Home / Culture and Society / GOP Ayotte Anounces Austerity After Tax Cut To Millionaires

GOP Ayotte Anounces Austerity After Tax Cut To Millionaires

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

With the 2010 lame duck session finally over, Republicans are gearing up for their new austerity program. They will ask the American people to take dramatic cuts in government services, including in housing, education, unemployment, health care, police services and tax deductions for the middle class. The austerity program follows a Republican “No Vote Pact” in which the senate GOP refused to vote for the Repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, the Dream Act and the Start Treaty for national security until the passage of unfunded tax breaks for millionaires.

Dream Army Camp In Front of Senator McCain’s Office

The GOP used newly elected Republican Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire to announce their mandate for austerity. In a message from Ayotte on January 01, 2011 in the L.A. Times, it was announced:

 “The American people sent us to Congress with clear instructions: make … government smaller, not bigger. And stop spending money we don’t have on programs that aren’t working.”

Ayotte made no mention of the Republican Party’s insistence on putting an extra $139,000 of unfunded tax cut money into the pockets of every person who already has $1,000,000 in net income at their disposal.  These millionaires were not satisfied with the proposed tax cuts on the first $250,000 in income.  Nor did Ayotte mention the billions of dollars the unfunded tax cut will cost the American people. 

“This isn’t a Republican problem or a Democrat problem — it’s an American problem that will require tough decision-making from both parties. Republicans are ready to lead that fight.”

Ayotte is half right.  This isn’t a Republican problem.  They already stuffed their pockets with every dime of tax payer money possible in a greedy grab for even more.  The balancing of the budget will come out of what is left to the middle class and the poor, by raising the age to qualify for social security, college scholarships, refusing to fund organ transplants, repealing the mortgage interest deduction, all on the backs of the poor and the middle class to pay for the millionaires’ tax cut.   

Meanwhile, during the lame duck session, Republicans finally dolled out crumbs to those waiting for social change.  Even so, while they finally agreed to the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, clearing the way for gays to openly serve in the military, no progress has been made for gay couples to legitimize their relationships through marriage. The immigration system remains manifestly unjust as gays involved in long term committed relationships still cannot petition for their spouses to live in the US with them, unlike straight couples.  No solution has been presented to secure the borders and naturalize 11 million undocumented workers in the U.S. under comprehensive immigration reform (CIR).

The Ayotte message spoke of the need for a strong military.  Yet, she remained silent about the Republican role to kill the Dream Act.  Children of undocumented workers who were brought here before they could even form memories asked to be allowed to go to college or serve in the military.  

Under the Dream Act, if the students obtained degrees or performed their military service, they could petition to become permanent residents after 10 years. Several years after that they could petition to become citizens. In the meantime, the students had to pass a background check, pay fines which when tolled could add three billion to the treasury, agree to pay out-of-state tuition, and agree to pay the cost of medical care during the 10-year period.

Even after a study showed the students would add jobs and billions to the economy, Republicans refused to give anything to the poorest in society. Five Democratic senators joined the with conservative Republicans in sealing the fate of the Dream Act in 2010.

The Republican “instructions to make government smaller” means increasing the debt to give wealthy people tax breaks while reducing government services to the poor. In the case of the poorest, their “instructions” mean giving nothing at all, especially to Latino immigrants.  The U.S. has become a land in which a few who have more than they could ever need demand even more, while the masses clamor to feed and clothe themselves while fighting for basic civil rights.

Powered by

About Tim Paynter

  • Dear Rosie pooh,

    Aren’t we smarmy and snarky today? Or is that tonight?

    Ummmh, didn’t read your bullshit guidelines? Well I actually did but didn’t think, or actually, was too damn lazy to memorize the whole fucking thing. So I didn’t remember or actually think to look over that bullshit again in order to look you up. To be brutally honest with you, I didn’t think it was worth the effort.

    Now I must ask you, in your lame world how great a crime is that? Is that a mortal, cardinal sin or only just a capital offense which demands capital punishment? Which is it comrade, most exalted, most esteemed commissar, supreme censor of extreme censorship? Ehhh, let’s cut to the quick, why don’t yah just shoot me!

    Just still curious, I want to know how your fascist mind works: especially for instance in regard to what I have just written so far in this particular thread. Is it insulting or just plain offensive to you? At any rate, does it warrant sufficient enough grounds for you to erase it entirely? The reason why I ask is because of a little thing we have here in America called “the chilling effect.” A pop quiz, not the one you or someone else eradicated earlier today, this one is truly different, but then again, how would you know, because didn’t you say you had nothing to do with that? Well, at any rate, do you know what a “chilling effect” is, or compelled “self-censorship” is, or how “the chilling effect” could also possibly be construed as a form of “prior restraint?” But how dare I ask, I mean I’m only a lowly writer and you’re the head, supreme comments editor, fascist-in-chief of censorship.

    And we all know, especially you, that you are infallible and next to perfect, even if you believe in aliens from outer space as somehow spawning with humans. Now I really know, you really are the ringleader of this three ring circus and zoo replete with its eclectic collection of pseudo and phony intellectual fools and buffoons, charlatans and frauds, mental midgets and lilliputian clowns.

    I just read Cindy’s thread # 55 and yours, thread # 56. You people are really lunatics beyond the pale. I thought I was insane, in fact certifiable, but you people really are that obtuse and lunatic insane. Yet somehow I thought there might be a semblance of rational debate with rational and truly bonafide and legitimate intellectuals herein. But this is a fucking zoo filled with truly strange and bizarre creatures who are simply beyond reasoned, reasonable and rational debate. It’s really like talking to the Queen and the Madhatter at his tea party. My God what else do you people believe in? Vampires, Werewolves and aliens from inner space? And of course, the biggest bopper, whopper of them all – Elvis is alive and well and still singing, but it’s his hips what don’t swivel as well as they used to. How can anyone take you people seriously?

