Former Republican Congressman and NFL quarterback Jack Kemp died today at age 73, apparently of cancer. My condolences to his family.
There was a time when I feared Kemp could be a transformational political figure, but that was before the theocratic wing of his party seized control, relegating Kemp and his fellow libertarians to the sidelines.
Hey Republicans… how’s that working out for you?
Yeah with only 1 in 5 people being willing to admit to being publicans, the GOP has been sent to the attic for permanent irrelevance patrol – and the beginning of the end for these right wing traitors was when they tried hijacking the church as their very own.
America revolted, ran the cowards out of office, and laughed at em’ as they turned tail and ran for the hills.
As far as Kemp goes, his only value was as a football player. Won’t miss him.
I see in the news that GOP leaders want to revamp their party’s image. I think they need to revamp their ethics, ideology, policies, leadership style … ahhh, what’s the use, they should just shoot themselves.*
* Just kidding! Tee-hee, Ann Coulter joke.
@1 You know how bad things are in the GOP when someone like Kemp looks like a “moderate” and makes you yearn for the Republicanism of “the good old days.”
RIP, Jack. You were a decent man and fought honorably, passionately and intelligently for what you believed in. My prayers go out to your family and friends.
GOP Leader Blasts Obama’s ‘Empathy’ Remark
“Noting that Obama said the next justice should be a person with empathy, Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, asked: ‘What does that mean? Usually that’s a code word for an activist judge … who’s going to be partisan on the bench.'” — Associated Press
Yeah, we can’t have a person with empathy for ordinary citizens sitting on the Supreme Court, can we? Evidently Sen. Hatch believes Justice Souter’s replacement should be a cold-hearted son-of-a-bitch who won’t give a damn about a single mom who was fired from her waitress job for trying to correct an inconsiderate patron’s rowdy kid. In other words, Hatch wants a Republican.
Oh, but you all fail to realize that Jack Kemp was not just an economic libertarian, but he was also a social conservative. His son, Jeff, is a Redmond-based leader of a pro-traditional-family organization, Stronger Families.
The HA Happy Hooligans can quit trying to claim Kemp as one of your own or that he would find affinity with you, let alone respect your points of view or potty-mouthed pronouncements.
Jack Kemp was a class act all the way – and you?
I’m proud to own a Jack Kemp-autographed Dole/Kemp ’96 campaign sign.
Just to remind you…Jack Kemp was an architect of the Reagan Revolution, a fan of Arthur Laffer’s Supply Side Economics, an early booster of Steve Forbes for president in ’96, and someone who could poke holes in the foolishness of big gub’mint, bureaucracies, and especially high taxes.
Jack Kemp was someone to look up to, something too many of the HA Happy Hooligans do not understand since they spend most of their time looking down on people.
The American flag at the Lil’ Blue House is flying at half-staff today…
The Piper
I wouldn’t claim him as one of my own, Piper. But in retrospect, I find him to have always been far more reasonable, and far less disturbing than the current crop of GOP figures. Generational change, y’know….
My condolences go out to his family for the loss of a fine man, husband, father, grandfather (and a damn good QB back in the day), etc., and an honorable public servant.
Jack Kemp was a moderate … in his Republicanism and in his intellect. The party could use a lot of moderation now AND some intellectual fire power above Bush’s pay grade.
I listened to a bit of the Republican Remake Tour. A party of Cohen and Romney is not what you guys need. Jeb Bush is a cut above the others but he needs a name change before too many Americans will take him seriously.
‘
Why We Need State Tax Reform
Since corporations get five times as much welfare as poor people, the rich should pay five times as much taxes as poor people, instead of the other way around.
Current system: Richest 20% pay 3% of their income, poorest 20% pay 17% of their income. Republicans think this is fair. If you think this is fair, vote Republican.
@6 “I’m proud to own a Jack Kemp-autographed Dole/Kemp ‘96 campaign sign.”
Wow! I’ll bet you could get 75 cents for it on Ebay.
@9…RR…
Here’s a better idea: end tax subsidies for everything and anything, whether they be for corporations or people.
Still, the top half of income-earners continue to pay some 85% of all taxes paid.
When you pay the same AMOUNT of tax, then you can complain. In the meantime, crawl back into that sewer you call a hole and be quiet.
The Piper
“There was a time when I feared Kemp could be a transformational political figure”
Wingnuts no doubt are proud of the fact their efforts made Kemp a transitory loser and Obama a transformational figure. That’s something to tell their grandchildren about.
Didn’t Bob Dole once say Kemp played too much football with this helmet off?
Ah yes, ’96 – long ball and short fuse…
I shouldn’t speak ill of the dead. My condolences to Secretary Kemp’s family and yeah I’d pick him in heartbeat over that disaster of a monkey who ran aground the ship of state.
@11 “Here’s a better idea: end tax subsidies for everything and anything, whether they be for corporations or people.”
Ooooo, the eastern WA farmers won’t like that.
“Still, the top half of income-earners continue to pay some 85% of all taxes paid.”
How much of the income do they get?
“When you pay the same AMOUNT of tax, then you can complain. In the meantime, crawl back into that sewer you call a hole and be quiet.”
Oh I see, your idea of a fair tax system is that everyone should pay the same amount of tax. In other words, if a single mom who gets $200 a week of unemployment benefits after being fired from her waitress job for correcting an inconsiderate patron’s rowdy kid pays $10,000 a year of taxes and a hedge fund manager making $500 million a year also pays $10,000 a year of taxes, that’s your idea of a fair tax system.
For the record, piper, I kind of like bagpipe music. Your ideas … not as much.
