The Fiscal Cliff and Taxmageddon loom.
"Taxmageddon" is coming on January 1, 2013. What does that mean? Well, we (US taxpayers) can expect large tax increases. Romina Boccia, James Sherk and Katie Tubb of the Roe Institute at The Heritage Foundation, say:…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - Glenn Contrarian
Clavos -
1 - I still don't see anything in your references that says the middle class is dodging taxes to the tune of $1T - which is what you claimed, remember.
2 - You're still listing ZERO evidence other than your own opinion that a 4.5% tax hike on the rich is going to get them to desert the U.S. On the other hand, I've presented you two solid examples where they didn't. Can't you do better than just presenting an opinion?
3 - You resent the president spending $4M on a vacation. Sorry, but the president and his family can't just take a flight using coach to where he grew up in Hawaii, and he can't tell the Secret Service to take a hike. Or didn't you realize this?
If you want to gripe about something, gripe about the fact that Dubya took over one thousand days (that's almost three YEARS) of vacation - one of which was five weeks long! Here, educate yourself:
Calls to the Eisenhower and Truman Libraries reveal that those Presidents were not on vacation for more than 1,020 days. Eisenhower was on vacation for 456 days during his 8 years in office. When asked on whether President Herbert Hoover’s vacation days could be over 500 for 4 years a historian at the Hoover Library said, “No chance. Everyone agrees he was a grinder - he was the kind of guy for whom a vacation was rare - his vacation days were less than 50.” Hoover was in office from 1929 to 1933. Frequently Hoover either drove himself on brief trips or was driven by a military attachment or took the train.
President Obama was on vacation for 26 days during his first year in office (2009). Ronald Reagan spent 42 days on vacation during his first year in office (1981). President George H.W. Bush was on vacation less than his son, 40 days, in 1989, his first year in office. President Obama was on vacation less in his first year in office than the previous three Republican Presidents.
No President since Reagan was on vacation less than Bill Clinton. Presidents Clinton and Carter vacationed the least of any of the last seven chief executives.
And read the next paragraph very carefully:
All Presidents point out that work is being done on vacation. FDR’s Presidential Library included the following note with their information on President Roosevelt’s vacations: “It should be noted that no sitting modern president, including President Roosevelt, can ever take “a vacation.” Simply being away from the White House does not constitute a vacation. In President Roosevelt’s case, even while relaxing at Hyde Park, Warm Springs, or on a fishing cruise, he received mail, reviewed dispatches, signed and vetoed legislation, met with political and world leaders, and delivered press conferences and speeches. During wartime, his periods of true relaxation were even fewer.”
Ah, but I forget! Obama's just SO TERRIBLE! Never mind that he's cut the deficit by 8%, held government spending growth to the lowest level since Eisenhower, kept our tax burden to the lowest level since Truman, kept our corporate tax burden to the lowest level since Nixon, ended one war, got bin Laden, AND kept us from sliding into another Great Depression, oh, no, Obama's just SO TERRIBLE!!!!
Good grief!
27 - Jet Gardner
Let's compare a few Tax rates by president
Eisenhower-GOP-($200,000+) 91%
Kennedy-Dem-($400,000+) 77%
Johnson-Dem-($200,000+) 70%
Reagan-GOP-($212,000+) 70%
Reagan-GOP-($106,000+) 50%
Clinton-Dem-($250,000+) 39.6%
Bush-GOP-($311,950+) 35%
Obama-Dem-($379,150+) 35%
Compared to GOP heroes Reagan at 50% and Eisenhower at 91%... well draw your own conclusions
28 - Christopher Rose
Jet, as I am being reminded by Glenn's silly comments on the Bradley Manning spiel he has posted on this site, facts and reality don't play well with true believers!
29 - Jet Gardner
Indeed Chris-they're trapped in the alternate world of Fox News.
Warren criticizes the cost of Obama’s Christmas vacation but doesn't want us to know that George W. Bush spent at least $20 million taxpayer dollars just on flights to his ranch in Crawford.
The right wing has been outraged at the four million dollar plus price tag for Obama’s family Christmas vacation, and they constantly hold Bush up as an example of how thrifty a president should be when going on vacation.
The problem is that W. wasn’t thrifty. He was the most expensive vacation president in US history. Not only did Bush spend more days on vacation than any other president, but he used Air Force One more often while on vacation than any other president.