    And you got the gall to say that my ideas, my debates are not worthy, you who believe that aliens from outer space have spawned with humans. Again, I must ask once more, how can anyone take you Alice in Wonderland lunatics seriously?

    Forget that I even tried to debate and reason with you. It’s rather evident you’re beyond that, and such reasoned and reasonable attempts and appeals are just simply pointless and futile.

    So go ahead, prove what a mean-spirited, petty little minded lunatic and fascist you truly are and just go ahead and eradicate this thread of mine entirely.

    But I also suspect that in your mind’s eye, such ideas as “the chilling effect” and “self censorship” and “prior restraint” are not worthy of your support nor attention; I assume because you have snidely intimated that I have not as of yet presented them. Is that what you meant when you said in thread # 54 – “…I support that (my passionate defense of ideas). Will you eventually be presenting us with some?” Now that of course is not a rather insulting, not so clever put down of yours, right? And the further meaning and implication of all this is that I, again, as of yet have not “presented” you with any as of yet reasonable and rational argumenta. Zero, none, zilch-oh, nada, niniento, rien, oudeis, nicht, etc., etc.. Again, no reasonable nor well-reasoned, rational ideas?

    And of course, that wouldn’t be intellectually heavy-handed and fascistic on your part. Of course not, it would only be, in your eyes, let us say justified, just like, let us say, justified homicide is justified and perfectly acceptable.

    And your last sentence, that’s not smarmy and snide, nor condescending and demeaning? And as for my passionate defense of intellectual freedom and my defense against your fascistic, arbitrary and capricious censorship; are you saying that those argumenta of and by themselves are not ideas, or at least ideas worthy of your ear, interest and or respect? But rather they are qualities and attributes which you seem to hold in utter contempt.

    Sorry, still can’t get over threads # 55 and # 56. You still in orbit?

    “Oh Judgement, thou hast fled to brutish beasts;
    and men have lost their reason.”


    “Dear Horatio, there is more in heaven and earth,
    than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”

    Yeah, baby, yeah. There’s flying saucers and aliens from outer space too, who spawn with humans.

    And i got to deal seriously with you? What a fucking joke that is and you are too.

    So I give up, yeah, that’s right, censer and erase and delete everything I write or say.

    PS. I’m sorry I quoted Shakespeare twice, I guess that’s just not adequate nor intellectual enough for you.

  • I think it has been shown many times that lower taxes do indeed stimulate economies but it doesn’t necessarily follow that a low tax environment is good for those in need.

    Actually, there is a fairly plausible argument to be made for an alien origin for life. That’s not quite “aliens have spawned humans” but close and as yet unproven, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t true.

  • you can make a good argument that lower taxes do stimulate the economy and do more good for those in need than that health care reform ever will

    You can make a good argument that aliens have spawned humans. And it’d be about as good as the argument you suggest, which violates reality as currently dictated by every source of info you’d have to use to make your argument. So, evidence please.

  • Irvin, as you are a Blogcritics writer you must have been sent the writer guidelines when you were accepted. Those guidelines include details of how to contact me so presumably you haven’t actually read them yet…

    I don’t much care that you aren’t mollified as I don’t think you had a point in the first place but, whatever you have to say, please try to grok on the meme that less is indeed more…

    As to your passionate defence of ideas, I support that. Will you eventually be presenting us with some?

  • Correction, last graff # 52:

    “packs of sophist wolves” should read “…packs of sophistic wolves…”

    very last phrase “and or pitifully” should read “and likewise pitifully…”

    As for you most esteemed, exalted head commissar, fascistic censor, Rose; will respond shortly. Got to take me medicine, rest a while and perform all sort of bullshit chores. But, one, I don’t know how to reach you; and secondly, be forewarned I am not mollified -not in the least.

  • Dear dockker dreariful,

    Lame, lame, lame.

    You mean spelled “pseudo intellectual” and as for “showoffery”? must be a new word you have coined for the English language. Sounds kind of goofy to me, but then again I neither dictate the rules nor make them up as I go along.

    But at any rate, to continue: none of your thread # 49 is possibly in the same league of my “usual name calling, verbal pyrotecgnics” such as your calling me a pseudo intellectual guilty of “showoffery’? No, of course not.

    And finally, “You haven’t been debating at all; (blah-blah-blah-lame-lame-lame.)”

    So you mean to say that I haven’t offered any ideas at all? Oh please excuse me for I now see where I am so horribly mistaken.
    And so we (meaning you and the other fascist censors) not only make the rules, but we are not subject to them either. Lame, lame, lame.

    Oh, and of course intellectual freedom in your eyes is bullshit? Or do I miss and purposefully distort and misinterpret what you actually said? You did say “don’t give me that BULLSHIT about INTELLECTUAL FREEDOM.” I know, that was a misprint or a typo or some such other venial misstep, mistake.

    Look here, perhaps I really am stupid and ignorant and I really don’t know ho to read (in a over a half a dozen languages to boot) but I have read the “Comments policy” at length and several times over. To show you how fucking stupid and ignorant I truly am, I did not find them (the Comments policy) to be clear at all. To the contrary I found them to be rather nebulous, arbitrary and capricious – you know the sort of ground rules one finds in Lewis J. Carroll’s “Alice in Wonderland” in particular, in those machinated and conjured by and for the moment by the Queen at the Madhatter’s Tea Party; and or, the same sort of ground rules one finds in Orwell’s “Animal Farm” as devised also for the moment by the equal, but still slightly more than equal, ruling class, intellectual pigs.

    Ground rules, house rules? Yes, but I’m a bit confused, cause didn’t the fascists and the Stalinists also have ground rules, many of them quite nebulous and as arbitrary as those of Blogcritics and its comments policy, editorial staff – and especially so of the latter?

