Althouse: "Well, I guess I shouldn’t call politicians names, so I apologize for calling the wobbly ones wusses."

December 4, 2012

"Well, I guess I shouldn’t call politicians names, so I apologize for calling the wobbly ones wusses."

Sarah Palin apologizes.

204 comments:

1 – 200 of 204 Newer› Newest»

Charlie Currie said...: Well, they are, and she needn't apologize. But I understand why she would.

Cheers; 12/4/12, 9:02 AM
Emil Blatz said...: Different strokes for different folks.; 12/4/12, 9:09 AM
Colonel Angus said...: Palin is correct in her assessment but not for the right reasons. The GOP should just go along with the President's proposal and make damn certain that the electorate knows its his plan. Make him and the Democrats own it. The electorate voted him in a second time so give it to them good and hard.

Obama coasted his first term on blaming everyone but himself and its about time this narcissistic amateur start earning his paycheck and owning up to his rhetoric. If the GOP had any brains and balls they'd give him all the rope he needs.

Why the hell they want to protect a demographic that overwhelmingly voted for Obama is beyond my ken.; 12/4/12, 9:10 AM
jr565 said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 12/4/12, 9:24 AM
Chef Mojo said...: Well played on Palin's part.

First, the "incendiary" part that gets everyones attention.

A proper apology: None of this "sorry if I offended you" crap so common these days.

Explanation and clarification to a wider audience, reinforcing her original point, which was that the GOP shouldn't be wobbly wusses.

I disagree with her. Like Col. Angus, I think the GOP should walk away, and let Obama have it all.

Let it burn.; 12/4/12, 9:26 AM
damikesc said...: The GOP should just go along with the President's proposal and make damn certain that the electorate knows its his plan. Make him and the Democrats own it. The electorate voted him in a second time so give it to them good and hard.

One of the new ideas out there is to propose the middle class tax cut, pass that --- and pass nothing else. Remove the only real arrow Obama has in his quiver. Don't give an inch on the debt ceiling at all.

OR...propose all of it and have the House GOP vote "present"; 12/4/12, 9:26 AM
SteveR said...: Vote Simpson-Bowles and turn it over to the Senate. Obama wants to go over the cliff and he wants to blame republicans.; 12/4/12, 9:35 AM
bagoh20 said...: I happened to watch Fox last night and saw this. I also watched O'Reily's segment on the Fordham University's refusal to let Ann Coulter speak there. They went on campus and asked students about it. To a person they didn't like her, but had no idea why. "She said some racial stuff, but I don't know what." or "I hated what she said after 9/11" (when I was a preteen), " but I can't remember what it was."

I was a student once, and not too bright at the time, but I can't believe the level of stupid and close-mindedness there today. You professors need to challenge these kids, and stop coddling them. You are ruining their lives leaving them like this. They pay you to open their minds, not close them.; 12/4/12, 9:36 AM
edutcher said...: Never apologize, little darlin', it's a sign of weakness.

Call 'em like you see 'em.

But, yeah, the Demos want it this way, let 'em own it.; 12/4/12, 9:37 AM
jr565 said...: The GOP should demand that the negotiations be in public, like OBama said the health care negotiations should have been. In other words, beat Obama about the head with all of his outright lies.
Make commercials of Obama saying that Bushs spending was reckless and unpatriotic even. And of his saying that you don't raise taxes during a recession. And of his pushing for a balanced approach (ie dealing with revenue AND spending) and then ask where the balanced approach is.
Make him live by his own rules, and show that he is in fact the one who is trying to drive us off the cliff.

Make commercials of all the democrats, like chuck shumer and Howard Dean saying going off the cliff might be a good idea.

Send back Simpson Bowles as a suggestion to stop us from going off the cliff. You know, that bipartisan plan that Obama commissioned and then ignored when he didn't like what they proposed.
Just to put an end to the idea that Obama has EVER tried governing bipartisanly or that he still doesn't believe tht "he won" and that compromise means adopting his plans.
A lot of this was done during the campaign, but Obama is still in campaign mode, so why shouldn't republicans be? Put out some commercials/attack ads that use democratic voices to show what they really are.
Show how the dems are trying to give the president unlimited power to raise the debt ceiling, upsetting the balance of power between the three branches (though I'm sure if a republican were to win next time, they would suddenly find it abhorrent that he had such control over the purse strings and would demagogue republicans for it)

Don't expect the electorate to get it, since the media will not carry republicans water. But that doesn't mean that republicans can't make the arguments.

And at the end of the day, they should offer their proposals, then if Obama can't come to the table with a real proposal let us go over the cliff, and let Obama deal with it.; 12/4/12, 9:38 AM
bagoh20 said...: The problem isn't strategy. The problem is that more than half the public is so stupid that the truth can't penetrate. I think even if the GOP lets him have what he wants and it turns to disaster, they will still blame the GOP. "Idiocracy" is here - get used to it.

Japan's decades of malaise is now our future as a country. Some of us will still find a way to prosper. I intend to, and to help those I know to do the same, but this nation is not going to be the place where the average Joe has a chance like it once was.

Average Joe, and specifically his female counterpart, have voted themselves out of a rare opportunity in the history of man.

With the new tax increases at the state and federal level the makers in CA will be paying 61% of their income in taxes. That money is siphoned away from smart uses that produce jobs and opportunity to pay for the pet projects and constituencies of a class of people who have spent every cent they ever got their hands on and then still went irrevocably in debt.

Capital will be taken from people with dreams of building something on their own before they can do it, and charities will be left with much less of the money politicians covet. I feel for the young, they don't even know what they lost, or rather gave away.; 12/4/12, 9:55 AM
Wince said...: The wild card in all this is whether a 2013 recession is already baked in the cake, whether it will be blamed on the outcome of these negotiations, and who will take the fall.; 12/4/12, 10:08 AM
garage mahal said...: Let it burn.

Maybe the GOP can get another credit downgrade under their belt. You can't say the GOP doesn't have "accomplishments" while in the minority.; 12/4/12, 10:16 AM
edutcher said...: Last I looked, the last one was on Barry's watch, so I'm wondering which one they own.

EDH said...

The wild card in all this is whether a 2013 recession is already baked in the cake

It is, that's why Bernanke was a goner if Zero hadn't stolen the election.; 12/4/12, 10:23 AM
machine said...: Still in fantasyland, eh?

Sarah Palin..."stolen" elections...too funny.; 12/4/12, 10:40 AM
SteveR said...: You can't say the GOP doesn't have "accomplishments" while in the minority.

Coming from garage that makes perfect sense; 12/4/12, 10:43 AM
Renee said...: No one complained about these taxes when Bill Clinton was President.; 12/4/12, 10:51 AM
Colonel Angus said...: One of the new ideas out there is to propose the middle class tax cut,

I would like to see some definitions of what constitutes the so called middle class. When I was a teen, my family subsisted on a combined salary of $35k a year (this was mid 1980's) while I considered my best friend 'rich' cause his dad brought in about $125k a year and mom stayed home and kept house.

Today $125k a year might he considered middle class but to someone making $50k, they're rich. Perhaps some honest discussion of what defines poor, middle class and rich is in order before we start cutting taxes for one and raising then on the other.; 12/4/12, 10:52 AM
jr565 said...: Bagoh20 wrote:
I happened to watch Fox last night and saw this. I also watched O'Reily's segment on the Fordham University's refusal to let Ann Coulter speak there. They went on campus and asked students about it. To a person they didn't like her, but had no idea why. "She said some racial stuff, but I don't know what." or "I hated what she said after 9/11" (when I was a preteen), " but I can't remember what it was."

I was a student once, and not too bright at the time, but I can't believe the level of stupid and close-mindedness there today. You professors need to challenge these kids, and stop coddling them. You are ruining their lives leaving them like this. They pay you to open their minds, not close them.

I hear that they invited Bill Maher to speak at Fordham. How is Bill Maher any different than Ann Coulter in terms of the type of things he says? Also, isn't Fordham supposedly a religious school?; 12/4/12, 10:54 AM
bagoh20 said...: Obama didn't win because people thought he would make good decisions on economic policy, and they got what they voted for, twice. I believe that even if people knew with 100% certainty that the economy would be better under a Republican, they still would have elected Obama. Does anyone really believe that any such knowledge would change the minds of someone like Garage.

Decline is a damned mandate, so enjoy it. It's who we are as a people now. For those who wanted to build something, well it's just too late. Sorry, but you should have been born earlier. It was awesome.; 12/4/12, 10:55 AM
Paul said...: Heck, I call 'em a bunch of pussies.

Sarah was being polite.

They get a damn good salary, perks, super retirement but they wimp out with the crunch is on. What good are they if all they do is vote on the easy ones... you know vote 'present'.

So see, I don't call them wusses, I call them much much worse and I don't give a hoot what they think.; 12/4/12, 10:58 AM
bagoh20 said...: " isn't Fordham supposedly a religious school?"

There are competing religions now in religious schools, and the one based on tolerance and love is losing.; 12/4/12, 10:58 AM
jr565 said...: Garage mahal wrote:

Let it burn.

Maybe the GOP can get another credit downgrade under their belt. You can't say the GOP doesn't have "accomplishments" while in the minority.

ok, this occured under Obama. Republicans were the minority at the time. Own it and shut up.
And if letting it burn is now something evil, you might want to talk to people like chuck shumer and Howard Dean who say it might be a good thing to let us go over The cliff. In other words, letting it burn.; 12/4/12, 10:59 AM
garage mahal said...: Does anyone really believe that any such knowledge would change the minds of someone like Garage.

More tax cuts for Romney's rich friends is knowledge most people didn't agree with.; 12/4/12, 11:01 AM
jr565 said...: Here's Howard dean talking about how going over the fiscal cliff is the best deal progressives can et:

HOWARD DEAN: I make the argument that going off the — as you call it the curb, I call it the slope, the press calls it the cliff, is actually the best deal progressive Democrats are going to get. And here’s why. One, we get the Clinton tax rates on everybody. Will it cause a problem? Yes. There will be a short recession, and it will be painful. But two, we get defense cuts. Republicans are never going to agree to that. And three, there are some human services cuts, which we’re not going to like. But it’s the least possible damage.

