published Tuesday, September 27th, 2011

Straw Poll

about Clay Bennett...

The son of a career army officer, Bennett led a nomadic life, attending ten different schools before graduating in 1980 from the University of North Alabama with degrees in Art and History. After brief stints as a staff artist at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Fayetteville (NC) Times, he went on to serve as the editorial cartoonist for the St. Petersburg Times (1981-1994) and The Christian Science Monitor (1997-2007), before joining the staff of the ...

120
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
hambone said...

Clay, you should have added half of a straw for the half governor!

September 27, 2011 at 12:15 a.m.
John_Proctor said...

You absolutely nailed it, Clay! Another good one that will elicit many nasty comments from the humor impaired who fail to understand the symbolism. Keep up the fire, sir!

September 27, 2011 at 12:18 a.m.
onetinsoldier said...

They all suck equally?? Why is santorum bent over like that? Kool Aid is not opaque, must be the life blood of the middle class, or worse yet, the bodily fluids of ronald regan. You make me smile on a regular basis Clay. Keep it up.

September 27, 2011 at 12:38 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Go ahead Mr. Wart and keep criticizing the GOP while you let Obama off the hook for one magnificent failure after another. If you were not obnoxious you would not be interesting at all.

September 27, 2011 at 1:17 a.m.
nucanuck said...

BRP continues to attack the messenger instead of the message...and not very well at that.

September 27, 2011 at 1:53 a.m.
twharr said...

BRP is a twit...anyone who has an eagle as their profile pick surely has a Skoals ring on their back left hand pocket. Debating people like that is just uncivilized.

September 27, 2011 at 6:11 a.m.
dude_abides said...

BRP opens the name calling, hopefully just stalling for time to defend trickle down economics...but...6 hours later...no, no defense here. Just the name calling he despises. I believe there is a teaparty rally in Guyana, maybe he's en route.

September 27, 2011 at 7:18 a.m.
sandyonsignal said...

Where's Chris Christie's super-sized straw? He's there next "great white hope" for 2012. He's a big-time Kool aid drinker: cuts spending for kids and schools by a billion but takes a helicopter at tax payer's expense to watch his son's soccer game. Even worse, he had a limo drive him a 100 yards to the bleachers from the helicopter trip. He's a slovenly fatso just what the GOP needs to represent them.

September 27, 2011 at 7:53 a.m.
MountainJoe said...

A slovenly fatso like ... Michael Moore?

September 27, 2011 at 7:57 a.m.
acerigger said...

Christie's gottta have his "fool-aid" super sized,,The Quitter found another use for her straw.(snort!)

Great work Clay!

September 27, 2011 at 8:09 a.m.
lumpy said...

If a Republican were president now he would be crucified on a daily basis by the Democrats on here and by this cartoonist. When the unemployment rate was sliding up toward 6% under GW Bush the media made it a daily story and GW Bush was ridiculed.

I listened to Obama's speech to the black caucus the other day. I have to say I was embarrassed. He put on some kind of black preacher routine. How condescending! He was roaring about the problems we're having now as if he hasn't been around and has not been charge. Americans aren't buying it. He's not that good.

I said this before, Obama does not deserve a second term. Now it's downright embarrassing how he's pointing fingers and making excuses.

I don't see one reason to keep this guy in office. Not one. I can't concieve of defending the person I voted into office after a horrible performance like Obama is putting on at every level. I would never vote for GW Bush again, if it were possible, after his playing loose with tax payer money in his second term. Irresponsibility has been taken to a new level under Obama.

Any one of those Republican candidates is a better option than Obama

September 27, 2011 at 8:30 a.m.
alprova said...

I have a message for all the Republican candidates. Your success or failure will be determined by the attention that you pay toward all Americans, stupid.

Running on your records that have have or will only serve a small minority of Americans is not going to get you elected. Your predecessors have amassed a fine record of serving and coddling those Americans who live well, and it is a record that has been firmly established.

The time has come to pay attention to those of us who fall into the lower income classes. Eleven years of claims that the Bush tax cuts have helped spur decent jobs are completely devoid of truth.

We need to return this country to the standards that once made it great. Those standards for jobs must include readopting of concepts like loyalty, longevity, and making investments in our nation by providing decent paying jobs to its citizens.

Everyone understands that employers are in business to make money. Employees have every desire to contribute to that cause. The problem with some people is that there are no limits to how much profit is enough profit. Rather than to expect a moderate return for their investments, far too many have come to expect to maximize on their investments by taking their businesses offshore. And politicians of the past have created a climate in which that is possible and even probable.

How anyone can call themselves a patriotic American, while off-shoring their businesses, exploiting cheap labor, then importing their finished products to sell to the rest of America, is beyond all comprehension.

Business people who invest in America by providing goods and services produced within our borders, while employing Americans of all walks of life to achieve their goals, are the true patriots, in my opinion.

Too much attention is paid to providing tax cuts for those at the top, and never has it ever been enough. Tax rates are lower than ever and there is little evidence that it has encouraged people who provide jobs, to do so.

The most prosperous of years for all Americans occurred when those at the top were taxed at least 50% on incomes above $200,000 a year. And that lasted for decades.

Trade agreements and tax loopholes for those who offshore jobs to exploit cheap labor has ruined this country over time and it has to come to an end before it is too late.

Transforming our nation's system of taxation from one that taxes income to one that taxes based on what we spend would do wonders for our economy, but there are still too many politicians in power who like to exploit tax rates for votes.

And there are too many Republicans who love the taste of Koolaid, and who drink it in the belief that 30 years of trickle-down economics still works.

September 27, 2011 at 8:32 a.m.
khargis said...

Could've been funnier if you'd labeled Ron Paul's straw "He Who Won't Be Mentioned"

September 27, 2011 at 8:36 a.m.
alprova said...

MountainJoe wrote:"A slovenly fatso like ... Michael Moore?"

Michael Moore may be fat, but he makes some very decent documentaries that hold your attention and he always has a point or several points contained within them all.

For the record, I do not consider people who are fat, to be considered "slovenly" by default. I'm disappointed to read such a descriptive word included in two posts by people who are known to contribute a great deal to what is discussed in here.

September 27, 2011 at 8:44 a.m.
whatsnottaken said...

Clay ran out of ink for Obama's straw, as it's engorged with Kool-aid from all GOP-leaners with jobs, who are feeding the unemployeed deadbeats nuzzled to the Democratic teet.

September 27, 2011 at 9:22 a.m.
ordinaryguy said...

The Obamamaniacs never cease to amaze me! I am in my mid fifties, and have seen the good and the bad in the White House, until now I thougth that Carter was the worst, but Obama now has that distinction.

Somehow, his acolytes think he has accomplished so so much. Three years plus down the road he continues to blame Bush for all his ills, and accepts no repsonsibility for anything.

He is corrupt, the typical Chicago politician, just look at the millions of dollars lost due to his pressure to loan millions to the now bankrupt Solyndra, and how the media is ignoring the facts surrounding the loan. They approached the Bush administration for the loan but were denied after it was determined to be a horrible risk, yet Obama and his tree hugging loons, hand them the millions without hesitation, and now the taxpayers are left holding the bag.

He truly believes the government has a responsibilty to punish those that have worked hard for their money, and to redistribute it to those who spend a lifetime collecting benefits from the governement, for doing nothing.

Obama is in the pocket of the unions, which is primary reason that companies have taken their business abroad. The unions have done more to damage this economy than anyone cares to admit. The teachers union is predominantly responsible for the decline in the school systems.

The cartooon should be reflective of those that are drinking the Obamaade, and believe he is doing a good job.

Thank god for checks and balances and the Republicans.

September 27, 2011 at 9:30 a.m.

Clay is a radical and is just following Saul Alinsky's rules. Never let up. Is that right Clay?

Oh and a quick fact about the book's dedication, it was dedicated to the devil. "... to the very first radical . . . who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom - Lucifer."

Interesting read. Everyone should read it, since it is part of the framework of the progressive movement. It's easier to counteract when you know what to expect.

September 27, 2011 at 9:44 a.m.
limric said...

BigRidgePatriot said yesterday - limric,

I think you are a conservative masquerading as a lefty. Lefties don't know words like melanoid. Do you play the uber intelligent moron for giggles?”

WHAT HO, a back handed slap by the smarmy avian. No my flag waving raptor fiend, I do not play the uber intelligent moron for giggles. To do that would make me a conservatard. I am however plainly uber intelligent – and that makes me an INDEPENDENT…and a pompous (fill in the blank) one at that.


As for todays cartoon. It’s pretty good.

I couldn’t help but notice the straws are in a pitcher of ‘Kool Aide’ tinged a nice dark red – symbolizing the un ‘dying’ efforts of Republicans to suck the life force out average Americans. Look closely at any GOP member entering any stage. There are times when they don’t quite clean their shoes – tracking remnants of un-holy soil from the caskets they reside. The thought of all 8 candidates bent over eagerly slurping and sucking at their straws and the same time is a frightening mental image, only to be surpassed by the knowledge that behind every one of these creatures are semi-transparent vampire masters gripping their hips as they ride them.

September 27, 2011 at 9:52 a.m.
AndrewLohr said...