During Bush’s two terms, the cost of operating Air Force One ranged from $56,800 to $68,000 an hour. Bush used Air Force One 77 times to go to his ranch in Crawford, TX. Using the low end cost of $56,800, each trip to Crawford cost taxpayers $259,687 each time, and $20 million total for Bush’s ranch flights.
If cost of the flight was the only expense involved to taxpayers Bush’s vacations would still seem rather economical, but there is more, much more. Unlike the Obama’s $4 million Christmas vacation price tag, which includes the cost of everything from transportation to accommodations for the First Family, the White House staff, and the White House press corps, Bush’s numbers only include the cost of flying the president to Crawford. The cost of transporting and accommodating staff, media, friends and family is not included in Bush’s vacation numbers.
In response to growing criticism that the president was on vacation too much, the Bush administration adopted the Karl Rovian tactic of scheduling, “work events,” while the president was in Crawford so that they could claim that President Bush’s vacations were working vacations. During his infamous pre-9/11 August vacation, the AP reported that, “Using the ranch as a base, he will promote White House initiatives in Rocky Mountain National Park, Denver, Albuquerque, Milwaukee, Pittsburgh and San Antonio.”
Bush’s “working vacations” cost taxpayers a small fortune in travel costs because President Bush and his staff would make day trips on Air Force One all across the country in order to counter the criticism that he was on vacation too often. For eight years, Bush essentially used Air Force One as his personal vacation taxi service.
What was also not counted in Bush’s Air Force One mileage total were the vacations where Bush flew to Crawford from Camp David such as the following via Media Matters:
In a December 27, 2001, Fort Lauderdale (Fla.) Sun-Sentinel article (accessed via Nexis), national correspondent Jeff Zeleny reported “[a]fter spending Christmas at the Camp David presidential retreat in Maryland, the president and first lady boarded Air Force One to travel to their ranch near the village of Crawford.”
And on December 26, 2007, The Associated Press reported that Bush took “Air Force One to fly from his Maryland mountaintop retreat to his Texas ranch here to see in the new year.”
FactCheck.org was writing about the anonymous chain emails about Obama’s travel costs and noted in July that the stories about Obama’s travel expenses are, “part of continuing pattern of false and misleading claims about the travels of the president and the first lady,” and that Obama used Air Force One less in his first two years in office than George W. Bush did.
That same pattern of false information about Obama’s travel costs relative to Bush’s is also rampant on right wing blogs, websites, and Fox News. The cost of Obama’s Christmas vacation is a good example of how right wing media can take a small fact like vacation costs or the number of Americans paying taxes in a single year and build an entire misinformation campaign around it.
The total cost of Obama’s Christmas vacation may be $4 million, but George W. Bush spent exponentially more taxpayers dollars, because he used Air Force One for political purposes in an attempt to distract the public from the amount of days that he was spending on vacation. In flights alone just for himself, George W. Bush spent five times more money flying just himself to Texas than Obama is spending on an entire Christmas vacation.
It is likely that the Bush administration spent hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars on vacations, but the false outrage machine is on overdrive due to one Obama Christmas vacation.
By not including the cost of everything, the Obama bashers distorted the numbers to make it appear that Obama was lavishly spending taxpayer dollars on vacations, but a look inside the numbers reveals that nobody knows how to waste taxpayer dollars quite like the GOP.
30 - Clavos
Once again, the taxpayers should NOT be on the hook for any president's (or congressman, or ANY OTHER government employee) vacation expenses, regardless of party. Bush spent like a drunken sailor, for which reason, he forfeited his right to call himself a Republican and should have been summarily tarred and feathered and run out of the party: not only on his vacations, but on wars and everything else. Every single one of the presidents in my lifetime has cost us a fortune for their freaking vacations, and it's time it stopped, especially when they are about to tx the living crap out of everybody, not just the rich.
Bah humbug. I hope Santa skips the entire government, especially congress, come christmas.
31 - Clavos
Glenn: From my #15:
Perhaps the biggest surprise about America’s shadow economy is its size. Long associated with colorful street hawkers in the developing world, the shadow economy makes up a larger portion of the economies of countries like Greece (25 percent) or Mozambique (more than 40 percent) than it does in the US. But because America’s economy is so much bigger, its shadow economy amounts to nearly 8 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP); in the ballpark of $1 trillion, estimates Friedrich Schneider, an economics professor at Johannes Kepler University in Linz, Austria. That’s bigger than the GDP of Turkey or Australia.