Since the rich get most of the government benefits that taxes pay for, they should also pay most of the taxes. For example, the government educates and trains their workforce so they don’t have to, and the government builds and maintains the transportation infrastructure that moves workers to their factories and their goods to markets, and the government pays for the system of police, courts, and jails that makes private property ownership possible, and the government pays for the basic research that makes industry possible, and so on.
Why shouldn’t the people who have most of the money and get most of the benefits of government pay most of the taxes?
We should organize Washington’s single moms and have them pitch teabags onto Piper’s front porch.
The reason we can’t get tax reform in this state is because the people who are overtaxed don’t realize who’s overtaxing them. That, of course, is the Republican-voting 3-percenters who will go to any lengths to obstruct tax reform so they can keep gouging the poor and will never have to pay their fair share.
@ 16
Better yet, amend the public records laws so that state, county and local agencies are allowed to pay punitive damages with tea bags.
What the hell, let’s just make tea bags legal tender in the United States.
@14…RR…
Your questions in order…
(1) So?
(2) Makes no difference. Those who make more have the absolute right to keep and have more. If you want more, make more. That simple. What you do with the more you have is your business, but if you look you will find that those who have more also give more. And if they kept even more, then they would give even more.
Just how many of the HA Happy Hooligans give 10% or more of your net income to worthy or charitable causes? Love begins at 11%…
(3) Where is it written that the tax system is supposed to be “fair?” The purpose of the tax system is to raise revenue for the necessary operation of the government. Period. We got totally kiboshed when we started using it as an instrument of somebody’s idea of social justice or to motivate or de-motivate individual behavior.
But the single mother you describe (whose life, BTW, I have a sneaking suspicion you’ve never been involved in with an eye toward improving it and getting her into those upper-income earner echelon) is a straw man, to mix a metaphor.
If she got fired for breaking her employer’s rules, then what of it? That’s a false issue having nothing to do with the tax code.
Again…stay on point or shut your trap.
Time for more and greater INDIVIDUAL responsibility and less whining – so stop.
The Piper
@16…RR…
As someone who was raised by a single mother, I’m in a great position to say that your comment is quite stupid and shallow and fails to address the purpose of the tax code.
If waving a bloody shirt or getting all yellow-journalism jingoistic is the best you can do, then it’s certainly time for your to I-1000 yourself.
The Piper
LOL!! The poor pooper’s self worth is so fragile he comes here to HA to test it.
It’s so sad to see Atlas’ shoulders so beaten down he can’t even think of shrugging.
Go in peace Pooper. Write your bilge. Collect your wingnut welfare check. You can even harbor the illusions that people will respect you for it all.
To do otherwise would deny us too much entertainment.
Piper @ 18
The purpose of the tax system is to raise revenue for the necessary operation of the government. Period.
Good. Now, when was the last time the Federal government balanced the budget, who was President at that time, and what was the tax structure at that time?
@19 “As someone who was raised by a single mother, I’m in a great position to say”
Well, then I can only reckon that as someone who was raised by a single mother who, after a long illness, died when I was ten, I’m in a great position to say that you’re wrong to describe Roger’s comment as being “quite stupid and shallow”. You most certainly fail to offer any rebuttal with that one, Piper. And, good grief, you follow that up by suggesting that it’s time that he kill himself! And you accuse Roger of being shallow and stupid?
@22…Steve…
As per RR usual, he offered little in the way of thoughtful analysis and more in the way of digging up old boogeymen followed by greedy class envy and tired old cliches. That garbage needs to be buried…or is that all he (and, by extension, you) have to offer?
Read all my comments in the thread before you judge me…and read his.
The Piper
Your hypocrisy astounds even me, and I already knew you were a hypocrite.
61. Steve spews:
That faggot Marvin is such a cunt!
05/03/2009 AT 9:49 AM
http://horsesass.org/?p=15688#comment-915697
Piper @ 22
As per RR usual, he offered little in the way of thoughtful analysis and more in the way of digging up old boogeymen followed by greedy class envy and tired old cliches.
That statement might actually carry some weight if it weren’t also a perfectly apt description of your own comments, Piper. Now, mind answering my questions @ 21, or are you merely content to be a complete hypocrite?
@23 So now disputing Piper’s cockamamie idea that a person making $500,000,000 a year should pay the same dollar amount of taxes as a person making $10,000 million a year is “greedy class envy?” Yeah, leave it to pooper to figure out a way to cast the poor as society’s “greedy” element … you can tell he was once a lawyer (until he got kicked out of the bar for nonpayment of dues).
Let’s recap: Wingnuts like pooper think the poor are “greedy” and are waging “class war” against the rich … and he wants to lecture me about “straw men” and “boogeymen” … ROFLMAO!!!
I have a suggestion. Since Republicans like pooper believe in a fee-for-service type of government, as opposed to a shared-sacrifices type of community, they should pay for their wars themselves and leave the rest of us out of that.
Pooper & Ilk, please remit $1.2 trillion to the U.S. Treasury forthwith.
We’re still calculating what you owe us for the damage you did to the U.S. economy. The bill for that will come later.
@21…DJ…
Your point being?
I’m all for balanced budgets – and I’m even more for cutting taxes and spending. Don’t much care who does it so long as it gets done.
It’s not, nor should it be, a partisan divide. If a Democrat wants to join the low tax, even lower spending crusade, then more power to him, and I welcome the fellow warrior.
The Piper
Piper @ 29
Your point being?
I should have to explain it to you?
I’m all for balanced budgets – and I’m even more for cutting taxes and spending. Don’t much care who does it so long as it gets done.