    Ground rules, house rules? You so self-righteously and sanctimoniously claim as you deviously hide and cower behind them. Tell me dear comrade dreary, who makes the rules? Who fabricates “the house rules” and why are they so anonymous and so beholden to no one but themselves? Can you reasonably tell me and explain this without essentially telling me to shut up and or drop dead and or go fuck myself? Or why I just don’t understand that it’s in your power and yours alone. And that you’ll just apply it rather arbitrarily and capriciously as you see fit, and as you damn well please. You know, take it or leave it. And don’t ever question my authority or my right ever again.

    “Finally, I haven’t seen any ideas of yours being suppressed, certainly on this thread.”

    Then why have three threads of mine been expunged and deleted from this very thread, in particular my original numbers # 38, # 42, and # 47. I have copies of them, would you like to see them, I could send them to you, or do you already have copies of them? (Which, if answered in the affirmative, would mean that you are a liar too).

    Are you blind or is it that you are purposefully purblind to this clear censorship? I must be thoroughly honest here and state that at least two, possibly three of Roger, the not so artful dodger’s threads were also deleted. [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor] I stand here also in defense of his lame comments and do so quite passionately. It’s not just about me. If you can do it to me then you can do it to Roger too (wellll… wait a minute… let me think about that one… NO) if you can do it to me and Roger who else can you do it to? Where’s the checks and balances? Where’s the intellectual freedom, where’s the unfettered, free flow of ideas and passionate give and take of debate?

    And finally, “You haven’t been debating at all; blah-blah-blah, lame-lame-lame.”

    Of course not, as usual you’re right as usual, I really haven’t offered any ideas at all. Please excuse me, cause now I see it from your absolutely correct perspective – and irrefutable and incontrovertible viewpoint as well. In your mind’s eye ideas are not worthy nor part of the “debate.” I see, my bad. Surely dumb ‘lil ‘ol moi, me, myself and I should have known that only your rather tedious, so-called, supposed facts (often typical, moot and highly debatable talking points and spin sophistically masquerading as facts; and your mind-numbing crush of rather tedious numbers and statistics often bent and manipulated to support this or that dubious point of yours) are worthy of the debate. Cause in your mindset, ideas really don’t count. I see, I only have well-thought out ideas and that’s simply not enough; for such ideas no matter how well thought out in your viewpoint simply have no place whatsoever in the debate nor are they worthy of the debate either. So I must ask you, what do you have against ideas? Or is it some other motivation, something not as irrational and anti-intellectaul, such as a personal animus and antipathy towards me. No, nothing mindlessly irrational about that. Because if that was the case you wouldn’t laugh at me and attempt to ridicule and put me down at every opportunity in your rather snide, snarky and smarmy manner that you constantly do. Right? It’ got to be me, right? I take this all too personally. I simply got to understand that It’s not all about me.

    I know, it’s about you, cause you’re the smartest person in the world. How do I know this, because you said so in an article of yours. Well, to be fair to you, you said you weren’t the smartest
    person in the world, only the second or third smartest person in the world. What fucking humility, why you’re just a veritable “Miles Gloriosus!” A veritable “Gargantuan” and indeed most modest Falstaff! (Somewhere between Henry IV and Henry VI?)

    So how does it feel to have jess bin done “refudiated” by a dumbass mindless, brainless, former Marine combat-veteran of the Vietnam War. It doan get no dumber than that, not even a rock is dumber than me! Trust me, I speak from personal experience, indeed from a very individual and personal perspective.

    If it’s any consolation to you, as a card-carrying member and most esteemed and exalted commissar of the glorious people’s Comments Editorial Staff, you can complain to Mommy that you have jess been insulted by a dumbass, former Marine, combat-veteran of the Vietnam War, and worse yet, one who is also a Classicist who studied in both Paris and Rome as an undergrad.

    Whaaa, whaaa, Mommy, Mommy, it’s unfair, whaaa, whaa, Mommy, Mommy, what should I do, whaa, whaa, Mommy, Mommy, I know…kill him! Let’s kill the condescending, elitist, patronizing pseudo intellectual showoffery motherfucker. Le’ss jess do it, kill that no good, no count motherfucker!

    One last point here: As for Granny taking offense to the word “fuck” – you know what I say? I say Granny can go fuck herself, that’s what I say. Oh, my bad, Granny’s got virgin ears and has never heard the word “fuck” before. Not once, not ever in her 60, 70, 80, 90 or 100 plus years. Oh, alright, I apologize, Granny don’t got to fuck herself.

    Is that good enough for you, will that suffice?

    One last correction, I will cede to you that ideas without facts in their support and defense are as lambs unto the lion and or to packs of sophist wolves; but facts without ideas are either worse than worthless, in fact downright dangerous; or are simply dead and or pitifully worthless.

  • Irv, try to pay attention. You keep complaining of others not debating or of not being rigorous enough for you, so why is it I never seem to find any coherent views from you apart from your routine and predictable criticisms of other people?

    I also wonder why it is you complain about the lack of intellectual discipline whilst continuously making stuff up or ignoring information you find inconvenient?

    When you get over what seems to at least this observer as little more than a giant tantrum, perhaps you’ll take on board that you can make any statements you like on matters of debate or fact but you can’t keep belittling others for their perceived or actual personal foibles.

    You can also use fairly colourful language so long as it isn’t simply fucking gratuitous…

    As you can make your points and use language freely, it follows then that you aren’t being censored at all, just having the world spared your picturesque pique.

    I believe you know how to contact me directly if you have any serious comments related issues but let’s get back to the politics.

    I’ve no special inside knowledge but it looks to me as though politicians around the world from both sides of the growing farce we know as party politics are using the current economic situation for their usual selfish political ends whilst pretty much failing the people they are meant to serve.

    Couple this with the remorseless tide of legislation coming from governments of all political persuasions and it is no surprise that our “leaders” are failing us.

