Pajamas Media

100 Comments

1. Mike Murray:

I believe Chrenkoff’s right: for Obama, it’s all about Barack. When Western Europe was useful to his candidacy, he was happy to make a stop there (complete with all the aggrandizing stagecraft that his handlers could muster).

But, when it comes to honoring America’s commitments to its staunchest allies — or commemorating something (much) bigger than himself, such as the end of the Cold War — Obama simply can’t be bothered.

The man not only considers everything that preceded his ascendancy presidency to be irrelevant, he seems to have disdain for everything most Americans hold dear. He has, for example, called Washington, Jefferson, Franklin et al. “so-called” founders. (He’s also indicated on many occasions that he doesn’t think much of the U.S. Constitution, its Amendments, or the Bill of Rights, either.)

Michelle Obama no doubt spoke for her husband as well as herself with that “proud of [her] country for the first time” comment. It’s a sad commentary on Barack’s presidency that he’s now making millions of Americans less proud (or worse) of their government.

Oct 26, 2009 - 2:58 am 2. vivo:

Arthur Chrenkoff list of missing appearances is more adequate for Joe Biden. Obama may attend the XXV anniversary of the wall.

Other 11/9 events:

1984 Vietnam Veterans Memorial (”3 Servicemen”) completed

1976 U.N. General Assembly condemns apartheid in South Africa

1967 Surveyor 6 soft lands on Moon

1906 T. Roosevelt is 1st President to visit other countries (P Rico and Panama)

Oct 26, 2009 - 3:03 am 3. David P:

Inaction, delay, uncertainty, highlight this president’s inability to secure our nation, ignoring & ’sleeping’ through the 3am phone call.

Oct 26, 2009 - 3:36 am 4. Rick Greenville,SC:

Berlin Wall ? Nah, not important. . . When Fidel finally kicks the bucket. . . the “o” will be there. . .with bells on!!

Oct 26, 2009 - 3:36 am 5. logdon:

Why should a communist celebrate the demise of communism?

As for Michelle Obama’s lack of hope pre hubby’s ascension? What University did she attend? Pigs Knuckle district community college or one of the US’s highest seats of learning?

Shame those Pigs Knuckle students didn’t get the same opportunity.

Oct 26, 2009 - 3:42 am 6. Palinson:

Obama doesn’t get beyond being cslled divisive and fliflopping,cuz his strategy always remains between the lines.
Elected by a media trick,he’s better never put the feet on the ground,otherwise the game becomes riskly

Oct 26, 2009 - 3:47 am 7. Marc Malone:

#2 vivo – Huh? Is this your moral equivalence? Really? Oh, that’s right. You didn’t live through that moment.

There is a good article about this at townhall.com. The writer dissected Obama’s big speech last year. Oops! All the high-sounding record flies directly into the wall of his actions as President. Turns out that he didn’t mean any of it. Skip Berlin? You betcha.

Maybe they should invite Sarah. She likes Reagan. I bet she’d say things they’d like. She’d probably wow them. Heck, she probably wouldn’t even need an invite. She could totally crash that party! Biden? Bah!

Oct 26, 2009 - 3:49 am 8. Bad Oats Bad Fertilizer:

Community Organizer is a phrase; a description Obama’s supporters tagged him with when they were desperate to put into writing any “meat” or substance for his election campaign resume. The man had never performed anything of significance or noteworthy value; still hasn’t and never will.

Obama’s education and life has consisted of missing family confusion, various levels of Islamic and twisted Christianity that not only saturated his mind with hatred of America, Caucasians and Jews but also embedded fanatical seeds of payback and revenge as ultimate goals of personal success throughout his life as a black man. There was never any room inside Obama’s life or mind for any traditional details, history, protocol or social understanding that the normal world lives by. Hence, the Berlin Wall, what it stood for and the significance of collapse means little, or nothing to Obama because it gave him nothing personally to remember.

The election of Obama speaks more about the education, intelligence, mindset and motivations; or lack thereof of America’s citizens than it does the man himself.

That a nation of people doesn’t care any more, or is lazy, or greedy, lustful, void of pride and willing to accept, excuse and/or defend pure slop in order to have what it wants per person is worse than sad.

That these people would choose Obama as their leader said America can no longer call itself the greatest nation on Earth.

Oct 26, 2009 - 4:11 am 9. Thomas_L......:

I guess you’ll have to count me as one of those “unkind cynics”. Celebrate the fall of communism? Why? He’s arisen!