You didn’t answer the last part of my question. What was the tax structure the last time the Federal Government had a balanced budget? Answer that question, and my point should be obvious to you.
@26…RR…
Check your math…
It’s not the poor who are greedy – for the most part, they desire to become rich.
It’s the craven politicians and cynical pundits who are the greedy ones since they’re fostering political and economic philosophies that have an absolute zero track record of success.
Here’s what FDR’s Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Morgenthau, said in 1939 after seven years of New Deal big government spending and activism:
It doesn’t work! Yet it has great appeal as an easy solution, which only proves the paucity of that reasoning and easy solutions.
Sometimes the answers are easy to discern, but getting there is hard. Today, the answer is in individual freedome and liberty, not subordination to some vague notions of “fairness.”
Pres. Obama criticizing Chrysler bondholders, for example, is the height of hypocrisy. He’s ripping into those who kept Chrysler going while pandering to those (the UAW, the government, the whacko environmentalists) who’ve been responsible for bringing it down.
The bondholders have every legal and moral right to have their contracts honored as per the law. For the President of the United States to demonize them is a perfect example of the politics of greed and envy.
It’s greed to covet that which is not yours. When anyone believes I have a responsibility to pay for your foolishness, then that is an example of greed.
If any of you believe the government isn’t getting enough money, you are free to give some or all of what you have to make up the difference. Put your money where your mouth is.
The United States should be about freedom and liberty, not government-sponsored theft.
The Piper
@30…DJ…
You miss mine…
If you wish to contend that balancing a budget by having higher tax rates is good, I will submit to you that what you have done is to place governmental theft higher in the moral order than individual liberty and freedom.
If the revenue isn’t there to pay the bills, then lower the bills – cut spending. It can be done, but it takes courage and statesmanship, which is in woefully short supply both in Olympia and D.C.
Since this thread is all about Jack Kemp, let me ask you what you think he would have done?
The Piper
Taking RR’s reaction, I will be particularly gleeful the next time a DemoRAT bites the dust! Ha-aha-ha, JUST KIDDING!!!!
@31 Morgenthau also “believed in balanced budgets, stable currency, reduction of the national debt,” (Wikipedia) which doesn’t sound much like the modern Republican Party, does it?
@33 I won’t live forever, but that’s of no consequence; as long as Pooper is around, the Democrats don’t need me to shill for them, as he does it so much better than me.
Pooper: Please don’t change! You’re our very best spokesperson, exactly the way you are.
@31 “It’s greed to covet that which is not yours.”
Amen. You’ve captured in 9 words the history of the last 8 years.
Piper @ 32
You miss mine…
You have a point? Curious.
If you wish to contend that balancing a budget by having higher tax rates is good, I will submit to you that what you have done is to place governmental theft higher in the moral order than individual liberty and freedom.
I have asked you a question which you have fastidiously avoided answering. What was the tax structure when we last balanced the budget?
@31 The enforceability of all contracts depends on the solvency of the creditor. As an ex-lawyer, you know that, Pooper.
@34…RR…
Again…this isn’t a Republican/Democrat divide, nor should it be – it’s a question of right versus wrong.
The GOP seriously lost its way when it came to spending, and it got its head handed it to it as a result. I suppose, and very seriously, that simply proves the adage that you get what you pay for.
I don’t like high taxes, bloated budgets, pork, earmarks, waste, fraud, mismanagement, and the like. On that basis, I’m both bi-partisan and non-partisan.
I have a consistent and vehement track record of ripping into Republicans for their profligate ways. Again…again…again…big, expensive government is bad no matter the party in charge.
The Piper
@37 Perhaps you should ask Pooper what government spending he thinks should be cut to balance the budget. Insist that he be specific. Let’s get him on record.
@37…DJ…
Why does that matter?
The Piper
You see, this is the game Republicans play — they insist on spending cuts, but refuse to say what should be cut because they want to put that onus on us. It’s all empty talk. They had total control of the government for 6 years and what did they do? They grew federal spending 3 times as fast as Clinton did. When Republicans talk about cutting spending it’s utter hypocrisy.
@41 Just answer the fucking question.
@39 You’re wrong, it is indeed a Republican-Democrat divide, because you assholes chose to divide the country. You succeeded; now live with it.
There was a republican congress, is that what you mean.
@40…RR…
Get me a copy of the federal budget and a red pen…
The Piper
@39 (continued) Do you really believe it was only spending that brought about the GOP’s downfall? My God, you are myopic beyond belief.
@39 (continued) “I have a consistent and vehement track record of ripping into Republicans for their profligate ways. Again…again…again…big, expensive government is bad no matter the party in charge. The Piper”
Did you vote for them? If you did this is nothing but empty talk.
One less Republicon working to destroy America. Don’t agree?
Trickle Down
Supply Side
Tax Cuts For The Rich
Free Trade
What Kemp fought for are the things destroying our country.
As far as his kid being pro family? Don’t make me laugh.
To cons, families are road kill on the path to enriching the Chinese, and India. Cons should not even be allowed to use the word family without an asterisk.
@46 Get your own copy of the budget and your own red pen. I’m not your fucking secretary.
@46 More cheap talk from Mr. Empty Suit. What spending would you cut, pooper? Be specific.
Here’s a suggestion, the Postal Service is losing $2 billion a year, so let’s stop subsidizing bulk mailers.
I get roughly 3 mailers a week from Comcast. This has been going on for years. Why do they keep sending me promos when I have failed to respond to nearly a thousand pieces of mail from them over the years? Because they’re not paying to deliver it, that’s why.