  • Dear comrade [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor] bawrongius,

    What precisely do you mean by “our Remorse Wagon?” Let me guess, that unlike you I actually possess a conscience.

    Which means to say, that you would necessarily represent gleeful, happy and jolly and mindlessly euphoric and joyous, intellectual fascism and fascistic censorship; and necessarily the complete and total cloture of my entry into the closed, rather banal, bland and insipid discourse which masquerades as informed, unfettered free debate at Blogcritics? Is that what you mean?

    Please inform me.

  • First off, Irv, Blogcritics has a clearly-posted comments policy which is there precisely to facilitate the free and civil exchange of ideas. If you refuse to abide by it, then you shouldn’t be surprised that many of your comments get edited or deleted.

    And don’t give me that bullshit about intellectual freedom. The comments policy is a set of house rules, not an unconstitutional statute. What you’re doing is like whining about your freedom of speech being infringed because Grandma doesn’t like you saying fuck at the dinner table.

    Secondly, I am not editing the comments this morning, neither do Chris or I personally edit our own comments for content.

    Finally, I haven’t seen any ideas of yours being suppressed, certainly not on this thread. Your ‘contributions’, beginning at comment 5, consist of nothing but your usual name-calling, verbal pyrotechnics and pseudointellectual showoffery. You haven’t been debating at all; much less has your freedom to do so been constrained or fettered.

  • PS, PS. Correction to my correction “egregious” was misspelled. I admit it, I confess – so fucking sue me.

    Also DISprove should be in caps, all of it, lest you fucking pea brains misconstrue or misunderstand the meaning and intent of the word.

    Back to # 46 again, last graff “…my finish and…” Delete and replace with “I can”

  • Ps correction of egregipus error in # 46 Third graff, ist sentence, middle of,

    “prove” should read DISprove!

  • Dear comrade dreadful,

    Far be it for me to point out that your thread @ 44 is a perfect example of your clear, sophistic evasion of the issues I raised in thread # 43 concerning intellectual freedom and the unconstrained, unfettered freedom of debate.

    Tell me comrade dreadful, is this purposeful evasion of yours because you’re too busy truly being a fascistic guardian of mindless, arbitrary and capricious censorship? Or is there possibly another motive for this as equally as nefarious and anti-intellectual freedom and anti-debate as well? For you to so deviously and pusillanimously avoid these issues?

    But let me ask you this, why should I point-fucking-counter-fucking-point, reasonably argue and possibly prove comrade Paynter’s factoids in his previous thread which appear to me he has purloined from others and which he is simply mouthing from the standard spin and talking points of the progressive, commie-lib, etc, establishment; quite conjured and machinated phony numbers I might add as well? But here’s the really big fucking “but.”

    In spite of my just falling prey to your not so clever, sophistic ploy and stratagem, I must ask:

    How do I know, you’re not going to expurgate and most likely expunge and erase entirely whatever I say or do. As it stands now, you and your fascist brethren expurgate or eradicate entirely; roughly fifty percent of my comments. So why should I put out the great effort that I do, to comment; or take the chance knowing full well that fifty or more percent of whatever I write will be censored, and again either expurgated mindlessly and capriciously or eradicated entirely? Again, why should I take that risk?

    You already have entirely eradicated three of my comments this morning, Yet I see one of yours which was tangentially involved with mine, still stands. Well that fact in itself smacks highly of a rather hypocritical double-standard on your part as well as that of the other fascist Comments Editors of Blogcritics.

    Fascist? Surely I must ask If that description of your and that of your fellow fascists’ behavior and intellectual, tyrannical ethos is sufficient grounds, is a sufficient pretext and phony enough excuse for you to disappear this thread?

    There’s more but got to go for a few moments.

    I only hope this comment of mine will stand when I return so that my finish and continue my argumenta – please don’t kill the debate in my momentary absence.

  • Baronius

    Tim, I think you’re new around here, so welcome. Don’t mind Irv. He’s sort of our Remorse Wagon.

    I do hope you realize that there are two sides to the debate, and not everyone who disagrees with you is selfish. As I said earlier, you can make a good argument that lower taxes do stimulate the economy and do more good for those in need than that health care reform ever will.

  • Irv,

    Please point out a single one of Mr Paynter’s arguments or points which you have refuted in any of your previous comments.

    If you can’t, then your claim to be devoted to “the … give and take of unfettered lively and passionate but thoughtful and reasoned debate” is hollow.

  • Dear comrade Paynter,

    Your thread # 42 “Let’s keep it civil, guys…”

    Or did you mean let’s keep it intellectually and philosophically bland and insipid?

    Or as to be as craven and opportunistic as you, in your crass exploitation of advancing your worthless points; do you also mean let’s keep it within the good ‘ol boys network of limited debate, and within their confines of rather unlimited arbitrary and capricious, fascistic censorship of intellectual freedom and of rigorous discourse and reasoned debate by the fascist Comments Editorialship of Blogcritics?

    What’s more important to you, to advance your leftist ideological spin ad talking points, or to advance, promote and preserve intellectual freedom, freedom of speech, artistic freedom and the freedom of rigorous discourse and debate?

    Evidently I tend to think it is the former and not the latter. But I do absolutely devote myself to the latter – to intellectual and philosophic freedom, to the unfettered give and take of unfettered lively and passionate but thoughtful and reasoned debate.

    Moreover I must wonder if this very comment of mine, irony of ironies, will ever see the light of day. In fact I doubt it very much. So thou arbitrary and capricious, petty and mean spirited, intolerant and small minded, fascistic Comments Editors of Blogcritics – prove me right or wrong.

  • Let’s keep it civil, guys. We do nothing with personal attacks.

    We are at a moment in history in which the battle lines are drawn between those who have it all and want more, and those who have little or nothing. Repealing health care reform so those who can’t afford health care can’t get it, while those who can still have it, is a typical example of selfish people.

    It has even gotten so bad some people will hurt themselves to make sure others can’t get ahead.