Well, liberal economics does not work--we've just had three years of President Obama, plus two with Reid and Pelosi before that. And RINOnomics under President Bush, though less bad, SOMEtimes gave the impression of taking special care of big business, e.g. telling us we can't buy cheap drugs from Canada. Rich people taking choices away from poor people: both sides do it, though liberals do it worse. So we need freedom to try things, and I think all the GOP straws would do better than our current President is doing, though I'm not sure I'd vote for anyone who even pretends to put any stock in such 2nd-rate fantasy as "The Book of Mormon." (The Bible has at least some connection with ancient Israeli history. Mormon has no connection at all with ancient American history.) Drink Tea, not coolade (I suppose in black-and-white print it looks like tea.) In '92 we had to fire Bush Sr for raising taxes (and Clinton, once he divorced Hillary and married Newt Gingrich, didn't do too badly.) In '12 we gotta fire Obama for killing jobs, bloating DC and exploding the deficit. And of these straws'll do to fire him with.

BRP's eagle looks good.

My NJ sister didn't even bother to vote for Chris Christie, but she likes what he's doing.

September 27, 2011 at 10:05 a.m.
shifarobe said...

BLACK AMERICANS ARE IN REVOLT AGAINST OBUMMER!! OBUMMER THINKS HE'S A PREACHER MAN NOW! HE'S GOT ABOUT AS MUCH CREDIBILITY AS A RICH, SNOOTY WHITE BOY IN BLACK FACE PRETENDING TO BE A PREACHER! HE'S A HACK, JUST LIKE ON THE GOLF COURSE! HE AIN'T NOTHIN' BUT A BAD ACTOR!

September 27, 2011 at 10:47 a.m.
MTJohn said...

AndrewLohr said.....though I'm not sure I'd vote for anyone who even pretends to put any stock in such 2nd-rate fantasy as "The Book of Mormon." (The Bible has at least some connection with ancient Israeli history. Mormon has no connection at all with ancient American history.)

Andrew - The importance of Christianity is the connection with the Cross. I'm still waiting from a simple explanation of how you can get from the Cross to the conclusion that Jesus is a libertarian, as you define libertarian.

September 27, 2011 at 11:09 a.m.
alprova said...

L4F wrote: "Funny, yesterday you attacked Chris Christie for being fat, today you defend Moore's fatness."

I did no such thing. I merely pointed out a political fact, and that is that for the past 100 years, no fat man has been elected as President.

I'm fat, but have lost 135 pounds over the past two years and now weigh in at 260 pounds. I topped out at 395 pounds when I said, "no more." I'd be the last person to attack someone for being fat.

September 27, 2011 at 11:11 a.m.
potcat said...

The kool Aide looks just like the gallons of Dark Cherry iv'e drank this Summer,Splenda of course.

The Republitards are irrealivent anyway. Obama is going to remain the President. Americans have to believe they actually vote and elect a !@#$%^&*()_+! - They do NOT.

Back to Reality, my only Grandchild left today for Parris Island, SC for Recruit Training in The Marine Corp.

Perfect Specimen, a Adonis. Just Graduated High School,Football All Star, hard as a rock. Country Boy,Smart, poor and they can make him into any thing they want,its Tipping Piont,because he"s on point, at his finist. I wish i could show you his picture.

I fully support his decision, they gave him a good incentive to join and to a young person its all about the MONEY!!!

Heres the thing, i want out of these WARS, they just resettled a plane load of Iraqis here in TN. So why should my Boy be sent to Iraq, when we are bringing them here.

We need a Revolution People to END THESE WAR NOW!!!

September 27, 2011 at 11:26 a.m.
acerigger said...

shifarobe??? is that you Francis???

September 27, 2011 at 11:44 a.m.
blackwater48 said...

THE BEST DEFENSE IS A GOOD OFFENSE

Can't help but notice that the conservatives - aka the Teabaggers - don't even try to defend trickle down economics. Even the knot heads know there is no defense for the budget busting policies that have gutted the American economy over the past 30 or so years.

Congratulations! At least you know there is no defending the indefensible.

There's nothing left to do but go on the offensive - attack the humble cartoonist, attack progressives, liberals, the poor, the middle class, and everyone else who sees the Kool-Aid for what it is.

Poor Teabaggers. Tired old attacks. Boring old name calling.

How about some facts to defend how trickle down economics have balanced the budget and reduced unemployment? Anyone? Hello?

September 27, 2011 at 11:53 a.m.
patriot1 said...

al says "there are no limits on how much profit is enough profit"

Should there be limits on profits? How much of a profit margin should there be on a "widget?" How about market forces?...

September 27, 2011 at 12:08 p.m.
MTJohn said...

Patriot1 - please explain the difference between "market forces" and "greed".

September 27, 2011 at 12:39 p.m.
alprova said...

L4F wrote: "Good, then don't go around saying that a fat person can't be elected president."

My exact wording was that the American people will not vote for a fat man for President. If television had been around in the early 1900's, William Howard Taft would not have been elected. I never said that a fat man can't be elected President.

Fat people can and do all kinds of things, in fact, some of the athletes at the Olympics are obese according to BMI standards. Google Center for Consumer Freedom to find out more.

Ah sheesh. You are in an argumentative mood today, aren't you?

September 27, 2011 at 12:47 p.m.
alprova said...

Patriot1 wrote: "Should there be limits on profits?"

When people are exploited for profit gain, you betcha there should be a limit on profits.

"How about market forces?.."

Why not pose that question to the millions of Americans who have lost jobs provided by a greedy business owner who has pulled up roots and relocated his business to a third world country, where he can find workers for pennies on the dollar compared to that which the average American worker previously earned, who then imports those same goods to sell to Americans under an umbrella opened by our politicians, most of whom have an "R" by their names?

September 27, 2011 at 12:56 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Blackwater48 said: “Can't help but notice that the conservatives - aka the Teabaggers - don't even try to defend trickle down economics. Even the knot heads know there is no defense for the budget busting policies that have gutted the American economy over the past 30 or so years.”

Yes, I’ve been reading a lot about “trickle down economics” lately and have come across a number of interesting historical tidbits. According to Wikipedia, economist John Kenneth Galbraith noted that "trickle-down economics" had been tried before in the United States in the 1890s under the name "horse and sparrow theory." He wrote:

"Mr. David Stockman has said that supply-side economics was merely a cover for the trickle-down approach to economic policy—what an older and less elegant generation called the horse-and-sparrow theory: 'If you feed the horse enough oats, some will pass through to the road for the sparrows.'"

Interestingly, Galbraith claimed “the horse and sparrow” theory was partly to blame for the Panic of 1896, which came just a few years after the Panic of 1893 - a serious economic depression in the United States. . . marked by the collapse of railroad overbuilding and shaky railroad financing which set off a series of bank failures. Compounding market overbuilding and the railroad bubble. . . The huge spike in unemployment, combined with the loss of life savings kept in failed banks, meant that a once-secure middle-class could not meet their mortgage obligations. Many walked away from recently built homes as a result.“

September 27, 2011 at 1:46 p.m.

Why defend TD economics against a bunch of Robin-hood economics true believers? Taking from one to give to another never enriched either. The receiver will always need more and the robbed will quit producing. Who really wants to argue with someone dumb enough to believe this works? I guess the southern way of saying it is "Don't argue with idiots, they will pull you down to their level and beat you with experience."

September 27, 2011 at 2:12 p.m.
MTJohn said...

FlyingPurpleSheepleEater said...Why defend TD economics against a bunch of Robin-hood economics true believers? Taking from one to give to another never enriched either.

au contraire. It has done wonders for the wealthy and powerful.

September 27, 2011 at 2:22 p.m.
blackwater48 said...

THANKS FOR MAKING MY CASE

FPSE mused, Why defend TD economics against a bunch of Robin-hood economics true believers?

Is that really your argument? REALLY? That's your point? So you won't defend it so you attack the other side...wait...that's what I said earlier. The best defense is a good offense.

Okay, why not defend TD economics to the other knot headed tea baggers gathered around the Kool-Aid? Sorry about the mixed metaphors, but the real reason you won't defend TD economics, as I stated very clearly before, is that you can't.

Why not just admit that you believe in TD because you have embraced faith-based economics?

September 27, 2011 at 2:50 p.m.
patriot1 said...

The problem with "trickle down" is that it works but just not fast enough for many. This entitlement mentality of "I want it and I want it now" is crushing us and not sustainable....saving, sacrificing, living within your means, screw that....I want it all now!! (good example of greed, by the way) There is hardly an ill in our society today that can't be traced back to government meddling in things they shouldn't and ignoring things they should be doing. We need a whole lot less John Keynes and a lot more Adam Smith.

September 27, 2011 at 2:54 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

The CEO of Coca Cola says that China now is friendlier to business than the US. The Communist Chinese are gulping the "kool aide" directly from the pitcher and using our own game to beat us hands down in job creation. Leftist ideologues in this country are economically retarded and cannot see that they are killing our economy with their anti-business, Keynesian madness. Maybe they need to go to China to learn how to make an economy work, or they could listen to what the Republicans are saying and save the trip.

September 27, 2011 at 3:19 p.m.
blackwater48 said...

WE HAVE A CONTESTANT

Patriot1 wrote, The problem with "trickle down" is that it works but just not fast enough for many.

Not nearly good enough, Pat. Generalized statements based on smoke and mirrors is a poor defense.

How does TD work so well again? And why doesn't it work fast enough for all of these poor dumb impatient SOBs? Is there a time line?

Please, you must explain and kindly provide some examples. I'm going to get another cup of coffee and wait patiently for your answer.

TIck, tock!

September 27, 2011 at 3:21 p.m.

"generalized statements based on smoke and mirrors" you should know that when you see it, Blackwater, since that sums up President Obama really well.

