So That ______?

I just figured out the insidiousness connected with what passes for policymaking in Washington D.C. and elsewhere:

There aren’t enough”so thats” 

A long time ago I had a wise supervisor (in education, of all things) who said, “For everything you do in your job, as well as for every change you make in your procedure, you need to have a “so that” attached to it. In other words, I do this, so that________.” If you don’t have a good “so that,” then you have no good reason to keep on doing what you’re doing, or for implementing the change you’ve been contemplating. 

Prime example: “We will raise taxes on the wealthy so that_____.”

So that what? So that we can decrease the deficit? 

By all accounts, the tax hike currently being contemplated by the Democrats will produce enough extra income to run the government for a grand total of EIGHT MORE DAYS. And that is a liberal estimate. With the concomitant economic slowdown, more like FOUR extra days. 

So raising taxes so that to decrease the deficit doesn’t wash. 

So tell me, my Democrat friends- what is the “so that” connected to this grand scheme??

Advertisements

63 thoughts on “So That ______?

  1. Retired Spook December 1, 2012 / 12:12 pm

    the tax hike currently being contemplated by the Democrats will produce enough extra income to run the government for a grand total of EIGHT MORE DAYS. And that is a liberal estimate. With the concomitant economic slowdown, more like FOUR extra days.

    I don’t know if you realized it, Leo, but you just described something that most people don’t understand, or at least don’t think about when they argue one point vs. another: the difference between static and dynamic. Progressives love the static argument because it’s simple and dumbed down for the average footsoldier/useful idiot — 2+ 2 = 4. They don’t look at, say 2 lbs. of sugar and 2 gallons of gasoline and realize that the result isn’t 4 of anything that is good, and so it goes with static-based political arguments. I’m not saying Progressives don’t understand dynamic vs. static, but most in positions of leadership (and I used that term loosely) realize they can fool a lot more people using the static argument.

    To the unthinking person it’s just logical that, if taxes are raised from 35% to 39.6% on couples making over $250,000 and individuals making over $200,000, then tax revenue should go up 4.6%. Or, and I think this is probably the case more often than not, people hear that and the accompanying comments from Obama and his surrogates that such a move will help reduce the deficit and pay down the debt. That just sounds so good and reasonable, who could possibly disagree with it? And, of course, the President would never LIE about something so important, would he?

    A thinking person will look at this scenario and ask:

    (1) How many couples/individuals make over the requisite amount $250,000/$200,000?

    (2) What is the average and medium income of this group of people?

    (3) What percentage of these people own businesses whose profits are passed through to the owners and taxes at the individual rate?

    (4) Will the behavior of these people change if the government seizes more of their money? Will they seek out new ways to avoid as much of the increase as possible?

    (5) Will this increase result in more revenue to the U.S. Treasury or is the purpose simply to punish the rich?

    (6) Is this really about everyone paying their “fair share”, and who decides what’s “fair”?

    A 13% increase (the difference between 35% and 39.6%) in the marginal rate on an individual making, say, $210,000 is only $460 in additional tax, probably not enough to result in any economic repercussions or elicit any behavioral change other than maybe cutting back on lattes. But a 13% increase in the marginal tax rate of an individual who is the owner of a small manufacturing business making, say, $750,000, amounts to $25,300. Bump that income up to $1,500,000, and the additional tax bite is $55,200. Now you start getting into the realm of, “do I let someone go, double up a current employee’s duties and not hire someone, fire the gardener, give up the country club membership?

    The UK just tried raising taxes on the wealthy, with disastrous consequences.

    In the 2009-10 tax year, more than 16,000 people declared an annual income of more than £1 million to HM Revenue and Customs.

    This number fell to just 6,000 after Gordon Brown introduced the new 50p top rate of income tax shortly before the last general election.

    The figures have been seized upon by the Conservatives to claim that increasing the highest rate of tax actually led to a loss in revenues for the Government.

    It is believed that rich Britons moved abroad or took steps to avoid paying the new levy by reducing their taxable incomes.

    George Osborne, the Chancellor, announced in the Budget earlier this year that the 50p top rate will be reduced to 45p from next April.

    Since the announcement, the number of people declaring annual incomes of more than £1 million has risen to 10,000.

    However, the number of million-pound earners is still far below the level recorded even at the height of the recession and financial crisis.

    Last night, Harriet Baldwin, the Conservative MP who uncovered the latest figures, said: “Labour’s ideological tax hike led to a tax cull of millionaires.

    Far from raising funds, it actually cost the UK £7 billion in lost tax revenue.