Eliminate bulk mail rates and make advertisers buy a 43-cent stamp like the rest of us have to do, and you’ll see both the postal deficit and junk mail vanish.
@49 Republicans favor creating as many unwed mothers as possible.
Here’s another spending cut suggestion, Pooper. The Bush administration spent over $1 billion of taxpayer money on sex abstinence education. The result was that teenage pregnancies went up.
No, $1 billion isn’t much compared to the overall budget, but there’s enough idiotic Republican policies that cost $1 billion each that if we eliminated them all it would add up to real money.
@50…RR…
Too bad – you’ve just lost your chance to be productive for the first time in your life.
A few things…
Eliminate all funding for anything beginning “National Endowment for…” or “National Public…” Admittedly not a lot of dollars, but it’s a start and sets the tone.
Then the earmark process will be eliminated. No more John Murtha, Robert Byrd, or Ted Stevens (I know, he’s gone) robbing the federal treasury for pork for the home folks.
An across the board percentage cut in all non-defense programs that will reduce spending by enough to cover half the deficit.
No bailouts ever. Period!
Privatize or contract out as much of what the government is doing as possible.
Amend the Constitution to allow free market competition for the US Post Office.
While I’m at it, make Taft-Hartley 14(b) not state-optional.
Not exhaustive, but a start.
The Piper
Why is that? Don’t single mothers vote democrat.
@55 “An across the board percentage cut in all non-defense programs that will reduce spending by enough to cover half the deficit.”
Okay, we now have you on record as wanting to cut Social Security and Medicare. I won’t agree to that.
“No bailouts ever. Period!”
We also now have you on record as wanting to push the U.S. into another Great Depression. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t like bailouts either, they stick in my craw something fierce. But a lot of folks who are a whale of a lot smarter than you think they’re necessary to save the U.S. economy from collapse, and so far it seems to be working. The pace of layoffs appears to be slowing, and the stock market is recovering some of the lost ground, and there are signs consumer spending is picking up.
“Privatize or contract out as much of what the government is doing as possible.”
This is a spending increase, not a spending cut.
“Amend the Constitution to allow free market competition for the US Post Office.”
My suggestion @54 is quicker, cheaper, and more certain.
“While I’m at it, make Taft-Hartley 14(b) not state-optional.”
Off topic.
@55 (continued) Well, now that we’ve seen how you would balance the budget, I’ve decided not to hire you (or anyone who thinks like you) for the job. Sorry. Next …
@53…RR…
Just because many conservative people (not necessarily Republicans) favor large families, don’t assume that they breed like rabbits.
Or is that an invitation to discuss how government programs have destroyed the nuclear family in many parts of America resulting in an increase in unwed births and welfare-dependent children?
The Piper
HAHAHAHA
@56 Because they’re against birth control. No birth control = more babies. Geez, idiot, why do I have to spell that out? Were you playing hooky when God passed out the brains?
Piper @ 41
Why does [the tax structure the last time the Federal Government balanced the budget] matter?
The issue at hand is balancing the budget, is it not?
@59 “Or is that an invitation to discuss how government programs have destroyed the nuclear family in many parts of America resulting in an increase in unwed births and welfare-dependent children?”
Sure, if you want to have that discussion. I would argue that industrialization and urbanization, not government programs, led to the fragmentation of the extended family. It appears you yearn for a time when families stayed together because there were no roads and the nearest neighbors were a day’s walk away. You were born 200 years too late, Pooper — bad luck for you.
Public education, railroads, rural electrification, farm mechanization, telegraphs and telephones — all these things drove people away from their roots into a wider world.
We evolved from a country in which 98% of the population lived on farms to one in which agriculture directly supports only 3% of our people and the other 97% have to look for work elsewhere — that’s what caused the disintegration of the nuclear family.
In modern times, the cheap labor policies of Republican administrations that drove millions of women from their homes into the workforce as a matter of economic necessity contributed further to the fragmentation of families.
Divorce also broke up many families. In today’s America, fewer than half of all marriages last. Many marriages break up because of abuse. Perhaps Pooper yearns for the old days when husbands could beat up their wives with impunity, and women couldn’t do anything about it. With greater economic independence and stronger domestic violence laws, women don’t have to take that anymore. Some of us consider this progress.
Of course, entertainment forms like movies, TV shows, and video games contribute to the alienation of modern families. The industries that produce these products are, by and large, owned by, um, rich Republicans.
Some say the answer to preserving America’s families is the churches. I know a man who belongs to one of those wingnut churches that preaches the “prosperity gospel.” His kids think he’s full of shit and don’t want anything to do with him.
So you see, Pooper, there’s lots of causes and no panaceas, and to blame “government programs” for the natural effects of economic, social, and technological evolution is pure nonsense, and demonstrates how shallow your thinking is.
Rabbit, please take a couple aspirin, drink some cool water and get out of the sun. I’m fearing you are starting to experience heatstroke.
Oh my. Put the pooper on the record about what he’d do if he were in charge and see the right wing house of cards come tumbling down.
Deftly handled RR.
@62…DJ…
In theory, the Clinton Administration had a balanced budget in the 90’s – so?
Many argue Bill Clinton governed more like a Republican than a Democrat (again – I eschew party labels on this issue since there’s plenty of mud to be slung from and to all quarters).
Again…so?
The Piper
@65…YippeeLilBoy…
Did you intend to say something? Or just utter gibberish?
Either contribute to the conversation or go back to whatever it is you were doing before you embarrassed yourself.
The Piper
Time to round up libs and throw them into concentration camps… JUST KIDDING!!!
@65 Pooper is the most effective propagandist our side has.