Oct 26, 2009 - 5:46 am 10. vonschtead:

The history of the world began when Obama (blessed be his name) was born in the manger and attended by 3 wise men (Wright, Ayers and Alinsky).

All else is the small phantoms of those of us small minded pepole who actually paid attention to these world changing events.

BTW, when the One had the Apollo 11 astronauts at the White House for a photo-op celebrating the anniversary of the Moon landing, he made sure that all present knew that he had no interest in the future of the space program.

Unless of course it puts up more communication satellites to spread his word and image throughout the world.

Oct 26, 2009 - 5:59 am 11. deguello:

MR.CHRENKOFF:The reason why Obama is “too busy” to visit the Berlin wall,and celebrate the fall of communism, is that he doesn’t want the cameras to catch him crying.He probably spends the anniversaries of Stalin & Mao’s death,drinking vodka,with Dunn and Ayers, reading the little red book,and wishing that he had the gulags ready to receive fox reporters and PJMers.

Oct 26, 2009 - 6:05 am 12. homero:

“Barack is too busy preparing America’s future defeats to celebrate her past victories”

this sums it up.

Oct 26, 2009 - 6:13 am 13. Now and Then:

So much to celebrate, so little time: Why aren’t you all out picnickin for history right now? Or are they just dates of things past?

On this day:

1774
The First Continental Congress adjourned in Philadelphia.

1881
The gunfight at the OK Corral took place in Tombstone, Ariz., as Wyatt Earp, his two brothers and “Doc” Holliday confronted Ike Clanton’s gang. Three members of Clanton’s gang were killed; Earp’s brothers were wounded.

1967
The Shah of Iran crowned himself and his queen after 26 years on the Peacock Throne.

1972
National security adviser Henry Kissinger declared “peace is at hand” in Vietnam.

2001
President George W. Bush signed the USA Patriot Act, giving authorities unprecedented ability to search, seize, detain or eavesdrop in their pursuit of possible terrorists.

Oct 26, 2009 - 6:28 am 14. Now and Then:

3. David P:
“Inaction, delay, uncertainty, highlight this president’s inability to secure our nation, ignoring & ’sleeping’ through the 3am phone call.”

General Shinseki

Oct 26, 2009 - 6:29 am 15. RE:

Obama celebrate the fall of a symbol of totalitarian oppression?

Fat Chance. He’s just not into that sort of thing.

Oct 26, 2009 - 6:30 am 16. steveg:

Why bother with Berlin, and interrupt his golf game and fund raising routine? I read this morning where he has played more golf in his first nine months than Bush did in his first term. In the last 10 days he has been to fundraisers in San Francisco, New York City, Boston, and today Miami.

Oct 26, 2009 - 6:34 am 17. Now and Then:

Maybe we should all celebrate Ronald Reagan again. He’s still dead.

Oct 26, 2009 - 6:43 am 18. Dave K.:

David P@3:
Inaction, delay, uncertainty, highlight this president’s inability to secure our nation, ignoring & ’sleeping’ through the 3am phone call.

That’s a very good description of George W. Bush, actually.
At least Obama’s prevented terrorist attacks on US soil, unlike George W. Bush.

I wonder if W. did finish “My Pet Goat” or not.

Oct 26, 2009 - 6:47 am 19. Sebastian Shaw:

President Obama is a ego-maniac, self-abosrbed narcissist; his very presence depends on constant adulation & the spotlight. Yet, when all is said & done, Obama has nothing to say. He is a petty angry bitter man with a chip on his shoulder about equal to his malignant narcissism. The spotlight will turn into a laser beam or a heating lamp over time. The community organizer-in-chief is on limited time before he turns into spoiled leftovers from the week before. In many ways, given his popularity is sinking like a stone, he may already be there.

Oct 26, 2009 - 6:59 am 20. ETAB:

There are several reasons, I suggest, for Obama’s absence.

Certainly, he feels no connection to or admiration of, America. That’s obvious from his speeches and actions.

But, as someone who is psycholically embedded in egotism and a pathological narcissism, he can’t attend any gathering where he isn’t the focus of attention.

The Berlin Wall is being attended by a host of leaders, and, despite Obama’s verbiage about America being ‘just one nation among equal nations’, this sophism doesn’t hold for himself. He cannot handle a situation where he is ‘just one leader among equal leaders’.

So, either the public event is All about Obama..or, he won’t attend.

Oct 26, 2009 - 7:02 am 21. Bilgeman:

Color me ambivalent about the Alleged Hawaiian’s attendance.