    “Labour now needs to admit that their policies resulted in millionaires paying less tax and come clean about whether they would reintroduce this failed policy if they were in power.”

    Mr Osborne argued earlier this year that the 50p rate was deterring entrepreneurs from coming to Britain.

    The Chancellor wanted to scrap the top rate altogether for those earning more than £150,000 a year – and return to the previous system of a basic and top rate of tax.

    This was blocked by the Liberal Democrats without a new mansion tax being introduced.

    Labour will hold a parliamentary debate today to criticise the decision to reduce the top rate, which Ed Miliband, the Labour leader, has described as a “tax cut for millionaires”.

    • 02casper December 1, 2012 / 12:35 pm

      Leo,
      Your logic seems to be that since a tax hike on the rich won’t solve all of our problems we shouldn’t do it. You could apply the same logic to any other solution to the deficit. Cutting the budget for the Dept. of Ed won’t balance the budget either, so why do it.
      In reality it’s going to take a combination of taxes and budget cuts to bring the deficit down, which is exactly what President Obama is proposing.

      Spook,
      ” Bump that income up to $1,500,000, and the additional tax bite is $55,200. Now you start getting into the realm of, “do I let someone go, double up a current employee’s duties and not hire someone, fire the gardener, give up the country club membership?”

      Having run a business, I know that if you cut back too much on labor, your customers aren’t being helped and it will hurt your bottom line. I doubt your millionaire will fire the gardener because then he would have to mow his own lawn. I also doubt he would give up his country club membership because then he would have to eat at Applebees with the rest of the common folk. Most likely, he would have less money to stash in the Caymons.

      • neocon01 December 1, 2012 / 12:47 pm

        catspuke

        I doubt your millionaire will fire the gardener because then he would have to mow his own lawn. I also doubt he would give up his country club membership because then he would have to eat at Applebees with the rest of the common folk. Most likely, he would have less money to stash in the Caymons.

        you are so full of SHIITE it would fill up a stadium.
        I know MANY millionaires, and do you know where I hang with several of them?
        APPLEBEES.

        and do you know what you ignorant leftist twit?…ALL of them EMPLOY people, ALL of them produce something for the community, ALL of them tip extremely well,ALL of them pay huge taxes.
        the cooks in the back employ NO ONE, they tip NO one, they hire no lawn people, they have NO pools, they buy no new cars, they order no food, therefore unlike the millionaires they produce nothing for the community as a whole. And yes they are most likely part of the 47% who pay no taxes.

      • Retired Spook December 1, 2012 / 12:50 pm

        Simply question, Casper: are you in favor of raising the top (actually the top 2) marginal tax rates, even if it does not result in any additional revenue to the U.S. Treasury? It’s just a yes or no question.

      • neocon01 December 1, 2012 / 12:52 pm

        catspuke

        only a leech who sucks off the govt teat would spew the bilge and class envy that you spew.
        you are really a stupid little man which reinforces why our high school kids read on a 6th grade level, cant do remedial math, know nothing of history, but can put a condom on a banana while preparing for homosexual sex, after aborting their baby.

      • 02casper December 1, 2012 / 12:55 pm

        Spook,
        I am in favor of letting all of the Bush tax breaks expire. I thought they were a mistake at the time and I still think they are a mistake. They are a big reason why we have the deficit and letting them expire would be a major step towards reducing the deficit.

      • Retired Spook December 1, 2012 / 1:06 pm

        Spook, I am in favor of letting all of the Bush tax breaks expire

        I actually agree with you, Casper, although not for the same reasons. The proof will be in the pudding, and I think there’s an excellent chance that you may get your wish. If such a move results in a significant increase in federal revenue without having an adverse effect on economic growth or unemployment, then I will come here and proclaim what a wise and omniscient prognosticator Casper is. If, OTOH, the increase in federal revenue is anemic or nonexistent, GDP growth takes a hit and unemployment goes up, well, let’s just say the consequences to you will not be pleasant.

      • J. R. Babcock (@JRBabcock) December 1, 2012 / 1:09 pm

        Your logic seems to be that since a tax hike on the rich won’t solve all of our problems we shouldn’t do it

        Casper, I don’t think anyone is making a legitimate argument that raising taxes in this economy will solve ANY of our problems, much less ALL of our problems. Back to Leo’s original premise: we want to raise taxes on the top 2% of earners in the U.S. so that ____.

      • neocon01 December 1, 2012 / 1:15 pm

        Spook

        the whole tax argument is a faint,
        the GOP and even ourselves have let the marxists (donks) lead the discussion.
        we have NO tax problem per se. we have a spending problem PERIOD.
        couple that with 50% of Americans pay less than 2.5% of all federal taxes yet demand more from our coffers it is a recipe for disaster.