Now what do we get in exchange? A serious down payment of the deficit. The Wall Street people, who wringing their hands of this, are really full of it because what they’re going to see is a big drop on Wall Street while all the hype comes and then it’s going to be roaring back because finally somebody has done something serious about the deficit.

So, I think the fiscal curb, as you call it, is the best deal that progressive Democrats are going to get. And I think it’s the best deal in the long run, not the short run.

There's Dean saying that they SOULD go over the cliff so tha they an raise taxes on EVERYONE and that there will be a recession. In other words, LETTING IT BURN.

So if a republican says, ok, progressives, you want to let it burn, you want to raise tsxes on everyone and cause a recession ok, let's let you get your way. Why is THAT somehow irresponsible, but what Howard dean articulates, which I'm willing to guess is what many progressives actually want, that's not LETTING IT BURN, and that's not even promoting letting it burn.

If we go over the cliff, its because of people,like Howard Dean. As such, progressives like yourselves will own that recession.; 12/4/12, 11:10 AM
Jason said...: They are apparently too full of the milk of human kindness.; 12/4/12, 11:13 AM
Hagar said...: That is not what they are full of.; 12/4/12, 11:18 AM
jr565 said...: Garage mahal wrote:
More tax cuts for Romney's rich friends is knowledge most people didn't agree with.

you are such an idiot. You can't even articulate your enemies actual position.
The republicans aren't advocating MORE tax cuts for the rich. They are saying not to RAISE taxes on anyone, including the rich.
You know, and I know that those so called tax hikes will only fund govt for a few days at best, so is just a meaningless gesture. And I know, even though you pretend not to, that such hikes will actually hurt the middle class and at, as Obama argued when he advocated extending the Bush tax cuts, that its not a good idea to raise taxes in a bad economy.

Also,why do dems keep mentioning going back to Clinton era tax levels. Why do they never mention going back to,Clinton level spending?
The issue is and has always been the spending side, and not the revenue side.
Its like they don't even understand the concept that taxes and spending are tied together. Obama's balanced approach barely even mentions spending at all. The math doesn't add up, and I don't think progressives even care that it doesn't.; 12/4/12, 11:24 AM
Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...: "No one complained about these taxes when Bill Clinton was President."

Not true. Plenty of people complained about Clinton's tax hikes. Plenty of small business owners noticed. The economy was in much better shape and we absorbed it, but there was plenty of grumbling.
Tax hikes now will lead to more pink slips.; 12/4/12, 11:28 AM
Colonel Angus said...: Raising taxes on the 'wealthy' will generate an additional $100 billion in annual revenue according to Tim Geithner. Yet that still leaves us with a trillion dollar deficit so where is the additional revenue coming from if not the middle class? Obama certainly isn't going to cut spending to any significant level so he really isn't serious about reducing the deficit.; 12/4/12, 11:28 AM
bagoh20 said...: "More tax cuts for Romney's rich friends is knowledge most people didn't agree with"

That's what so stupid. The rich will not be hurt one bit by higher taxes. They are freaking rich. Do you even understand what that means? The main advantage of being rich is that you can pass adversity on to other people. When you attempt to drain the rich, they just stop paying people in one way or another, and when you do it through taxation the money just goes to waste often right back to those rich people. You are such suckers for the oldest trick in politics.; 12/4/12, 11:28 AM
bagoh20 said...: Garage, if you really want to hurt the rich you need to do it like your idols through revolution, and execution. Sharpen up that guillotine, gather your firing squads, and stop being a such a lightweight. This taxing the rich stuff is just a tactic of poseurs.; 12/4/12, 11:32 AM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: I would like to see some definitions of what constitutes the so called middle class.

But..but.. that would require real thought and discussion. And probably even math and everyone knows math is HARD. So much easier to demagog and divide people.

Middle class is a nebulous term and varies from place to place. We are middle class here where we live. Were we in San Francisco, we would be poverty stricken. Everything is relative. And this is what is wrong with having a monstrous centralized one size fits all government.; 12/4/12, 11:35 AM
garage mahal said...: The rich will not be hurt one bit by higher taxes. They are freaking rich.

Then what is that sawed off shrimp pizza chain owner that lives in castle so worried about? And please don't insult my intelligence and say he's worried about his workers.; 12/4/12, 11:35 AM
jr565 said...: "No one complained about these taxes when Bill Clinton was President."

ok, libs, its time to be honest.
If we had Clinton era Tax rates and Obama era spending, do you think that we will actually fund the govts spending requirements?
Please defend your math.; 12/4/12, 11:36 AM
bagoh20 said...: "Raising taxes on the 'wealthy' will generate an additional $100 billion in annual revenue according to Tim Geithner."

Yes, a single week of spending covered. Genius of the left. And they fight for this like it's some grand accomplishment. They will go over the cliff to cover spending for a week, just out of some silly class warfare that amounts to shooting yourself in the foot. The conservatives are Obama's best friends. They are like the friends that have the intervention and drag you into rehab. Obama keeps saying, I don't have a spending problem, I can handle my spending.; 12/4/12, 11:37 AM
jr565 said...: Garage mahal wrote:
Then what is that sawed off shrimp pizza chain owner that lives in castle so worried about? And please don't insult my intelligence and say he's worried about his workers.

his business will be hurt, and those working in his business will be hurt. Who do you think will be hurt more, the guy who owns the corporation, or the person who works at a pizza place who gets a pizza delivery or cashier salary, and now is having his hours cut?
You do the math. You can do math right?; 12/4/12, 11:40 AM
Tank said...: Hey, the country voted for the big gov't guys. No one wants to cut anything. But, of course, we're not paying for it, just borrowing and printing.

Let's face it, if we're going to spend like this, we need the money. So let all the Bush tax cuts expire, raise the capital gains rate, cut the death tax exemption, make the cuts required by the last non-deal, maybe add a sales tax or a VAT, just keep taxing until we don't have a $1.5T deficit every year. Yep, that's what we need.

As someone said, any debt reduction plan that does not decrease spending $1.4T next year, is a debt increase plan.; 12/4/12, 11:41 AM
Michael K said...: " garage mahal said...
Let it burn.

Maybe the GOP can get another credit downgrade under their belt. You can't say the GOP doesn't have "accomplishments" while in the minority.

This goes well beyond fiddling while Rome burns. garage doesn't even know what is coming. He is concentrating on those slippery deck chairs. They keep sliding to port.; 12/4/12, 11:42 AM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: Then what is that sawed off shrimp pizza chain owner that lives in castle so worried about? And please don't insult my intelligence and say he's worried about his workers.

He is worried about his profit margin and his ability to continue to stay in business with rising costs of all ingredients and topped of with an enormous punitive cost in mandatory cadillac plan health care.

Here is a clue. If you don't make a profit.....you can't stay in business. If you don't stay in business your employees are out of jobs. Being in business is not a charitable proposition.

And yes. If HE goes out of business, has to close his restaurants, then I suppose he will be able to continue on in a reasonably secure life since he was likely smart enough to save some money and plan ahead.

As an employer, he does care about his employees. Believe it or not, employers don't do a happy dance when they have to lay off people who have worked for them for years. You need your employees. You don't make a profit without good employees either.

If YOU cared about his employees, you wouldn't be bitching and whining about his need to raise the costs of his products.; 12/4/12, 11:43 AM
damikesc said...: No one complained about these taxes when Bill Clinton was President.

...and if spending returned to that level, nobody would complain now, either.

...although, it should be noted, Clinton said he thought he raised taxes too much.

Then what is that sawed off shrimp pizza chain owner that lives in castle so worried about? And please don't insult my intelligence and say he's worried about his workers.

Business owners don't enjoy firing people because of costs. They prefer to limit firing to the employees' incompetence.; 12/4/12, 11:43 AM
bagoh20 said...: "Then what is that sawed off shrimp pizza chain owner that lives in castle so worried about?".

This is what's wrong with class warfare. It's focused on hurting people, not helping anyone. You think taking his money is gonna hurt him. He may not like it, and he'll bitch, but in the end, his life won't change one bit. He'll still be rich. The extra money taken will just come out of the money he would spend on people he employs things he buys, investments he makes. In other words it will all come out of others down the chain.

Now I'm sure hearing him squeal makes you feel all warm inside and successful, but it should not unless you are just evil, or hopefully just close-minded. I'll assume you aren't evil and just give you the benefit of the doubt that you have no perspective from which to know any better.

You know it's not going to solve any fiscal problem, so clearly it's looking a little evil.; 12/4/12, 11:46 AM
Colonel Angus said...: Then what is that sawed off shrimp pizza chain owner that lives in castle so worried about?

Well speaking for myself I am looking at about a 4.5% marginal pay cut when the tax increase goes into effect. Am I particularly worried, not so much but it will require me to refocus my financial planning to mitigate the loss.

And please don't insult my intelligence and say he's worried about his workers.

I'm not, I'm worried about my business since I have to pass those costs onto either my employees or customers or both. If it means having to cut benefits or lay off personnel in order to maintain my profit margin, so be it. I'm not running a charity or non profit. So there, your 'intelligence' remains unscathed.; 12/4/12, 11:48 AM
hombre said...: Appropriate Republican talking point: "Democrats are pushing us off the fiscal cliff so they can justify raising taxes on the middle class when there is a greater economic crisis. They and their cohorts in the media will blame Republicans even though it is a Democrat plan."

Whatever else they do or propose in working environments, this point, or some variation, should be their only statement to the Obamamedia. Democrats have been showing them how to bring this off for years. Republicans, otoh, have to go their own way to show how smart they are by showing how stupid they are.; 12/4/12, 11:50 AM
Anonymous said...: Romney won 47% of the vote, how fitting. He was a wussy plutocrat, Palin forgot to say plutocrat.; 12/4/12, 12:15 PM
Seeing Red said...: --Capital will be taken from people with dreams of building something on their own before they can do it, and charities will be left with much less of the money politicians covet. ---

And what happened in Germany will happen here. Let Big Daddy handle it, I don't have to give.; 12/4/12, 12:15 PM
garage mahal said...: He is worried about his profit margin and his ability to continue to stay in business with rising costs of all ingredients and topped of with an enormous punitive cost in mandatory cadillac plan health care.