    The Republicans who have $1,000,000 in income to spend now have another $139,000 to blow. The poor sot who is on pov gets zip and the average fellow gets only a few hundred bucks. But now it is time to call for the rest of society to make sacrifices. Geez…

  • Yes, Baronius, but what novel did he appear in?

  • Baronius

    I know this one. Wilbert Robinson was the artful Dodger. A former Oriole, he moved to the Dodgers as a player, then a coach in the early 1900’s. He was called “artful” because of his torrid interracial affair with a rival, Yankees slugger Art Devlin.

  • Hiya Roger,

    Haven’t stopped to say that. And Happy New Year. 🙂

  • Stan wraps it all up in a nutshell:

    “People are losing their jobs, their homes, the US economy is going down the chute, and the US government gives a tax break to millionaires [after giving away the working middle class’ money to said millionaires in a bailout that has them partying on bigger and better than ever] while forcing austerity measures on the working middle classes.

    Why does that come as no surprise.”

    And why does it come as no surprise that Libertarians still, in the face of all this, cannot and will not question their explanatory narrative.

  • If I’m less-than-artful, Coh’n, you’e a first-rate cobbler.

  • Dear comrade Rodger the not so artful, rigorous discourse and reasoned debate dodger and Marxist anarchist,

    Well, hello there again, I love you too. Well actually I don’t which sentiment I surmise is mutual and which also appears to be rather obvious and patently self-evident.

    You know you really don’t miss a beat. You’re as predictable as day is from night. For when you are intellectually, logically and syllogistically bested, nay, stomped into dee ground, what do you do? Why you do what every pseudo intellectual, Marxist ideologue and anarchist nihilist does – you simply resort to ad hominem attack and smear and typically to not so veiled name calling; which by the way is so very typical of you and also so very redolent of a spoiled, petulant eight year old child. Who in strophic chorus chants “no I’m not” repeatedly, as your better and the only true adult in this episode points out to you to your utter chagrin that “yes indeed, you are.” To which you reply even more vociferously with another angry barrage of “no I’m not, no I’m not, no I’m not, not, not, not.” And then petulantly hold your breath in your vacuous attempt to turn blue.

    Well, Roger I’m not going to tell you to grow up because you’re evidently beyond that stage and process. What I am going to address is your intellectual vacuity and challenge your supposed vast knowledge of all things intellectual and philosophic.

    First off, you mentioned Aristotle as a means of countering and repudiating my reference to Plato’s “philosopher prince.” I have to ask you whether you read the “Republic” or not, and you don’t necessarily have had to have read it in its original Greek, in translation will readily suffice. But what about Aristotle? Which philosophic works of his did you read in order to come to your conclusions? Was it the “Nicomachean Ethics,” or the “Politics,” or the “Metaphysics” or the “Physics” or the “De Anima” or the “Poetics?”

    Oh I know, that’s a trick question cause as a Marxist anarchist you don’t read dead white guys, in fact you don’t read because that’s utterly bourgeois – rather, you think and you feel things, cause reading and writing is not your thing. Rather it’s your inner consciousness, your feelings, it’s a matter of how you perceive ineffable oscillations and vibrations of other Marxist ideologues and nihilists that counts, that’s truly important. For surely it’s a matter of how you and they relate to each other’s inner consciousness and feelings. You don’t think things, you feel them and naturally absorb them through osmosis. My bad for having questioned whether you have ever read a book. I really, really am sorry. Again, my bad.

  • STM

    People are losing their jobs, their homes, the US economy is going down the chute, and the US government gives a tax break to millionaires while forcing austerity measures on the working middle classes.

    Why does that come as no surprise.

    I thought Obama was made of sterner stuff than that. Maybe. Or did I really think he’d be the same as every other US president before him …

  • Perhaps you’re right, but when I view him as deceitful, I’m giving him credit.

    He’s not a dummy, Cindy, but a highly articulated person. The best picture I can form of him, he’s purposely deceitful in order to come to terms with himself.

    You may be right, though. When I think of my sister, another millionaire, only in her best moments does she ever consider the larger picture. Most of the times, it’s just matters which are directly impacting her own (financial) interests.

    I really don’t understand these people.

  • further to 31 – (As the population increases.)

  • I don’t think Baronius is deceitful, not deliberately. I think he simply believes he is SO right that his view has the force of objective reality for him.

  • This is my point. Employment did go up. I don’t care what subjective stance you take, or whether you interpret the increase in employment differently than I do. The one thing you can’t say is that employment didn’t go up.

    This is my point, what does that tell us? Please indicate when employment did not go up and provide a link if you will be so kind. I am finding that employment goes up EVERY year.

  • Hey, Coh’n, the super-duper pseudo-classicist. Tthe so-called optative you speaketh of was captured by Aristotle’s movement from the actual to the potential.

    Of course, you’re still stuck at the lowest rung of evolution, so you can’t possibly fathom the significant. All your erudition is for naught, not even scratching the surface, when you fail to grasp the concept.

    Your teachers at Sorbonne, or wherever else you’ve studied the classics, have done a piss-poor job. My educated guess is, you were just an affirmative-action, dumb-ass American, they knew it, and they took you to the cleaners – your money, that is – while conferring you a BS (read: a bullshit degree). In short, you’ve been royally screwed and don’t even know it.

    But hey, educated ex-Marine (sounds like a contradiction in terms to me), we must do with what we’ve been given. And considering the limitations you started out with, you’re doing quite admirable, I daresay.

  • Irvin F. Cohen

    Dear comrades Baronius, Cannonshop, Dr Dreadful and comrade Doug Hunter (of course, lesser comrades, but still comrades in my ‘umble estimation – sorry ’bout that gang),

    The straw man has now returned once more again, but only this time not decked out in a mere, lowly jacket and trousers, but now attired in a fucking $ 2,000 deluxe tuxedo. Ecce ego coram. So behold ma…l fo…..rs! And read and weep.