        RR had it right you cant pull up the poor by pulling down the rich.
        I believe Ubama knows this but he is a leftist ideologue who believes he has to crash the system so it can be rebuilt on his version of socialism.
        He is doing very well.

      • Retired Spook December 1, 2012 / 1:15 pm

        is this “FAIR”?

        Neo,

        An interesting side note on the figures in your link: the threshold to make the top 1% decreased from $410,000 in 2007 to $344,000 in 2010. So what is the Left’s answer to a group that has seen their average income decline by 16%? Why raise their taxes by 13% of course. That’s part of that dynamic aspect I was talking about.

      • neocon01 December 1, 2012 / 1:18 pm

        a good article

        By Wayne Allyn Root
        (Las Vegas Review-Journal, June 6,2010)

        Barack Hussein Obama is no fool. He is not incompetent. On the contrary, he is brilliant. He knows exactly what he’s doing. He is purposely overwhelming the U.S. economy to create systemic failure, economic crisis and social chaos thereby destroying capitalism and our country from within. Barack Hussein Obama was my college classmate.(Columbia University, class of ’83)

        He is a devout Muslim; do not be fooled. Look at his czars… Anti-business anti-American. As Glenn Beck correctly predicted from day one, Barack Hussein Obama is following the plan of Cloward & Piven, two professors at Columbia University… they outlined a plan to socialize America by overwhelming the system with government spending and entitlement demands.

        Add up the clues below. Taken individually they’re alarming. Taken as a whole, it is a brilliant, Machiavellian game plan to turn the United States into a Socialist/Marxist state with a permanent majority that desperately needs government for survival… And can be counted on to always vote for even bigger government. Why not? They have no responsibility to pay for it.

        http://www.henrymakow.com/obama-personifies-cloward-pive.html

      • Retired Spook December 1, 2012 / 1:23 pm

        we have NO tax problem per se. we have a spending problem

        Not per se, but we do have a tax revenue problem. The question is, who’s fault is it and what to do about it? Is it the fault of the wealth and job producers who have just cheated on their taxes the last 4 years or diverted money to the Caymans? Nope, don’t think so. Is it the fault of government policies that have cause the incomes of the wealthy to drop (see my previous comment), thus causing the amount they pay in taxes to drop? Yup. Is the solution to raise their tax rate? Nope. Is the solution (exactly as Romney and Ryan stated) to promulgate policies that make America the primary destination for capital, entrepreneurs and wealth-producers? Absolutely — in fact, it’s really the only solution. Is that solution on Obama’s agenda? I’ll let Casper answer that one.

      • 02casper December 1, 2012 / 1:26 pm

        “the cooks in the back employ NO ONE, they tip NO one, they hire no lawn people, they have NO pools, they buy no new cars, they order no food, therefore unlike the millionaires they produce nothing for the community as a whole. And yes they are most likely part of the 47% who pay no taxes.”

        And yet without them, no food is cooked and the entire business shuts down. Besides which, I’m guessing that they spend most of their paychecks in the local community, stimulating that economy rather than stashing in the Caymons.

      • neocon01 December 1, 2012 / 1:29 pm

        WOW

      • neocon01 December 1, 2012 / 1:30 pm

        rather than stashing in the Caymons.

        Good Lord, the stupidity is astounding.

      • Retired Spook December 1, 2012 / 1:34 pm

        Why not? They have no responsibility to pay for it.

        Yeah, but SOMEONE has to “pay for it”. Since WW2, Social Security has seen a reduction in the ratio of people paying in to people taking out go from 42 to 1 to the present of less than 3 to 1, and everyone knows it’s going bankrupt. The country as a whole is now going through the same paradigm. Surely one of our resident Progressives can show us how that ultimately will result in, as I noted in a previous post, more freedom and more prosperity. Come on Truthie, Mitch, Casper — how about it?

      • J. R. Babcock (@JRBabcock) December 1, 2012 / 1:38 pm

        Good Lord, the stupidity is astounding.

        And you just can’t fix stupid. And someone that stupid who is also a teacher — that’s frightening.

      • neocon01 December 1, 2012 / 1:42 pm

        Spook

        Our problems in America are not taxes and revenue; our problems are spending and the immoral class warfare that allows it all to continue without end.
        Warren Buffett again recently suggested we raise the rates on the wealthiest Americans to balance things out in our tax code. The problem is — despite what the left has to say about all the wealth at the top, and the disparity between rich and poor — that there isn’t enough money at the top to pay off anything so enormous as the US debt

        Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/12/will_we_ever_get_our_america_back.html#ixzz2Dp6EjHc9

      • neocon01 December 1, 2012 / 1:43 pm

        And someone that stupid who is also a teacher — that’s frightening.

