago while the average worker hasn’t gone up a penny? Please take a look at income gains in the past 20-30 years and tell me that another 5-10% in taxes is a harsh penalty for productivity.

    • Publius

      The US already has a very progressive tax policy. The very top earners pay a large portion of personal income taxes (2009 IRS stats, top 1% pay 37% of all PIT). There is an obsession with income equality with the liberal idea being to take from those who have a give it to those who do not. This is not a long term solution for this country. Instead we need to focus moving people up the economic ladder not reslicing the pie. The reason why the income gap grows is that we are an information driven economy that is constantly accelerating and those who possess the skills necessary for this economy and are willing to take the risks are rewarded. The US operates undere the guise that a high school diploma will get you a job sweeping floors for $75k+/annum plus benefits. Not happening. Our education system is broadly a failure and in spite of an accelerating knowledge environment we continue to dumb down standards and lower the bar. We have reached a tipping point where we are producing “citizens” that cannot be productive and thus must depend on the teet of government to exist.

      • Anonymous

        Agree that taxing the rich is not a long-term solution, but saying that 1% of the people pay 37% of the taxes is a cover-up for the fact that 90% of the income gains in the last 20 years have gone to these same 1%.

        • By what principle are you determining for the rest of us what is “fair”? And by what principle do you propose to divvy up what you decide is “fair” to take from those who have more?
          Articulate those principles and we can discuss them. Otherwise you’re going to give the impression that you’re just a squalling 3-year old who wants his sister’s cookie.

        • Anonymous


          I realize being a purist is important to you. I’m as concerned about having our lifestyles diluted by poor people as you are. But again, the Forbes 400 now control as much wealth as the bottom 150,000,000 Americans. Is this your idea of utopia? The system is totally warped, everyone knows it, and asking rigged lottery winners to cough up an additional 5-10% a year is a flesh wound. C’mon man!!!

  8. Hey, Obama had Romney to lunch at the WH last week, and no one said anything. BTW, and this applies to all of you who voted for Romney, remember how he said in his content free campaign that his whole plan was revenue neutral, including a middle class tax cut? Smart people knew it was a fraud, and now Boehner and Cantor realize that revenue must increase. Feel duped by Willard now?? Remember, the GOP has abandoned him…

    • GOP has abandoned him now – which is why Obama met him for lunch. Gives the appearance of being bipartisan without actually doing so. Better to meet with the House Chairman.

  9. Balzac

    “The only reason the president insists on raising rates is because he knows it will destroy Republican unity. It will cause a complete fracture of the Republican majority in the House. It will hand him a Congress that he can then manipulate for the next two years at least, because the Republicans will be neutered.”

    — Charles Krauthammer

  10. Publius

    @ Anon @ 12:14


    The system is rigged only to the extent you do not subscribe to industry, thrift, risk taking and persistence. There is crony capitalism or rent seeking to be polite, but if someone like myself can be successful, then there is no reason you or anyone else in this country cannot be successful. We need to stop coveting our neighbors’ goods

  11. Anonymous

    There is no doubt the Country needs more revenue, but the devisive nature in which this President is going about to get that revenue is disgusting and not good for the country. To say that the rich don’t pay their fair share is a bad argument. Look, as noted above the top 1% pay 37% of the taxes. The top 1% have a tax rate of over 23%, the top 5% over 20%, the top 10% is something like 18.8%, the bottom 50% is a little over 3%. Just because a couple of very wealthy people manipulate the code and have a lower rate than the average Joe or his secretary still doesn’t make the argument of the rich not paying their fair share true.

    But setting that aside for a moment. Let’s suppose the President gets his wish and we get another $160B/year of taxes added to the government coffers. So federal revenue goes from $2.3B to $2.5B. Spending is still $3.7B (if I remember correctly), leaving us a deficit of over $1T still. There is no doubt we need revenues as revenues have hardly gone up in the last decade, but the big bugaboo is spending and entitlement programs. Mr. President should be a leader and address that in more detail than he has thus far.

    • Agreed…taxes must increase, or should I say revenues/fees, enhancements, whatever. But yes, we must cut spending. Defense is out of control, and we know it. Medicare and Medicaid, absolutely. It just takes the will. Obama must stand up to the left, and Boehner to the tea party.
      A good compromise is when both sides will hate it.

    • Anonymous

      I suggest you do some reading on INCOMES in the past 10, 20, or 30 years and tell me that the rich are paying their fair share.

      • Again (and again, and again) what is your definition of “fair” and how do you derive it? If you want everyone to have exactly the same amount of money, say so, and we can discuss the ramifications of that. If you have some other definition of fairness, spit it out and explain it and let’s talk about that. Merely whining that “it’s unfair” without explaining why you think something is unfair and how your principle will correct it, simply exposes you as a moron. And you don’t want that, do you?

      • Anonymous

        Really? You don’t think I know which group has benefitted the most in the last couple decades? That is a different proposition than saying the rich don’t pay their fair share. Just by the numbers, they pay way more than their fair share. Bottom 50% have a rate slightly above 3%. Top 1% have a rate above 23% and they make up almost 40% of gov’t revenues. Do I think rich should pay more? Yes, but not because I think they pay less than their fair share.

  12. Publius

    @ Anon 12/5 7:50

    The rates in the tax code are graduated and progressive. Yes, it is true that a high income earner pays taxes at the very same rates as everyone else, but as the amount of AGI increases, the marginal rates are higher, thus the progressivity of the code, the more you make, the greater the tax rate on the marginal dollar earned over the various tax rate hurdles. Very high earners have the majority of their AGI subject to the highest marginal rate which is currently 35%. Refer to page 37 in the below link


    • Anonymous


      This was my answer to Chris, who asked me to define “fairness.” After editing/erasing many sentences, I decided to acquiesce.