Friday, November 18, 2011

Patriotic Millionaires Want Higher Taxes on Rich, But Are Unwilling To Voluntarily Pay Higher Taxes


Washington — "Two dozen “patriotic millionaires” traveled to the Capitol on Wednesday to demand that Congress raise taxes on wealthy Americans.

The Daily Caller attended their press conference with an iPad, which displayed the Treasury Department’s donation page, to find out if any of the “patriotic millionaires” were willing to put their money where their mouth is."

60 Comments:

At 11/18/2011 1:03 PM, Blogger Marko said...

They know that if taxes go up, they will still find a way to get out of them.

As I keep point out, they are willing to give huge sums to charity but not the federal government. Considering that most of the federal budget is now spent on what used to be considered charity (money to poor and old people), this proves that these people that want to raise taxes think the money is actually spent better by private charity. Based on their behavior, not on their words.

I say let's stop wasteful federal charity!

 
At 11/18/2011 1:29 PM, Blogger Bill said...

What a bunch of left wing frauds. Their argument is that even though they advocate higher taxes to enhance revenue for the government, one person donating to the government is meaningless. Why are they not willing to do individually and voluntarily that which they advocate the government do collectively and by force? I do not get it. Any revenue would help the problem it seems to me.

 
At 11/18/2011 1:34 PM, Blogger Methinks said...

I don't get the "one person" complaint. They're all there together as one mass of wealthy people demanding they pay their "fair share".

Great. Why don't they all donate? If they can't stand making that choice without coercion, they could all just force each other at gunpoint. Problem solved.

 
At 11/18/2011 1:40 PM, Blogger Benjamin said...

Yeah, these guys should be other millionaires, and be true patriots: Except for paying taxes or serving in the military, real flag-wavers!

 
At 11/18/2011 2:23 PM, Blogger Seth said...

I guess leading by example means nothing to these 1 percenters.

 
At 11/18/2011 2:26 PM, Blogger Methinks said...

It's pretty clear words have different meanings to these yahoos, Seth.

The first idiot thinks there's a hierarchy of rich people and he's higher up in the "hierarchy" because he's among the highest earners of the top 1%.

 
At 11/18/2011 2:30 PM, Blogger Alan said...

"The type and formula of most schemes of philanthropy or humanitarianism is this: A and B put their heads together to decide what C shall be made to do for D. The radical vice of all these schemes, from a sociological point of view, is that C is not allowed a voice in the matter, and his position, character, and interests, as well as the ultimate effects on society through C's interests, are entirely overlooked. I call C the Forgotten Man."

 
At 11/18/2011 3:28 PM, Blogger Jon said...

A lot of right wingers don't believe in Social Security. Why don't they return their Social Security checks?

In fact a lot of right wingers don't think the government should build the interstate highway system. They should get off the roads.

 
At 11/18/2011 3:59 PM, Blogger VangelV said...

There is one honest voice among the hypocrites. He makes it clear that 'taxes are not voluntary' and argues that other people should continue to be be robbed by the state because he prefers it that way.

 
At 11/18/2011 4:00 PM, Blogger VangelV said...

Why are they not willing to do individually and voluntarily that which they advocate the government do collectively and by force?

Because they see nothing wrong with force, just like most collectivists on the right or left.

 
At 11/18/2011 4:07 PM, Blogger Paul said...

"A lot of right wingers don't believe in Social Security. Why don't they return their Social Security checks?"

Because they already paid in under duress for all those years. Let me out of FICA now, and I wont ask for any SS money when I'm eligible. That's apples and oranges comparison to these douchebag millionaires.

 
At 11/18/2011 4:13 PM, Blogger VangelV said...

Because they already paid in under duress for all those years. Let me out of FICA now, and I wont ask for any SS money when I'm eligible. That's apples and oranges comparison to these douchebag millionaires.

On that front you might like this action by a douchebag billionaire who pays nothing in taxes because he shelters almost all of his income but wants everyone else who is 'rich' to pay more.

 
At 11/18/2011 5:05 PM, Blogger Jon said...