        BINGO!!!!

      • Amazona December 1, 2012 / 1:58 pm

        Come on, folks, let’s be fair. If cappy teaches geography and still refers to the “Caymons” (sic) then he really does deserve to be called stupid. Otherwise he is just ignorant.

        Though we have noticed, and commented on, the fact that with casper the two are far from mutually exclusive.

        casper also seems to think that there is some way to “stash” money in the Caymans, or other offshore locales. Why don’t you explain that to us, cappy? Just how does that work? Just how does a person who has paid taxes on his income, whether regular income or investment income, bypass US regulations on taking large sums of money out of the country and then benefit by putting that money (“stashing” it) in offshore banks?

        Please do educate us on this process, and the benefits thereof.

        Surely you are not just parroting some utterly stupid class warfare talking point, are you, casper?

      • Retired Spook December 1, 2012 / 2:02 pm

        Neo,

        The take-home line in your linked AT article is this one:

        The Buffett Rule would raise $3.2 billion a year, and take 514 years just to pay off Obama’s 2011 budget deficit.”

        So we would invoke the Buffet Rule, not to achieve anything meaningful, but so that _________. Again, I’ll let Casper answer.

      • neocon01 December 1, 2012 / 2:12 pm

        catspuke

        And yet without them, no food is cooked and the entire business shuts down.

        nah wrong again, the BAR would support the place and we would eat down the street.
        The millionaires would still be rich and the former cooks on welfare…..NEXT great solution?

      • M. Noonan December 1, 2012 / 2:23 pm

        Casper,

        It is highly debatable that tax increases will help us resolve the deficit – with the economy as weak as it is, any presumed additional revenue might be eaten up by reduced economic activity. But even if we presume that the revenues to be raised under Obama’s proposal would be quadruple what is expected, it still makes nary a dent in the annual deficit and does zero to address our debt problem.

        Our fundamental problem, right now, is that in the aftermath of the Democrat’s strong 2008 victory, an extra trillion dollars of annual spending was tacked on to the previous spending level – and in 2010, 2011 and 2012 the base-line budgeting rose from that inflated, 2009 level. Even though revenues have risen to above the level the were in FY 2008, we’re still running trillion dollar defi cits because of the Democrat’s 2009 spending. And here’s the really hideously irresponsible thing about your Democrats – they have refused to enact a budget since 2009 because they know that any budget which can get through the Congress will have to have spending cuts…so, they just keep spending along, and now figure they can get the MSM to blame the GOP, so lets f over the country as long as our cronies and special interests can keep getting paid…

      • neocon01 December 1, 2012 / 2:29 pm

        cause and effect….ya aint seen nuttin yet!

        STUDY: American Households Hit 43-Year Low In Net Worth…

        CHICAGOLAND: 6 dead, 11 wounded across city overnight…

      • Amazona December 1, 2012 / 3:13 pm

        neo, what’s the death count in one of our major U.S.cities, the adopted home of President Barack Obama now led by former Obama chief of staff Rham Emanuel, compared to, say, that of our only foreign war, taking place in Afghanistan?

        More to the point, what is our exit strategy?

      • neocon01 December 1, 2012 / 3:26 pm

        More to the point, what is our exit strategy?

        from where?
        detroit? chi cago? LA? miami?

        Indeed, statistics support a very different narrative than the one usually offered by “race hustlers,” as Pastor C.L. Bryant calls them, who routinely portray an America where members of the black community are selectively targeted and brutalized by white racists.

        A 2007 special report released by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, reveals that approximately 8,000 — and, in certain years, as many as 9,000 African Americans are murdered annually in the United States. This chilling figure is accompanied by another equally sobering fact, that 93% of these murders are in fact perpetrated by other blacks.
        The analysis, supported by FBI records, finds that in 2005 alone, for example, African Americans accounted for 49% of all homicide victims in the US — again, almost exclusively at the hands of other African Americans.

        To put these number in perspective, recall that over 6,400 U.S. service men and women have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan combined over the course of a decade-long war fought in those nations. During the Vietnam War, which lasted nearly 13 years, some 58,000 Americans were killed — nearly 13 percent of whom were African American.

      • tiredoflibbs December 1, 2012 / 6:34 pm

        Cappy:” They are a big reason why we have the deficit and letting them expire would be a major step towards reducing the deficit.”

        Wow, despite all the evidence showing massive spending increases to baseline budgeting and useless spending (stimulus), you still regurgitate that spoon-fed crap.