Let’s recap: Pooper wants to replace the federal income tax with a head tax. Here’s how per capita taxation works. Divide the $3.6 trillion federal budget by 300 million people and you get $12,000 per person. Thus, a family of four earning $25,000 a year would owe $36,000 in federal taxes; and a single taxpayer with an income of $500,000 a year would owe $12,000 in federal taxes. Unfair? No matter; Pooper says taxes don’t have to be fair. But this is a democracy, so you don’t have to vote for Pooper’s tax proposal. You can vote for Roger Rabbit’s soak-the-rich tax plan instead!
Under this plan, everyone would pay a flat-rate tax on income from all sources (including inheritances) exceeding 125% of the federal poverty level, which currently is $11,201 for a single person and $21,834 for a family of four. Historically, federal spending has roughly ranged from 18% to 22% of GDP; so, if we assume a tax rate of 20% to get to this number, using the example above, a family earning $25,000 a year would owe $633 in taxes and a single person with an income of $500,000 a year would owe $97,760.
This proposal satisfies Pooper’s requirement that fairness have nothing to do with how much taxes each of us owes, because these figures are purely the result of mathematical calculation, with both households getting exactly the same exemption and tax rate. I don’t see how he can complain about that. This is merely a head tax by a slightly different formula. It’s as flat-rate as you can get! That’s what wingnuts want, isn’t it, a flat-rate tax? Well, you give ’em a flat-rate tax and what do they do, they bitch about it. You can’t satisfy wingnuts no matter what you do.
@68 click-click*
* Just kidding!
Given that Social Security and Medicare spending make up 40% of federal spending, the across-the-board program cuts would take dog food and doctor visits away from Granny, and Medicaid cuts would force nursing homes to put old folks on the curb.
Well, that’s still not as mean-spirited as Dino Rossi’s nursing home bed tax. But it’s mean-spirited.
So, if you want to squeeze old folks so Pooper can get another tax cut, vote for the Brand X party and its candidates. On the other hand, if you don’t have the stomach for lining your pockets by chiseling old people, then vote for Democrats.
The Laffer Curve – total BS that even Laffer thinks is not true. Cutting taxes has yet to increase tax revenue and cutting taxes on the rich has backfired and made the economy worse.
Cutting taxes on the rich does not make moral or economic sense.
And Reagan ran up the largest budget deficits in history (to that time). Reagan claimed to be a fiscal conservative – but he wasn’t. Clinton was a fiscal conservative and ended up with a budget surplus – that Bush promptly messed up and overspent us into a deficit.
Now, we need the government to spend to get out of this depression – because the free market (private industry) is still cutting jobs.
Piper @ 66
In theory, the Clinton Administration had a balanced budget in the 90’s
Very good!
– so?
What happened during the Bush Administration?
@74 Don Joe – because of the war on terror, Bush had to create deficits. It wasn’t his fault!
@55: Piper
Republicans promised to eliminate earmarks – until they got in power and set a record for earmarks.
Earmarks should be limited, but they will not reduce the budget by one penny since that money is already allocated (the earmark just says where it should go).
I notice you say non-defense spending should have an across the board cut. right there is the biggest fallacy and loophole you have. You really don’t want to cut the budget deficit if you won’t touch the bigest and the porkiest item – defense spending.
We spend more than the rest of the world combined on our military – and what do we get for our money?
Armor that doesn’t work, unprotected humvees, toilets more expensive than my house and weapons systems that we never use.
Meantime, you would cut SS for older people and health care for the young…yup, I can see how you call yourself religious….
WWJD? I don’t think he would be advocating for not taking care of our poor, our sick and our elderly and instead making preparations for war.
correction @70: I made a computational error in the taxes owed under the Roger Rabbit flat tax, in that I exempted 100% of the FPL (federal poverty level) instead of 125%. The correct tax amounts are $97,200 for the single taxpayer with income of $500,000 and a $459 refund for the family of four earning $25,000. This tax, in fact, is regressive and favors the guy earning $500,000 because more than twice as much of his income is exempt on a per capita basis ($14,001 vs. $6,823). I designed it this way to satisfy Pooper’s requirement for an unfair tax.
@75 Wrong, the war against terror didn’t put the budget into deficit; it would have been balanced in the absence of Bush’s tax cuts for the rich. Get the facts straight before you start blowing ideology out of your ass.
@76 Pooper has gone on record as being anti-old people and anti-Christian. That’s quite a day’s work!
Pooper, if you don’t like the system here, no one is forcing you to stay. You can move to Somalia whenever you like. There’s no government or taxes there.
@ 75
Don Joe – because of the war on terror, Bush had to create deficits. It wasn’t his fault!
[Don Joe’s eyes roll skyward.]
It’s not at all clear to me how the war on terror forced the Bush tax cuts. Perhaps you’ll explain that to us.
Also, since the war on terror isn’t quite over, how does it not similarly force President Obama to press for budgets that include deficits?
@…Too Many Know-Nothings to Count…
Here’s the deal…
Government does too much, and the too much it does it does badly.
Anyone who contends that there is no room for cuts in social service programs without killing people or putting them on the street is a mindless, intellectually dishonest demagogue. Hang around government offices or officials for any length of time and you’ll tally up enough effeciency suggestions to make even King Midas roll his eyes.
The first priority of government is the safety of the people, hence the defense budget must ALWAYS take precedence. Anyone who advocates cutting essential defense programs must have slept through 9/11 and has forgotten Pearl Harbor.
Of course, there’s waste in defense spending – much of it Congress-generated. Stupid programs, unusable and even dangerous equipment, and more abound. Ask Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell who have supported millions of dollars in pure defense pork that the Department of Defenese neither wants nor can use.