And:
The standard estimate of the current size of the shadow economy in the United States ranges from around 8-10 percent of total GDP; in 2010, an amount equal to around $1.4 trillion. (emphasis added)
And who are the "shadow economy?"
From my first link in #15:
There are two informal economies, says Saskia Sassen, a sociology professor at Colombia University in New York. “You have a poverty kind of informal economy, and you have an informal economy that feeds into the high end,” she says. These are creative professionals such as freelance designers and performers. It’s the first group, however, that’s much larger in terms of manpower, she adds. (emphasis added)
And from Salon:
A day laborer waiting on a street corner for a morning’s worth of work hacking brush. A sweatshop employer paying less than minimum wage and skimping on overtime. A woman running a day care center out of her apartment. Drug dealers, sex workers, unlicensed street food vendors. A plumber who deals only in cash or a farmer who trades food for help with the harvest.
What do they all have in common? They’re part of the “shadow economy.” Also known as: the underground economy. Pick an adjective, any adjective: informal, gray, black market, under-the-table, hidden, unobserved. There are many different names for the realm where taxes aren’t paid, labor laws are ignored, and cash is king. But on at least one point most observers agree: the shadow economy, in the U.S. and abroad, is growing.
You obviously didn't read my sources.
There are dozens more as well. Google it.
32 - Glenn Contrarian
Clavos #30 -
Once again, the taxpayers should NOT be on the hook for any president's (or congressman, or ANY OTHER government employee) vacation expenses, regardless of party.
Really? How much did the American government spend immediately after and in and the years since the Kennedy assassination? And what did that do to the social fabric of America? And presidents whose last name aren't (or would not have been) Bush, Bush, Kerry, and Romney can't afford out-of-pocket to rent Air Force One to fly SAFELY to wherever it is that they're taking their family on vacation.
You're entitled to your opinion, but - as I pointed out how the House Republicans are going to cost America $4B by 'saving' $600M - sometimes the cost is well worth it.
33 - Glenn Contrarian
Clavos #31 -
So WHERE in what you posted does it say that $1T worth of tax dodging is due to the middle class? I know you continually point out that I've got a reading comprehension problem, but I don't see ANYthing there that excludes the wealthy from that $1T 'shadow economy'.
And I notice you still haven't provided any historical evidence that a measly 4.5% tax hike has ever resulted in anything approaching what Your Friendly-Neighborhood-Denizen-from-Deliverance Warren called 'Taxmageddon'...whereas my examples of BOOM times came during times when taxes DID include that extra 4.5%...and then some!
You provided opinion, but no historical evidence. I provided two examples of historical evidence...and I can provide several examples of times where Very Low Tax Rates did absolutely squat to help the American economy, too. Not that historical evidence means anything to the Chicken Littles of the Republican Party (and IIRC you're not a Republican, so please note that I did not label you as a Chicken Little - even though you're buying hook, line, and sinker into their fears).
34 - Clavos
So WHERE in what you posted does it say that $1T worth of tax dodging is due to the middle class?
Did you not read what I posted? What class do "day laborer waiting on a street corner for a morning’s worth of work hacking brush. A sweatshop employer paying less than minimum wage and skimping on overtime. A woman running a day care center out of her apartment. Drug dealers, sex workers, unlicensed street food vendors. A plumber who deals only in cash or a farmer who trades food for help with the harvest." belong to, Glenn? They are all part of the shadow economy. Sorry, but you really DO have some kind of comprehension problem.
And what class do the kinds of people mentioned here (also posted previously) in bold belong to? Here, I'll help you: THEY BELONG TO THE EFFING MIDDLE CLASS, GLENN! "You have a poverty kind of informal economy, and you have an informal economy that feeds into the high end,” she says. These are creative professionals such as freelance designers and performers. It’s the first group, however, that’s much larger in terms of manpower, she adds. (emphasis added)
And if you had read the articles from whence these excerpts came, you would have seen that they describe the shadow economy as being people from the middle class (see excerpts above), and the $1T estimate as being the current value of shadow economy activities.