        Plus, evidence that shows if all tax cuts expired and all wealth confiscated from the top 2%, they could not pay off the DEFICIT of 2011 alone!!

        No one can be that dense, but nothing from you surprises me anymore.

        Pathetic.

      • watsonthethird December 1, 2012 / 9:13 pm

        Neo said, “A 2007 special report released by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, reveals that approximately 8,000 — and, in certain years, as many as 9,000 African Americans are murdered annually in the United States.”

        You never cease to impress us with the consistency with which you turn every thread into a commentary on black people.

        Nevertheless, are you aware that the murder rate has dropped every year of the Obama administration? That the murder rate per capita is half of what it was in 1990-91, and much lower than it was in the seventies, eighties and nineties? Just wondering, since your central thesis–as if you can even grasp such a thing–seems to be that murder and mayhem is occurring all around us–by a certain group of people, of course–because of liberal policies.

      • Amazona December 1, 2012 / 10:04 pm

        One consistent thing about a wattle post is the question “Does this come from sheer stupidity, or the deception of misstating something on purpose?”

        Not that it matters, because once the reason is narrowed down to stupidity or dishonesty the details really don’t matter that much, and of course with the wattle the two are not mutually exclusive anyway.

        I don’t believe anyone has claimed that the destruction of the black family is due to Liberal policies related only to the Obama administration or era.

        On the contrary, it has been traced back, repeatedly and in great detail, to LBJ and the infamous “War on Poverty” which was the genesis of dividing and then destroying the black family.

        1. Try to keep up
        2. Try to stop lying

      • dbschmidt December 1, 2012 / 10:38 pm

        Two points here, IIRC one of the large Obama supporters–the co-founder / owner of Costco just took a multimillion (or multibillion) dollar loan (low rates and all) to pay the management and shareholders a large unscheduled bonuses and dividends pre-Obama tax rate hike. This will effect the business how? Just spent all of next years projected earnings and possibly then some.

        Casper, What you should do is get copies of Hayek’s Road to Serfdom for each of your students. It would be a manual of sorts for what awaits them.

      • Leo Pusateri December 2, 2012 / 1:17 am

        In what way, shape, manner or form does taking money out of the private sector, not to mention the incentive to make it, grow the tax base and create more taxpaying citizens with sustainable private sector jobs? You have still failed to provide an adequate “so that” to justify your position.

      • Retired Spook December 2, 2012 / 1:35 am

        You have still failed to provide an adequate “so that” to justify your position.

        Don’t hold your breath, Leo. There ISN’T a Liberal “so that” to justify their economic position.

      • watsonthethird December 2, 2012 / 3:25 am

        Little Amy said:

        On the contrary, it has been traced back, repeatedly and in great detail, to LBJ and the infamous “War on Poverty” which was the genesis of dividing and then destroying the black family.

        1. Try to keep up
        2. Try to stop lying

        And where was I lying, Amy? The part about the murder rate per capita is half of what it was in 1990-91, or that it’s much lower than it was in the seventies, eighties and nineties? Or that NeoClown turns nearly every post on B4V into a commentary on black people?

        Judging by your past behavior, we most likely we won’t hear from you again in this thread. Another hit and run job by Little Amy.

      • Amazona December 2, 2012 / 3:45 am

        wattle: What you said.

        “Nevertheless, are you aware that the murder rate has dropped every year of the Obama administration? That the murder rate per capita is half of what it was in 1990-91, and much lower than it was in the seventies, eighties and nineties? Just wondering, since your central thesis–as if you can even grasp such a thing–seems to be that murder and mayhem is occurring all around us–by a certain group of people, of course–because of liberal policies.”

        You quite clearly stated a relationship to the Obama administration and the “liberal policies” you seem to be trying to disassociate from the crime rate among black people.

        This is inherently dishonest as the discussion has always been about the disintegration of the black family starting with the infamous War on Poverty in the 60s.

        As for the “murder rate per capita” this has no direct reference to the racial makeup of said murders, while the statistics given by neo are specific to black murders and the proportion of them to murders in general.

        If you can prove that the high percentage of black murders is related to anything BUT the disintegration of the black family, please go right ahead. If you can prove that more black people killed more black people before the government stepped in and took steps leading to black children growing up without fathers, and too often without much of a family life at all, go for it.

        Your comments do no such thing.

        If you can provide actual data proving that the per capita ratio of black on black murders has gone down since the War on Poverty began, then do so.