Right wingers take subsidized student loans, both for themselves and their kids. John Stossel talks about how he took government subsidized compensation when his house was destroyed by a hurricane. He opposes these programs, but he recognizes that if it's not fixed collectively it's silly for him to sacrifice. The individual sacrifice won't solve the problem. That's the point here. They are willing to pay more taxes. But if they do it individually they've made a sacrifice but it won't really solve the problem. So why make the sacrifice? Do it collectively and they're willing to make the sacrifice because that would actually solve a problem.

 
At 11/18/2011 5:14 PM, Blogger Steve said...

If anyone's interested, the econoblog back and forth on this topic (Steve Landsburg, Karl Smith, Tyler Cowen, Bryan Caplan, others), in chrono order is:

1. http://www.thebigquestions.com/2011/04/20/the-presidents-taxes/
2. http://modeledbehavior.com/2011/05/07/voluntary-taxes/
3. http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2011/11/should-redistributionists-feel-compelled-to-give-more-of-their-own-money-away.html
4. http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2011/11/moral_theory_vo.html
5. http://modeledbehavior.com/2011/11/04/cowen-and-caplan-on-voluntary-taxes/
6. http://www.liberalorder.com/2011/11/karl-smith-on-why-the-rich-should-pay-more-in-taxes.html

I think I agree with Karl Smith, who states his moral position as: "If we want to be truly honest then most people mean something like this: I would prefer a world in which all other rich people paid more taxes and I paid less. However, I doubt that anyone is going to go for this. So I am willing to settle for a world in which all rich people including me pay more in taxes. I am not willing to settle for a world where I am the only rich person paying more in taxes."

Monkey studies do show that we are a socially generous animal, but that we expect reciprocity and some level of fairness, and track and punish those individuals who do not reciprocate.

Tyler Cowen, Bryan Caplan and others disagree with Karl:

Bryan Caplan: "The simplest moral theory I can imagine that would justify Karl’s position says: (a) you’re morally obligated to obey the law, (b) morally obligated to support utility-maximizing laws, but (c) not morally obligated to unilaterally maximize utility. But just imagine making a populist protest sign consistent with this position. An egalitarian who defers to the law, does cost-benefit policy analysis, and refuses to go above and beyond the call of duty has become everything he hates."

Interesting discussion of moral theory and resultant obligations.

 
At 11/18/2011 5:17 PM, Blogger Finbar said...

Could just be me, but what policy would you advocate in Washington if

- you had billions in bonds and other securities that would probably go up by many times your annual taxable income if the US budget deficit were reduced

- your securities could lose many times your annual taxable income if the US budget deficit gets worse

- you could reduce the deficit mostly using other people's money?

These rich people aren't stoopid.

 
At 11/18/2011 5:19 PM, Blogger Marko said...

Jon, I agree the problem is not really that they don't voluntarily pay higher taxes even though they ask for them. I think the problem is that they voluntarily contribute to charity, but refuse to contribute to taxes. That shows they are full of crap. They clearly do not think tax dollars are a good investment, but feel they are somehow a necessary evil that needs to be increased. They are just wrong. The solution is to slash government spending.

 
At 11/18/2011 5:45 PM, Blogger mike k said...

Right wingers take subsidized student loans, both for themselves and their kids.

Jon, the key word there is loan. I bet right wingers are more likely to pay said loan back.

Comparing taking SS benefits, that one has already paid for, to calling for additional taxes on others is simply ridiculous.

 
At 11/18/2011 5:52 PM, Blogger Paul said...

These people are millionaires yet they amazingly manage to be morons at the same time.
What savvy businessman would dump more of his money in an enterprise as staggeringly incompetent and wasteful as the United States federal government run by Barack Obama? I imagine the businessman would be quite busy streamlining the operation before he even thought about plowing more money into it.

Here's my message: Before you "ask" for more tax money from me and others, raise the $2.2 trillion you already collect each year more fairly and spend it more wisely. Then you'll need less of my money.
~Harvey Golub

 
At 11/18/2011 5:56 PM, Blogger Jon said...

I think this is basic cost/benefit analysis. If I'm rich I see the value in giving to charity. I can give to charity and see the benefits. And I derive enjoyment from that.