He lives in a fucking castle. His net worth is 600 million dollars, and he is crying like a baby over a 8 million dollar cost of ObamaCare?

He wants the government to subsidize the costs of health care to his workers. Just like the government does for Walmart.; 12/4/12, 12:22 PM
Seeing Red said...: GM doesn't realize it's already burning.

Greece & IL have about the same population, don't we wish we had Greece's debt.

And the EU is running around like a chicken with the head cut off over a paltry $24 billion.

GM actually thinks money comes from thin air.

Just where are the tax revenues to keep the largesse flowing going to come from?

Charts are mimicking 1929, 1987 & 2008.

We are the ones we've been waiting for, this time it will be different.; 12/4/12, 12:22 PM
Seeing Red said...: --He wants the government to subsidize the costs of health care to his workers. Just like the government does for Walmart.--

You are the government, you already do and you voted for taking on more of the burden.

No whining.; 12/4/12, 12:23 PM
Robert Cook said...: "Never apologize, little darlin', it's a sign of weakness."

Refusing to act in a way that one believes will be considered showing signs of weakness is a sign of weakness.; 12/4/12, 12:24 PM
Paul said...: "This is what's wrong with class warfare. It's focused on hurting people, not helping anyone"

In a nutshell. The left since the French Revolution has been a force for pure evil. Garbage and people like him are evil and thirst to punish. It is what animates them.

Most of us here only ever wanted to be left alone but these twisted meddlesome fuckers have got our backs up, drawn into a fight we never wanted to have.; 12/4/12, 12:28 PM
Robert Cook said...: "Today $125k a year might he considered middle class but to someone making $50k, they're rich. Perhaps some honest discussion of what defines poor, middle class and rich is in order before we start cutting taxes for one and raising then on the other."

It also depends on where in the country one lives, as cost of living varies across the country.

However, no matter how you define the terms, anyone making $125,000.00 per year in America today is earning more than most Americans. In other words, even today, a household with income of $125,000.00 per year is at minimum "upper" middle class.; 12/4/12, 12:32 PM
Seeing Red said...: Socialism kills, free markets feed.

The 20th century's lesson will be learned again the hard way.; 12/4/12, 12:32 PM
garage mahal said...: You are the government, you already do and you voted for taking on more of the burden.

I have no choice but to subsidize Walmart's workers because Walmart is too fucking greedy and won't do it themselves.

I am lucky to have choices to patronize where I live though, places like Costco, who do treat their workers well and offer decent healthcare plans to all employees. Or patronize many local pizza joints instead of rewarding this douchebag and his shitty food.; 12/4/12, 12:35 PM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: He lives in a fucking castle. His net worth is 600 million dollars, and he is crying like a baby over a 8 million dollar cost of ObamaCare?

You know what, fuckhead? Contrary to what Obama and the rest of you Commies believe. HE DID BUILD THAT. In addition, he also hired people to build that.

You are a jealous little prick and want to tear someone down because they are actually successful, created a business, created jobs, provide a product that people like. You and your scum sucking brethern won't be happy until we are all dressed in rags and are begging from the government to feed us.

YOU. MAKE. ME. SICK.; 12/4/12, 12:38 PM
Chip S. said...: He may not like it, and he'll bitch, but in the end, his life won't change one bit. He'll still be rich.

I probably agree w/ bagoh20 >90% of the time, but this argument makes no sense to me. If having less money wouldn't change this guy's life at all, why does he keep working?

It's wrongheaded to talk about this stuff in terms of what wealthy biz types can "afford". What matters is how they'll respond to disincentives. And on that score, I'm amazed at how much of a touchstone the responsiveness of high-income earners to tax rates has become. (This is NOT the same thing as businesses' responses to the Obamacare mandates, which are predictably large.)

The problem at hand isn't that a return to the Clinton tax code would be catastrophic. It won't be. The problem at hand is that we're spending more as a pct. of gdp than we ever have (outside of WW2), w/ no real tapering off in sight.

And Obama doesn't even seem willing to talk about that, b/c he can divert people's attention by yapping about "millionairesandbillionaires".; 12/4/12, 12:39 PM
Robert Cook said...: "Contrary to what Obama and the rest of you Commies (sic) believe. HE DID BUILD THAT. In addition, he also hired people to build that."

In short, the people he hired built that.; 12/4/12, 12:43 PM
Colonel Angus said...: It also depends on where in the country one lives, as cost of living varies across the country.

Indeed, a factor that Democrats don't consider when defining who is rich.

In other words, even today, a household with income of $125,000.00 per year is at minimum "upper" middle class.

To you perhaps, to the guy flipping burgers that's rich.; 12/4/12, 12:49 PM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: I am lucky to have choices to patronize where I live though, places like Costco, who do treat their workers well and offer decent healthcare plans to all employees. Or patronize many local pizza joints instead of rewarding this douchebag and his shitty food.

There you go. Doing that free market thingy again.

The free market works. Don't buy his pizza. Don't shop at Wal Mart. Eventually, the stores close. Or they change their business model to become successful.

But NO...you pustules on society want to force and legislate and more importantly PUNISH the evil businesses.

When you punish those businesses and don't shop at Wal Mart and the company closes stores.....just who do you think is being hurt?

Cutting off your nose to spite your face. Morons.; 12/4/12, 12:49 PM
Colonel Angus said...: He wants the government to subsidize the costs of health care to his workers. Just like the government does for Walmart.

Can you elaborate on these government subsidies as I might want to get in on them. Particularly since I am being asked to foot an ever increasing portion of the bill.; 12/4/12, 12:51 PM
Chip S. said...: In short, the people he hired built that.

And were compensated for their work out of the rich guy's earnings.

Or are you the last surviving adherent to the Labor Theory of Value?; 12/4/12, 12:53 PM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: "Contrary to what Obama and the rest of you Commies (sic) believe. HE DID BUILD THAT. In addition, he also hired people to build that."

In short, the people he hired built that.

Yes, and of course he went out to the back yard and pick the money off of the magical money tree. I have one of those.....don't you?

Also. The people that he hired to build his castle in the sky, spent the money that he gave to them in exchange for their work. Their money spent, paid the wages of someone else, who spent their money, which then helped to proved some income and jobs for someone else.

It is called velocity of money. Something that has slowed almost to a standstill under Obama's anti business policies.

Economics is like math. Difficult to fake. Life is a bit easier when you aren't stupid.; 12/4/12, 12:53 PM
Renee said...: "In other words, even today, a household with income of $125,000.00 per year is at minimum "upper" middle class."

"To you perhaps, to the guy flipping burgers that's rich"

and considered rich to someone in middle middle management.; 12/4/12, 12:53 PM
Baron Zemo said...: All the tax increases in the world will not mean anything if we do not stoop spending like Cedarford at a Nazi memorabilia sale.

There are many wasteful spending boondoggles where billions can be cut. Foriegn aid for example. Cut out any money going to Egypt or Syria or the PLO. Bring our troops home from bases in Europe. Leave Afghanistan to the mullahs. Increase the age for social security and deduct the lower payroll tax rate on salaires up to one million dollars a year. End the phony investment in crony capitalism green energy and drill and frack the energy we have here in America.

There a lot of things we can do.

Obama will not do any of them.

He just wants to tax and spend.

That is what America voted for. They should get it good and hard.; 12/4/12, 12:54 PM
Colonel Angus said...: In short, the people he hired built that.

Yes to the extent that they relied on his capital, management expertise and the personal risk he took on to create the opportunity for them to gain employment.

In other words Robert, they were compensated for their efforts, they carried zero financial risk by being his employee.; 12/4/12, 12:58 PM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: Here....I know math is hard for you progressives. But this is a chart from the Fed

Notice that the velocity was relatively stable until 2007/8 when the bad loan chickens from the CRA fiasco and other government mortgage mandates came home to roost.

Note that in 2007 when the chart begins to nose dive, this is when the Dems took control of Congress and controlled the purse strings.

Since Obama it has gotten even worse.

When businesses don't spend, when people hoard their cash, the wheels of the economy grind ever slower.

I don't know why I'm wasting my time. Whooosh.....over their heads.; 12/4/12, 1:10 PM
Colonel Angus said...: He lives in a fucking castle. His net worth is 600 million dollars, and he is crying like a baby over a 8 million dollar cost of ObamaCare?

You are conflating his personal net worth with the cost of operating a business. Are you talking about Schnatter? Is his net worth that much because according to their 2010 Annual Report, the company held about $415 million in assets.

Also bear in mind the company is public so the shareholders want to see a return on their investment. In 2010 their net income was $51.9 million. Minus another $8 million in costs and profits are down even more. Perhaps you are not a shareholder so you don't care about things like that a few of us do. That's why we are in business.; 12/4/12, 1:13 PM
X said...: garage mahal said...I have no choice but to subsidize Walmart's workers

you voted for these policies. besides, under ACA, others subsidize your obesity.; 12/4/12, 1:15 PM
Robert Cook said...: "Economics is like math. Difficult to fake."

Wrong. Economics is very easy to fake, which explains the pro-Wall Street policies of the Obama, Bush, and Clinton administrations that have devastated this country financially.; 12/4/12, 1:17 PM
Robert Cook said...: "And were compensated for their work out of the rich guy's earnings."

No, he got rich by absorbing most of his worker's earnings.; 12/4/12, 1:18 PM
CWJ said...: Bagoh20's 11:46 comment makes a point that I've been tempted to make myself.

You can't hurt the rich!!!!