On the one hand, the city of Berlin would have starved if not for the US Air Force’s Berlin Airlift. And it would not be a united free city under democratic German rule today had it not been for the policies of all of our Cold War presidents, culminating in Ronald Reagan’s, (NOT a Nobel Peace Prize Winner), decision to assert the West’s strengths and get it all over with.

So far, Obama’s policies have been nearly foursquare opposed to the spirit that held the line at Berlin, and then pushed it backwards into the tyranny that spawned such a thing as the Wall.
So really, he has no business being there to celebrate it’s demise.

On the other hand, the western neoMarxist Euroweenies are such a hopeless pack of…neo-Marxist Euroweenies that they deserve getting dissed by the Community Organizer-in-Chief that they are apparently such hopeless fan-bois of.

If he does find the time in his busy schedule after his “Flavor Flav with a Nobel Prize” moment:

http://blogs.sohh.com/nyc/img/flava-flav.jpg

I hope he at least visits the Checkpoint Charlie Museum, (if it still exists).
Frankly, every westerner should.
If that doesn’t convince you who the good guys were and who the bad guys were, then you have cockroaches in your skull.

Oct 26, 2009 - 7:07 am 22. David W. Lincoln:

Expecting the sinister force currently in place in the Oval Office to attend the collapse of the Berlin Wall makes as much sense as Communists attending anniversary services of the assassination of the Romanovs.

He doesn’t want to go because it shows that he was wrong, is wrong, and will continue to be wrong regarding those he demonizes.

A representative of the US government in exile, that is more in tune with Reagan, would be a better fit than the chief deformed soul with his paws on the levers of power inside the Beltway.

Oct 26, 2009 - 7:11 am 23. Brian Richard Allen:

Buraq Hussayn 0 … who??

0 what??

Oh! God!

Oct 26, 2009 - 7:17 am 24. David P:

Now & Then, David K.,

Agreed! the first one already failed, the others in the process of securing failure!

Oct 26, 2009 - 7:45 am 25. Fred Beloit:

#13 Very insightful plagiarism there, gNat. I’m so impressed. But do you have any inside info on what Mexican states and what Canadian provinces Obama plans to annex or buy, a la Louisiana Purchase, to make a total of 57 states?

Oct 26, 2009 - 7:48 am 26. goy:

The tearing down of the Berlin Wall (uhm… it didn’t “fall” on its own, kids) and the total collapse of the USSR were anathema to BHO’s lifelong love affair with marxism. No reasonable person would expect him to celebrate these events – they are historic evidence that the totalitarian ideology driving his collectivist policies is socially suicidal.

Despite having been thoroughly discredited throughout the 20th century, marxism survives by feeding off the selective blindness of its morally adolescent proponents – like BHO – who simply refuse to acknowledge the realities of history.

Oct 26, 2009 - 8:00 am 27. ScottR:

18. Dave K.:
“At least Obama’s prevented terrorist attacks on US soil, unlike George W. Bush.”

Hopelessly simplistic hogwash.

Only by the most obvious measure (the lack of an actual terrorist attack on the US over the past 9 months) can Obama be given any credit for preventing terrorist attacks on US soil. His proposed policies to date:
1. Closing Gitmo
2. Prosecuting CIA interrogators – which will gut the CIA
3. Dithering on a surge in Afghanistan
4. Pronouncements basically stating that the war on terror is over and thtse issues are matters for law enforcement.

Finally, the Clinton administration shares more of the responsibility for 9/11 in any case – see point #4 above.

Oct 26, 2009 - 8:04 am 28. David P:

Between basketball, golf, happy hour & late night concerts there’s very little time for America’s needs.

Oct 26, 2009 - 8:11 am 29. Anonymous:

#18 Dave K:
“That’s a very good description of George W. Bush, actually.
At least Obama’s prevented terrorist attacks on US soil, unlike George W. Bush.”

Why would The Nobel Prize-winning Alleged Hawaiian
NEED to prevent terrorist attacks on US soil?

Doesn’t everyone LOVE us now?

Oct 26, 2009 - 8:15 am 30. ScottR:

One correction to the article – Candidate (and Citizen of the World) Obama requested to speak at the Brandenburg Gate * but was refused. Instead he appeared in front of the Victory Column in Berlin, which commemorates Prussian military victories over Denmark, Austria and France**.