Very funny!

I bet if Hillary challenged him at the convention he would lose.

Everyone of the Republican candidates has a better resume and is more qualified than Obama was when he ran. I predict Obama will lose and lose BIG! There's so much misery out there that only a fool would be so confident in an Obama victory.

September 27, 2011 at 3:50 p.m.
limric said...

Blackwater,

You are attempting to bait ignorance with theorems debated ad nauseum and thoroughly discredited by the economic community – and reality. However, Freud’s tripartite model of the human psyche can be used to understand its adherent’s basic pathology.

Bear with me here,

Capitalist accumulation is based on the Id: sexually motivated greed/fear (Cocaine, Sex & Wall Street).

The Super-Ego would be forms of state regulation, non-capitalist states or peoples' organizations that control the Id.

Of course, with a balance between the Super-Ego and the Id, an individual or society gains a healthy Ego (reality testing mechanism).

Contrary to what people may want to believe, the presence of the strong unions, active civic organizations, public ownership and well-funded regulatory agencies forced US capitalists into regulating their Id-motivated excesses, or create diversions to disguise the Id's influence.

The capitalist elite had to deal and compete with these Super-Ego structures. As i result, a culture emerged that became increasingly healthier in reality testing (Ego), i.e., progressive.

However, the corporate elite started a sustained attack against all forms of the Super-Ego. And much of it has been minimized, if not abolished.

As a result, we live in a chaotic, infantile culture that produces short-attention spans, limited intellectual development and sophistication, an inability to deal with deferred gratification, emotional immaturity, a greater reliance on unthinking, faith-based pseudo science, etc.

What trickles down is not wealth...it is an increasingly underdeveloped Super-Ego and Ego.

September 27, 2011 at 4:08 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

MTJohn said: “au contraire. It has done wonders for the wealthy and powerful.”

Indeed, MtJohn. It has done wonders for the wealthy and powerful. Studies show that as of 2007, the wealth distribution in the United States was highly concentrated in relatively few hands. . . and still is concentrated in relatively few hands:

The top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth.

The next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85% of the wealth as of 2007.

The remaining 80% (wage and salary worker) own only 15% of the wealth.

In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households has an even greater share: 42.7%.

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

September 27, 2011 at 4:15 p.m.
blackwater48 said...

MAYBE YOU WANT TO PLAY?

BBND ignored the challenge to defend trickle down economics with another boring rant against the President, proving, yet again, the best defense of TD is a good offense.

Please, will somebody step up and explain how trickled-down-supply-side-malarkey has ever balanced the federal budget? It's the one thing all republicans agree on and yet it's one of the biggest scams ever perpetrated on the American people.

There is 30 years of economic statistics at your disposal. Surely you can come up with something.

Tick, tock.

By the way, BRP, are you now advocating that the U.S. emulate the Chinese economic model? Government investment in alternative energy and high speed rail? Isn't that, (gasp) SOCIALISM???

Quick - turn on Boss Limbaugh, Fox 'News,' and belly up to the Kool-Aid bar. You're starting to make a little sense.

September 27, 2011 at 4:15 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

The Whitehouse attacks Ford for advertisement bragging about surviving without bailout, forces them to pull add. This is another example of crony capitalism as practiced by Obama. The government is working on behalf of GM & Chrysler (government motors) against Ford (independent businesses). This administration is poison to the economy. This is fascism.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2011/09/27/bullied_under_white_house_pressure,ford_pulls_anti-bailout_tv_ad--_update_maybe_not

September 27, 2011 at 4:19 p.m.
blackwater48 said...

YOU BETCHA'

Limric wrote, You are attempting to bait ignorance with theorems debated ad nauseum and thoroughly discredited by the economic community – and reality.

I imagine the little brains grinding away and I am filled with perverse joy.

Your essay on Freud’s tripartite model of the human psyche with regards to our current economic chaos was nothing short of brilliant.

I can honestly say, 'We're not worthy!'

Well done, sir.

September 27, 2011 at 4:25 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Is this the kind of thing that dude is always advocating for? It sounds like a mob of Obama supporters...

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/philly-man-describes-alleged-racially-charged-mob-attack-we-got-you-you-white-motherf/

September 27, 2011 at 4:26 p.m.
miraweb said...

I have to say, after watching Perry's performance at the last debate, I can only hope his kool-aid was 40-proof.

PS. BRP, your blond sock puppet needs a few highlights.

September 27, 2011 at 4:31 p.m.
patriot1 said...

Tick, tock....with respect to trickle down, in order to explain anything, you would first of all have to accept the premise that this leviathan called the federal government is vastly larger than it was ever intended. I know you are not will to accept that so any explanation would be futile.

September 27, 2011 at 4:47 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Blackwater48 said: “BBND ignored the challenge to defend trickle down economics with another boring rant against the President, proving, yet again, the best defense of TD is a good offense.”

I’ve come to the conclusion that BBND is not a real person, Blackwater48. I think she may be a computerized version of one of those new pull-string robotic toys that the Republicans have been distributing at their town hall meetings. You pull a string and the toy delivers an anti-Obama message over and over and over again.

September 27, 2011 at 4:49 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Limric said: "As a result, we live in a chaotic, infantile culture that produces short-attention spans, limited intellectual development and sophistication, an inability to deal with deferred gratification, emotional immaturity, a greater reliance on unthinking, faith-based pseudo science, etc."

Many thanks for the brilliant analysis, Limric. Is there a known cure?

September 27, 2011 at 5:02 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Libertarians4Freedom said: "So what? That's the whole point of living in a free country! If I'm good enough to be Oprah, Steven Spielberg, Warren Buffett, or any one of those billionaires, then I get to keep most of my money."

But the rich are not entitled to preferential treatment and they do need to pay their fair share of taxes, which they are simply not doing at this point in time, Libertarians4Freedom. Why should the middle class continue to pick up the tab for the public services and public infrastructure that everybody - including big corporations, bankers, Wall Streeters, and the super rich - utilizes on a daily basis? These things are not free and everybody needs to pay their fair share.

September 27, 2011 at 5:26 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

mountainlaurel said... "Is there a known cure?"

Yes, personal responsibility. It makes you look beyond the next party and start thinking about choices you can make in your life to help improve your chances of success.

September 27, 2011 at 5:27 p.m.
anniebelle said...

“Stupidity cannot be cured. Stupidity is the only universal capital crime; the sentence is death. There is no appeal, and execution is carried out automatically and without pity.” ― Robert A. Heinlein

September 27, 2011 at 5:30 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

mountainlaurel said... "Why should the middle class continue to pick up the tab for the public services and public infrastructure that everybody - including big corporations, bankers, Wall Streeters, and the super rich - utilizes on a daily basis?"

The rich and corporations pay more than enough to fund the infrastructure and services they utilize on a daily basis. They pay enough in taxes to pay for ALL of the federally funded infrastructure. The rest of the country gets to take advantage of the infrastructure that has been funded by the rich. This fallacy that the rich are taking a free ride on the backs of the middle class is nothing more than class warfare. It is just another lame excuse for the leftist to try to justify plundering the rich even more.

In reality, the lower and middle class take advantage of the infrastructure funded and created by the rich. Without the rich you would not have a modern toilet to relieve yourself in. Remember that the next time you advocate against your benefactors.

September 27, 2011 at 5:43 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

BigRidgePatriot proclaimed: "In reality, the lower and middle class take advantage of the infrastructure funded and created by the rich. Without the rich you would not have a modern toilet to relieve yourself in. Remember that the next time you advocate against your benefactors."

My benefactors? Please, BigRidgePatriot. I believe you’re getting a little carried away with yourself. Clearly, it was the middle-class that built America. Indeed, it is your right to get all blissed out and idolize these rich corrupt bankers, politicians, Wall Street executive types if this is what you little heart desires, but the rest of us expect these greedy self-serving jerks to shape up and pay their fair share of taxes.

September 27, 2011 at 6:25 p.m.
Lightnup said...

Patriot1 wrote: "There is hardly an ill in our society today that can't be traced back to government meddling in things they shouldn't and ignoring things they should be doing."

Amen.

September 27, 2011 at 6:47 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Another plea for the wealthy to pay their fair share. . .

“At a LinkedIn town-hall meeting yesterday, President Obama heard from a wealthy tech-industry veteran who asked, “Would you please raise my taxes? I would like very much to have the country to continue to invest in things like Pell Grants, and infrastructure, and job training programs that made it possible for me to get to where I am.” The man was later identified as Doug Edwards, the former director of marketing at Google.

Most of the initial pushback from the right was pretty silly — some conservatives argued that if Edwards wanted to voluntarily chip in extra funds to the treasury, he’s free to do so. But any serious look at the issue shows what’s needed is cooperative solutions built around shared action, not a tip jar in front of Tim Geithner’s office.”

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_09/doug_edwards_tax_bill032457.php

September 27, 2011 at 7:04 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

mountainlaurel said... "the rest of us expect these greedy self-serving jerks to shape up and pay their fair share of taxes"

Are you sure you want to try to argue this point? Look at who pays the taxes and how the taxes are spent. The total government spending on infrastructure is miniscule compared to what the top earners and corporations pay in taxes. Your argument depends on accepting that entitlement spending is part of infrastructure.

Your argument is a lie.

September 27, 2011 at 7:09 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

mountainlaurel said... "Another plea for the wealthy to pay their fair share"

How WEAK! You take the desires of one man and try to use that as a justification? Is that how democracy works? All I have to find is some dork that says what I want to hear and all else is banished?