Money taken in taxes is money that cannot be used by its rightful owner. To take one red cent more than is necessary is immoral.
Go here to see that there is no correlation between tax cuts and deficits, which come as a function of out-of-control spending.
We’re supposed to have a capitalist economy in the US. In capitalist economies, people get rich – that’s a good thing, not a bad one. It’s also a function of freedom and liberty, again two good things.
What have you people got against wealth, freedom, and liberty? Apparently quite a bit since you constantly bitch and moan against those who advocate them.
During time of war – like now – temporarily running deficits may be appropriate. But, again, only to provide for the common defense against our – that’s OUR…yours and mine – enemies.
If part of balancing the budget includes things like increasing the entrance fees to national parks, etc., then so be it. If you don’t like that, then come up with a market-oriented solution that encourages private investment.
Government spending takes money out of the economy. Private spending creates wealth – read, JOBS.
Prediction: Car Dealer in Chief Barack Obama, who’s never had a real job (one where he had to earn a private dollar) in his life will oversee the absolute destruction of Chrysler. The market won’t want his government-mandated cars, the unions will continue to leach on the company, private investors will head for the tall grass since they’re seeing their kindred spirits demonized for exercising their legal rights, and the American people will be left holding the freakin’ bag.
The money the government takes in taxes isn’t the government’s money. Why, then, should we have to worry about how to “pay” for them? Here’s a better question: How do American families pay for their lives after government picks their pockets?
The money belongs to those who earn it, not the government.
I should charge you people for what I teach you…
The Piper
Don’t know how the hyperlink got hosed…sorry about that. Here it is unexpurgated:
http://www.american.com/archiv.....-the-taxes
The Piper
@80…RR…
Somalia? Where there is equality of miserable outcome and no individual liberty or freedom?
That’s what you advocate for the US. By keeping your kind in charge, I can just sit here and wait – the Somaliazation of the USA will then be but a matter of time.
The Piper
I hope you don’t mind waiting for that check.
The first thing the HA hooligans have to do is raise taxes to pay you for your service. Of course, since so many of the hooligans have problems earning money, you as a producer will have to assume the unequal share of the tax burden.
Maybe you should consider your time as educator on this blog as charity work and write it off on your taxes.
Anyone see the pooper since he took a shot at me at 67?
I don’t.
It’s so hilarious to see that once people start challenging him, he gets nervous and tells them to shut up.
Do they teach this kind of behavior at wingnut finishing school?
Oops spoke too soon or late as it were.
Wasn’t that the place where clinton sent in troops to overthrow the government, nation building or something.
And for the record, Somalia NEVER attacked America.
He backs himself up with execrable Stephen Moore who had a hand in forcing Arlen Specter to the Democratic Party.
He sure knows how to pick winners.
He has posted 3 times (#82, #83, #84) since he pointed out your gibberish.
I don’t know how you missed them. Must be that reading comprehension problem you’ve been struggling with.
89 – And I also said I spoke too late. Didn’t refresh the page before I wrote.
Are you blind?
No it was the mess Clinton inherited from Bush I.
Are you ignorant of history as well as blind?
@88…YippeeLilBoy…
Arlen “The Opportunist” Specter switched parties in order to avoid having his head handed to him in the Republican primary.
As a political analyst, you better not quit whatever minimum-wage day job you have.
The Piper
@91…YippeeLilBoy…
Go read Blackhawk Down, then come back and apologize for your gross misstatement.
It was Bill Clinton’s then-Secretary of Defense, Les Aspin, who refused heavy armored vehicles and other necessary equipment that lead to the mess in Mogadishu.
If you want to criticize, do so across the board – plenty of brown stain in the drawers of your side, so why not ‘fess up.
The Piper
And he barely won the last contest for his Senate seat EXACTLY because of the efforts of the Club for Growth, i.e. the execrable Stephen Moore who you’ve quoted here. Moore writing for the AEI website? You gotta be kidding me…
Yes, Specter has noticed that 200 THOUSAND voters have switched from R to D in PA over the last election cyle.
That leaves the drippings similar to yourself in what’s left of the Republican Party in Pennsylvania.
And there’s no guarantee Specter will survive the next contest. I’m pulling for Joe Sestak myself.
The Piper spews formulaic BS that he refers to as ‘principles’. The Pipers ‘principles’ enable him to run everything from potholes to stem cells through the conservo-ideological sieve to come out with the same smug, supercilious ‘everything you know is wrong’ crap that defaces everything he writes.
Good thing you have the internet tubes to find out who I am.
93 – Who sent the troops to Somalia? Did I say Clinton’s hands were clean?
And you forget – I don’t take orders from you.
You’re the one to apologize for taking right wing extremist money to satiate your fantasies of being the least bit relevant to the political conversation in this State.
I was just messing with you.
Piper @ 82
[T]here is no correlation between tax cuts and deficits, which come as a function of out-of-control spending.
The Center for Budget Policy Priorities disagrees, and they don’t use cooked numbers like Stephen Moore does. Rather, the CBPP goes directly to the CBO data:
Got that Piper? Half the deficits were attributable to tax cuts, about a third attributable to increases in defense spending, and only 17% was due to increases in domestic spending.
Government spending takes money out of the economy. Private spending creates wealth – read, JOBS.
Fascinating that you should make that claim. Recently, economists at the National Bureau of Economic Research have been studying the relationship between the Household and Establishment employment surveys and how the ratio of the two relates to economic upturns and downturns. You can find a good synopsis of the issue and why it matters here.