* It appears that Brandenburg Gate appearances are reserved for statesmen who have actually accomplished something.
** Given the, by now, well documented historical ignorance of this administration (Chairman Mao excepted), I would not be surprised if they had no idea what the monument signified.

Oct 26, 2009 - 8:19 am 31. misanthropicus:

Manipulative and cynical and harboring a deep resent for America and the western world Obama is -

And Obama’s latest addidtion to this is his odious “deliberation” on Afghanistan, process in which he deliberatedly postpones help for our beleaguered soldiers there just to gain support for the Nov 3rd. elections –

Bottomless shamelessness -

Oct 26, 2009 - 8:19 am 32. Bilgeman:

#30 Scott R:
“Instead he appeared in front of the Victory Column in Berlin, which commemorates Prussian military victories over Denmark, Austria and France”

Well now, isn’t that a bit of sublime historical irony?

The guy who will win the Nobel Peace Prize for not making any Peace spoke in front of a monument celebrating a victory over Denmark.

(France and Austria were really and truly @ss-kickers in the 18th and 19th centuries, for those of you historically-challenged).

Victory over Denmark…like my Victory over Sleepfulness this morning.

Oct 26, 2009 - 8:31 am 33. David S:

First, you complain that Obama has done nothing but look pretty and give speeches.

Then, you complain that Obama is not going to Berlin to look pretty and give speeches, because he will be too busy working on actual policy.

Nobody can win with you folks. Either he’s putting on a show, and therefore a fraud, or he is not putting on a show, and therefore a commie. It’s just like the good old days of witch burning. Damned if you float, and dead if you don’t.

When you can’t find fault with his policies, you can critique his itinerary instead. What wisdom.

Peace.

DS

Oct 26, 2009 - 8:39 am 34. Peter the Bubblehead:

18. Dave K. wrote:
At least Obama’s prevented terrorist attacks on US soil…

Peter writes: You forgot to include, “…by keeping in place the policies instituted by George W. Bush which kept the country safe for the 7 1/2 years following the 9/11 attack, the majority of planning for which took place during the Democratic Clinton administration following the lack of any valid response regarding the 1993 WTC Attack, the Khobar Towers Attack, the 1998 African Embassy Bombings and the Attack on the USS Cole in 2000.”

You need to be more thorough (or a less transparent troll) in the future Dave.

Oct 26, 2009 - 8:50 am 35. Dave:

When you are a Marxist at heart, the fall of one of communism’s biggest landmarks is not something you celebrate.

Oct 26, 2009 - 8:51 am 36. biblio44:

“Barack is too busy preparing America’s future defeats to celebrate her past victories”

And here I thought that the John Birch Society was defunct.

Oct 26, 2009 - 8:54 am 37. ETAB:

Obama hasn’t done a thing to prevent terrorist attacks on US soil; after all, he doesn’t even acknowledge that such Islamic terrorism exists.

He’s now changed the war to ‘overseas contingency operation’ which removes all specific agency (terrorists) and all specific results (a war with civilian destruction).

And the terrorists are no longer known as ‘enemy combatants’ but the equally empty term of ‘detainees’.

This fits in with Obama’s psychology, for he lives almost entirely in a ‘virtual world’ made up of words. Only words.

As noted by Sarkozy, furious because Obama refused to announce the actuality of a second Iranian nuclear facility because such a reality would impinge on the virtual world within Obama’s speech about the future ‘non-nuclear world’…Obama lives entirely within a virtual world.

The lack of attacks on US soil can be credited to, and only to,Bush, who set up the infrastructure to carry out such tasks…an infrastructure that was missing in the legacy of Clintonian indifference to the possibility of such attacks.

Again, the reason why Obama is not going to Berlin is that his narcissism and egocentrism can’t handle his being in a situation where he is merely ‘one among equals’.

Oct 26, 2009 - 8:59 am 38. deguello:

BIBLIOT 44,And here I thought you were beginning to take your penicillin!YOUR SPYROCHETES ARE NOT DEFUNCT!

Oct 26, 2009 - 8:59 am 39. Sherab Zangpo:

C’mon Folks, let’s not be nasty.
A communist cannot go to the celebrations of the fall of the Berlin wall. Period.

Maybe he will introduce new Federal holidays:
The Killing Fields of Cambodia Day,
The Tien An Men Square Massacre Day.

His cabinet is already celebrating Chavez’ success in silencing the media, and last week they DID try to apply some good anti-Fox apartheid. They will try again.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment

Oct 26, 2009 - 8:59 am 40. biblio44:

38. deguello: “BIBLIOT 44,And here I thought you were beginning to take your penicillin!”