        But implying that anyone ever said Obama policies are responsible for the number of black on black murders is a lie, and that is what you did when you started off your little snarl with “Nevertheless, are you aware that the murder rate has dropped every year of the Obama administration? ” Which, by the way, is the overall murder rate, not the ratio of murders addressed by neo.

        And speaking of your tendency to lie, there is this little gem:

        “Judging by your past behavior, we most likely we won’t hear from you again in this thread. Another hit and run job by Little Amy.”

        Except I do not “hit and run” but address what is said, and this is so obvious that to claim otherwise is not only a lie, it is a damned lie.

        You must be pretty hard up to resort to such a blatant untruth—-or just so used to being called out as a liar it doesn’t bother you any more.

      • Amazona December 2, 2012 / 3:56 am

        Poor wattle, you are such a mess, you just can’t get ANYTHING right, can you?

        For example, you whine “…. since your central thesis–as if you can even grasp such a thing–seems to be that murder and mayhem is (sic) occurring all around us–”

        Well, that is not neon’s “central thesis” and even you know this. It’s just that you are so focused on being the biggest, baddest, stinkiest, most obnoxious speed bump on the blog that you have this compulsion to lurch into every discussion with the nastiest attack you can come up with, complete with what you seem to think are devastating insults.

        And all you accomplish is the amazing feat of managing to simultaneously have your foot in your mouth and your head up your ass—where, it is clear, the view never changes.

        You post what you see.

      • tiredoflibbs December 2, 2012 / 6:45 am

        Watty: “Judging by your past behavior, we most likely we won’t hear from you again in this thread. Another hit and run job by Little Amy.”

        Watty, you are confused and projecting. You just described the typical cowardly action of yourself, Velma, Wally (truth), tommy-boy(James), mitchie, creepy assclown, and most recently, cappy, with his stupid “stash cash in the Cayman Islands” dumbed down talking point.

        You proggies are so predictable and repetitive with this sad and pathetic tactic. Ama runs circles around you with facts while you wallow in your typical lies and half truths.

        Pathetic

      • Retired Spook December 2, 2012 / 10:10 am

        Judging by your past behavior, we most likely we won’t hear from you again in this thread. Another hit and run job by Little Amy.

        You know you’ve hit bottom, Watson, when all you’ve got left in your intellectual arsenal is projection.

      • Amazona December 2, 2012 / 11:55 am

        Spook, with all due respect for your opinions, I suggest that the wattle has not just HIT the bottom, but inhabits it, being established as a bottom feeder.

        When your only goal is to rise from the muck enough to be a speed bump, it pretty firmly confirms where you reside.

      • watsonthethird December 2, 2012 / 3:00 pm

        Little Amy said, “You quite clearly stated a relationship to the Obama administration and the ‘liberal policies’ you seem to be trying to disassociate from the crime rate among black people.”

        First, I stated facts. Do you you know what facts are? Apparently not when you don’t agree with them. Second, I stated what I think NeoClown’s thesis is, not mine. Your reading comprehension is quite poor.

        Little Amy asks, “If you can provide actual data proving that the per capita ratio of black on black murders has gone down since the War on Poverty began, then do so.”

        As for data, the Bureau of Justice Statistics is a good place to start. No one is disputing that the rate of homicide is greater among black people than white people. The insinuation by Clown is that it is getting worse by the day–especially since Barack Obama became president. And your insinuation is that it has gotten worse since the War on Poverty. The rate of homicide by blacks has decreased from the rate of the seventies, eighties and nineties, and has continued to decrease since 2008. I’m sorry the BJS charts don’t go back to the sixties, but their study states that “Homicide rates recently declined to levels last seen in the late 1960’s.”

      • Amazona December 2, 2012 / 3:32 pm

        wattle, this would probably go smoother if you would at least try to make sense.

        You misstated neo’s alleged hypothesis. I pointed out that you misstated neo’s alleged hypothesis, with absolutely no inference that I thought this was your own hypothesis. So your sniveling that “… I stated what I think NeoClown’s thesis is, not mine…” is not only irrelevant, it makes your mandatory snarl of “Your reading comprehension is quite poor” even more laughable.

        Again, your bizarre fixation on establishing yourself as the most distasteful speed bump on the blog nudges you into lurching into the strangest comments.

        You might be marginally less irrelevant if you would comment on what is actually SAID, and not on your speculation about what someone means when he says something else. ” The insinuation by Clown is that it is getting worse by the day–especially since Barack Obama became president…” followed by yet another speculation—— ” And your insinuation is that it has gotten worse since the War on Poverty…” —–prove that your howling at the moon is prompted by the voices in your head and not by reality. You make all this noise, and hurl all these accusations, based upon your own twisted perceptions of what others INSINUATE but not upon what is actually SAID, and the voices in your head are not only batshit crazy, they are vicious and mean.