By your "logic" I suppose someone could argue that a second Holocaust would be a good idea because some “important” leader said Israel should be wiped off the face of the earth. ... I hope none of you Bennett supporters have already tried that one.

September 27, 2011 at 7:16 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

parasite - a person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper return, as one who lives on the hospitality of others.

Synonyms sycophant, toady, leech, sponge, hanger-on, Democrat.

September 27, 2011 at 7:21 p.m.
blackwater48 said...

I ACCEPT

Pat tried to wiggle his way out of defending TD economics (yet again) with another feeble excuse: with respect to trickle down, in order to explain anything, you would first of all have to accept the premise that this leviathan called the federal government is vastly larger than it was ever intended. I know you are not will to accept that so any explanation would be futile.

Wow. You have more excuses than a 5-year old. You should change your avatar to a big weenie.

But surprise! I couldn't agree more.

I accept your premise. There are plenty of things that we simply can't afford, and we can begin by closing overseas military base, shutting down the behemoth Department of Homeland Security, eliminating extra special tax breaks for millionaires, and so on and so forth.

I accept your premise. Now show all of us poor dumb unwashed masses how trickle down economics has ever balanced the federal budget and turned America into a shining city on a hill.

For extra credit use the Reagan model of cutting taxes, increasing defense spending, and balancing the budget. Those were the daze.

But please, no more excuses. I'm beginning to think you're just another clueless tea bagger who mindlessly channels Boss Limbaugh and Fox 'News.'

For once, try thinking for yourself.

Tick tock, tick tock...

September 27, 2011 at 7:32 p.m.

Stupidity, like those who want Obama to have a second term. That kind of stupidity, Anniebelle? Now that's stupid!

September 27, 2011 at 7:38 p.m.
dude_abides said...

"Spielberg would have never gotten financing to make movies like Jaws and ET," -L4F

Funny you should mention Jaws, the movie in which the mayor would rather feed children to the shark than lose money on the 4th of July weekend. Glad you find that movie important!

September 27, 2011 at 7:44 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

dude_abides said... "Funny you should mention Jaws, the movie in which the mayor would rather feed children to the shark than lose money on the 4th of July weekend."

Funny you would mention a government official as an example of reprehensible greed!

September 27, 2011 at 7:55 p.m.
fairmon said...

everybody needs to pay their fair share everybody needs to pay their fair share

How much is a fiar share?

If Obama or one of the hopefuls came out with a plan to tax those making over $250,000 per year enough to support operating the government and the military while taxing those making less than $250,000 nothing. Abolish all non-essential spending and tell the states to manage their own affairs. Would that be fair?

mntl,

You may want to get the IRS data about who pays most of the income taxes collected by the IRS before declaring that the wealthy benefit far more than they pay for government services. I don't care if they take more from the wealthy but I want no more borrowning and all federal welfare handled at the state level.

September 27, 2011 at 8:34 p.m.
fairmon said...

mntl said to BRP..

Clearly, it was the middle-class that built America.

Oh yes BRP, the middle class made America what it is when they invested their life savings and took a risk to start a business. They attended school for years and invented new things people needed. Others simply became dr.s and prepared themselves for some other good paying profession. The only problem is those middle class that succeeded, that built America and provided jobs for others are now considered rich and greedy and with the government taking most of their rewards to give to those that hate them they have lost thier initiative.

The top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth.

How much of that should the governments confiscate and give us?

September 27, 2011 at 8:51 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

BigRidgePatriot said: “The rich and corporations pay more than enough to fund the infrastructure and services they utilize on a daily basis. They pay enough in taxes to pay for ALL of the federally funded infrastructure. The rest of the country gets to take advantage of the infrastructure that has been funded by the rich.”

Is it the kool-aid or do you always just make stuff up, BigRidgePatriot? Prove to us that rich and corporations fund ALL of the infrastructure and services they utilize on a daily basis. Indeed, and why is the U.S. falling behind its economic competitors in rebuilding and expanding its infrastructure?

"The United States is falling dramatically behind much of the world in rebuilding and expanding an overloaded and deteriorating transportation network it needs to remain competitive in the global marketplace, according to a new study by the Urban Land Institute. . .

“Infrastructure should be part of the larger conversation about ‘what do you want government to do and how do you want to pay for it?’ ” said Jay Zukerman of Ernst & Young, which conducted the institute’s study.

The report lends global perspective to an issue addressed last fall by a panel of 80 experts led by former transportation secretaries Norman Y. Mineta and Samuel K. Skinner. That group concluded that as much as $262 billion a year must be spent on U.S. highways, rail networks and air transportation systems.

Congress has failed to approve the two major bills that allow for long-term funding and planning for aviation and transportation. The Federal Aviation Administration has been operating under a funding bill that expired in 2007 and has been extended 18 times. The surface transportation act, which provides the balance of federal transportation funding, expired in 2009 and has been extended seven times.

As Congress debates how much should be spent and where to find the money, China has a plan to spend $1 trillion on high-speed rail, highways and other infrastructure in five years. India is nearing the end of a $500 billion investment phase that has seen major highway improvements, and plans to double that amount by 2017. Brazil plans to spend $900 billion on energy and transportation projects by 2014.

The United States, the institute report concludes, needs to invest $2 trillion to rebuild roads, bridges, water lines, sewage systems and dams that are reaching the end of their planned life cycles.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/study-2-trillion-needed-for-us-infrastructure/2011/05/16/AFyppB5G_print.html

September 27, 2011 at 8:52 p.m.
fairmon said...

It is beginning to appear Cain could, would and should. The media is trying to ignore him, the other candidates don't want to recognize or debate him. I rather have mntl or Alprova as POTUS as what we have but the pubs aren't looking very good either.

It isn't as much Obama's fault as it is those he has to depend on for information and advice. It is one tough job and he can't do it all. Congress current approval rating is higher than deserved.

September 27, 2011 at 8:56 p.m.

Well, I had meant to just post on the one opinion thread, but this cartoon did make me laugh.

I wonder if we'll have the other flavors come up, from the homosexuality is wrong to the anti-evolutionists, to the anti-environmental scientists. Pity Kool-Aid stopped making their Root Beer flavor. At least a few of the candidates, like Ron Paul, won't be drinking all of them.

Also, I called the local Ford dealers about those anti-bailout ads, told them I would not be buying a new Ford because of them. Thus you can be sure that rather than lose my patronage, they stopped the ads on their own, just to make me happy, without influence from the White House. I'm a lot more important to them you know.

September 27, 2011 at 9:15 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

BigRidgePatriot said: “Look at who pays the taxes.”

I am looking at who pays the taxes and I’m also looking at who pays what tax rate, BRP. Are you? It seems to me that if one man reports that 60 percent of his income comes from his capital gains earnings and another man reports that 60 percent his income comes wage earnings the taxation rate should be the same for both men, but it isn’t.

“For the very richest Americans, low tax rates on capital gains are better than any Christmas gift. . . this is one reason the gap between the wealthy and the rest of the country is widening dramatically. The rates on capital gains - which include profits from the sale of stocks, bonds and real estate - should be a key point in negotiations over how to shrink the budget deficit . . .

Most Americans depend on wages and salaries for their income, which is subject to a graduated tax so the big earners pay higher percentages. The capital gains tax turns that idea on its head, capping the rate at 15 percent for long-term investments. As a result, anyone making more than $34,500 a year in wages and salary is taxed at a higher rate than a billionaire is taxed on untold millions in capital gains. . .

While it’s true that many middle-class Americans own stocks or bonds, they tend to stash them in tax-sheltered retirement accounts, where the capital gains rate does not apply. By contrast, the richest Americans reap huge benefits. Over the past 20 years, more than 80 percent of the capital gains income realized in the United States has gone to 5 percent of the people; about half of all the capital gains have gone to the wealthiest 0.1 percent.

“The way you get rich in this world is not by working hard,” said Marty Sullivan, an economist and a contributing editor to Tax Analysts. “It’s by owning large amounts of assets and having those things appreciate in value.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/capital-gains-tax-rates-benefiting-wealthy-are-protected-by-both-parties/2011/09/06/gIQAdJmSLK_story.html

September 27, 2011 at 9:21 p.m.
tderng said...

fair share,fair share,fair share...what the hell is their fair share?

September 27, 2011 at 9:25 p.m.
alprova said...

mountainlaurel, you're on a roll today. You are my hero.

September 27, 2011 at 10:06 p.m.
dude_abides said...

BigReprehensiblePirate... It's not your government that sucks, it's the control exerted thereupon by the greedy rich, whom you support, you teapot dome-ass, you.

September 27, 2011 at 10:18 p.m.
fairmon said...

mntl.... If you want the wealthy to pay their fair share, whatever it is then keep insisting on it, I don't care if they pay more. I think you and I and anyone with an income needs to pay more if the government is going to keep up their spending stupidity. just a couple of questions regarding your post and position;

China has a plan to spend $1 trillion on high-speed rail, highways and other infrastructure in five years. India is nearing the end of a $500 billion investment phase that has seen major highway improvements, and plans to double that amount by 2017. Brazil plans to spend $900 billion on energy and transportation projects by 2014.

Where do these countries get most of the wealth they are investing? China has no tax on their businesses and all have lower rates than the U.S. Keep in mind they started with essentially no infrastructure.

1-The Federal Aviation Administration has been operating under a funding bill that expired in 2007 and has been extended 18 times. 2-The surface transportation act, which provides the balance of federal transportation funding, expired in 2009 and has been extended seven times.