You can only hurt yournonrichself. The rich, including the so-called $250,000 "millionaires and billianaires" have the wherewithall to protect themselves. The doctor will let go a nurse or receptionist. The lawn service will be cut back, or that new landscaping/room addition will be put off. The business owner won't hire. I can live with my current BMW for another year. In short, the rich are surrounded by "human shields" that they will sacrifice to the last man or woman before they sacrifice themselves.

Resent the rich. Envy the rich. I don't care. You'll feel and do whatever you want. But don't kid yourself. You can't hurt the rich, without hurting yourself. You'll only tank the economy and those least likely to weather the storm.; 12/4/12, 1:19 PM
X said...: Robert Cook, I think we could both agree that no one should get rich working for the taxpayers, and that wherever we draw the line for rich for tax purposes ($125K?), government salaries should be lower than that.; 12/4/12, 1:21 PM
Robert Cook said...: How perplexing are we humeengs beans...we who applaud those who enslave us and decry those who shout "Thief! Thief!" at the thieves of our wealth and liberty.; 12/4/12, 1:23 PM
Chip S. said...: No, he got rich by absorbing most of his worker's earnings.

OMG Cook, you really do subscribe to the Labor Theory of Value, which even the Fabian Socialists rejected a century ago.

Don't complain when people call you a commie, b/c that's in fact what you reveal yourself to be w/ this comment.

Good to know that you're w/in 100 years of being up-to-date in economics analysis, comrade.; 12/4/12, 1:23 PM
damikesc said...: He lives in a fucking castle. His net worth is 600 million dollars, and he is crying like a baby over a 8 million dollar cost of ObamaCare?

He wants the government to subsidize the costs of health care to his workers. Just like the government does for Walmart.

Whoa, why are YOU bitching about this? THAT is what you want, fucking idiot.

Or patronize many local pizza joints instead of rewarding this douchebag and his shitty food.

Care to guess how many of those local pizza joints cover THEIR employees health insurance?

Do you even know?

In short, the people he hired built that.

...yet they needed his capital, risk-taking, and plan to do so. Odd.; 12/4/12, 1:25 PM
garage mahal said...: The free market works.

Schnatter isn't worried about the costs of ObamaCare. He's worried that it'll lower labor costs for his competitors. if you have fewer than 25 employees and your employees earn less than $50,000 on average then you get a tax credit to defray 35 percent of the cost of providing health insurance to your workers.

Probably the best thing Schnatter could have done is shut the fuck up instead of announcing to all his potential customers that his employees would take in the ass because he didn't get his way in the election. Already, his brand is taking a big hit.; 12/4/12, 1:26 PM
damikesc said...: Schnatter isn't worried about the costs of ObamaCare. He's worried that it'll lower labor costs for his competitors. if you have fewer than 25 employees and your employees earn less than $50,000 on average then you get a tax credit to defray 35 percent of the cost of providing health insurance to your workers.

Do you know who his competition actually is?; 12/4/12, 1:27 PM
damikesc said...: Schnatter isn't worried about the costs of ObamaCare. He's worried that it'll lower labor costs for his competitors. if you have fewer than 25 employees and your employees earn less than $50,000 on average then you get a tax credit to defray 35 percent of the cost of providing health insurance to your workers.

Also, given that virtually ALL of the companies that size don't offer health insurance at all --- "defraying" less than half of a brand new expense is a piss-poor plan to "lower labor costs".; 12/4/12, 1:29 PM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: "And were compensated for their work out of the rich guy's earnings."

No, he got rich by absorbing most of his worker's earnings.

we who applaud those who enslave us and decry those who shout "Thief! Thief!" at the thieves of our wealth and liberty.

...and chaining them to the pizza ovens for hours upon hours. Rounding them up on the streets and forcing them to work as slaves at his sweaty pizza parlors never to be seen again by their grieving wives and starving children who don't even get to eat the leftover crusts of pizza. All the time rubbing his hands together in glee at his power to force people to work for him. Bwhahahahaha.

He holds a gun to the heads of the contractors forcing them to build his castle made of diamonds and gold. The contractors also have their own chain gangs of slave laborers too. Mwhahahahaha!!!; 12/4/12, 1:31 PM
I Callahan said...: More tax cuts for Romney's rich friends is knowledge most people didn't agree with.

Can you even attempt to be honest anymore, garage? No one is positing tax cuts for the rich. We're going for keeping the rates the same.; 12/4/12, 1:35 PM
ricpic said...: Can the whole house of cards fall down already? It's tiresome watching the slow motion playing out of our inevitable collapse. Faster please.; 12/4/12, 1:37 PM
garage mahal said...: Do you know who his competition actually is?

I imagine a huge share of it is held by non-chain operators. I can think of over a dozen that deliver right to my house. Many that offer much better product that Papa Johns can't compete with.; 12/4/12, 1:38 PM
X said...: I imagine a huge share of it is held by non-chain operators. I can think of over a dozen that deliver right to my house.

if you're buying pizza from non union shops that don't provide free health care, do you have a point?; 12/4/12, 1:44 PM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: if you have fewer than 25 employees and your employees earn less than $50,000 on average then you get a tax credit to defray 35 percent of the cost of providing health insurance to your workers.

I haven't read that as part of Obamacare.

However, it is still more cost effective to just pay the fine of $2000 for not covering employees instead of getting a 35% tax credit on a $10,000 insurance premium cost. (average for most policies that cover a family) Old link it is even worse today.

100 employees - 30 = 70 x @2000 = $140,000 from the business cash flow

100 employees x $10,000= $1,000,000 - 35% = $650,000 from the business cash flow. Gee.....140K versus 650K which would I rather spend.

Divide that amongst how many pizzas in order to break even. I know.....math is REALLY hard.

What is even better? Reduce more employees to part time (less than 30 hours and not worry about any of it. A business is not a charity.

Thank you Obama and Democrats, we must pass the bill to find out what is in it.; 12/4/12, 1:45 PM
n.n said...: Colonel Angus:

Exactly. The market (i.e. people) compensates in large part proportional to risk exposure. The employees bear no risk whatsoever, other than losing their job, or anything inherent to the fulfillment of their voluntary obligation. They are compensated according to their individual contribution to the success of the enterprise.

Incidentally, it is dissociation of risk which causes corruption. It is dreams of instant gratification which motivates its progress.; 12/4/12, 1:46 PM
Colonel Angus said...: How perplexing are we humeengs beans...we who applaud those who enslave us and decry those who shout "Thief! Thief!" at the thieves of our wealth and liberty.

Enslave? Robert are you from Colorado and taking advantage of their liberalization of drug use?; 12/4/12, 1:50 PM
garage mahal said...: I haven't read that as part of Obamacare.

Maybe you should start reading more before opening your big yap.; 12/4/12, 1:52 PM
jr565 said...: Garage wrote:
"Then what is that sawed off shrimp pizza chain owner that lives in castle so worried about?".

if he has to close businesses that will certainly hurt him, but he's rich. Even if every papa John's closed tomorrow he'd still have that castle you begrudge him so. Ad I bet he also has plenty of assets. But les say all papa johns closed tomorrow. War about the people who work at Papa John's? Those that rely on income from Papa John's are going to be a lot harder hit than Papa John himself. Do you not get that? (I don't think you really care about poor people at all, actually).
And so, if you start tinkering with a corporations bottom line and make it harder to do business, its always the low level employees that get hurt. And customers. Which hurts business, which again hurts low level employees the most.; 12/4/12, 1:52 PM
Colonel Angus said...: I can think of over a dozen that deliver right to my house. Many that offer much better product that Papa Johns can't compete with.

Local typically means a mom and pop operation with pretty thin profit margins. I'll wager your preferred local pizza establishments are non-union and provide no health benefits. But if they make a superior product, that's what matters from the consumer standpoint.; 12/4/12, 1:56 PM
Rusty said...: Inga said...
Romney won 47% of the vote, how fitting. He was a wussy plutocrat, Palin forgot to say plutocrat.

Another dead litter of kitties.; 12/4/12, 1:59 PM
jr565 said...: Robert cook wrote:

How perplexing are we humeengs beans...we who applaud those who enslave us and decry those who shout "Thief! Thief!" at the thieves of our wealth and liberty.

my guess is everyone who works at Papa Johns applied for that job, and got paid to work there. Oh, and could quit anytime and work anywhere else they applied for and got a job at.

How is that remotely akin to slavery? Slaves don't apply for jobs, nor et paid for their work, nor can leave at any time. In every possible way it's the opposite of slavery. It sounds like you're having a problem with the basic terms of the argument.

Workers of the world unite and take over!; 12/4/12, 2:01 PM
Rusty said...: Robert Cook said...
"Economics is like math. Difficult to fake."

Wrong. Economics is very easy to fake, which explains the pro-Wall Street policies of the Obama, Bush, and Clinton administrations that have devastated this country financially.

Please, Bob, stop it. You're gindingly, sophomorically , dismally , ignorant on the subject. Quit beclowning yourself by pretending you know something. You don't.; 12/4/12, 2:02 PM
Rusty said...: garage mahal said...
Do you know who his competition actually is?

I imagine a huge share of it is held by non-chain operators. I can think of over a dozen that deliver right to my house. Many that offer much better product that Papa Johns can't compete with.

There are vast swaths of this country, the citizens of which have no idea what constitutes a good pizza. That is where the chains shine. It is impossible to get a Chicago style pizza in southern California.; 12/4/12, 2:05 PM
X said...: Maybe you should start reading more before opening your big yap.

maybe your side should write shorter laws if they want people to read them instead of saying "fuck it, hire no one".; 12/4/12, 2:06 PM
Seeing Red said...: Cookie's never heard that economist joke, get 10 of them together in a room and get 11 answers.; 12/4/12, 2:08 PM
garage mahal said...: maybe your side should write shorter laws if they want people to read them instead of saying "fuck it, hire no one".

It's no wonder Republicans hate ObamaCare so much. They don't even know what the hell is in it. Not our problem if you're too lazy to bother to read it.

Far from burdening small businesses, ObamaCare goes out of its way to help them. Huh. Imagine that.; 12/4/12, 2:09 PM
Colonel Angus said...: How is that remotely akin to slavery?