        But hey, that’s what you’ve got to work with……..

        ” The rate of homicide by blacks has decreased from the rate of the seventies, eighties and nineties, and has continued to decrease since 2008. I’m sorry the BJS charts don’t go back to the sixties, but their study states that “Homicide rates recently declined to levels last seen in the late 1960′s.”

        Excellent analysis of the ratio of black to white homicides and of the percentage of black on black murders. Except for completely ignoring these elements, which of course are what neo talks about.

        Noise, just noise, shrieking howling crazed noise showing nothing but a pathology that we already know is nasty and distasteful, obsessed with coming to a conservative blog to hurl mental excrement at individuals just because they represent to you a hated Other, created just to suck in mentalities like yours.

      • thetruthshallsetyoufree2012 December 2, 2012 / 3:38 pm

        “You know you’ve hit bottom, Watson, when all you’ve got left in your intellectual arsenal is projection.”

        Amazona engages in projection far more than anybody. What do you think that means? Has Amazona hit bottom? Or does Amazona’s substitution of personal attacks for actual arguments indicated hitting bottom? Or perhaps a combination of the two?

      • Amazona December 2, 2012 / 3:53 pm

        truthie, while you are evidently an ardent supporter of the Leftist tactic of simply repeating a lie so often you might convince someone it is true, it won’t work here—-we have the archives to prove you wrong.

        So lie away, claiming that I substitute personal attacks for fact.

        I comment on the obvious characteristics of posters like you and the wattle, who are so clearly here not to engage in actual political discourse but only to hurl insults, attack mindlessly, and try to disrupt the blog with your cascades of insults.

        And I also engage in dialogue, provide quotes and links and an abundance of fact, and when I encounter someone willing to actually enter into a discussion I participate with respect and a calm and reasonable response to what is said—–as was proved the one time watson actually made an effort to have a real discussion.

        You, on the other hand, are nothing but a wannabe blog vandal, hoping to be a speed bump, with no greater aspiration than to slime people you don’t know just because they represent, to you, a political system you don’t understand.

        You define yourself. I merely acknowledge it.

      • watsonthethird December 2, 2012 / 6:26 pm

        Amy, I gave you facts. You responded with insults. Not that that is in any way surprising. Like you told truth, you define yourself.

        And Spook, I’m still waiting for an apology from you for accusing me of lying when I provided you with the most up-to-date vote counts in the 2012 presidential election. It might interest you that 23 states have yet to finish their vote count.

      • Retired Spook December 2, 2012 / 6:37 pm

        Amazona engages in projection far more than anybody.

        Truthie, clearly you don’t have a clue what projection means. It’s when you accuse someone else of doing something that, in fact, you yourself do. Amazona and I have both been regulars on this blog since 2004, and I can’t remember her EVER running from a discussion.

        And Spook, I’m still waiting for an apology from you for accusing me of lying when I provided you with the most up-to-date vote counts in the 2012 presidential election.

        Sorry, Watson; “piss off” is about the closest thing you’re going to get from me to an apology. You’re a detestable little creep.

      • watsonthethird December 2, 2012 / 7:03 pm

        That’s about what I expected, Spook. You call me a liar for giving you correct facts, and when I call you on it, just tell me to piss off. You’re a little man.

      • tiredoflibbs December 2, 2012 / 7:13 pm

        There goes watty again with his whining. Whining that surfaces every time he has no winning argument but wants to have the last word regardless of how foolish it makes him.

        Did not get your maximum cramp relief? Having hot-flashes again?

        Pathetic.

      • Retired Spook December 2, 2012 / 7:33 pm

        You’re a little man.

        What a crushing rebuke, Watson. I may not be able to sleep tonight//sarc.

      • thetruthshallsetyoufree2012 December 2, 2012 / 7:46 pm

        “It’s when you accuse someone else of doing something that, in fact, you yourself do.”

        Right–like when Amazona accuses other people of being politically ignorant. Or when Amazona accuses other people of lying. Or when Amazona complains about “personal attacks” Or when Amazona accuses other people of being deranged. And so on.

        “You call me a liar for giving you correct facts, and when I call you on it, just tell me to piss off.”

        That seems to be a pattern with Retired Spook. He does that the same way Amazona responds to facts with personal attacks. They know their arguments are losers. That’s why they have to resort to such things.

      • Amazona December 2, 2012 / 8:49 pm

        Waaaa waaaaaa waaaaa.