The first chart there is instructive, as is the paragraph that precedes it:
Got that? The Bush tax cuts, if we’re to believe Piper’s pablum, should have caused the ratio of establishment to household survey data to increase, just as it has for every other period of expansion in the past 60 years. The fact that it didn’t is telling.
Taking the CPPB and NBER points together, only one reasonable conclusion is possible: the structure of our taxes matters significantly in terms of both economic growth and budget deficits. The failure to learn this lesson can be detrimental to our future.
What have you people got against wealth, freedom, and liberty?
In general, I don’t have much against any of these. There are, however, a number of economic behaviors that are detrimental to the common welfare. Failure to acknowledge this fact is little more than obstinate obstructionism.
For example, firms in the financial sector should not be allowed the freedom to become large enough as to cause their assumption of risks to be systemic. To allow them to do so is to court precisely the economic meltdown we presently face, and this is as clear cut a case as one can possibly imagine where the government didn’t do enough.
The money the government takes in taxes isn’t the government’s money.
Except that our government is a government of the people, by the people and for the people. Any rhetorical construct that takes as it’s fundamental premise the notion that the government is somehow an entity distinct from the people is, therefore, fundamentally flawed. When a democratic government takes in taxes, we the people are taking money from we the people.
The money belongs to those who earn it, not the government.
That those who earn anything can claim ownership of what they earn exists solely because we actually have a government.
I should charge you people for what I teach you…
Yes. You may charge me in negative dollars.
At least you admit it’s all about specter getting reelected and nothing to do with him feeling the dems are better.
Jack Kemp,
A decent guy who drank too much supply side economics kool-aid and socially destructive libertarian utopianism. God speed.
@98: Don, that was a great rebuttal. Pooper doesn’t have a bag to sit on.
The very idea that a freely elected government, with its freely delegated sovereign power, has created social rules that enable a tiny few to realize near unlimited wealth, is somehow restricted from distributing that wealth to attain freely determined social goals is simply a non-sequitur bordering on treason.
The right wing cowards are for a strong defense and love war provided:
1) They don’t have to fight it
2) Their guy starts it
And THAT is reason number 283,234 why the publicans are irrelevant and the laughing stock of the whole world!
Why shouldn’t it be fool? The right wing alternative would start at the bottom of the pecking order in the Senate and Specter has built his influence and seniority over nearly 30 years of service.
Who would do more for the State of Pennsylvania?
Does Specter need the job? Hell no!
By the way, Joe Sestak who I’d prefer get the seat would have to start at the bottom just like Toomey. But of course it isn’t up to me. This is for the people of PA to decide. Do they care more about the advancement of a progressive agenda albeit slowly at first OR what someone like Specter can do for them in the short term? We’ll see.
@98…DJ…
So you cite a “study” from a liberal policy outfit – big deal.
But at least you cite something and come to the table with a point of view supported by analysis and data, wrong though it may be. Those who follow in this thread – the usual cast of hyena-like characters – offer only empty pronouncements and cliches.
Government is supposed to be the servent of the people, not their master. Sadly, the larger government becomes, the more it takes on the attribute of master, not servent.
The people – individual people – are sovereign. In Washington state, that is made clear in the state constitution, but it’s ignored routinely by the Legislature and bureaucracy.
The freedom to accumulate wealth is, theoretically, still available to anyone who wishes to work hard enough, take the necessary risks, and apply themselves. I say theoretically since the larger government becomes the more it siphons off the capital necessary to seed and feed entrepreneurs.
Those who claim that the accumulation of wealth is limited only to a tiny few haven’t being paying attention to the history of American capitalism and the growth of the middle class. And conceivably because they’ve either been too lazy or too ineffecient to get out there and make a buck or two themselves.
I suppose it’s also time to remind some of you that when it comes to defense policy, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and who’s doing the fighting, that I have a rather strong vested interest.
Living with me right now is Sergeant First Class Mark, my oldest son, who will deploy back to Kuwait in late June for his second Middle East tour. In addition, my youngest son, Marine Cpl. Tom continues to bust his hump to get into the Afghan action.
So let’s just shut the trap on how me and mine aren’t contributing.
Back to work – I’m writing on successes and failures in public education while SFC Mark cooks…
The Piper
Whatamoron@73 farted as usual:
Whatamoron AKA NUTRight, even Diddled Lover admitted per the US Constitution Congress writes the laws and spends the money. The non-HA weasel class knows Reagan had Dummocraps such as Fort Worthless Jim Wright and Tip That Money Left O’Neill doling out the cookies while Clinton had Dr. Newt Gingrich to control his profligate ways fool!
Keep that mantra alive with your worthless commentary fool!
@85 Pooper an “educator”? That’s funny! Didn’t know you had it in you, Stamm.
@87 Yes, lawless Somalia, the prototype of a society that has no government or taxes … which is what you guys want, isn’t it? Isn’t a country run by warlords and pirates your, um, cup of tea?
@92 “Arlen “The Opportunist” Specter switched parties in order to avoid having his head handed to him in the Republican primary.”
Which tells Pennsylvania voters everything they need to know about the local Republican Party.
@96 Pooper gets paid for posting his garbage? Is he another of Kevin Carns’ numerous incarnations?
Which the fool then follows up with the same. Priceless..
Let’s see. I see two guys with government jobs and a fellow on wingnut welfare.
I haven’t a problem with the fellows serving their country. Only with some of the policies being carried out.
Now the fool on wingnut welfare? Scribbling distortions and half-truths for a living? To some twisted minds (like Kevin Carns’) it’s nice work if you can get it but I personally couldn’t look myself in the mirror.