Q1-What percent of Americans routinely utilize air transportation? The wealthy are the most frequent travelers. So, why do the airlines and users not fully fund the air transportation needs? Q2-Why are fuel taxes not increased enough to do what is needed and set aside in a separate audited fund for funding surface transportation needs/expense? Why are toll roads and bridges not utilized to construct and maintain federal hi-ways?

That group concluded that as much as $262 billion a year must be spent on U.S. highways, rail networks and air transportation systems.

Do you realize that 262b per year is about the amount of interest on the debt? Why does the government fund any rail systems installation or maintenance? Should that not be the rail road owners and users and those wishing to have a rail system in their area?

The federal government became more involved in hi-way construction in Eisenhower's time when the government was well funded and the world's largest lender. The U.S. government was being criticized for not spending more. The principle of user pays and fair competition works well but borrowing over forty cents of every dollar spent is a different world and may require a different process.

September 28, 2011 at 12:21 a.m.

Why don't we use more toll roads and bridges?

Because they're damn inconvenient and annoying. I suppose you could develop an automatic transponder system, but do you really want the government to be watching your driving habits that much?

Also, it turns out that the owners and users of a rail system are...represented in the government, because it turns out they get to vote too. So what is wrong with asking for some of their tax dollars be spent on their interests? Or do you want to tax them without representation?

September 28, 2011 at 12:37 a.m.
fairmon said...

mntl and probably a NY time columnist said...

As a result of the 15% rate on long term capital gains, anyone making more than $34,500 a year in wages and salary is taxed at a higher rate than a billionaire is taxed on untold millions in capital gains. . .

Either you or the publication you read failed to make some important points: 1-Any investment qualifying for the 15% rate must be invested long term, often for years.

2-Any investment that can result in a capital gain is at risk and a loss is just as possible as a gain..

3-The current average dividend on the S&P is just over 3%.To make $34,000 per year over $1 million would have to be invested for more than one year. The stock would have to hold it's value, which has not been the case for a while now.

4-Real estate has the same or more risk than stocks.

5-Those companies in which people invest use that money to invest in and grow the business. They also pay taxes on company profits before they pay a dividend to those investing and putting their money at risk.

6-There are times when a company loses money or goes bankrupt and the investor loses their money (my personal experience with Washington Mutual) which is why the emphasis on diversifying investments and not putting over 5% in any one stock)

7-Any gain realized in less than one year (stock bought and sold in less than 12 months) is taxable as ordinary income.

Would you agree the company paying the dividend should not have to pay taxes on money paid out as dividends if the person receiving the dividend is to be taxes the ordinary income rate? Or, do you support double taxation of the same money?

Hedge fund managers should not be allowed to pay only the capital gains rates on their income unless it is their own money and not clients they are realizing their income from. The client has money at risk and if the fund manager loses their money, which often happens, there is no penalty to the fund manager other than loss of a client.

September 28, 2011 at 12:53 a.m.

If a loss is just as possible as a gain, you are doing something severely wrong with your investments.

September 28, 2011 at 1:01 a.m.
fairmon said...

The tax rates are probably fair but all the deductions, reductions and other means of reducing income is not. The vast majority of those benefit the wealthy with high incomes. Over time congress has shown favor with over 11 million words of tax regulations as they attempt to manipulate and show favor primarily to the wealthy.

You want to talk about everyone paying their fair share? If I elect to save and pay cash for my house why should I subsidize those preferring to borrow money to buy a house? How is it fair they are able to take a tax deduction?

If I elect to remain single why do I pay a higher rate on the same income as those electing to be married?

If I elect to not have children why do I have to subsidize those that do? They get a tax deduction for each rug rat they spawn?

Why as a single person is my health care premium more than one half of that of a married couple? Why is the health care premium for a married couple with two kids no more than twice my premium?

Is it fair that 65% of my property tax goes to educate someone else's kids?

I elect to be single. A coworker started at the same time, made the same income, paid the same social security taxes and got the same benefit. His wife can also draw social security based on what he paid and should he die before her she will get the amount he was getting. If they have kids under 18 they will draw until age 18. Is that fair to those remaining single?

There are many more examples of what some consider unfair but those benefiting from it will attempt to defend and justify it in some way.

September 28, 2011 at 1:26 a.m.

Society considers many of the things you rail against to be of an overall benefit, even to those who choose not to participate.

If you believe you can persuasively argue that there is no net societal benefit to encouraging home ownership, domestic relationships, or the education of children, you are welcome to attempt to do so, but I would try to avoid doing it from the perspective of it being unfair.

Also, the last I checked, people were complaining about their healthcare premiums going up substantially after getting married, not paying less. So I'm not sure if your claim there is particularly accurate.

September 28, 2011 at 1:39 a.m.
alprova said...

Harp3339 wrote: "China has no tax on their businesses and all have lower rates than the U.S."

That is not true. China taxes businesses several ways.

China assesses turnover taxes. This includes three kinds of taxes. Value-Added Tax, Consumption Tax, and a Business Tax. The levy of these taxes are normally based on the volume of turnover or sales of the taxpayers in the manufacturing, circulation or service sectors.

An Enterprise Income Tax was effective prior to 2008, applicable to such domestic enterprises as state-owned enterprises, collectively owned enterprises, private enterprises, joint operation enterprises and joint equity enterprises. Foreign Investment Enterprises pay a Foreign Enterprise Income Tax ("FEIT").

A new Enterprise Income Tax Law of the People's Republic of China has replaced the aboves two enterprises taxes as from 1 January 2008, and it was lowered in response to the global financial crisis.

There are 14 kinds of taxes currently applicable to the enterprises with foreign investment, foreign enterprises and/or foreigners. They are Value Added Taxes, Consumption Taxes, Business Taxes, Income Tax on Enterprises with Foreign Investment and Foreign Enterprises, Individual Income Taxes, Resource Taxes, Land Appreciation Taxes, Urban Real Estate Taxes, Vehicle and Vessel Usage License Plate Taxes, Stamp Taxes, Deed Taxes, Slaughter Taxes, Agriculture Taxes, and Customs Duties.

Enterprise Income Tax payable is computed on the basis of the taxable income and by applying the rate of 25%.

Income tax payable is calculated by taking the taxable income income amount × 25%.

The income tax on enterprises with foreign investment and foreign enterprises is 30% of the taxable income plus 3% local income tax, totaling a rate of 33%.

Individual household income or business income that is in excess of 100,000 yuan per year, is assessed a maximum rate of 45%.

Those are just the highlights. Additional taxes assessed businesses come to about 15% more, on average.

It is much more expensive to set up a business in China than it is in the United States.

September 28, 2011 at 2:29 a.m.
fairmon said...

China business tax totaling a rate of 33%? Does that suggest an American international corporation with a business in China pays 33% then if they bring the profits to the U.S. pay an additional 35%? No wonder they leave their profits in foreign accounts to the tune of over $1.2 trillion.

It is much more expensive to set up a business in China than it is in the United States.

Apparently several company boards and CEOs don't agree with this conclusion which recently includes GE.

September 28, 2011 at 5:06 a.m.
fairmon said...

If you believe you can persuasively argue that there is no net societal benefit to encouraging home ownership, domestic relationships, or the education of children, you are welcome to attempt to do so, but I would try to avoid doing it from the perspective of it being unfair.

The question is why should a single person pay more for those things than those who think they are of value? Home ownership can be achieved without a tax dedcution for the interest. domestic realtionships are fine but why should anyone not entering into marriage subsidze them? Children can and should be better educated than is currently done but that can be done without assistance from those that elect not to proliferate and add to the population growth problem. Charter schools are working better than the public system did in New Orleans.

This is one case where nothing will change and the majority will continue dictating an unfairness to a minority group. This is another reason that the fair tax propoasal in bill H.R. 25 is indeed a "fair tax" system. Regardless of where your money comes from, legally or illegally, you will pay your fair share when that money is spent.

September 28, 2011 at 5:29 a.m.
alprova said...

The trade-off as I have always maintained is the cheap labor. The average manufacturing worker in China makes $586 a month, compared to the average US worker in manufacturing who makes around $2,628 per month, which means the Chinese worker is making less than a fourth.

You can disagree with me all you want but Google for the facts.

I did.

You always claim that this CEO or that CEO claims this or that, but you never cough up any references to back up your claims.

China is not a tax haven. It is a labor cost haven, making the increased taxes assessed in China worth the venture. Some day, as wages continue to rise in China, that will change.

September 28, 2011 at 5:32 a.m.
fairmon said...

happywithnewbulbs also said..... The last I checked, people were complaining about their health care premiums going up substantially after getting married, not paying less. So I'm not sure if your claim there is particularly accurate.

Of course the premium goes up for a married couple but it doesn't double nor does it increase proportionally when they have kids. Singles have seen recent increases at a higher percent than marrieds which is just a taste of what is to come for both. Why is the premium not the same for each individual covered?

September 28, 2011 at 5:35 a.m.
fairmon said...

happywithnewbulbs said...

Also, it turns out that the owners and users of a rail system are...represented in the government, because it turns out they get to vote too. So what is wrong with asking for some of their tax dollars be spent on their interests? Or do you want to tax them without representation?

Representation doesn't mean activities or resources should be subsidized. I suspect an audit would reveal that a lot of their taxes are used by government in regulating their activities. Actually I would prefer to see taxes on businesses eliminated entirely and the consumption tax as described in the fair tax proposal H.R. 25 adopted. I agree with those that believe that would be the greatest stimulus to the economy possible. It would be different than any country in the world and would be the most transparent.