    Why do you dudes persist in your argumentation from a base of rationality and factual, empirical evidence? Don’t yall understand that it is solely a matter of talking points, spin and machinated, conjured facts which support your opposition’s propagandized argumentation? So what if the real, true comrades Cindy, Boeke and whoever the fuck Mark is, and of course, the super-duper, true believer, Marxist sophist, anarchist á là Chomski, Zann and Marcuse, Rodger the rigorous discourse and reasoned debate Dodger, and unfortunately zingzing; so what if they base their arguments solely upon left-wing, Marxist doctrine and dogma, and also on Marxist, anarchist, mindless nihilism.

    They have all discovered their own inner “feelings.” (As opposed, I suspect, to their inner “bitch.”) Which first and foremost makes their arguments superior to yours. That is to say; if it feels good it must be right and ultimately true; therefore their feelings and emotional irrationality must not only be right and true, but they must also be moral and just. Which also means to say if you disagree with them in the slightest degree, you therefore must also be immoral and an enemy of all the pee-pels worthy of capital punishment.

    I again must re-iterate and re-emphasize the simple concept of the Greek Potential Optative wherein statements contrary to fact (i.e., a bunch of should have, would have, could haves) are miraculously and magically transformed into fact and ultimate, absolute truth. In this process “needs” then mysteriously become inalienable human and civil rights to be dispensed by true-believer, doctrinaire and dogmatic, supposedly benevolent, Marxist dictators. A sort of incarnation of Plato’s wise and just “philosopher prince or king.”

    In this regard “needs” whether biological or philosophic or political or factional and partisan or whimsical and capricious; mysteriously and magically are interpreted, translated and transformed into rights. They somehow become rights rather than the needs or desires or wishes which they truly are.

    Now a constant critique of the liberal progressives, commie-lib/simps, lefty-pinko, commie, Marxists; is that they cannot sort out reality from their own propaganda and spin; which, come to think of it, is a classic definition of the term “delusional.” And so the logical next step in this mindset’s reasoning is for such delusional minds to create their own facts in support of their own delusional arguments. And likewise they must then purposefully distort, twist and confuse and confound what a true “right” is; with what a need, wish or desire, whim or caprice, or factional and or partisan political difference, again, truly is.

    And consequently, voílà, basic biological needs, political desires and ideological whims and caprices, magically and not so mysteriously, again, become basic, inalienable rights.

    So why fight the good fight? Isn’t it rather futile when one is dealing with such epistemologically closed, true-believer, leftist, delusional mindsets?

    Or allow me to express it thusly:

    How dare you argue with them, how dare you dare to “refudiate” their intellectual masturbation and nonsense, and their refried-shit-for-brains argumentation and typical spin, talking points and propaganda translated into fact and absolute, universal, ultimate truth? Again, how fucking dare you?

    Surely you must understand that in their hearts and, well, of course not in their brains cause they simply ain’t got none, but rather in their delusional minds cause that’s something they got plenty of; that they know for an irrefutable fact that they are incontrovertibly right and just and moral, but also the absolute monopolistic owners of absolute truth, of course, as they and only they conjure it. You gotta remember that they and only they have a cartel-like, absolute monopolistic, iron vice-grip, stranglehold on absolute truth.

    Why? How so? Because they say so, that’s why. Moreover, because they also feel it deep within their inner hearts and delusional minds too. For you see, even for them it’s quite religious in nature; cause even they must have and possess some form of faith and must give total, absolute obedience to a force majeure, to a being and or power greater and much more powerful than themselves. So that their religion is highly secular atheism and their God is “the collectivist state.”

    That is why Christians and Christianity are so reviled, hated, vilified and persecuted by the left. For surely Christianity has evolved and progressed in its championship of the individual and of individual redemption, salvation and personal choice and responsibility; whereas the collectivist, usual suspects have devolved on an opposite path of serfdom, slavery and statist, collectivist tyranny and dictatorship.

    One last, absolute, very last point: Now I must surmise that many of you, if not all or most of you by now, might, nay, make that must be accusing me of too much thinker-stinker ideation and not enough of my submerging myself deep into the weeds of substantive details. Am I right or am I right as to this conjecture of mine?

    Well, I say, too much o’ dem weeds, in fact, I say fuck ’em nasty, skanky ol’ weeds. But rather I say it is not a matter of not enough scrupulously detailed weeds, but rather it is a matter of not enough substantive analysis through the rigorous exchange of ideas. And the key operative word here is “ideas.”

    But I am getting both writer’s cramp and logorrhea o’ dee brain. In addition am fading out fast and must eat me spin-itchgk and take me medicine. So pound sand and eat excrementum and die.

    And of course lol and have a nice fucking day.

  • It is tragic to see so many billionaires with such a mean spirit. Tim

  • Perfidious doesn’t come down to “liar” in my book. It’s more like “deceitful.” As to your question, there was no net gain either way. California lost one job, Kentucky gained one job.

  • Baronius, I did acknowledge that the employment rate went up. It just didn’t do so as spectacularly as the raw figures appear to show.

    It stands to reason that as people are added to the population of a country, some of them will start businesses and hire people (or persuade people to hire them), thereby creating jobs. (To give a crude example, the number of businesses in Massachusetts was zero prior to the establishment of the Plymouth settlement, and a few dozen afterwards.)

    It accounts, at least in part, for the spurt in business growth which is supposed to have resulted from lower taxes.

    I’m just saying it’s not the be-all and end-all. The country wasn’t noticeably healthier in 2008 than in 2003, although I will acknowledge that the economic situation wasn’t helped by the two expensive wars that the government decided to start… ahem, I mean get involved in.

  • Baronius

    Roger, since you’re calling me a liar, I might as well get personal in my response to comment #23: did employment in Kentucky magically go up by 1 when you increased the population by 1? Did someone offer you a job as you crossed the border?