I suppose when you subscribe to the theory that workers should own the means of production, me being the business owner (the one who took on the financial risk to start and keep the business going) means I'm really just a slave owner.; 12/4/12, 2:12 PM
hombre said...: Inga wrote: "Romney won 47% of the vote, how fitting. He was a wussy plutocrat, Palin forgot to say plutocrat."

The election's over, dearie. It's time to govern now. Pretending that letting tax cuts for the rich expire will solve the debt problems won't cut it in the real world.

You are pretending, aren't you? Aren't you? Inga? Aren't you.; 12/4/12, 2:12 PM
Robert Cook said...: Hi, Rusty! Glad to see you're doing fine! All my regards!; 12/4/12, 2:16 PM
Seeing Red said...: --Probably the best thing Schnatter could have done is shut the fuck up instead of announcing to all his potential customers that his employees would take in the ass because he didn't get his way in the election. Already, his brand is taking a big hit. ---

We're at about 15% underemployment & unemployment is rising, the country is taking the hit.

And it's just begun.

You really should have read that lawyer rant about Obamacare and what it's going to do to Temp Agencies.

Not just pizza parlors, GM. Temp agencies who hire engineers, lawyers, higher level, higher education, higher pay jobs.; 12/4/12, 2:16 PM
Seeing Red said...: --It's no wonder Republicans hate ObamaCare so much. They don't even know what the hell is in it. Not our problem if you're too lazy to bother to read it.

Far from burdening small businesses, ObamaCare goes out of its way to help them. Huh. Imagine that.---

LOLOLOL

You never read that post about French companies, did ya?

They also have a cut-off number.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL

You really have no concept, do you?; 12/4/12, 2:19 PM
Pragmatist said...: It is amazing that this no talent is still making the news. She is just an embarressment... if the GOP did find a backbone it should be used to finally tell idiots like her to shut up and let the grown ups take speak. I am sure there must be a reality show that needs a buffoon.; 12/4/12, 2:19 PM
Colonel Angus said...: It's no wonder Republicans hate ObamaCare so much. They don't even know what the hell is in it. Not our problem if you're too lazy to bother to read it.

That is especially rich considering then Speaker of the House Pelosi said they have to pass it to find out what's in it. Rep. Conyers (D) said he didn't have time to read it either.

Far from burdening small businesses, ObamaCare goes out of its way to help them. Huh. Imagine that.

How so? By providing a paltry tax credit on an expense they didn't have to incur until Obamacare? That's the equivalent of saying I'm going to shoot you with this gun but I won't hit anything vital.; 12/4/12, 2:20 PM
Seeing Red said...: Oh, yes, GM, the small businesses are feeling the "help" Obamacare is giving them.

So they're shedding workers.

LOLOLOLOL

The "help" is a single-payer system which won't work and will collapse down the road at some point.

So, what other 300-million country has single-payer? How's it working?; 12/4/12, 2:26 PM
Nonapod said...: Wow, their seems to be a cataclysmic level of economic ignorance on the part of some of our liberal posters hear. Even a basic tenet like "Wealth is not zero sum." (or more colorfully put by P.J. O'Rourke "Wealth is not a pizza") escapes them.; 12/4/12, 2:31 PM
I Callahan said...: It is amazing that this no talent is still making the news. She is just an embarressment... if the GOP did find a backbone it should be used to finally tell idiots like her to shut up and let the grown ups take speak. I am sure there must be a reality show that needs a buffoon.

Thanks, concern troll. You couldn't wear Palin's jockstrap.; 12/4/12, 2:32 PM
Seeing Red said...: Via Tax Prof Blog:

A funny thing often happens on the way to soaking the rich: They don't stick around for the bath. Take Britain, where Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs service reports that the number of taxpayers declaring £1 million a year in income fell by more than 60% in fiscal 2010-2011 from the year before.

That was the year that millionaires became liable for the 50% income-tax rate that Gordon Brown's government introduced in its final days in 2010, up from the previous 40% rate. Lo, the total number of millionaire tax filers plunged to 6,000 in 2010-2011, from 16,000 in 2009-2010.

The new tax was meant to raise about £2.5 billion more revenue. So much for that. In 2009-2010 British millionaires contributed about £13.4 billion to the public coffers, or just under 9% of the total tax liability of all taxpayers that year. At the 50% rate, the shrunken pool yielded £6.5 billion, or about 4.4%....

Politicians would love to lay the whole burden of their policies on a tiny minority of the rich, but you can't finance the welfare state on the shoulders of the 1%. That's something for the U.S. to remember as President Obama pretends he can fill a $1 trillion budget hole with tax hikes on "millionaires and billionaires."

-----

Even Bono & U2 moved their enterprise to a tax-friendly country a few years ago.

Tsk, tsk, tsk, no loyalty to Ireland.; 12/4/12, 2:38 PM
President-Mom-Jeans said...: Garage, while you may know a lot about pizza (and have the portly physique to prove it) you certainly know fuck all about the economics of businesses, large or small.

But to get back to the original topic of the post, I disagree with Palin on this one. The vast majority of current politicians should be called names, loudly and often.; 12/4/12, 2:39 PM
Seeing Red said...: Tar & Feathers or poop should be sent to Congress' lawn.; 12/4/12, 2:43 PM
garage mahal said...: By providing a paltry tax credit on an expense they didn't have to incur until Obamacare?

Companies with less than 50 employees are exempt. Companies with less than 25 employees get subsidies. Which will essentially let them offer workers a dollar's worth of compensation with 65 cents worth of revenue.; 12/4/12, 2:45 PM
Colonel Angus said...: Politicians would love to lay the whole burden of their policies on a tiny minority of the rich, but you can't finance the welfare state on the shoulders of the 1%. That's something for the U.S. to remember as President Obama pretends he can fill a $1 trillion budget hole with tax hikes on "millionaires and billionaires."

Well for starters there simply aren't enough 1%ers. Even with a 100% tax rate its not enough to fund our current spending. Simply put, everyone is going to have to kick in. Either through income taxes or, even better, institute a VAT and a special 1% Federal excise tax on tobacco and liquor.

Taking it a step further, lottery winnings over $10 million should be taxed at a 50% rate starting at $11 million and at 90% after $50 million. Allowing someone to become a member of the one percent soley due to pure chance should come with a heftier price.; 12/4/12, 2:48 PM
Robert Cook said...: "Oh, yes, GM, the small businesses are feeling the 'help" Obamacare is giving them.

"So they're shedding workers.

'LOLOLOLOL

The 'help' is a single-payer system which won't work and will collapse down the road at some point."

Uh, no. Obamneycare is not in the least any sort of single-payer health insurance. It is a gift to the private health insurers of a captive new audience of people who don't have insurance at present, mostly because they can't afford it, but who must now buy it under penalty of law.; 12/4/12, 2:50 PM
Colonel Angus said...: Companies with less than 50 employees are exempt. Companies with less than 25 employees get subsidies. Which will essentially let them offer workers a dollar's worth of compensation with 65 cents worth of revenue.

You don't get it do you?; 12/4/12, 2:50 PM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: Companies with less than 25 employees get subsidies. Which will essentially let them offer workers a dollar's worth of compensation with 65 cents worth of revenue.

You really are an idiot.; 12/4/12, 2:51 PM
Robert Cook said...: The Coming Crash of America; 12/4/12, 2:52 PM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: Obamneycare is not in the least any sort of single-payer health insurance. It is a gift to the private health insurers of a captive new audience of people who don't have insurance at present, mostly because they can't afford it, but who must now buy it under penalty of law.

This....I agree with. Unfortunately, the captives are the young and healthy who either don't need insurance at all or who could get by with an inexpensive major medical policy.

Those poor suckers, most of whom probably voted for Obama, will be carrying the freight for the sick, unhealthy and the welfare leeches.

Bend over and take it....hard....you voted for this.; 12/4/12, 2:54 PM
Colonel Angus said...: Obamneycare is not in the least any sort of single-payer health insurance.

Thank goodness for that.

It is a gift to the private health insurers of a captive new audience of people who don't have insurance at present, mostly because they can't afford it, but who must now buy it under penalty of law.

You are aware that this is basically the same model most of Europe follows.; 12/4/12, 2:54 PM
Aridog said...: bagoh20 said...

Re: the idea of tax cuts for rich people, versus increases, blah blah...

That's what so stupid. The rich will not be hurt one bit by higher taxes. They are freaking rich. Do you even understand what that means? The main advantage of being rich is that you can pass adversity on to other people. When you attempt to drain the rich, they just stop paying people in one way or another, and when you do it through taxation the money just goes to waste often right back to those rich people. You are such suckers for the oldest trick in politics.

Had to re-post that comment...it is the most succinct and accurate I've read recently, anywhere, including FT and the WSJ.

PS: I am one of those who has come to the conclusion that we are going to go off the cliff, curb, or whatever you want to call it. I have friends selling now and itching to buy low when the collapse comes.

Sequester away, bitches, and don't let the debt ceiling be raised. Let's see what happens, eh? The most idiotic editorial imaginable about "entitlement reform" was published yesterday in the Wall Street Journal. Proof positive that no one in NYC, or Washington, DC, or on the board at WSJ knows a fricking thing about it.; 12/4/12, 2:56 PM
Colonel Angus said...: Although I don't know about the penalty. Then again our penalty is hardly an incentive to purchase coverage.; 12/4/12, 2:58 PM
David said...: Too bad that, as a conservative Republican woman, she is ineligible for higher office.; 12/4/12, 3:00 PM
Baron Zemo said...: What garage doesn't understand is that many businesses will lay off or not hire workers to meet the 50 or 25 number cut offs. That will force the other workers to pick up the slack and kill off jobs. Why hire someone to put you over the limit if you can survive without incurring this increase cost. Which you never would have had if Obamacare had not been passed.

This is of course the "French companies" post that was alluded to earlier.