I've seen enough in my daily life to know that there is a very real "shadow" economy; I can get services from car repair to dental and medical work on a discounted cash basis any week day here in Miami, and both articles indicate that the y are available in practically any US city.
35 - Glenn Contrarian
Clavos -
I suggest YOU go back and read the articles. Why? The 'shadow economy' consists essentially of two components - employees and EMPLOYERS. From the Salon reference:
Flocks acknowledges that one driving force in the growth of the shadow economy has been the desire of employers to avoid profit-cramping requirements like worker’s comp, payroll taxes, minimum wages and overtime. But the difference now is that employers can easily get away with doing so, because no one is minding the store.
and
But what’s different now is that there has been a real erosion of the traditional employer-employee relationship. Employers are much more mobile and are using many different tools to make sure that they don’t actually directly employ workers.”
And just in case you wanted to claim it's only small-time employers, here's this:
A former Wal-Mart employee has filed a class-action suit against the retail giant for forcing employees to work without pay - sometimes by locking them into the stores - after their shifts had ended. Maria Gamble of Farmingville, N.Y., is filing suit on behalf of 20,000 current and former Wal-Mart employees in New York state who claim that they were denied pay for overtime hours worked.
That's 20,000 employees, just in New York! And this is hardly the first time they've been caught doing so.
And as for locking employees into stores to get unpaid work out of them - wasn't there a fire at a Bangladesh factory last week where the workers were locked inside? Yep! And this factory supplied Wal-Mart, too!
But anyway, so much for your "the article refers only to the middle class" scheme. It refers to wealthy employers too.
And I notice you STILL haven't shown us any examples of a moderate tax hike resulting in mass exodus of rich people and/or their money - in fact, you're being quiet about it. Wonder why?
36 - Not the liberal actor
Re: comment # 10, Glenn, you say, "(1) On a smaller scale, most of those taxes find their way into government-paid worker..." Are you citing that world famous US government that is very, very efficient, and never, ever wastes tax dollars? You also say, "... they can pour enough of their income back into the business...." You continue, "... can pour enough of their income back into the business (which is, as you should know, tax-deductible) that it takes their income (at least on paper) down to a level where they show little enough income that they pay far less in the way of taxes." Same comment as above. Glenn, do you even think about what you are typing?
Re: comment # 14, Glenn, you cite Adam Smith. You offer this Smith quote: "It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, clothe and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labour as to be themselves tolerably well fed, cloathed and lodged." If you believe that, then you should have no problem specifically defining "equity" in terms of "fair share." Again, I have to ask: do you even think about what you are typing?
Re: comment # 23, Clavos, you say, "... Nobody's vacation should be paid for by anybody but themselves -- N.O.B.O.D.Y.'.S." Well said!
Re: comment # 24, Jet, you say,"Simply put-President Hussein Obama WON the election almost soley on the platform that the rich whould pay their fair share in taxes." Can I then expect you, who I presume voted for Obama, to specifically define "fair share in taxes?"
37 - Clavos
The 'shadow economy' consists essentially of two components - employees and EMPLOYERS.
Wrong there are two different phenomena being discussed at that point. The wal-mart stories have nothing to do with a worker selling his services at a discount for cash on the street, or a doctor offering me a substantial discount if I don't use my insurance and pay in cash which is what I have been talking about, not what some employer is doing to his employees -- that's a totally different issue.
I know you're not stupid, Glenn, but sometimes (and this is one such) you ARE really dense.
As for the exodus of rich people's money, it's been going on for years what do you think the Swiss bank thing is all about? And the Cayman Islands? The Marshall Islands? Lichtenstein? There are places all over the world where Americans hide their cash from the IRS, and have been since long before you or I knew anything about it -- since there has been an income tax, in fact.
And then there are these folks:
An estimated 30 percent to 40 percent of taxpayers cheat on their returns.
A recent report by the Commerce Department found ... a 37 percent increase in unreported income from 2000. In a separate report, the Internal Revenue Service looked at both unreported income and improper deductions and concluded that Americans shortchanged the government by $345 billion in 2001 - an amount almost equal to the projected federal budget deficit for 2007.