  • Baronius

    This is my point. Employment did go up. I don’t care what subjective stance you take, or whether you interpret the increase in employment differently than I do. The one thing you can’t say is that employment didn’t go up.

    I’m saying “if A (tax cuts) then B (employment increase)”. I’m presenting an example where A and B both happened. You can argue about the causality, but you can’t claim “not B”. You definitely can’t say that your inability to recognize that B happened – indeed, your ideologically-driven inability to admit that anything objective happened – is proof of your greater insight.

  • “Dread, since when does the mere presence of more people guarantee more employment?”
    Perfidious Baronius, #18

    To be citing employment numbers in the aggregate (in support of the tax cuts) apart from referencing the demographic changes is a kind of Jesuit … sorry, slip of tongue … Jedi trick that our perfidious Baronius has become known for. But since perfidy knows no limits, our Baronius keeps on plugging along.

  • Mark

    …and there’s an absolute truth

  • Believing you are ‘seeing reality’ objectively and therefore from a superior position is a flaw that will insure you will be able to see nothing…not a single thing…without blind bias.

  • you’ve significantly changed the framework by which you view what you think is going on. But you haven’t changed what you think is going on…

    Actually I’ve changed both, but we on the left probably all look alike to you.

    Real life is open to interpretation. It becomes a problem for those who believe they are objectively viewing reality, when they are merely selectively reinforcing their own biased beliefs.

    We are all interpreting, Baronius, both you and I. The difference between us, in this regard, is that you are blind to the fact of your own limited sight, whereas I am not blind to mine.

  • Baronius

    Cindy, in my estimation, you’ve significantly changed the framework by which you view what you think is going on. But you haven’t changed what you think is going on. You might say that you’re reading fables and interpreting them differently than you used to, but the fables still don’t reflect real life.

  • Baronius

    Dread, since when does the mere presence of more people guarantee more employment? Of course I can’t point to individuals and say that they gained jobs because of tax policy. Life doesn’t work that way. But it’s nuts to do what Cindy does, pretending that there wasn’t an increase in employment.

  • Need a jacket and trousers for that straw man you’re building there, Irv?

  • Irvin F. Cohen

    Dear comrade Paynter (that is to say, the more true comrade, than comrade Baronius, so don’t think you’re getting off the hook here, you’re still a comrade more so than the aforementioned comrade, which might be a second hand compliment – I don’t know, at any rate),

    First a correction to my thread # 6: where it reads “mmmmmm” that is an egregious error on my part. The chant sould read “ohhhmmmmm.”

    Secondly, an egregious omission: Read “or hold hands and sing Kumbayah in order to raise world peace, eradicate third world poverty and totally and completely eliminate pollution and global, climate change – without of course spending a dime to do so, nor lifting a finger to work, but through the so-called, supposed force of socialism and Marxist anarchy, without anyone as much as receiving a scratch, to again, achieve world peace and prosperity, happiness and joy. So ‘ohhmmmm’ and Kumbayah yall.”

    And again, have a nice fucking day yall.

  • I guess that you have preconceptions. We all do. Some people educate themselves and grow past the beliefs they were raised with; some don’t. I’d guess that you’re stuck in some preconceptions that you’ve failed to question, but as you get older and read more you may see a bigger picture than you’ve previously imagined.

    That is cute. But I have nearly revamped my entire picture since 12/2007. Guess you haven’t been paying attention.

    On the other hand everything you say comes out of a can with a label that says Libertarian Dogma on it. And, as ever,I am impressed with the unbelievable audacity for people to make claims about their ‘learned views’, who as a matter of regular practice refuse to allow real questions about their basic beliefs to penetrate their consciousness and receive any critical consideration. Since I have been on this site, that is my experience of you.

    Re 7 – This chart, shows the clear ineffectiveness of tax cuts on employment based on population ratio over the time period you mention. In fact, if anything had an effect, it looks more like it was tax increases on the wealthy.

    to be continued–

  • Doug Hunter

    The article starts with falsehoods that should jump out immediately to anyone. A $139,000 tax cut to ANYONE making over $1 million is false, perhaps you meant to say the average person who makes more than million (which will in turn be higher skewed by the richest of the rich as a person with a $billion in income would pay much, much more). I don’t know what you intended, but the oversight is typical and means you’re not doing your own critical thinking you’re regurgitating what you’ve been told.

    Why should I expend my own effort and critical thinking to rebut an article where the author did not even bother to provide his?


    That may be true in a simplistic CBO sort of way. Our unsustainable consumerist economy may receive a more immediate boost from subsidization and handouts to the unproductive members (thereby stimulating demand at Walmart/McDonald’s/China) which induces very counterintutive proclamations such as paying people not to work through unemployment is a great “stimulus” (studies show longer term unemployment leads to difficulty reentering the workforce and that extended benefits increase the time between jobs without resulting in a better job outcome). As a long term strategy, paying people not to work or better themselves is a losing proposition.

  • Irvin F. Cohen

    Dear comrade Baronius,

    Ho-hum, as for your thread # 8, well, de rigueur, stale, predictable and uninspired as usual. So have a nice fucking day in spite of yourself and especially in spite of me.

  • Boeke

    Cindy is correct here, as one would know if they read recent CBO reports.

    Tax cuts to the rich and businesses are very poor business stimulants, about one tenth the effect of cuts or subsidies to the lowest paid people. Thus, they have a negative effect by moving money power from high ROI people to low ROI people. It’s a bad investment, from the financial standpoint.

  • US employment, 2003: 166,019,500
    US employment, 2008: 181,755,100

    [source: US Census Bureau]
    Estimated US population, 2003: 290,326,418
    % employed: 57
    Estimated US population, 2008: 304,374,846
    % employed: 60

    Still ahead of the game, but by a third of what the raw numbers suggest. Hardly evidence that tax cuts alone are responsible for a job boom.