Of course Obama doesn't care about jobs. He doesn't understand them. He thinks government hires are the same thing as the private sector.; 12/4/12, 3:01 PM
Aridog said...: Obamneycare is not in the least any sort of single-payer health insurance.

You forgot to add "Yet." Obamacare is classic Cloward-Pivens strategy to force single payer sooner than later. Designed to fail and fall under its own weight, it will.; 12/4/12, 3:02 PM
Baron Zemo said...: And those independent pizza parlors?

Family owned and operated with a couple of off the books illegals thrown in.

Typical yuppie scum guy. Who cares about the business owners. They don't deserve any consideration. Another will open up to sell him his latte and scone. No skin off his nose.; 12/4/12, 3:05 PM
Aridog said...: Baron Zemo said...

What @Garage doesn't understand is that many businesses will lay off or not hire workers...

Why should they when they can engage "contractors" to provide the labor they need above a negative threshold. It's not a new idea...in the 70's I knew a very successful business guy in Missouri who expanded and expanded, but never hired over 499, to stay under the then SBA small business threshold for reasons of his own. He had a multitude of contractors and sub-contractors.; 12/4/12, 3:07 PM
Seeing Red said...: --Obamneycare is not in the least any sort of single-payer health insurance.--

Oh, brother, youtube Obama - even if it took 20 years, that was his goal and that's how it was written.

Where do you think these workers who work part time are going to go to get their insurance?

Why do you think the Federal Government isn't in it?

Only for the peons. The ruling class always writes an out.; 12/4/12, 3:10 PM
damikesc said...: I imagine a huge share of it is held by non-chain operators.

So, no, you don't.

His competition are national chains. Local chains are not a threat to a national chain, hate to break it to you.

Far from burdening small businesses, ObamaCare goes out of its way to help them. Huh. Imagine that.

Yes, ADDING costs are frequently boons to small businesses.

Those small mom and pop chains you are fond of? Pay ZERO for insurance presently. Thanks to you, their costs will increase markedly.

Hope you love Papa John's --- you're pricing their "competition" (in your eyes) out of business.

Companies with less than 50 employees are exempt.

Those heartless bastards who provide no health care? All you are doing is insuring they remain tiny and barely solvent --- as most of them are.

Companies with less than 25 employees get subsidies. Which will essentially let them offer workers a dollar's worth of compensation with 65 cents worth of revenue.

...provided they have that rather large bit of revenue just sitting around doing nothing.

...which they don't.; 12/4/12, 3:10 PM
damikesc said...: Family owned and operated with a couple of off the books illegals thrown in.

Typical yuppie scum guy. Who cares about the business owners. They don't deserve any consideration. Another will open up to sell him his latte and scone. No skin off his nose.

They also pay their staff minimum wage and raises are nigh impossible to gain.

But, hey, good pizza, AMIRITE?!?!; 12/4/12, 3:11 PM
Seeing Red said...: The government wants to help.

Like Katrina on the Hudson?

No Thank You.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL; 12/4/12, 3:19 PM
Baron Zemo said...: I have a small family owned hardware store in my neighborhood. He has to compete with Home Depot and does it with personal service and hard work. He has quite a few employees but he has to lay off five of them to get under 25 when the law kicks in.

The funny part is that those five kids all voted for Obama.

Funny right. Ha, ha.; 12/4/12, 3:22 PM
Rusty said...: Robert Cook said...

The Coming Crash of America

That explains a whole hell of a lot.

Get back to us, Bob, when you have some thoughts of your own.; 12/4/12, 3:29 PM
Rusty said...: Robert Cook said...
Hi, Rusty! Glad to see you're doing fine! All my regards!

Yes. Very well thank you.; 12/4/12, 3:30 PM
garage mahal said...: His competition are national chains. Local chains are not a threat to a national chain, hate to break it to you.

I don't think the food industry works like that. Papa Johns not only has to compete with local pizza chains, they have to compete with lots of local food options overall.

Martin, a part owner of Ian’s Pizza, a pizza shop with four locations in Wisconsin, said his business has offered full heath care coverage to its 50 full-time employees for years, making it all the more difficult to compete with national chains like Papa John's that pay workers low wages without health benefits.

"This may level the playing field for us,” Martin said of the Papa John's price hike. “If they have to pay for benefits, and that pushes their prices up closer to ours, it will justify what we’ve been paying for and what we’ve been fighting to do the past few years.” Link

Like I said this is what the stink is really about.; 12/4/12, 3:33 PM
n.n said...: Sarah Palin in 2016 or sooner.; 12/4/12, 3:37 PM
Robert Cook said...: "Sarah Palin in 2016 or sooner."

As a candidate for national office, Sarah Palin is a dead duck.; 12/4/12, 3:44 PM
Robert Cook said...: "Of course Obama doesn't care about jobs."

No, he doesn't.

Neither did (or does) Romney,or, for that matter, most of the welfare cheats sitting in Congress.

They're serving their other, higher priority, (i.e., actual) constituents: Wall Street and international corporations and the big banks.

We have the loss of jobs in this country that we see because this is what Wall Street wants.; 12/4/12, 3:48 PM
Seeing Red said...: His competition are national chains. Local chains are not a threat to a national chain, hate to break it to you.

I don't think the food industry works like that. Papa Johns not only has to compete with local pizza chains, they have to compete with lots of local food options overall.

Martin, a part owner of Ian’s Pizza, a pizza shop with four locations in Wisconsin, said his business has offered full heath care coverage to its 50 full-time employees for years, making it all the more difficult to compete with national chains like Papa John's that pay workers low wages without health benefits.

"This may level the playing field for us,” Martin said of the Papa John's price hike. “If they have to pay for benefits, and that pushes their prices up closer to ours, it will justify what we’ve been paying for and what we’ve been fighting to do the past few years.” Link

So paying more for food is a good thing?

If you don't have a job, how will you pay for something more expensive?

I know! Food stamps! Increase taxes to give more in food stamps!; 12/4/12, 3:51 PM
Seeing Red said...: He has 50 full timers, not 51. Did he have 51 or more?

Give it time.; 12/4/12, 3:54 PM
Hagar said...: I don't like eating out that much anyway.; 12/4/12, 3:57 PM
Colonel Angus said...: Robert can you explain how high unemployment translates to wealth for Wall Street? I am genuinely intrigued.; 12/4/12, 4:13 PM
Seeing Red said...: I wish I could find that rant, because he said what's not known is that it really starts affecting companies with 31 employees. I guess we're gonna find out what's in it!

Without Lube!; 12/4/12, 4:31 PM
Unknown said...: "Again, that gets us towards socialism. What goes beyond socialism is communism. I know I’m going to get slammed for speaking so bluntly about what’s going on here, but that’s exactly what is going on."

Honestly, what was McCain thinking when he chose such a mental midget?

I know that Palin still has some idiot fans, but at least the GOP establishment realized that she's simply too stupid and unreliable to take seriously.; 12/4/12, 4:49 PM
Unknown said...: I believe that even if people knew with 100% certainty that the economy would be better under a Republican, they still would have elected Obama.

They had the benefit of seeing what Dubya did to the economy. That was enough to get them to vote for ANYONE other than a Republican.; 12/4/12, 4:52 PM
Unknown said...: The tax whiners are out in force in this thread and, as usual, saying stupid, dull things. When will they ever learn? /rhetorical

blessings!; 12/4/12, 4:57 PM
Michael K said...: "Blogger garage mahal said...

Does anyone really believe that any such knowledge would change the minds of someone like Garage.

More tax cuts for Romney's rich friends is knowledge most people didn't agree with.

"

Did someone mention stupid ? "Speak of the devil and you'll see his tail."

Garage thinks it's about "more tax cuts."; 12/4/12, 5:07 PM
Colonel Angus said...: I've never heard an explanation as to what specific Bush policies devastated the economy.; 12/4/12, 5:13 PM
Rusty said...: Jake. Meet Bob.
Bob. Meet Jake.; 12/4/12, 5:14 PM
Michael K said...: "You are aware that this is basically the same model most of Europe follows."

Actually, most of Europe does not have single payer and they are smart enough not to have anything like Obamacare.

France, which is the best example since it is large, uses a fee-for-service model with a fixed payment schedule negotiated between the insurance funds and the doctors' unions. Doctors have the option of charging what they want to charge but the insurance pays only the fixed amount. The rest is between the doctor and patient. A similar system here would fix much of what is wrong with Medicare.

The Scandinavian countries have a tradition of socialism going back to the pre-Reformation church. England chose the NHS which is worse every year. The smaller countries have private care available along with a program for the poor.; 12/4/12, 5:22 PM
Unknown said...: I've never heard an explanation as to what specific Bush policies devastated the economy.

Colonel -

I think you meant to say you've never understood an explanation as to what specific Bush policies devastated the economy.; 12/4/12, 5:26 PM
Opus One Media said...: pot. kettle. black.; 12/4/12, 5:30 PM
Seeing Red said...: Whatever is coming, it'll work this time! We're the ones we've been waiting for!

Canada doesn't have single payer anymore.

It won't work. We're gonna collapse.; 12/4/12, 5:39 PM
bagoh20 said...: Chip said: "I probably agree w/ bagoh20 >90% of the time, but this argument makes no sense to me. If having less money wouldn't change this guy's life at all, why does he keep working?"

It's just a fact. His life style will not change. He has hundreds of millions, yet he continues to strive because that's the way some people are made, thank God.

My point was to class warfare being foolish against such people. The taxes they pay don't hurt them anywhere near as much as they hurt people who depend on their spending, and investment. The tax comes out of that. It's impossible to get money from the rich or anybody else for that matter without hurting the productive people around them. Being productive means making good use of capital, and any capital taken away to fund government is taken away from the productive (that's who have it) and generally given to the less productive. It's like giving money to a drug addict rather than buying gas to get to work.