The I.R.S. report concluded that proprietors of small businesses, investors and farmers cheated the most. Workers who had 99 percent of their wages reported to the government and taxes withheld from their paychecks were the least likely to cheat (But for 30 to 40 percent of those, only because they can't!). Mr. Everson acknowledged that the estimate is probably low ... The biggest single revenue loss came from proprietors of unincorporated businesses ... who shorted the government an estimated $68 billion in 2001. (emphasis added)
Noticed the bolded type: exactly the types of workers most present in the shadow economy, according to the two links I posted earlier.
38 - Jet Gardner
I finally figured out why he likes Warren so much-In contrast Clavos almost sounds reasonable!
39 - Not the liberal actor
And, in the same vein as vacations, Obama's "fiscal cliff" defenders/commenters will want to look at this site. And they won't even be there! How many more Chfristmas trees will we taxpayers have to pay for in Hawaii?
40 - Baronius
A couple of problems in the article:
First, the $494 billion includes Obamacare, according to the Heritage Foundation.
Second, since the CEA report was released, GDP has been revised upward for third quarter.
Deeper problem - If you want to argue that the President's trip to Hawaii proves that he isn't taking the budget negotiations seriously, feel free. But don't argue that $4 million has an impact on the budget. Our debt is 4 million times $4 million. If we balanced the budget right now, we could pay off our debt by the presidents forgoing annual vacations for the next 1,000,000 terms.
Deeper than that - The jab at Obama as president for life serves no purpose in this article except to make it look like the work of a crank.
Deepest problem - This article is essentially correct. We're headed toward something bad, and we can't even be certain what (and companies hate uncertainty).
41 - Glenn Contrarian
Clavos -
First off, you're asking me to ignore what the article plainly said - so you and I aren't about to get any closer on this issue.
Second, look at what you said:
As for the exodus of rich people's money, it's been going on for years what do you think the Swiss bank thing is all about? And the Cayman Islands? The Marshall Islands? Lichtenstein? There are places all over the world where Americans hide their cash from the IRS, and have been since long before you or I knew anything about it -- since there has been an income tax, in fact.
So it's been going on when Reagan slashed taxes, and it's been going on for over a decade that we've had under the Bush tax cuts...which tells me that it's NOT the tax cuts that stops it!
And in any case, that does NOT prove your point since our two biggest boom times came during times of higher taxes. You can't get past that point, Clav - it doesn't prove that high taxes equals prosperity, but it sure as hell shows that high taxes don't hinder prosperity, either! The Holy Right-Wing Job Creators didn't desert America in the 1950's during 91% tax rates, and they didn't desert America in the 1990's during the 39.5% tax rates...but you're Absolutely Sure they will.
Based on what? Your opinion. Not on historical record or evidence, but upon your opinion.
42 - Clavos
First off, you're asking me to ignore what the article plainly said
No, I'm asking you to read the entire article with intelligence. It's talking about two different things: people who go out on their own, solicit work for a low rate and cash payment and then don't declare that cash to the IRS, thus avoiding paying taxes on it. and people who work for an employer like walmart who exploits them, underpays them, and even locks them in sometimes to force them to work.
See the difference? Not the same people, not the same activities -- not the same thing, is it Glenn?
Based on what? Your opinion. Not on historical record or evidence, but upon your opinion.
No, Glenn. Based on what the IRS and other government agencies say about the percentage of people who cheat on their taxes and based on the fact that one such way is to park your money out of reach of the IRS. The IRS says 30 to 40% of all taxpayers cheat, and you somehow think that the rich aren't among those 30-40%?
Glenn, stupid people don't usually get rich, although I'll grant you that some rich people only inherited their money, they didn't make it, and some of them could be stupid.
I'm not sure how keeping your money out of the government's greedy, wasteful hands is "deserting America," it's cheating on your taxes, which is a crime but "deserting America?" Puleeze.
Whatever.
43 - Clavos
Can I then expect you, who I presume voted for Obama, to specifically define "fair share in taxes?"
Yeah, I'm wondering that myself in light of the fact that the top ten percent are already paying 71% percent of total income tax paid, and yet they are only making 48% of the earnings.
Makes me wonder: what exactly is "their fair share?"
44 - Glenn Contrarian
Clavos #42 -
No, Glenn. Based on what the IRS and other government agencies say about the percentage of people who cheat on their taxes and based on the fact that one such way is to park your money out of reach of the IRS. The IRS says 30 to 40% of all taxpayers cheat, and you somehow think that the rich aren't among those 30-40%?