  • As for me, I make a lot more than $200k per year, although the way Melinda and I are giving it away, I’m taking a loss of billions this year – but perhaps I’ve said too much.

    I KNEW it!!!

  • Cannonshop

    The article would be true if… IF the money we were talking about were earned by Uncle Sam and taxed by the rich.
    i.e. if the government EARNED money, instead of just printing it, and spending it.

    It does not. Government does not create value. That is done in the private sector, which the government, at the grip-end of a gun, then takes a portion of…to spend.

    Some things spent on are necessary, some are luxuries we all agree we would like to have, and some are party-driven or politics driven frivolities. The disagreement as to which is which varies wildly depending on your point of view.

    When government takes less from an individual, it is not “GIVING” that individual anything-it is taking LESS FROM that Individual than it might-think of it as an armed robber only taking the twenties out of the register, instead of cleaning it out. (the post-money-taking shooting is optional) and the announcement of “Austerity Mandates” as what it is: Empty rhetoric.

    The GOP likes to spend like…well, like Democrats or drunken sailors on a three day pass in Hong Kong or Bangkok. There will be NO “Austerity”-there weren’t enough seats actually changing hands for that, and there ARE enough long-term career Senators and Congresscritters that “austere” spending limitations will not occur-the spending will continue-just in different, yet equally frivolous and wasteful, directions.

    The only real difference being that instead of putting sand in the gas of the economy’s engine, they will…refrain from it, thereby netting more money than they would by jacking up the tax-rates and causing people to cascade ‘Austerity’ in the job-market by not buying things or hiring out work because they’re paying the money to Uncle Sam instead.

  • Baronius

    Irv – Is your comment so much less stale and predictable than theirs? Try shaking it up a bit.

  • Baronius

    US employment, 2003: 166,019,500
    US employment, 2008: 181,755,100

    2) Consider the life cycle. We spend for eighty years; we earn for 45. Most of our earning is done between the ages of 30 and 60. If you look at my income, I’m a “have not” until 25, a “have” until 65, and the poorest of the poor until I die. But I’ve lived a good middle-class life the whole time.

    Taking the life cycle into account, if everyone prospered since the 1980’s it’d still look like that wealth was concentrated among the “rich”. That doesn’t explain it all, of course. We’re not all athletes, artists, high-commission salesmen, or small businessmen who sell their companies for one big retirement check after 40 years of hard work. There are, sadly, poor people who stay poor. But there’s also a lot of mobility between the tax brackets, and your analysis fails to capture it.

    3) I guess that you have preconceptions. We all do. Some people educate themselves and grow past the beliefs they were raised with; some don’t. I’d guess that you’re stuck in some preconceptions that you’ve failed to question, but as you get older and read more you may see a bigger picture than you’ve previously imagined.

  • Dear comrade Paynter (and while I’m at it, also throw in dear comrade zingzing too),

    As to your article: blah-blah, spin-spin, talking points – talking points; ad nauseam, ad infinitum.

    Why do I get the rather distinct feeling of a rather stale, extremely predictable and uninspired déjà vu all over again?

    What I suggest dear comrade Paynter, is that you hold hands with comrade zingzing and also with about 90 % or more of the other pseudo, phony, lefty-pinko, commie-lib/simp Marxist, so-called, supposed independent-minded, thoroughly lockstep conformist intellectuals of Blogcritics; and that you suck in your collective breaths in order to levitate the Pentagon and the soon-to-be Republican House of Representatives; and that through Musica Universalis, you also hum and hymn the musical note and lyric “mmmmm” in order to effectuate and bring about the Harmonic convergence of the planets.

    Otherwise have a nice fucking day.

  • Baronius

    BTW, Zing, there’s a big difference between government giving something and government not taking it away. There’s little difference between permanent tax rates and 12-year “temporary” tax cuts, though.

  • Maybe they actually mean what they say when they talk about low tax rates stimulating job growth.

    Maybe they do believe that Baronius, but don’t you think someone is bound to be incredulous that they can still believe that after all the direct evidence that it is not true?

    1) Please explain where all the jobs are that were resulted from the Bush tax cuts?

    2) 80% of the wealth created since 1980 went to the top 2% of the richest folks. Please explain, when is all this tax cutting for the rich going to start working?

    3) In light of the evidence, can you see how these persistent beliefs that giving tax cuts to the wealthy are seen, by those who don’t have those beliefs, as either intentionally malevolent or delusional?

  • Baronius

    Zing, maybe the typical conservative isn’t all “me-me-me”. Maybe they actually mean what they say when they talk about low tax rates stimulating job growth. Maybe the average liberal doesn’t want to destroy capitalism, and is serious when he talks about the safety net.

    As for me, I make a lot more than $200k per year, although the way Melinda and I are giving it away, I’m taking a loss of billions this year – but perhaps I’ve said too much.

  • zingzing

    “First off, the extension of the tax cuts doesn’t give money to anyone.”

    six of one, half dozen of the other. although if the tax cuts were not extended, they would take that money from a few hands and put it either in the hands of many through social programs or put it in the hands of a few running wars and such. it’s never a win/win situation.

    as for your millionaire thing, i don’t know how the typical conservative can be so “me-me-me” and so for letting the rather small minority of people making over $200k/yr catch a break. seems counter-intuitive.

    (although i can see why the minority of conservatives making $200k/yr would be… do you make $200k/yr, baronius?)

  • Baronius

    First off, the extension of the tax cuts doesn’t give money to anyone. It prevents the government from taking more money than it would have taken in prior years.

    But also, a millionaire isn’t someone who earns $1M per year. According to the book The Millionaire Next Door, a person with a $200K income at age 50 would be a millionaire. At that low end, the millionaire would continue to have a tax burden about $8K lower than otherwise, going by the numbers in the Firedoglake article.