Sorry, d, but even the Birch Society had SOME minimal standards for membership.

Oct 26, 2009 - 9:16 am 41. cfbleachers:

Leftist political operatives have been putting up a certain breed as their titular head of state for several decades now.

They went from a hangdog, to a hound dog, to a show dog.

Carter, the hangdog…put into action the attitude of a basset hound’s face. He could induce malaise in a Jack Russell terrier. He wouldn’t chase rabbits, because he was afraid of them. The only time he would get up and snarl and snap…is if someone took away his bowl of Arab bones thrown to him and his unhousebroken litter mates. Or…when a Jewish person entered the room.

Clinton, the hound dog…put into action the attitude of a stray mongrel. Always on the hunt for someone to pat his head, wanting desperately to be liked, and humping everything from bulldogs to poodles to chair legs…

What we have now…is Fifi, the preening, primping, pampered show dog. The breed stems from the Barbet. A number of leftist manipulators were sitting around lamenting their inability to get away with fraud, deception, forgery, photoshopping and like…and the Marxist “message” was now threatened by the Internet. Sitting in a local bar, they made a bet as to which one could produce a candidate that openly displayed Marxist sympathies, insulted middle America, had little or no training…and could win the Grand Prize.

This breed is thin-skinned, does not respond well to discipline or criticism. Has a calm exterior demeanor which can mistaken for gentleness. Will lick the toes of any dog named “Prince”. Very wary of friends, but will snuggle up to strangers.

Not very loyal, needs constant attention, and will try to kill off any Fox it sees.

Barbet is all showdog, all the time.

Oct 26, 2009 - 9:17 am 42. ETAB:

David S – surely your philosophical expertise would alert you to the facts that we are not, here, complaining that Obama is not going to Berlin because he IS actually ‘too busy’ working on ‘actual policies’.

We are aware that Obama doesn’t, himself, work on actual policies. He hasn’t an intellectual clue about their content or, imporantly, their results. Nor does he care. He is The Campaigner. His role is to Sell the Policies.

And, since his own need is basic – an overwhelming need for constant adulation – and since he is indifferent to the content/results of the actual policies, then we see him flubbing his speeches about these policies.

It all depends on the audience. He’ll misinform, he’ll emotionally manipulate..whatever it takes to get them chanting along and singing with him.

To one audience, he’ll tell them that ‘no public option’ is necessary, and his BackRoom Gang will, horrified, issue a press release that this is not the case. So, the next audience will be told that such an notion is ‘the best’. To one audience,he’ll misinform them about the numbers of uninsured to another, he’ll tell them that the stimulus is working when actual data denies this;and he’s cut taxes..and so on.

And I’m surprised by your invalid analogies. After all, you’ve told us you are a philosopher (as well as having lots of friends in the hard sciences)..and how could a philosopher, who would have to have a strong grounding in logic, say something so illogical as:

IF he puts on a show, THEN he’s a fraud; and
IF he does not put on a show, THEN he’s a communist’.

No-one has made such allegations or set up such an illogical framework. It’s strictly your own doing.

Equally, your next proposition that IF you can’t find fault with his policies, THEN, you critique his itinerary’ is false. You have no data to support either proposition or to link them.

I’d suggest another read through of your philosophy notes on critical thinking and propositional logic. Oh, and the difference between fact and fiction might be useful to you as well.

Oct 26, 2009 - 9:21 am 43. goy:

@33. David S: – First, you complain…

Any inconsistency you’d like to fantasize about this is far, far outweighed by the left’s incessant whining about deficits during GWB’s terms, followed by cheers when BHO quadrupled the deficit (at least) and increased federal spending by the largest amount in all of recorded history.

Perspective: enemy of the left.

Oct 26, 2009 - 9:22 am 44. Person of Choler:

There is nothing that Obama could say about the fall of the wall that wouldn’t make him look puny and wimpy compared to Ronald (”Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!”) Reagan. Going to Berlin would make him look sillier than he already does and he is clever enough to stay clear of the entire proceeding.

Oct 26, 2009 - 9:27 am 45. ScottR:

#33:
David S.
“First, you complain that Obama has done nothing but look pretty and give speeches.

Then, you complain that Obama is not going to Berlin to look pretty and give speeches, because he will be too busy working on actual policy.”

Why are you Lefties so cluelessly simple?

It’s not that we object to the speeches per se as that is what Presidents do. But we often object to the content, location and frequency.