If I were to individually give more in taxes I wouldn't see any improvement. My money would just get lost. So there's no gain for me to give extra money to the government.

However, if there were a law that said all rich people need to give to the government, then my giving would actually generate good things that I would see, and that's valuable for me. So for instance less elderly people struggling with there fairly meager Social Security. No risk of that getting slashed. Balanced budget without harming the poor. That feels good to me, so I support that. Giving individually won't produce that outcome. So for now I give to charity and not extra to the federal government. If the government asks me and everyone else like me to give, I give happily because I know it will make an actual difference that I will see.

Mike K, right wingers don't pay back the subsidized interest payments. That's what I'm talking about. An interest deferred student loan is being payed for by tax dollars.

 
At 11/18/2011 6:00 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

Why should they pay if everyone doesn't? This is a silly headline. If the patriotic millionairss (a silly name) get their way,then it will be the law of the land and they will pay with everyone else.


Millionairs who do not want taxes to go up also give large sums to charity, so Markos comment is moot.
My suggestion would be to put a simplified budget on the back of tax forms and let everyone designate where they wish their money to be spent. Millionaires give money to charities to avoid paying taxes, why should they be the only people that get to designate how their money is spent?

Social security is the largest federal program, with 20.8% for social security, compared to 20.5% for discretionary defense and 20.1% for Medicare/Medicaid.

Between social security and madicare, 40% is still not "most" of the federal budget.


Any revenue would help the problem it seems to me.

Does that mean you are infavor of increasing revenue, or only increasing revenue if it comes from someone else? Glad to see you are on board with those that think we need more revenue, at least.




Why don't they all donate?
Why should they donate? You think the other millionaires need charity?

Is the government a charity? No, it is a large, inrital laden, and perhaps sloppily sloppily run business that provides a whole bunch of goods and services that private enterprise is unwilling to do. Collectively, and over hundreds of years millions of people have been involved in making the decisions that got us where we are today and everyone owes something to it. we can argue about what is fair, but it is silly to argue that some should just "contribute".


Because they see nothing wrong with force, just like most collectivists on the right or left.

Without government I suspect most of us would learn quickly how much force we need to invest in, and we would see nothing wrong with it.

 
At 11/18/2011 6:01 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

These people are millionaires yet they amazingly manage to be morons at the same time.


What is amazing about that? Being smart is not a prerequisite for being rich. I t may help, but it is neither necessary nor sufficient.

 
At 11/18/2011 6:02 PM, Blogger Paul said...

Jon,

"Balanced budget without harming the poor."

Not even close. Go back to the Clinton era 39.6% rates on the top earners and you raise about $70 billion a year. That's a fart in the wind in the age of Obama 1.5 trillion dollar deficits.

 
At 11/18/2011 6:06 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

What savvy businessman would dump more of his money in an enterprise as staggeringly incompetent and wasteful as the United States federal government run by Barack Obama?


Why the qualifier? You really think Barack Obama is responsible for all the incompetence in government?

Lots of savvy businessmen dump money into sloppy and bad businesses. With enough money they can turn it around, although sometimes they fail, too. Incompetence and waste is not limited to the government.

 
At 11/18/2011 6:10 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

Comparing taking SS benefits, that one has already paid for, to calling for additional taxes on others is simply ridiculous.


Ahh, so the benefits are paid for. Can we start calling them paid up benefits now, and not try to denigrate them as "entitlements"?

 
At 11/18/2011 6:11 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

I guess leading by example means nothing to these 1 percenters.


So, if some of them did contribute, then you would accept them as leaders?

 
At 11/18/2011 6:17 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

Cost Benefit Analysis.

Heard a guy on radio today, who was from the UK. When asked if he paid more taxes in the UK, he said no, because he paid his taxes in the US now.

But, he said, if he had to compare he would say he paid slightly more in the UK, but that he got back much more for what he did pay.

 
At 11/18/2011 6:20 PM, Blogger Paul said...

"You really think Barack Obama is responsible for all the incompetence in government?"