Karns and the Pooper are soul mates.
To which the solution is always vouchers with charter schools as a compromise. Love that Walton family money at work.
Yawn… Just saved everyone a lot of time.
Pooper apparently learned a few rhetorical tricks back when he was a lawyer. He spews vague generalities like “freedom” and “liberty” (the devil is always in the details). He uses emotionally charged arguments. But there’s damned little content.
This nation may have been founded on principles of “freedom” and “liberty,” but it was built with government money. America’s first major infrastructure project, the Erie Canal, was built with a legislative appropriation. The railroads were made possible by land grants. Rural free delivery (mail) and electrification were government projects. Dams, highways, airports, ports, irrigation systems — all were public projects. Universal free public education made our modern industry and world technology leadership possible. It’s impossible to imagine America without the public investments that turned an untamed wilderness into an industrial superpower.
It’s simply dishonest for Pooper to pretend the huge role of government and public spending in our nation’s development didn’t exist. It’s also disingenuous for him to ignore the fact that unfettered capitalism has repeatedly imploded, and American capitalism has been saved many times by government intervention. Anyone with a modicum of historical understanding knows the ideology mouthed by Pooper has been tried and doesn’t work.
In his dogma-addled mind he equates paying taxes for schools, roads, and courts with tyranny. He warns us of the dangers of democracy but never sees peril in corporate absolutism. He is humbug.
Pooper is just like most publican shitheads. The first chance he gets to suck on the government tit he does. When it comes to spending tax dollars to kill women in children in Iraq – he jumps at the chance. When it comes to costing the rest of us tax dollars so churches can sell their shit, he’s okay with that. When it comes to ANY government spending that HE PERSONALLY finds okay – then no worries. Just like most publicans – he was silent when the bitch GW Bush was spending money like the whore he is.
Piper @ 104
So you cite a “study” from a liberal policy outfit – big deal.
I dismissed your source, because the source you cited rather obviously cooked the numbers. Any time someone talks about the “tax burden” in terms of the percentage of total taxes paid, is by definition, cooking the numbers. Of course the rich pay a higher percentage of the total tax burden. Their incomes when up far more than anyone else’s incomes did.
You, on the other hand, dismissed one of my sources, because it’s “a liberal policy outfit.” You found no fault with either their analysis nor their data (except to pronounce it “wrong” via rhetorical fiat). Can you say, “ad hominem,” Piper?
Government is supposed to be the servent of the people, not their master.
And I’ve seen absolutely no evidence that our government has become the “master”. The fact that conservatives find themselves in disfavor with the rest of “we the people” isn’t particularly compelling evidence. Elections have consequences.
Those who claim that the accumulation of wealth is limited only to a tiny few haven’t being paying attention to the history of American capitalism and the growth of the middle class.
Fascinating you should say that when real median income has failed to keep pace with GDP growth since 1980. How do you square that fact with your claim that the middle class has grown since Ronald Reagan took office?
Your argument also completely ignores the data I cited from the NBER study. Why, Piper, did the Establishment to House hold survey ratio continue to fall throughout the entirety of the Bush Presidency when, very early on, President Bush was able to convince Congress to pass tax cuts that favored the wealthy by a very wide margin? If you pablum is to be trusted as valid, that ratio should have gone up for at least part of the Bush Years.
If your Economics cannot explain the data we’ve observed, Piper, then, please, spare us the torture of having to put up with policy proposals based on such obviously flawed models.
I suppose it’s also time to remind some of you that when it comes to defense policy, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and who’s doing the fighting, that I have a rather strong vested interest.
Why? Are you sensing that you’re on horribly shaky ground when it comes to tax policy, so now it’s time for you to engage in a bit of special pleading when it comes to defense policy?
Substituting one irrelevant, and horribly flawed, argument in the place of another horribly flawed, though slightly more relevant, argument is not a particularly effective method of ascending into the realm of rhetorical coherence.
I have an idea.
We disband teacher unions and create student unions.
The goal is when the fat cats on the school board are deciding how to spend money the students will have someone fighting for their best interests instead of the best interests of the teacher unions.
Damn. Let’s go back to those times when education was free. Why raise taxes if it’s free.
In other news, the wife of Italy’s rightwing leader is tired of his womanizing, and says she’s filing for divorce. His flirting with an 18-year-old apparently was the straw that broke the camel’s back. Let’s hope she finds a judge who will give her control of his media empire. She seems like a reasonable sort — she publicly repudiated her husband’s sycophantic support of Chimp’s recreational war in Iraq.
I googled and couldn’t find any source that backed up your claim.
Got link?
re 104: “… empty pronouncements and cliches.” You are too easy.
By the by: You congratulate Don Joe for citing a study and some factual items , and then fail to do that yourself.
I think your cant has turned to can’t.
A post about Jack Kemp, and it doesn’t make it into the #20s before it is dys-railed by repubnicretins. For the record though, Jack didn’t seem to mind handing off to OJ Simpson; must have been something about the balls?
Dead Arachnid@120: Faulty reading skillz. Being the libtard fool you are, you missed post#5 for the dys-railment.
Spider; stupid all the time.
Marvin the pervert is so cute. He shares an idea with us as if we give a good golly fuck about what he thinks. Marvin you need to understand you are in the extreme minority – only one in five will even admit to being publicans these days. You are irrelevant.
The heartless rich and evil corporations are, once again, to blame.
Didn’t Lenin come to power using the same Mantra?
re 123: Didn’t the corporate state of Germany send Lenin to Russia to cause problems? I guess you reap what you sow.