And that disproves my point about our boom times in the 1950's annd 1990's how?
#43 -
Yeah, I'm wondering that myself in light of the fact that the top ten percent are already paying 71% percent of total income tax paid, and yet they are only making 48% of the earnings. Makes me wonder: what exactly is "their fair share?"
And the last two times you pointed that out, I replied that when they have 100% of the wealth, they'll pay 100% of the taxes.
Clavos, one - ONE - family has more wealth than the bottom 40% of the American people...AND that ONE family uses a heck of a lot more of America's infrastructure than any other ONE family in America - or in the world, for that matter. Comparing percentage of income to percentage of taxes paid doesn't tell the the whole story. What other family uses as much of America's roads/airwaves/air traffic control/shipping lanes! and let's not forget all the federal diplomatic 'assistance' and military might that enables all that to flow freely from third-world nations to here!
This doesn't even address the fact that the American taxpayer is IN FACT subsidizing their business by providing food stamps and Medicare for a significant percentage of their workers because the Waltons are so damned stingy that they can't pay a living wage!
So when you start pulling your "we're-being-so-unfair" percentages out of your hat, next time be sure to add in just how much of America's infrastructure those rich people are using - especially those who refuse to pay their workers a living wage! When I use as great a percentage of America's infrastructure as the Waltons do, then and ONLY then should I pay as great a percentage of my income as they do.
45 - Glenn Contrarian
Baronius #40 -
Well said - I'm pleasantly surprised. I've taken up for the conservatives on quite a few occasions (as have a few other BC liberals), but it's rare that I've seen a BC conservative hold their own to account. I'm under no illusion that you'll change sides, but it's still nice to see you hold your own to account. A lot of politicians could learn from what you did.
46 - Zingzing
I wonder, clavos, if your number includes the amount of social security and Medicare taxes we all pay? Does it? I doubt it. And remember income tax is only one form of tax, the lower classes pay much more tax than you seem to be saying (although you're not saying it, you're just leaving all that out and hoping no one notices). Revenue is revenue, and the individual income tax accounts for less than half of the total tax revenue. Your numbers look far less impressive when you look at the entire picture, not just the one bit. Or maybe you're just gullible, I dunno.
47 - Clavos
Clavos, one - ONE - family has more wealth than the bottom 40% of the American people.
Good for them!! (well, actually, just Sam and a couple of his boys; the rest are only rich by accident of birth)
This doesn't even address the fact that the American taxpayer is IN FACT subsidizing their business by providing food stamps and Medicare for a significant percentage of their workers because the Waltons are so damned stingy that they can't pay a living wage
I doubt the Waltons asked for the government's help. their employees can always go work elsewhere if they aren't happy. I'd be willing to bet plenty of them are just glad to have a job -- no thanks to their president and his government sycophants.
What other family uses as much of America's roads/airwaves/air traffic control/shipping lanes!
Which they pay plenty for. Having worked in the transportation business for thirty years, I can tell you that commercial trucks, ships and airplanes pay LOTS of taxes: road taxes, port taxes and fees, and landing fees and airport taxes.
...especially those who refuse to pay their workers a living wage...
Which has no bearing on how much taxes they pay, and is therefore a non sequitur in this discussion.
48 - Clavos
No, zing SS and Messycare are payroll taxes and weren't part of the original discussion. I'm not gullible and the only government I seek to deceive is the Mexican one, and it only because it's such good sport and so easy. I do, however, take every US deduction I can, and pay a former IRS agent a fair sum to find me all that apply -- all within not only the letter, but also the spirit, of the law.
As you point out, I never said the rich pay more of ALL taxes, and I was only discussing income tax because that's what whomever started (I don't remember -- or care) the discussion mentioned.
49 - Zingzing
Fine, clavos. But it's still a very deceptive statistic that I'm sure the top 10% is happy to see every time it comes up.
50 - Baronius
Glenn - "I've taken up for the conservatives on quite a few occasions (as have a few other BC liberals), but it's rare that I've seen a BC conservative hold their own to account."
Bull. Or, at best, confirmation bias. Clavos and I are arguing over the federal government's role in education. Dave and I disagree on more things that we agree on. I've rarely written a complimentary comment on one of Warren's articles, and I've criticized Kenn over his sources. I called out Dan(Miller) so harshly when he spouted birtherism that I think I drove him from the site. In case you haven't noticed, I'm far more interested in accuracy than in changing anyone's mind, and that means I'll call out anyone when they're factually wrong.