No, but he's the ceo of the enterprise and he's taken waste and incompetence to an unprecedented level. He has run up 4 trillion in debt in 3 yrs and has nothing to show for it. What businessman would give this idiot more money(taxes) to run the division? Far more likely, he would tell him to pack his shit and GTFO.

"So then you get the argument, 'Well, this is not a stimulus bill, this is a spending bill.' What do you think a stimulus is? That's the whole point. No, seriously. That's the point."

~Barack Obama mocking the GOP, February 2009

 
At 11/18/2011 6:24 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

Let me out of FICA now, and I wont ask for any SS money when I'm eligible.


How about if you are broke and eligible?

 
At 11/18/2011 6:29 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

He has run up 4 trillion in debt in 3 yrs and has nothing to show for it.


If he had anything to show for it, you would never admit it.

Conference board leading indicators are up, rail shipments up, a whole litany of MP Pollyanna statistics, and yet you thinkt there is NOTHING to show?

Sure he is CEO, but he cannot do JACK, if the board won't let him. there is plenty of blame to go around.


Besides, what kind of criticism is that? What you WANT done is nothing, less than nothing, even. You should be happy.

 
At 11/18/2011 6:33 PM, Blogger Jon said...

Not even close. Go back to the Clinton era 39.6% rates on the top earners and you raise about $70 billion a year. That's a fart in the wind in the age of Obama 1.5 trillion dollar deficits.

The CBO says letting the Bush tax cuts expire ends the deficit with no spending cuts.

 
At 11/18/2011 6:36 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

So then you get the argument, 'Well, this is not a stimulus bill, this is a spending bill.'


Well, it is a stupid argument. Do you stimulate your bath by shutting off the water?

Do you stimulate your plants by cutting back the fertilizer?

Do you stimulate a reaction by removing the catalyst?

Do you stimulate your partner by withdrawing to the other room?

 
At 11/18/2011 6:51 PM, Blogger Paul said...

"If he had anything to show for it, you would never admit it."

I disagree, but I guess we will never know, will we?


"Conference board leading indicators are up, rail shipments up, a whole litany of MP Pollyanna statistics, and yet you thinkt there is NOTHING to show?"

According to his own benchmarks, he's an epic failure. .

"Sure he is CEO, but he cannot do JACK, if the board won't let him."

He had massive majorities in the House and Senate for 2 years. His board was stacked with fellow incompetents.

"Besides, what kind of criticism is that? What you WANT done is nothing, less than nothing, even. You should be happy."

Huh? Off the top of my head, he has passed a phony stimulus, monstrous health care legislation, Dodd-Frank, and other jobs killing bills. His EPA and NLRB are out of control. Low hanging fruit like the FTA's and Keystone have been, or were, kicked down the road for years. He's spent wildly on yet more failed, initiative destroying liberal welfare programs. That's not nothing. And I'm not happy.

 
At 11/18/2011 6:51 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

That's a fart in the wind in the age of Obama 1.5 trillion dollar deficits.

That is a dumb argument and a named fallacy to boot.

There are lots of things that need to be done, and no one of them will cure everything. Most of them would fail your mouse fart test.

I never heard anyone claim that this was the sole solution needed.

Anyway, about a third of the deficit has nothing to do with tax rates, and everything to do with the velocity of cash flowing in the economy. Surely you are not going to blame ALL of the economic woes on Obama, too.

If he actually had the stamina ability and charisma to turn the entire government into a wasteful shambles and destroy the economy, he would be one of the most enigmatic and omnipotent persons of all time. And what are the rest of us? Lemmings twiddling thumbs while he leads us off the cliff?

If he is as bad as you say, how could he possibly do all you blame him for?

Obviously he is ineffective, but that is a long, long way from being 100% to blame for where we are. You think Cain can do any better?

 
At 11/18/2011 7:01 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

According to his own benchmarks, he's an epic failure.


I see one very deep red stripe on that graph, and it has stopped falling and started climbing.

What that graph shows me is that he has had a bigger job than any of the presidents that dealt with earlier recessions, and it is little surprise that it is taking longer to solve.

If you are going to blame him for everything, you may as well blame him for breaking the fall and starting the recovery on this behemouth recesssion.