Taxes were initially intended for the defense of the country and to operate government in a way that protects the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Annual tax revenues should never be less than what it takes to do that and meet all government expenses.

September 28, 2011 at 6:15 a.m.
fairmon said...

happywithnewbulbs said...

If a loss is just as possible as a gain, you are doing something severely wrong with your investments.

Where can anyone invest for a good return enabling them to pay taxes on the millions they would earn, as mntl says they make, that is a low or no risk investment. I have read that about 80% of new business ventures fail within the first five years. Treasuries or a CD pay zero when inflation is considered. Real estate certainly has taken a hit as have collectibles. Hold an investment long term and if you are fortunate enough to realize a capital gain the gain is not reduced by the inflation that occurred during that time.

A lot of wealthy people invest in tax exempt municipal bonds that pay a good return and they pay no taxes on those. However, if the town or state defaults they lose all or most of their investment. I have most of my life savings invested in multinational corporations that pay 3-6% dividends and some few REITS that appears to be financially sound. I do depend on those to supplement my income but I also realize they can cut the dividend or the value of the stock go down or bankrupt and lose the entire investment. Perhaps you can enlighten me on how to make a decent return at no or low risk? I was one of the fortunate that sold GM short and made a nice profit but that was a high risk investment.

September 28, 2011 at 6:49 a.m.
alprova said...

L4F wrote: "I like Hernan Cain's 9, 9, 9 plan which would be 9% corporate tax, 9% personal income tax, 9% national sales tax. This would be fair, why should someone who has saved $500,000 for his retirement pay more because Warren Buffett wants to pay more dividend taxes? Under Cain's plan, your income tax would be 9% whether it comes from salary or dividends. Now that would be fair, after all, every America deserves to be treated the same."

Herman Cain's proposal represents a further tax cut for the rich and it imposes a higher burden on the middle and lower income classes.

In Tennessee, the state would be under no obligation to rescind its 9.75 sales tax, so the added 9% national sales tax rate would bring sales taxes on items to a whopping 18.75%. Georgia residents would pay 16%. There's certainly no savings to be found there.

Corporate taxes currently average around 27.5%, with some paying more and some paying less, with loopholes that exist on the books. Wiping the books free of loopholes and imposing an across-the-board 9% tax on businesses sounds good, but it is a reduction in revenue that this country cannot afford.

The University of New Mexico's Bureau of Business and Economic Research studied the plan and estimated that the 9 percent personal income tax would generate around $1.1 trillion a year, not including charitable deductions, the one exemption in the plan.

They used U.S. Census figures to determine spending in the retail industry and calculated that a 9 percent national sales tax would generate around $380 billion per year.

And, they estimated that a 9 percent corporate income tax rate would generate $270 billion.

In total, that's about $1.8 trillion at current spending rates. That number is about $360 billion less than what the government currently takes in, or about $2.16 trillion.

His plan would increase the national debt, if people didn't put off spending for big ticket items, which most people would, given the sales tax rates I mentioned above, that would most certainly higher in other states that have higher state and local sales taxes in place today.

With no exemptions in place for the poor and lower middle classes, it appears to shift a great deal of the tax burden onto their backs.

The plan, while noble in intent, needs a little more thought put into it.

September 28, 2011 at 10:04 a.m.
hotdiggity said...

Just say nein, nein, nein to this hair brained idea.

September 28, 2011 at 10:12 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

mountainlaurel said... "I am looking at who pays the taxes and I’m also looking at who pays what tax rate"

Your obsession with tax rates is making it hard for you to see the point. FOCUS mountainlaurel! You were challenged to compare the taxes paid by the top earners and corporations to the infrastructure spending that you claim the rich use at the expense of the middle class. You will find that the rich pay enough to fund the entire infrastructure. If you follow that reality you will be forced to admit that you do not want the rich to fund their fair share of infrastructure, because they already are funding it all. You want the rich to medicate, house, cloth and feed half of the nation.

We already know that you do not think the rich do not pay enough so you are wasting your time reiterating that point.

September 28, 2011 at 10:31 a.m.

harp3339, I don't believe you would want to give me enough of your personal information for me to give you appropriate financial advice, but if you wish to consult with somebody, there are plenty of qualified financial counselors, who even with the fees they charge, who will be able to offer you better odds than 50/50. That sounds like you are betting on a coin flip. That is not what I would say is a good financial strategy.

Moving on, what I have heard about the health care premiums for married people, is that they are actually paying substantially more than what a single person would be, even without children. So I wonder whose claims are actually true. Yours, or the other people, who get into papers like the Wall Street Journal.

In any case, I did say you should try to argue against marriage, the education of children, and home ownership not from the position of it being unfair, because here's the thing, you haven't actually established that you don't benefit from them in a manner than is commensurate with your contribution. See, you have to prove that you aren't benefiting before you can bemoan it being unfair. And no, complaining that the school systems are poorly run doesn't mean stop funding them, most of the charter school proponents I've seen argue for explicit state funding of them.

In any case, you should note that the pursuit of Happiness, at least in the state of Tennessee...is explicitly declared to be promoted by a system of internal improvement, and as such is to be encouraged. The same with providing for the education of children. If you want to insist that taxes and spending are correlated, fair enough, but don't deny that the government does have existing obligations. If you wish to attempt to change the state constitution, fair enough, but do that before you demand they stop doing what they are legally bound to do.

September 28, 2011 at 10:47 a.m.

Libertarians4Freedom, your claim that real fairness is everybody paying the same...I don't think that is fair. If a person were going to a restaurant with friends, and they get an expensive bottle of wine, which the one person doesn't drink, is it fair that they pay the same share?

Story shamelessly borrowed from the column where somebody wrote in asking for advice about it.

Now try not to worry too much about who is drinking what wine, as we'd just get into a discussion about why welfare is often a benefit as much to the rich as to the poor.

September 28, 2011 at 10:53 a.m.

The 50% of Americans who don't pay taxes? Ahem, you overreach yourself with that unqualified statement, as they do pay taxes, such as the payroll tax, sales taxes, gasoline taxes, and property taxes.

I think you mean to say that they don't pay the federal income tax. That is the somewhat accurate statement.

But even that has been demonstrated to be less meaningful in numerous outlets, but I link you to Jon Stewart's.

Jon Stewart on the Poor's free ride

September 28, 2011 at 11:20 a.m.
MickeyRat said...

We got in this pitcher of blood primarily by:

A) 1 Trillion dollar tax cut for the rich (Republicans)

B) 2+ Trillion dollars on wars on credit for our children’s children to pay off! (Republicans)

C) 1 Trillion dollar Medicare drug program put on credit (see B above) that is over 40% more expensive than it need have been because it was a giveaway to pharmaceutical corporations. (Republicans)

D) 4+ Trillion bank and Wall Street bailouts primarily due to de-regulating previous rules designed to prevent just such an occurrence. (Republicans)

After reading all the brainwashed fools defend the corporatocray and accuse Middle America of class warfare, I’ll just say this-

Nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody.

You built a factory and industries here—good for you! But let’s be perfectly clear.

You moved your goods to market on the roads, rails and safe airways the rest of us paid for.

You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate.

You were safe in your factory because of police and fire departments that the rest of us paid for.

You didn’t have to worry that marauding thugs would come, or we’d get invaded and they'd seize everything at your factory. You didn’t have to hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did.

So, You built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea—THAT'S FANTASTIC. That’s what makes this country as great as it is. And of course, You SHOULD keep a big hunk of it.

But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay it forward for the next kid who comes along.

Above paraphrased from a talk by Elizabeth Warren – a true patriot.

Those defending the power elites have been hypnotized by decades of vampire (credit limric) propaganda. The result: perfect zombies for the new fascist state.

September 28, 2011 at 11:58 a.m.
alprova said...

L4F wrote: "t's time for the 50% of Americans who don't pay taxes and get benefits to step up."

Such a statement can only come from someone who has never lived from paycheck to paycheck at any time in your privileged life, nor have you had to juggle your finances to keep the bills paid, your family fed, a roof over your head, or worse.

You've probably never been laid off from a good paying job or been injured on a job, and had to pay your bills on two-thirds of your normal salary. You've probably enjoyed good health all of your life and have no idea what it's like to deal with the costs of dealing with a family member's long-term illness and the loss of income that goes with that.

People who have to live on incomes that barely pay for the basic necessities in life cannot afford to pay taxes in order to satisfy your sense of fairness.

"Obama has already spent much more than $360 billion in stimulus packages that have delivered no results."

That is categorically untrue and several agencies have attested to the fact that between 1.5 million and 2.5 million jobs were created or saved as a result of stimulus spending. I posted on this very subject just the other day;

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2011/sep/25/prevailing-trends/#c115971

"So what's the big deal? Let the American people keep their money and see what happens."

It will never happen, so why argue about it? Taxes are a necessary evil, and that's the way it's gonna be until we all die. Those who can afford to pay them will, and those who cannot will be exempted from them.

Thank God people like yourself will never assume power in this nation, no matter how hard you try to do so.

September 28, 2011 at 12:05 p.m.
alprova said...

MickeyRat offered: "Nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody."

That is a very true observation. Most people in this country who are rich inherited their wealth.

Those self-made men and women that we keep hearing about, are anything but. Working for them, for peanuts most of the time, are lower and middle class workers, who contribute their time and labor that made the business owner(s) wealthy.