51 - Dr Dreadful
Baronius, you're one of the Politics regulars I respect the most, even though we disagree about most things - and even though IMO you went off the rails a bit during a large portion of Obama's first term.
In recent weeks, though, I've noticed a return to top form. It's good to see you back in the saddle.
52 - Baronius
A lot of people were making a lot of factually incorrect statements on this site over the past four years.
53 - Dr Dreadful
No change there then. :-)
It just seemed to me, B, that you were often uncharacteristically irascible with more lapses from the rational than is your custom.
54 - Baronius
You'll be happy to know that I've also stopped beating my wife.
55 - Not the liberal actor
Glenn, I couldn't help noticing that neither you nor Jet could or would specifically define "fair share."
I have also noticed that you always have a negative comment about the "rich," as in your comment #14. Do I detect a note of jealousy? After all, no one prevented you from becoming "rich." And, I'm sure that if you were as rich as, say, Sam Walton, you would certainly pay your "fair share." Well, guess what. There is nothing that prevents you from paying directly to the IRS whether your'e rich or not.
Re: comment # 40, Baronius, you say, "Deeper than that - The jab at Obama as president for life serves no purpose in this article except to make it look like the work of a crank." Well, that "jab" had two purposes: to point out (1) that Obama is running the US economy (into the ground) as if he were some African country "president for life," and (2) Obama's complete disregard for the US Constitution.
56 - zingzing
"Obama is running the US economy (into the ground) as if he were some African country 'president for life'."
no, that was bush that ran it into the ground. obama's trying to pull it out with a how that's either too big or too small, depending upon your perspective. as for your "president for life" junk, whatever. you only make yourself look a fool.
"(2) Obama's complete disregard for the US Constitution."
just your interpretation of it as it applies to your fantasies... you don't make a good point by being ridiculous. hitler did things like that. see? i'm saying you're hitler.
57 - zingzing
a hoe, obviously.
58 - Baronius
Warren, if that's what you mean by "president for life", ok. But you should know that there's a recent tradition of accusing US presidents of not being willing to step down. It probably goes back a lot longer than I remember, and Andrew Jackson would probably still be in office if his health had held out, but the 22nd Amendment established the 2-term rule in 1951. I recall the nuttier elements saying that Clinton would refuse to leave, then Bush (although it was usually Cheney who would be the villain in the story). It's an absurd accusation. When you say "president for life" that's what it sounds like you mean.
59 - Clavos
I don't think it's deceptive at all. You say the lower classes pay lots more tax than income tax, and that's true, but the rich also pay those taxes and sometimes at a much higher rate, because their houses are more valuable, so they pay more property tax, they drive high end cars so their tag taxes are higher, they employ house servants and must pay payroll taxes for them (and yes, I am aware that some people don't pay those taxes, which puts them in the: -- shadow economy!) etc.
I still think the FairTax is a much better means of taxation than the shit mess the government's come up with over the years.
60 - Clavos
#59 addresses zing's #49.
Disculpen.
61 - Not the liberal actor
Re: comment # 58, Baronius, you say (concerning my "president for life" remark), "It's an absurd accusation." You may be correct, but Obama's recent actions may make the accusation not so absurd. After all, actions speak louder than words. Refer to sources here, here, here, here, and here. None of these sources directly address the 22nd amendment. But does Obama's demonstrated disregard for the US Constitution somehow exclude the 22nd amendment? Please explain why Obama would abide by this amendment while disregarding other amendments and the original Constitution? Do Obama's actions give me cause for concern?
Re: comment # 56, Zz, you say, "... you only make yourself look a fool." And you refer to me as Hitler. But you offer nothing but your opinion to back up your assertions. Well, my opinion is just as valid as yours. In fact, probably more so since I offer sources that helped form my opinion. So, after reading the above sources, who looks both foolish and like Hitler now?
62 - Glenn Contrarian
Baronius -
Bull. Or, at best, confirmation bias
Certainly not the former, but perhaps the latter. I'll give you that one.
63 - Dr Dreadful
Warren, it can be argued that Obama is in fact staying true to his oath of office by at least some of the actions you cite.