Somehow I suspect you will disagree that is an accomplishment for Obama.


And there we would agree.


I don't thik he is resposible for the problem, and I don;t give him credit for the fix, either. That problem is bigger than anyone person, and longer than any one adminsitration, probably.

 
At 11/18/2011 7:05 PM, Blogger Paul said...

"I never heard anyone claim that this was the sole solution needed."

Well then scroll up and read Jon's comment that prompted my reply. He seemed to think it was. You can blame alot of that thinking on the Obama and the Democrats, who only talk about taxing the rich to cover the red ink.

"That is a dumb argument and a named fallacy to boot."

A really dumb argument goes like: "hey, let's tax the job creators to give to our Investor-in-Chief! He's been such a smashing success so far." How about a year or so of vigorous effort to root out at least a little of the massive federal waste before we take more money from productive people?

"Obviously he is ineffective, but that is a long, long way from being 100% to blame for where we are."

Speaking of dumb arguments, nowhere have I laid 100% of the blame at his feet. Bush pissed away alot of money on failed liberal programs, too.

"You think Cain can do any better?"

My dog's nutless sack could do better than this moron.

 
At 11/18/2011 7:06 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

he has passed a phony stimulus, monstrous health care legislation, Dodd-Frank, and other jobs killing bills.

Gee, how did they get all that stuff done, if they are incompetent?

Where is the evidence these are job killers? Jobs were dying of natural cuases in droves before anyof those passed, and they have put tons of lobbyists, fundraisers, and campaign runners to work.

 
At 11/18/2011 7:13 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

hey, let's tax the job creators


What job creators?

You see anyone creating jobs? if they won't spend the money, we may as well tax it away from them. It is not doing any good sitting around.


The managers at the caribbean resort I stayed at created lots of jobs. Edging the grass along sidewalks with hand machetes, sweeping sand off the beach, picking up every leaf that fell from a tree.

What did someone say here? "You cancel all the UI and welfare and those people will be knocking down doors to get jobs making beds."

That is your plan for improving the economy?

 
At 11/18/2011 7:15 PM, Blogger Paul said...

"I see one very deep red stripe on that graph, and it has stopped falling and started climbing."

When you hit the pavement, you stop falling and then you will try to stagger to your feet. It doesn't help matters if somebody is standing over you hitting you on the head with a cinder block.

"What that graph shows me is that he has had a bigger job than any of the presidents that dealt with earlier recessions, and it is little surprise that it is taking longer to solve."

What it tells me is the most anti-business administration since the New Deal made the problem much worse.

"If you are going to blame him for everything.."

You repeatedly misstate my position. It doesn' speak well of you.

 
At 11/18/2011 7:15 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

have I laid 100% of the blame at his feet. Bush pissed away alot of money on failed liberal programs, too.

"You think Cain can do any better?"

My dog's nutless sack could do better than this moron.

===============

Those are all things we agree on then. Now lets try some constructive ways out of htis mess, one mouse fart at a time.

 
At 11/18/2011 7:22 PM, Blogger Paul said...

"Gee, how did they get all that stuff done, if they are incompetent?"

Phenomenally incompetent at helping the economy. Magnificently competent at passing horrid legislation. I guess you concede now Obama hasn't been standing around with his thumb up his butt "doing nothing." Again, I'm not happy.

"..if they won't spend the money, we may as well tax it away from them. It is not doing any good sitting around."

Wow. I didn't realize you were a thug. You could join OWS, or the Obama administration with that attitude. The funny thing is, that leftist attitude has alot to do with why jobs are in such short supply right now.

"That is your plan for improving the economy?"

No, not by itself.

 
At 11/18/2011 10:12 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

Good thing.

We could have lots of jobs and not help the economy a bit. Could be worse in fact.

 
At 11/18/2011 10:20 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

I believe in strong property rights, but I still recognize hoarding as a mental illness and a danger to others.

 
At 11/18/2011 10:25 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

hen you hit the pavement, you stop falling and then you will try to stagger to your feet. It doesn't help matters if somebody is standing over you hitting you on the head with a cinder block.

+++?/?++++++++

You read that out of the graph?