Without peons, the wealthy would never have achieved wealth. Conversely, the same can be said about the worker. Without a job, they would not survive very well either.

My observations over the years have led me to conclude that once a person becomes wealthy, they often forget how and who got them where they are, and the money they have in the banks causes their hearts to harden.

If they ever had it hard in life, they sure forget what it was like.

September 28, 2011 at 12:17 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Libertarians4Freedom said: “the rich pay obscene property taxes, dividend taxes, corporate taxes, personal income taxes (if they get a salary), sales taxes, taxes for second homes, taxes for yachts and planes.

I suspect you know this already, but it is faulty thinking and a huge leap to conclude that since the rich pay some taxes that they are paying their fair share of their taxes, L4F. The issue that we’ve been discussing is about the preferential treatment that the super wealthy are currently receiving when it comes to taxing their personal income. Again, it seems to me that if one man reports that 60 percent of his income comes from his capital gains earnings and another man reports that 60 percent his income comes wage earnings, the taxation rate should be approached the same way for both men, but this is not the case.

Libertarians4Freedom said: “More than 50% of the money the IRS gets comes from the rich. In other words, they pay more than their fair share while some Americans not only pay no taxes but actually get money back from the government.”

Please, Libertarians4Freedom. In a country like the U.S. where 85% of the wealth is owned by 20% of the population, does it really surprise you that this wealthy 20% might owe the IRS more than the group that only owns 15% of the wealth? Indeed, have you completely forgotten the point of a personal income tax system is to report your personal income, and that the system is set up to tax on a graduated scale? Again, your thinking is faulty, L4F. It is huge leap to conclude that wealthy individuals in the U.S. are paying their fair share because “their group” is paying more in taxes than that “other group” of individuals. You are approaching this tax issue as if it were a football game with two opposing teams -– indeed, if it were a football game, your team would be kick out of the game for bribing the referee and rigging the rules.

September 28, 2011 at 12:18 p.m.

Blackwater, I gave just as much defense of TD economics as the amount of argument given to discredit it. It is very progressive of you to accuse me of not having a good enough argument for TD when the argument against was "Even the knot heads know there is no defense for the budget busting policies that have gutted the American economy over the past 30 or so years." and a wikipedia article. Wikipedia? Really? Bring some facts and I will respond in kind.

For the "rich don't pay enough taxes" crowd:

Average Federal Income Taxes Paid, as Percent of Income (Income / Average tax rate) (Under $75K / 6.6%) ($75K to $100K / 8.5) ($100K to $200K / 11.9) ($200K to $500K / 19.6) ($500K to $1M / 24.4) ($1M to $1.5M / 25.3) ($1.5M to $2M / 25.6) ($2M to $5M / 25.8) ($5M to $10M / 25.4) ($10M or more / 22.6)

A hint for the wordy, non-mathy types amoung us... 6.6% is the lowest. The "rich" are paying up to 25.8% income tax. How are they paying less? Educate yourselves here: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/09/tax_demagogues_are_lying_liars_in_one_graph.html

September 28, 2011 at 1:42 p.m.

Oh and to the nobody got rich on their own crowd.. Get over it. The idiots who worked for those who got rich without inheriting it, are at fault for accepting the pay they received if they thought it was unfair. If they didn't like the pay, noone was forcing them to keep working there. They AGREED to the wage they were offered. If they want to get rich, they should probably emulate the business man and do it for themselves. Personal responsibility sucks doesn't it?

September 28, 2011 at 2:02 p.m.

Go to your family or your church? That's better than going to the government?

Not in my experience, especially in terms of abuse. On both sides, with giving too much and demanding too much in return. Yes, I've seen spoiled children and siblings, and I've seen ones left out in the cold because somebody refused to be charitable.

And of course, there will be times when the family and church simply can't solve the problem, like when half the neighborhood is on fire. Or half the county. That's why we have governments, and no, I think I'll pass on the religious government. Or family-based. Or religious family based.

September 28, 2011 at 2:19 p.m.
limric said...

FlyingPurpleSheepleEater

I’m sorry, but you have offered no cogent argument supporting ‘trickle down economics’. Blackwaters statements are always inflammatory and he can be at times a bit rash but, Quote: “I gave just as much defense of TD economics as the amount of argument given to discredit it.” Is essentially saying, “I know you are – but what am I”, whilst being more vocabularic. (I think I just made up a new word)

Your last post: September 28, 2011 at 2:02 p.m.was THE most mean spirited, factually devoid and historically ignorant balderdash I’ve read in quite a while. BUT. It certainly helped further my hypothesis of a societies increasing infantile culture, short-attention spans and limited intellectual development and sophistication.

To which I thank you.

September 28, 2011 at 3:10 p.m.

Harp, sorry, but much of this is Obama's fault. Obamacare, Stimulus, the millions of lost jobs, the miserable outlook, the piling on of debt when the opposite was called for, the attacks on businesses, the loss of confidence by businesses, all of those who can't find enough work, and all the problems that are coming from Obamcare.

The absolute waste, like solyndra, is probably just the tip of the iceberg!

I do blame Obama for making a tough situation into a disaster. It's all under his watch. Nobody cares anymore about former President Bush or has the stomach to see anymore fingerpointing.

He's not a sympathetic character right now. Nobody likes that he still fingerpointing after three years in office. He's coming across like badly.

Some of you on here can argue and post numbers until you're blue in the face, but class envy is class envy is class envy. Your posts drip with class envy. You're really embarrassing yourselves!

September 28, 2011 at 3:32 p.m.
nurseforjustice said...

I like to stay out of financial arguements since I am not the brightest bulb in the fixture when it comes to this area, and will do so today.

I just wanted to congratulate Alprova on his weight loss. I know I battle it myself and it is no fun whatsoever. Congrats Al.

Also congrats to L4F for reducing your debt. I have done much of the same and will continue to do so, God willing, and I know He is.

September 28, 2011 at 3:38 p.m.

Cain-Rubio '12

September 28, 2011 at 3:52 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Harp3339 said: “Where do these countries get most of the wealth they are investing? China has no tax on their businesses and all have lower rates than the U.S. Keep in mind they started with essentially no infrastructure.”

China does have a corporate tax, Harp3339. What Alprova has said is true. According to the Taxrates website, the standard corporate income tax rate in China is 25%; a special tax rate of 20% applies to small-scale enterprises; and a special 15% tax rate applies to state-encouraged new high-technology enterprises. China’s individual income tax rates are progressive from 5% - 45%, shared out on 9 brackets. 
 http://www.taxrates.cc/

As to why China has been so successful, I can only comment on what little I’ve read and observed, Harp3339. For starters, it’s clear China’s leadership has developed some real life national goals. This, of course, is very different from the U.S. where our representatives are totally preoccupied with their divisive and personally individualized B-Rated soap operas that have been bought and paid for by the highest corporate bidder - who could care less about what may or may not be in the best interest of this nation. Indeed, the sole concern of many of these corporate sponsors is their profits and how our leaders can be used to guarantee more profits for their corporate stockholders in the future.

Other factors, of course, would include China’s efforts to increase trade, foreign investments, and recruitment of foreign enterprises. I’ve also read about some of the recent tax changes that Alprova mentions in his posts so there may be some kind of shift at some point. Apparently, China will no longer be giving preferential tax treatment to foreign invested enterprises over their domestically funded enterprises. Interestingly, I also note that China plans to give special emphasis toward the environmental industry in the future.

September 28, 2011 at 3:59 p.m.
alprova said...

L4F wrote: "By the way, you think it's peachy for a woman to buy booze with cash and food with the SNAP card? Is that what spreading the wealth is all about? Helping some floozy get her Jack Daniels without sacrificing her poptart budget?"

Why is it that whenever this subject comes up, examples such as the one you raise is the content of your arguments?

There are far more people who are juggling their finances and who do not purchase alcohol. There are far more people who are in genuine need for assistance, who do not have extended families that they can call upon, or whose family members are in worse shape than they are.

September 28, 2011 at 4:43 p.m.

Limric, I am sorry you feel the promotion of self-sufficiency over "woe is me" self flaggelation is historically ignorant balderdash, mean spirited and factually devoid. I see it as common sense and would rather tell someone yes YOU can rather than the yes WE can of the socialist in chief obama. Yes YOU can help people get off of their big fat... welfare checks.

All of the regressive policies, like affirmative action, say yes you can, but only with my help. You are too inferior to do it on your own. Here take this money I stole from that rich guy over there, who you should hate, and wallow in self pity. Oh, and welcome to the plantation. Follow the rules or you won't get your check. Try to run away and face the consequences. You are nothing without me.

Sounds like paradise right?

September 28, 2011 at 4:59 p.m.
limric said...

Dear blondebutnotdumb,

Y’know honey. Your considered opinion is an almost verbatim daily Sean Hannity show. Fallaciousness and diversion included.

So – You wanna howl about Solyndra. Fair enough — the Solyndra deal stinks - PU. However, have you ever heard about Zap Motors? Hmm…have you? Nah, I didn’t think so. In 2009, even as the Republicans were loudly deriding Obama's original stimulus program, a certain Kentucky Senator (that looks just like a turtle) and some other hypocrite cranks (like sissy Eric Cantnor) were quietly making not one, but two personal appeals to Obama's energy secretary, urging over a quarter-billion-dollars in loan guarantees (that mean YOU pay) be awarded to Zap for a clean energy plant it wanted to build in McConnell's state. Should we be reminded that Zap Motors had quite the shaky financial record, Oh heavens no! It was (as McConnell now says of Solyndra) "a politically-connected energy firm." Connected directly to him, that is. The senator's robust support of Zap came after the corporation hired a lobbyist with close ties to Mitch, having been a frequent financial backer of the senator's campaigns.