      • Retired Spook December 2, 2012 / 8:51 pm

        That seems to be a pattern with Retired Spook. He does that the same way Amazona responds to facts with personal attacks. They know their arguments are losers. That’s why they have to resort to such things.

        If it bothers you so much, Truthie, why don’t you go somewhere else? You don’t add anything to the conversation here anyway.

    • ricorun December 2, 2012 / 7:01 pm

      Spook: A 13% increase (the difference between 35% and 39.6%) in the marginal rate on an individual making, say, $210,000 is only $460 in additional tax, probably not enough to result in any economic repercussions or elicit any behavioral change other than maybe cutting back on lattes. But a 13% increase in the marginal tax rate of an individual who is the owner of a small manufacturing business making, say, $750,000, amounts to $25,300. Bump that income up to $1,500,000, and the additional tax bite is $55,200.

      That, of course, assumes said individual continues to draw from the company rather than not. That would be a static argument, would it not? After all, one could avoid that excessive tax by investing more in their business, thus claiming it as an expense rather than profit, right?

      Personally, I hate laws involving thresholds, especially when those thresholds require major changes in how a person (or entity) does business. Unfortunately, there are lots of them, affecting all levels of income, or need, across all sorts of demographics. Democrats seem to be married to tax thresholds, which have demonstrable impacts on investment. In contrast, Republicans seem to be married to flat taxes, which have demonstrable impacts on the less fortunate. It seems to me there is a middle ground.

      • Retired Spook December 2, 2012 / 7:29 pm

        After all, one could avoid that excessive tax by investing more in their business, thus claiming it as an expense rather than profit, right?

        Not exactly. I’m incorporated as a Sub-S, and there have been a number of years when I left profit in the business, usually because it was tied up in inventory. It’s called retained earnings. I didn’t have to withhold FICA on it, but I still had to report it on Fed. Schedule E as taxable income. Now if you’re talking about converting profit to a capital contribution, I’m not sure how that would work, as I’ve never done it.

        It seems to me there is a middle ground.

        I think the Fair Tax is a marvelous “middle ground”.

    • thetruthshallsetyoufree2012 December 3, 2012 / 1:52 am

      Where did I say your method of admitting you’ve lost an argument bothered me, Spook?

      • Retired Spook December 3, 2012 / 7:45 am

        Remind me again what argument I’ve lost.

      • thetruthshallsetyoufree2012 December 3, 2012 / 11:32 am

        Every now and then when the blog has fallen into a pattern of personal attacks and responses instead of any effort at discussion, Moderators must step in and reboot. Keep on topic and remember, this is supposed to be a place to discuss ideas, not just insult each other. //Moderator

  2. Cluster December 1, 2012 / 5:44 pm

    Cutting the budget for the Dept. of Ed won’t balance the budget either, so why do it – Casper

    No, but cutting the Ed Dept, cutting the Energy Dept, the Educ. dept, HHS Dept, and taking 10% off the top of all other departments – well then we’re getting somewhere WITHOUT raising taxes.

    And I will remind you that it was Democrats and Obama that is responsible for the $1 trillion dollar deficits and the $6 trillion additional debt.

    • ricorun December 2, 2012 / 7:20 pm

      Cluster: No, but cutting the Ed Dept, cutting the Energy Dept, the Educ. dept, HHS Dept, and taking 10% off the top of all other departments…

      What rationale do you have for singling out those depts for deeper cuts? It seems to me that those depts, if run right, are the most important for advancement into the future. Given Spook’s comment about static and dynamic, how do you rationalize that?

      • neocon01 December 3, 2012 / 10:46 am

        waspstooge

        as the dollar, our economy, crashes and burns under Ubaba there are many suggestions that civil strife will ensue.
        and guess what? it wont be in the burbs.

        I merely pointed out the utter complete failure in chi cago by the donk mayor, and a former community agitator to end the violence.
        It was mentioned that there were more murders is some major citys than deaths in TWO ten year long wars. A simple google search brought these numbers and the article I posted.
        If you dont like the demographics in the stastics then talk to the ones who make the stastics not shoot the messenger.

      • neocon01 December 3, 2012 / 10:53 am

        Obama Aide: With These Republicans, ‘There’d Still be Slavery’ Today…

        the lefts lunacy continues,
        hate to tell these cretins the donks OWN slavery and the KKK…..but hey with the likes of catspuke “teaching” these idiots what would you expect.

      • neocon01 December 3, 2012 / 10:55 am

        reek-O

        ? It seems to me that those depts, if run right, are the most important for advancement into the future

        NONSENSE; they all could be abolished tomorrow and the states would take over the responsibility as the constitution provides.

Comments are closed.