That's delusional. It is people with that kind of hate that wind up taming potshots at the white house.

Get help now.

 
At 11/18/2011 11:14 PM, OpenID Sprewell said...

What a bunch of squirrelly douches, exactly what I'd have expected. It's long been my theory that a significant male portion of the leftie rich just pull this crap to try and get women, as women tend to lean more to the left. Evolutionary psychologists say that guys buy Ferraris as the modern equivalent of peacock tails, ie to look good for the ladies, seems to me that these "patriotic millionaires" are doing the same. Show you're rich while exhibiting "generosity" and given how squirrelly they are, presumably after spending all their time acquiring their money, they may feel they need to double down on such "advertising." These guys in the video perfectly exemplify that: I bet they couldn't resist answering questions from this attractive woman, even if they had some idea the Daily Caller might not be their cup of tea. What's amazing is that they're all part of the supposed 1%, yet refuse to give even a couple thousand voluntarily. That should be nothing for them, yet they destroy the entire facade by refusing to do even that. :)

 
At 11/19/2011 8:56 AM, Blogger marmico said...

I guess that it is a given that the non-patriotic American millionaires are freakin' welfare scam artists.

 
At 11/19/2011 10:58 AM, Blogger VangelV said...

So why make the sacrifice? Do it collectively and they're willing to make the sacrifice because that would actually solve a problem.

You asked a good question; why sacrifice? Should individuals sacrifice so that the state can fight foreign wars and transfer wealth to its clients and supporters? Why is that a good thing?

 
At 11/19/2011 11:03 AM, Blogger VangelV said...

I think I agree with Karl Smith, who states his moral position as: "If we want to be truly honest then most people mean something like this: I would prefer a world in which all other rich people paid more taxes and I paid less. However, I doubt that anyone is going to go for this. So I am willing to settle for a world in which all rich people including me pay more in taxes. I am not willing to settle for a world where I am the only rich person paying more in taxes."

I see nothing moral about that position. How is it moral to take what is earned by some individuals to support activities that those individuals do not support? Coercion cannot ever be moral no matter what the narrative being used to justify it. If you want morality try a voluntary system of cooperation.

Monkey studies do show that we are a socially generous animal, but that we expect reciprocity and some level of fairness, and track and punish those individuals who do not reciprocate.

Monkey studies? You men where the 'leader' gets to eat first, choose mates, and use force to defend his position?

 
At 11/19/2011 11:05 AM, Blogger VangelV said...

Bryan Caplan: "The simplest moral theory I can imagine that would justify Karl’s position says: (a) you’re morally obligated to obey the law, (b) morally obligated to support utility-maximizing laws, but (c) not morally obligated to unilaterally maximize utility. But just imagine making a populist protest sign consistent with this position. An egalitarian who defers to the law, does cost-benefit policy analysis, and refuses to go above and beyond the call of duty has become everything he hates."

The law says that Jews, gays, Roma and other undesirables are to be exterminated. Is it moral to obey that law or are there higher laws that those of the rulers that men must obey?

Unless I am missing something that line or argument is a slippery slope that leads to totalitarianism.

 
At 11/19/2011 11:07 AM, Blogger VangelV said...

That shows they are full of crap.

Correct. Their actions are not comaptible with their words.

 
At 11/19/2011 11:09 AM, Blogger VangelV said...

Millionaires give money to charities to avoid paying taxes, why should they be the only people that get to designate how their money is spent?

I agree. Everyone should have a say how their money is spent. Get rid of taxes and have people support programs that they are willing to pay for out of pocket.

 
At 11/19/2011 11:53 AM, Blogger Seth said...

"Do it collectively and they're willing to make the sacrifice because that would actually solve a problem." -Jon

What problem is that, Jon?

Deficit reduction?

I believe projections of incremental tax revenue from raising tax rates on the rich show that IF spending is held constant and incentive effects are minimal, it won't do much.

And those are big IF's.

If it does generate more revenue, what makes anyone think that gov't just won't spend it?

And, with total marginal tax rates on the wealthy already high, incentive effects could be much larger than minimal.

 
At 11/19/2011 10:59 PM, Blogger VangelV said...