The moral of this tale is that consevatards ‘say’ they hate government spending ---- except when they love it. For chicks like you, political morality is relative — decry federal largesse loudly, but when it serves your own political needs, hug it quietly ... and tightly.

You have to understand sweetie, that walking down a wet cobblestone street at night in spike heels, yelling at people as you pass by, you’re going to trip yourself up and fall on your pretty bum. Someone may help, but some may tell you how tripped yourself up and say,”You're really embarrassing yourself.”

Love, The uber intellectual moron

September 28, 2011 at 6:14 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Libertarians4Freedom said: “By the way, when I say fair I don't mean "fair share," that's Marxist-speak for "you make more and it's not fair."

Well, L4F, since this particular discussion has been specifically about money, income, taxes, rates, and amounts due, I’m inclined to view the term “fair share” as a mathematical expression in reference to a tax rate that does not add up, as it should.

L4F said: "Do you believe wealth is owned collectively? You have a house, is it yours or does it belong to America? I think it's yours, just like your car, your wife, your blue jeans, your shoes, are yours.

As it stands, you’re statement makes no sense to me, L4F. If wealth were owned collectively, our citizenry would file a huge joint tax return to the IRS instead of individual tax returns.

L4F said: "What about people who make $50,000 or $100,000 a year and invest in the stock market AFTER PAYING TAXES. Should they also pay a dividend tax on money that was already taxed when the employee got paid? You think that's fair? I don't.

You only get taxed on the new earnings that make you from your investment, L4F. Why shouldn’t you pay taxes these new earnings? Seems reasonable to me.

September 28, 2011 at 6:17 p.m.
patriot1 said...

The rich just get richer...how does that happen? Think about this scenario:

Let's say a liberal, progressive cartel gets together and decides we need more housing for the poor...they agree to raise money and build a "Harriett Tubman Housing Complex"

In order to raise money for this endeavour, they decide to sell bonds...sell to who? Why those fat cat rich folks who else.. that's where the money is...they can make the rate attractive (maybe even tax free) and suck up funds from the private sector..paying a great return on into the future.

They raise the revenue and lay down a huge chunk of it for an expensive architect

Find some property and pay the owner 2 or 3x what the property is worth and he is set for life....

Find a contractor, and sign on for him/her to build and employ all the usual building trades from site preparation on up to and including a turn key job....(Exploiting all kinds of laborers)

Purchase materials from cement, brick, from all the usual supply houses with huge profits for them

Hire adminstrators to operate the complex and maintenance for upkeep.

But what about the poor, who they were going to help in the first place.... they and their posterity are trapped in a crime, drug infested neighborhood where rarely one escapes.

Who REALLY benefited from this boondoggle?

The unintended consequences of liberalism

September 28, 2011 at 7:43 p.m.

And you think you're unique, Limric? You all sound the same to me on here. You sound amazingly the same as the dopes on MSNBC, CNN, NPR and all the other liberals and leftists that pollute the air and take up space in print.

What I find funny is how you all think you're a bunch of rebels and think outside the box. You're just drones. Actually I'm more of Mark Levin listner. Read his book, Liberty and Tyranny, he tells it the way it is.

Solyndra is very much a scandal, it's the perfect example of liberal waste.

The government is necessary for many things, but you leftists love it for pushing people around. You're hypocrites bitching and moaning about corporations and the wealthy. But when they're on your side, it's fine. You don't know what you want. I know what I want. I want the freedoms the Constitution guarantees me.

You come across as trying too hard to be unique. You think you're a character and everything that you write is gold. You leftists are a dime a dozen. You sound just like every other self-proclaimed rebel and psuedo intllecutal. Big deal!

You're not an independent thinker, you're just one of the many sour leftists on here who are bitter that Obama has fallen flat on his face.

September 28, 2011 at 7:55 p.m.

A conservative parrot complaining about the leftists not being independent thinkers.

Huh.

September 28, 2011 at 8:23 p.m.
miraweb said...

A rather good quote by Benjamin Franklin that I came across recently. Sorry for the length:

"Is it supposed that wisdom is the necessary comcomitant of riches, and that one man worth a thousand pounds must have as much wisdom as twenty who have each only nine hundred and ninety-nine; and why is property to be represented at all . . . .The accumulation therefore of property in such a society, and its security to individuals in every society, must be an effect of the protection afforded to it by the joint strength of the society, in the execution of its laws.

"Private property therefore is a creature of society, and is subject to the calls of that society, whenever its necessities shall require it, even to the last farthing.

"Its contributions to the public exigences are not to be considered as conferring a benefit on the public, entitling the contributors to the distinction of honor and power, but as the return of an obligation previously received, or the payment of a just debt . . . the important ends of civil society, and the personal securities of life and liberty there, remain the same in every member of the society; and the poorest continues to have an equal claim to them with the most opulent, whatever difference time, chance, or industry may occasion in their circumstances.

"On these considerations, I am sorry to see the signs this paper I have been considering affords, of a disposition among some of our people to commence an aristocracy, by giving the rich a predominancy in government . . . "

-- Benjamin Franklin's 'queries and remarks' on "Hints for the Members of Convention." No. II in the Federal Gazette dated Tuesday Nov 3, 1789

The response was to a proposal that only men with property in excess of 1000 pounds be eligible to vote for the representatives of the upper legislative body.

September 28, 2011 at 8:25 p.m.
miraweb said...

For perspective, I found a calculator that came up with a value of $1.8 million dollars as the current equivalent of 1000 pounds in 1830 (using a per capita GDP model).

Couldn't find one that went all the way back to 1789.

September 28, 2011 at 8:36 p.m.
alprova said...

BBND wrote: "You all sound the same to me on here. You sound amazingly the same as the dopes on MSNBC, CNN, NPR and all the other liberals and leftists that pollute the air and take up space in print."

I think not. His response to you was rather amusing and entertaining.

"What I find funny is how you all think you're a bunch of rebels and think outside the box. You're just drones. Actually I'm more of Mark Levin listner. Read his book, Liberty and Tyranny, he tells it the way it is."

Well now, that explains a lot. Mark Levin listens in from noon to three to the Godfather to get ideas for his own show later in the day. It's amazing how often that he parrots the Godfather each day.

"I know what I want. I want the freedoms the Constitution guarantees me."

Have you read the Constitution? What freedoms are being taken away from you, and more to the point, by our current President?

"You come across as trying too hard to be unique. You think you're a character and everything that you write is gold."

Say what you will, but Limric does have a way with words, and he sure put you down in a nice way today.

"You leftists are a dime a dozen. You sound just like every other self-proclaimed rebel and psuedo intllecutal. Big deal!"

That's funny, because I was just thinking earlier today about how many people spend each waking moment of their lives trashing the President and how much they all sound the same. It's a never ending battle to counter their lies and B.S..

"You're not an independent thinker, you're just one of the many sour leftists on here who are bitter that Obama has fallen flat on his face."

And right there is another lie. Limric demonstrates independent thought in each and every one of his posts.

If Barack Obama were a Conservative and lily white, you'd have no problem with the man. For the fact is that he has hardly been a failure, and history will remember that.

Reread your own posts from time to time before you call someone "sour," for the tone of your own posts are never peppy.

You whine like a two year old being tugged around in a grocery store, who is overdue for a nap.

September 28, 2011 at 9:35 p.m.
dude_abides said...

"You leftists are a dime a dozen. You sound just like every other self-proclaimed rebel and psuedo intllecutal. Big deal!

You're not an independent thinker, you're just one of the many sour leftists on here who are bitter that Obama has fallen flat on his face." -blondebutnotintllecutal

All this after you claim to have voted for Obama in the last election. Listen, do the people you live among have, like, no memories at all? Are you used to getting away with this kind of lying around them? People don't just suddenly develop the hardened opinions quoted above. You are a dishonest person, period. Every time I read a post of yours I remember your lie. You should have hung out with smarter people when you were young, they would have held you to a higher standard of lying. Then it wouldn't be so obvious.

September 28, 2011 at 11:47 p.m.

There are far more people who are juggling their finances and who do not purchase alcohol. There are far more people who are in genuine need for assistance, who do not have extended families that they can call upon, or whose family members are in worse shape than they are. (mrAlprivy)

mrPrivy is shor lyin heer cuz no soshileest is my frend! mr isn a veery airagent peeple frum awl his wurds n awl tha naym callin taday thet tha Libralls er doing!

thanky missBlondi n mrFlynPeeple! yall sed it so butter then i kan do! yall muss hev sed sumpin reel gud cuz tha libralls heer gots awl mad n sech! Evn we r tha por wons i wud NO tayk monies frum tha wurkers and do nuttin! i kan bee por n wurk wit no fud stumps or welfur or soshileest hippycrissy! Theys lyers up a thar! tha churshes n consurvutivs r heppin us tha most! An thas tha trooth! Tha libralls in tha welfur offal-ice ar turnin us wite foks awaye n wont hepp us- why owr spanush frends ar frum mekkseeko n git alott uv hepp n stuf n we git nuttin! n thas tha trooth! libralls n lifteests ar no frends yur owr enimahs! git yur hidies bak ta yur Markism land!

October 2, 2011 at 9:52 p.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.