I completely agree the real problem is spending, which has skyrocketed while revenue has been pretty steady for the last few decades and really forever because any attempt to increase revenue with tax rates is self limiting. It just slows the economy and you never get anywhere long term, which should be obvious to everyone. You can raise taxes in a good economy because you may feel that you can spare a little growth for it, but it is never free money. To sacrifice growth right now is just stupid.; 12/4/12, 5:41 PM
Seeing Red said...: Via ZeroHedge:

Eleven states made Forbes' list of danger spots for investors including California, New York, Illinois, and Ohio. They warned (and with the cliff it is even more critical), if you have muni bonds in these states - clean up your portfolio; if your career takes you there - rent, don't buy! Two factors determine their list of 'fiscal hellholes'. The first is whether there are more takers (someone who draws money from the government) than makers (the gainfully employed). The second is a state credit-worthiness score (via Conning) based on large debts, uncompetitive business climates, weak home prices, and bad trends in employment. Conning rates North Dakota the safest state to lend money to, Connecticut the most hazardous. A state qualifies for the Forbes' death spiral list if its taker/maker ratio exceeds 1.0 and it resides in the bottom half of Conning’s ranking. See below for the 11 states to avoid...no matter what Bob Toll, Larry Yun, Bob Pisani, or Alexandra Lebenthal tells you..

3 big blue states - Garage - & one whacko.

I wonder what the blue states have in common?

Blue states, blue nations fail, some spectacularly.

I wonder why?

Anyone? Buehler?; 12/4/12, 5:42 PM
bagoh20 said...: Why don't we just set the price of pizza where it will pay pizza people a really great wage and all the benefits they want? Then nobody would be taking advantage of those who pay better.; 12/4/12, 5:45 PM
Seeing Red said...: And ban making pizza at home.

Unless you have a license.

Require camera/computers in every room.

It's only fair. And for the children.; 12/4/12, 5:49 PM
garage mahal said...: It's just a fact. His life style will not change.

Again: What the fuck is he publicly crying about then? Besides some deluded wingnuts, who is supposed to feel sorry for this jackoff who lives in a 40,000 sq foot house with a golf course and a 22 car garage?; 12/4/12, 5:52 PM
Colonel Angus said...: Actually Jake, no, I never heard what specific Bush policy led to our current economic malaise. Care to offer an explanation?; 12/4/12, 5:57 PM
Aridog said...: garage mahal said...

Again: What the fuck is he publicly crying about then? ...

He is just expressing his opinion, just like another multi-millionaire named Michael Moore, and sundry others. In the Pizza dude's case, you don't happen to agree with him. Similar to me disliking Michael Moore for his phony factory worker callous-less handed shtick.

In the end you'd be well seerved in re-reading bagoh2o's post on this thread, along with Colonel Angus and a couple others who have actual hands on business experience.

The whole meme about business barons enjoying firing or laying off people was a lie, and I think you are smart enough to know that. Nothing feels worse than doing so, it implies failure. Once long ago in my failed, in my view, when I had to implement a sale through Chapter 11 bankruptcy .... the only thing that kept me from hating myself was managing it with out the loss of a single job, except mine. I return to the military...the others kept working where they were until they retired.

This whole idea of robber businessmen is bullshit. I've met very few who didn't give as much or more than those around them.; 12/4/12, 6:03 PM
bagoh20 said...: "Again: What the fuck is he publicly crying about then?"

What would you say if someone comes to take a bunch of your money to give to people you don't have a high opinion of, and that you know will waste it, because they always have. You gonna say, hey thanks?

Regardless it's irrelevant how he feels about it, it still won't solve anything, it will hurt other people, whether he cares about them or not. One thing is clear, people on your side don't care about who it hurts.

If you knew for certain that slapping a rich guy would cause him to shoot his gardener, you still couldn't resist slapping him. You just don't care. You want your damned pound of flesh, and all for your own emotional partisan needs.; 12/4/12, 6:05 PM
Seeing Red said...: Sux to be his 51st employee to maintain all that.; 12/4/12, 6:06 PM
Colonel Angus said...: Garage are you aware Papa Johns is a publically traded company? That means while he is the founder and CEO, he still answers to stockholders who will want to know what impact they will face with an additional multi million dollar expense they didn't have to deal with before.

Do you have investments? A 401k? An IRA perhaps? See the value of those investments depend on the performance of the company. If Papa Johns incurs an additional $8 million in operating costs, said costs have to ve absorbed or passed off to the consumer. That means they have to sell even more product to offset those costs or raise prices which affects their competiveness.

See I provide health benefits to my employees but I need to see if it meets the Obamacare standards. If not, ill have to see what the impact is on my bottom line.; 12/4/12, 6:07 PM
hombre said...: "Actually Jake, no, I never heard what specific Bush policy led to our current economic malaise. Care to offer an explanation?"

Jake doesn't do explanation, only accusation. Jake is a sociopath and possibly a low information voter - the kind that emerging demographics are telling us elected Obama.

None of these data or the demographics of the Democratic Party known before the election discourages the sociopaths of the left from the pretext of intelligence despite the company they keep at the polls.; 12/4/12, 6:18 PM
hombre said...: Jake wrote: "I think you meant to say you've never understood an explanation as to what specific Bush policies devastated the economy."

See? Sociopathic and stupid.; 12/4/12, 6:25 PM
Seeing Red said...: Let's see, how can I explain this.

State debt

The state government has $58 billion in direct debt, two-thirds of which consists of bonds the government issued to cover retirement payments for workers, including a $10 billion pension obligation bond that broke all previous records in 2003. Despite the borrowing the total pension shortfall is conservatively estimated at $85 billion by some.[15] The state faces total debt of $271,111,148 according to a State Budget Solutions study.[16]

So, GM, The State of IL could take the net worth of Buffet & Gates and still not have enough money.

Or Harvard's endowment.

That's just 1 state.

There isn't enough money. Socialized medicine will not work.

We're gonna go over.

There isn't enough money to pay off what the US owes, we owe a few hundred trillion.; 12/4/12, 6:27 PM
garage mahal said...: What would you say if someone comes to take a bunch of your money to give to people you don't have a high opinion of,

Schnatter doesn't have a high opinion of the people that work for him. Thanks for unwittingly admitting the truth.

Shocking you got your ass kicked in the election with that type of disdain for ordinary people.; 12/4/12, 6:28 PM
Unknown said...: Colonel -
Start with the Bush tax cut and go from there.; 12/4/12, 6:30 PM
Seeing Red said...: He hires people to work, not marry.; 12/4/12, 6:35 PM
jr565 said...: Garage wrote:
"This may level the playing field for us,” Martin said of the Papa John's price hike. “If they have to pay for benefits, and that pushes their prices up closer to ours, it will justify what we’ve been paying for and what we’ve been fighting to do the past few years.” Link

so in other words, they're trying to use govt to Hobble their competitors. Nice.
Here's an idea. If Ian's pizza wants to give its people full benefits, that's its prerogative. But it shouldn't get to use got action to "level the playing field.for example, suppose if Starbucks decides that because it charges 7 dollars for a cup of coffee that all of its competitors should charges seven dollars so that Starbucks can not be in the red.
What if a company wants to charge one dollar. For coffee, but pays its workers less. And if people want to work at Starbucks they can apply there and if they want to work at their competitors they can apply there.
And if seven dollar coffee is something people want to pay for to justify Starbucks giving better benefits, then those who want to pay the seven dollars can go there. But for those that only want to pay the dollar, they can go there. And let the best company win.; 12/4/12, 6:37 PM
Saint Croix said...: He lives in a fucking castle. His net worth is 600 million dollars

And you just want to take it.

Our society is idiotic. Your anger and rage at other people's wealth, what's the fucking point? What's it to you if he's rich? How does that hurt you? How does that steal from you, Garage?

You're like an ugly girl whining about the popular and the pretty. "It's not fair!" Work on your fucking personality and maybe people will start to like you. Because your childish and petty resentment of other people is pathetic. Is this supposed to be a political philosophy?!

And work on your math skills. See how many times you can fit "$600 million" into "$16 trillion." It's like you're not even trying at this point. It's just pure infantile rage.; 12/4/12, 6:45 PM
harrogate said...: Bagoh20 in all his wisdom writes:

"The rich will not be hurt one bit by higher taxes. They are freaking rich. Do you even understand what that means? The main advantage of being rich is that you can pass adversity on to other people."

Right. They are wholly unaccountable within the citizenry. They cannot be taxed, they will not suffer even when they blow up the economy they will not suffer. Hell, they will get richer! Land of Opportunity indeed.; 12/4/12, 6:46 PM
harrogate said...: People on these boards caterwaul all the time about "entitlement" mentalities. But the truth is there is no group of citizens infiltrated with more entitlement mentality than the wealthy in the United States. They are *entitled* to a certain profit margin.; 12/4/12, 6:49 PM
Methadras said...: She isn't wrong.; 12/4/12, 6:53 PM
Saint Croix said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 12/4/12, 6:56 PM
Saint Croix said...: But the truth is there is no group of citizens infiltrated with more entitlement mentality than the wealthy in the United States.

Everybody who has property feels like they are entitled to it. I own a car. It's mine. I'm entitled to it.; 12/4/12, 7:00 PM
Unknown said...: Speaking of wusses, Sarah Palin's resignation as governor of Alaska ranks her pretty high on the list of GOP wusses.; 12/4/12, 7:02 PM
damikesc said...: I don't think the food industry works like that.

You can think if you wish. I'll stick with reality.

You're aware that if small chains WERE a threat, they could easily enough wipe them out by pricing them out of competition, right? They can lose money far more easily than mom and pop.

Like I said this is what the stink is really about.

So, the stink is all about utterly fucking over poor people who want a pizza?

They had the benefit of seeing what Dubya did to the economy. That was enough to get them to vote for ANYONE other than a Republican.

I'll repeat Angus question:

What policies led to the economic crash?

Start with the Bush tax cut and go from there.

The ones Obama wants to keep 98% of? Those cuts?

That 2%? Man, that was a KILLER.

Right. They are wholly unaccountable within the citizenry. They cannot be taxed, they will not suffer even when they blow up the economy they will not suffer. Hell, they will get richer! Land of Opportunity indeed

Read up on Weimer hyperinflation. They simply robbed the poor blind and allowed the rich to buy valuable assets for next to nothing.