Ahh, so the benefits are paid for. Can we start calling them paid up benefits now, and not try to denigrate them as "entitlements"?

The way the system was designed you do not 'pay' for your own benefits. You only pay for the benefits of others. You only get your entitlements if the system can find another fool to pay for you. History shows that Ponzi schemes end because it is not always possible to find another bigger fool.

 
At 11/19/2011 11:05 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

E eryone should have a say in how there money is spent.

Put a simplified budget on the back of your tax form and let people designate how they want it spent. Collect and publish the results. Let the politicians try to explain why the do something different.

 
At 11/19/2011 11:05 PM, Blogger VangelV said...

That's a fart in the wind in the age of Obama 1.5 trillion dollar deficits.

Only $1.5 trillion? I guess that we forgot to use GAAP accounting once again. Yes, Obama is running a $1.5 trillion deficit if we use cash based accounting but if we begin to accrue liabilities as businesses have to we get to $2 if we do not count SS and Medicare. If we do count them we get around $5 trillion or so. Those are big numbers and sooner or later they will matter because the cash based accounting scam will not work for that much longer.

 
At 11/19/2011 11:07 PM, Blogger VangelV said...

What a bunch of squirrelly douches, exactly what I'd have expected. It's long been my theory that a significant male portion of the leftie rich just pull this crap to try and get women, as women tend to lean more to the left.

That is what my kids said. They claim that the old farts are looking for attention, approval, and sex.

 
At 11/21/2011 2:02 AM, Blogger Don Culo said...

These people are millionaires yet they amazingly manage to be morons at the same time.
What savvy businessman would dump more of his money in an enterprise as staggeringly incompetent and wasteful as the United States federal government run by Barack Obama?

******************

That is right, Obama is the reason our government has been incompentent for the last 20 years !!!

It is all Obama's fault !!!!

Obama is the devil !!!

 
At 11/21/2011 3:20 AM, Blogger Ron H. said...

Jon: "A lot of right wingers don't believe in Social Security. Why don't they return their Social Security checks?"

"It is obvious, in such cases, that a man receives his own money which was taken from him by force, directly and specifically, without his consent, against his own choice. Those who advocated such laws are morally guilty, since they assumed the “right” to force employers and unwilling co-workers. But the victims, who opposed such laws, have a clear right to any refund of their own money—and they would not advance the cause of freedom if they left their money, unclaimed, for the benefit of the welfare-state administration." -- Ayn Rand


"In fact a lot of right wingers don't think the government should build the interstate highway system. They should get off the roads."

Same as above. Don't you think that forcing those "right wingers" to pay for highways thay didn't want entitles them to as much use of them as anyone else?

Toll roads, especially privately owned, would fix all those problems, eh?

What does this have to do with "right wingers"?

 
At 11/21/2011 3:39 AM, Blogger Ron H. said...

Jon: "The CBO says letting the Bush tax cuts expire ends the deficit with no spending cuts."

Is that everything? Is there any mention of medicare/SS? Does that estimate include any unrealistic estimates for revenue?

Come on, Jon, you need to do better than that.

 
At 11/21/2011 4:00 AM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"The managers at the caribbean resort I stayed at created lots of jobs. Edging the grass along sidewalks with hand machetes, sweeping sand off the beach, picking up every leaf that fell from a tree."

If you had a better grasp of economics you would better understand what you saw.

Do you think The contractor for this building project has hired as many workers as possible because he loves them, and wants them all to have jobs?

 
At 11/21/2011 8:40 AM, Blogger VangelV said...

Is that everything? Is there any mention of medicare/SS? Does that estimate include any unrealistic estimates for revenue?

The way I understand the CBO, it has to use the assumptions given to it by Congress and has no right to come up with a more realistic scenario. If Congress tells the bureaucrats to assume a 3.5% real GDP increase and a reduction in real spending they will comply. Which is why nobody but political junkies take the CBO seriously and why rational people only refer to it when they want to show that even the unrealistic assumptions do not work.

Come on, Jon, you need to do better than that.

He can't. Being objective and rational would have him abandon views that he still holds dear.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home