For example, there is a case to be made that the Defense of Marriage Act is itself unconstitutional, and that by refusing to enforce it, Obama is fulfilling his undertaking to uphold and defend the Constitution.
64 - Dr Dreadful
Not to mention that the military, the Secret Service and other organs of government also swear to uphold the Constitution. Were Obama actually to attempt to stay in office, those worthy gentlemen and ladies would be at a crisis point whereat their loyalty to the head of state would collide with their loyalty to the Constitution.
However, the Constitution states that nobody can occupy the presidency for more than two four-year terms. Therefore, in the eyes of the law, come January 20th, 2016, Obama will no longer be the President and federal agencies will not have any obligation to him. If he refused to leave office, he would be an illegal usurper, and the machinery of government would act to remove him - by force if necessary.
Obama knows this. And so do you, you inveterate drama queen.
65 - Zingzing
"And you refer to me as Hitler."
That was the point... It was a silly statement based on nothing.
"In fact, probably more so since I offer sources that helped form my opinion."
That Obama is acting like a president for life? Please, whoever me your sources. Or that Obama has a complete disregard for the constitution? Those are both very hard to prove, and I don't think you parroting some other right wing nut constitutes are "source," does it? (no, it doesn't, in case you were wondering.)
"So, after reading the above sources, who looks both foolish and like Hitler now?"
You have a god-given talent for missing the point... Go reread that last paragraph of 56 and see if you can get it.
66 - Baronius
Warren - I think the President is bending the heck out of the Constitution. All WH occupants do, but this one's worse than most. But he will never, ever, ever, stay past his welcome.
67 - Clavos
He has a welcome???
68 - roger nowosielski
He did, once upon a time, Clav, when we still believed in hope & change.
69 - Zingzing
We have elections, clavos, in this spot in time and space called reality. The first time out, the American people rolled out a welcome mat and struck up a fucking band, if you'll notice. The second time around might not have been quite so emphatic, but it was still over pretty damn quick. So he was welcome here. And in the rest of the world as well, except for communist china, which is rather odd, given the right's story... The right's grasp on reality has been slipping for years, and I guess you're not immune, clavos.
70 - roger nowosielski
Democracy at work.
It's surely encouraging some people are believing in it.
71 - Clavos
I guess you're not immune, clavos.
Wrong, zing. There's nothing wrong with my grasp on reality.
I'm just contemptuous of your president is all.
72 - Zingzing
"the rich also pay those taxes and sometimes at a much higher rate, because their houses are more valuable, so they pay more property tax, they drive high end cars so their tag taxes are higher"
Not sales tax, or any other kind of blanket tax. As for property tax, the poor mostly rent, so they pay the property tax of their landlords (and as anyone can tell, a mortgage gets you a lot more house than renting does). And before you go talking about the stupid poor for renting instead of buying, think about what just gutted our economy. As for the tag taxes, are they 10 times as high? I think not. I'm not touching your "house servants" thing, because it disgusts me, but I guess it does give people jobs. Maybe if you consider paying tax accountants a tax upon the rich, you might be able to make the math come out somewhere close to just this side of ludicrous, but the poor and middle classes shell out more than enough to stay right where they are, while the income divide in this country keeps widening. That's not a positive thing, and I dunno why anyone would think it is. It's the same with the corporate structures where the execs make X00 times what the average employee makes, and then they wonder why they failed? Was it hostess that gave their execs millions in bonuses while failing by gutting their employees retirement funds? If not, it was some company, not that it's a unique story. And not that it's unique to corporate structures.
The richest top 5 or 10 percent of this country is mostly made up of people who are good at one thing: money-grubbing. If the rest of this very creative nation could somehow find a way to creatively grub the money off the money-grubbers, I don't see how they could look at it with anything but respect.
73 - Zingzing
"I'm just contemptuous of your president is all."
I'm afraid you'll have to deal with it for a while. It's about time the right started acting as if bound by reality instead of fantasy, which I think your question is a symptom of. Maybe you were just being dramatic, but it looks the same as crackers to me.
74 - Clavos
Throughout history successful people in any endeavour have been envied and hated by the proles. Apparently amerika the pretend land of the free and home of the brave is no exception.
Today, land of the whiners and home of the indolent is a much more accurate description.
75 - Clavos
Neither dramatic nor crackers, zing. Just a reference to my own opinion of the poser.