The poor are far less able to survive. Their money is much less liquid and less able to go to places where they won't get fucked over.

Sarah Palin's resignation as governor of Alaska ranks her pretty high on the list of GOP wusses.

Where does that leave a Progressive who makes inane arguments with no capacity to actually understand what he is writing?; 12/4/12, 7:17 PM
garage mahal said...: But the truth is there is no group of citizens infiltrated with more entitlement mentality than the wealthy in the United States

Yep. Republicans have this bizarre fealty to the uber wealthy in this country, but have no problem whatsoever sticking it to ordinary folk so the wealthy aren't asked to lift a finger. Thankfully that line of thinking seems to be abating.; 12/4/12, 7:17 PM
damikesc said...: Yep. Republicans have this bizarre fealty to the uber wealthy in this country, but have no problem whatsoever sticking it to ordinary folk so the wealthy aren't asked to lift a finger. Thankfully that line of thinking seems to be abating.

...just as we see the deficits skyrocket to untenable levels. But, hey, getting funding for 8 days of the government will easily fix the problem. Totally.

Math is easy!!!

The only plus of Obama winning is that new college grads are more fucked than they were before his re-election...and to no more worthy of a group could this happen.; 12/4/12, 7:21 PM
Unknown said...: The ones Obama wants to keep 98% of? Those cuts?

Which is one of a fair number of reasons I didn't vote for Obama in 2008 or 2012.; 12/4/12, 7:23 PM
Unknown said...: ..just as we see the deficits skyrocket to untenable levels. But, hey, getting funding for 8 days of the government will easily fix the problem. Totally.

Math is easy!!!

This clown's writing style is very reminiscent of Jay.; 12/4/12, 7:25 PM
damikesc said...: Which is one of a fair number of reasons I didn't vote for Obama in 2008 or 2012.

Does anybody believe this Dem sycophant didn't vote for Obama?

You have earned the sheer fucking you will get.; 12/4/12, 7:26 PM
damikesc said...: This clown's writing style is very reminiscent of Jay.

Feel free to disprove the basic math of how much money will be raised versus how much is being spent.

In fact, ignore that Obama is spending MORE with this asinine bill.

Why did we elect such a moron whose intellect is below simian levels?; 12/4/12, 7:27 PM
Synova said...: "They are *entitled* to a certain profit margin."

You're kidding me, right? Getting to keep what you earn is a sense of entitlement? So, when I go to work and I work my 5 hours of minimum wage, my feeling like I ought to get to keep my paycheck is a feeling of entitlement? Because my paycheck, pitiful as it is, doesn't belong to me, it belongs to the state who, because I'm piss poor, allows me to keep it?

Maybe this is simply an empathy problem. I can "imagine" what I'd feel like if it were me that someone was whining about getting to keep her "profit margin". Maybe owing my life to the company store. My labor and wages and investments, my property, none of it my own but belonging to someone else who decides how much of it I get to keep and knows that I can't quit my job even if I wanted to.

Consider that situation and consider the freedom to escape it and ask why any wealthy person would continue to be enslaved. That's essentially what the laffer curve is supposed to represent, right? The wobbly point at which those being stolen from say "screw it" and quit.; 12/4/12, 7:28 PM
chickelit said...: damikesc said...
The only plus of Obama winning is that new college grads are more fucked than they were before his re-election...and to no more worthy of a group could this happen.

True. And they will be isolated. Surrounded by us and the more youthful and insightful kids I see making better decisions based on the mistakes of the Obama-youth voters.; 12/4/12, 7:30 PM
chickelit said...: Adamant Jake notes: This clown's writing style is very reminiscent of Jay.

Not nearly as similar as your style is to Ritmo's--my algorithm is showing about a 80% sequence homology in written characters.; 12/4/12, 7:33 PM
Synova said...: "If you knew for certain that slapping a rich guy would cause him to shoot his gardener, you still couldn't resist slapping him. You just don't care. You want your damned pound of flesh, and all for your own emotional partisan needs."

But if the rich guy shoots his gardener it's still the rich guy who is at fault. So sad if the gardener gets shot (yes, fired from his job) but the rich guy shouldn't get to have a gardener. It's very unfair if the rich guy doesn't have to mow his own lawn. He also shouldn't eat out so much, so if he goes and shoots up a couple eateries, well, he really ought to be making PB&J sandwiches like the rest of us, including the newly shot (unemployed) food workers who really weren't getting enough pay anyhow. No one should have to be in food service.

It's all win-win-win Bagoh. Right?; 12/4/12, 7:35 PM
Cedarford said...: The core problem is the core premise of the tax cuts and the venerated notions of Saint Reagan and Jack Kemp do NOT grow the economy, create jobs and a broader middle class from "Trickledown". Nor do tax cuts grow the economy.

The unfortunate fact of zero job growth, stagnant economic growth, exploding debt, and a staggering concentration of wealth from productivity gains in the hands of a few while the middle class shrinks - is now clear. 11 years of tax cuts for the rich and others under GW Bush and Obama have not helped America, but hurt it.

Other factors created the job growth and productivity gains of the 1980s. The Grover Norquist "Club for Growth" and other lobbies for goodies to the rich convinced GW Bush that what happened in the 1980s was tax cut driven, not new markets, exploding tech growth largely achieved by comnputer, IT, and comms revolutions.
The 2000s gave us zero job growth, loss of 5 million manufacturing jobs, ameriorated only by Bush and Obama creating new jobs in gummint fueled by new debt and new entitlements like Obamaphones and Bush's 'free' prescription drugs for seniors.

Now we know - no reason to keep the tax cuts for the rich.
It is the single largest issue used against Republicans - the Party of the CEOs and fatcats that have "impoverished America while regular folk like you and me suffer!".

It is time to end the tax cuts and end that use of that potent weapon against Republicans.

All the worst reactionary "tax the hero job creators over my dead body" Republicans are waning as a force even within the Party. People threatening to "Go Galt" are now encouraged to do so as they can be replaced by less rich people.
Nor will it be easy to pass on higher costs to an angry public to cover the rich's tax increases. If need be, wage and price controls can be implimented...and service providers required to do services at medicare or Bar association (etc, etc.) set prices as a condition to be licensed to work at all.; 12/4/12, 7:37 PM
Unknown said...: Not nearly as similar as your style is to Ritmo's--my algorithm is showing about a 80% sequence homology in written characters.

DumbCluck -
I can't tell you how overjoyed I am to discover that you have a full, satisfying life.; 12/4/12, 7:43 PM
chickelit said...: @Cedarford: You done better, more convincing rants. Just sayin'.; 12/4/12, 7:44 PM
Unknown said...: Does anybody believe this Dem sycophant didn't vote for Obama?

Oh noes! He doesn't believe me! Whatever shall I do?; 12/4/12, 7:44 PM
Cedarford said...: Adder -

Nor do tax cuts grow the economy grow the economy even remotely close enough to "have the tax cuts for the rich pay for themselves".

Not in this era, 30 years after Saint Reagan and 20 years after we began losing out competive edge and began hemorrhaging wealth and jobs under "Free Trade for Freedom Lovers."

Nor do nation-building wars the neocons gave us create wealth, nor the "hero troops".; 12/4/12, 7:45 PM
chickelit said...: @Adamant Jake: If it's not fun, I'm done!; 12/4/12, 7:45 PM
Unknown said...: You know you've made it at Althouse when the Bird quotes you.; 12/4/12, 7:51 PM
Chip S. said...: You know you've made it at Althouse when the Bird quotes you.

Do not confuse sufficiency w/ necessity.; 12/4/12, 8:43 PM
Colonel Angus said...: The Bush tax cuts caused the economic collapse.

I'll chalk that up with one of the dumbest things I've heard in a while.; 12/4/12, 8:59 PM
FedkaTheConvict said...: Companies with less than 50 employees are exempt. Companies with less than 25 employees get subsidies

Thanks for the chuckle. Isn't 25 less than 50? So why aren't companies with less than 25 employees also exempt?; 12/4/12, 9:03 PM
Colonel Angus said...: Yes, the wealthy don't lift a finger. The top 20% pay over 2/3 of Federal income tax but evidently that's not enough for the likes of you. Obviously we should be footing 100% of the tab in order to pay our so called fair share.; 12/4/12, 9:11 PM
Unknown said...: I recently heard somewhere that Romney got 47% of the vote.
This is thought to be amusingly ironic.
It makes me appreciate the precision with which votes can be manipulated when there is a compliant press and massive voter fraud.
I'll be surprised if a conservative can ever be elected president again. Not because it's wrong to be conservative, but that the conservative values don't get enough traction to overcome the level of fraud.
The current fiscal cliff is inevitable under this kind of fiscal, moral, social, and legal decay.; 12/4/12, 10:23 PM
Unknown said...: The Bush tax cuts caused the economic collapse.

I'll chalk that up with one of the dumbest things I've heard in a while.

You said it, not me. And to be fair, you've said a lot of things that are far dumber than that.; 12/5/12, 2:22 AM
Unknown said...: It makes me appreciate the precision with which votes can be manipulated when there is a compliant press and massive voter fraud.
I'll be surprised if a conservative can ever be elected president again. Not because it's wrong to be conservative, but that the conservative values don't get enough traction to overcome the level of fraud.

edutcher must be sharing his Kool-Aid.; 12/5/12, 6:08 AM
Rusty said...: harrogate said...
Bagoh20 in all his wisdom writes:

"The rich will not be hurt one bit by higher taxes. They are freaking rich. Do you even understand what that means? The main advantage of being rich is that you can pass adversity on to other people."

Right. They are wholly unaccountable within the citizenry. They cannot be taxed, they will not suffer even when they blow up the economy they will not suffer. Hell, they will get richer! Land of Opportunity indeed.

That's an interesting statement. I'd like to hear an explanation of it. Just how are they unaccountable?; 12/5/12, 6:50 AM