This President is the most over exposed ever and yet he cannot find the time to appear/speak at a ceremony commemorating the single most important event of the last century since the end of WWII.

Get it now?

Oct 26, 2009 - 9:28 am 46. LA:

This is completely unfair. President Obama, like anyone of the past recipient of the Noble Peace Prize, has the right to be present at the ceremony. Why do you try and slant the fact that our president is picking up an award, NOT speaking on issues.

This country of ours is in dire need of sincere and genuine debates about how to fix the damage caused by former president Bush. What is your position on the destruction of America’s middle class? The rich has gotten richer and the middle class has sunk into an economic abyss. But as far as you are concerned, this does not matter, as long as you can point fingers at the man that is trying to be the president for ALL people.

You should read my blog on Google: thehonestyproject365.blogspot.com.

Love

Oct 26, 2009 - 9:34 am 47. David S:

@43. goy:

Any inconsistency you’d like to fantasize about this is far, far outweighed by the left’s incessant whining about deficits during GWB’s terms, followed by cheers when BHO quadrupled the deficit (at least) and increased federal spending by the largest amount in all of recorded history.

Not so, and typical of your desire to deflect valid criticism by raising the straw man on high. The left was not complaining about deficits during GWB’s terms, so much as complaining about his regressive tax policies, and his refusal to fund wars as part of the budget. The deficits under Bush were used to finance massive tax cuts for the rich, and massive wars in the mideast. Of course the left objected.

Obama’s deficits are being used to finance tax relief for the poor, economic stimulus, and universal health care, and are part of a long term plan to get back to fiscal sanity. The inconsistency you are looking for is bogus.

You want real inconsistency?

How about the GOP running on a platform of “fiscal responsibility” for thirty years, while racking up the largest accumulation of debt in world history, for the purpose of financing tax cuts for the wealthy and warfare around the world?

At least tax and spend Democrats understand that you have to tax to spend. The GOP spent the last three decades dismantling our social and financial safety nets, and now refuses to take ownership of the mess left behind.

The GOP is the biggest club for hypocrites in the history of the world. And you criticize Obama for not coming to a party. Perspective, please.

Peace.

DS

Oct 26, 2009 - 9:50 am 48. Sebastian Shaw:

Obama would only go to Berlin if they made a statue out of him & to tell him how great he is; otherwise, the little Communist may be wistful of the Berlin Wall & the fallen Soviet Union. His friends are our enemies: Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, & Kim Jong Il among others…

Obama is a small shallow man who will not be remembered for anything substantial save his own narcissism, high unemployment, & his fiscal irresponsible growth in government.

Oct 26, 2009 - 9:54 am 49. Thomas_L.....:

The trolls, like their hero, do not approve of the fall of communism. They just think that “real” communism has never been tried. It would work if we just had better and more committed communists!
Ignore the trolls unless you just make fun of them. The stuff that feeds on the things that feed on pond scum are smarter and more deserving of your time and consideration.

Oct 26, 2009 - 10:01 am 50. goy:

@47. David S: – Not so…

Yes, it’s absolutely so. You’ve made no ‘valid criticism’.

Oct 26, 2009 - 10:11 am 51. baal:

Hey! Just remember! If you arent praying to the Messiah on the day of his Nobel prize….you have sided with the TERRORISTS.

Repeat after me:
Oh mighty, and Benevolent Obama!
Smite the bitter clingers with thy benevolent grace so that they may no longer be the remaining obstacle to peace in our time!
Oh, Obama! Here our cry!
Bring us Hope and eternal turtle necks that we may all watch Olbermann and cuddle!

Oct 26, 2009 - 10:22 am 52. ScottR:

#46 – LA
“What is your position on the destruction of America’s middle class? The rich has gotten richer and the middle class has sunk into an economic abyss.”

#47 – David S.
“…for the purpose of financing tax cuts for the wealthy…”

Can we please get some very basic economic principle straight here??

Number 1: The “rich” pay the lion’s share of taxes so a tax cut will go predominantly to them – that is just common sense.
Number 2: Tax cuts have proven to stimulate economic growth and the worst thing to do in a recession is to raise taxes.
Number 3: Progressive tax policies, beyond a certain point, become confiscatory and will drive the wealthy away – leading to a net decrease in tax revenue.

Please stop with the ill informed Marxist inspired class warfare rhetoric that is just wrong. It is beyond parody already!

Oct 26, 2009 - 10:23 am 53. ScottR:

#49 Thomas
“They just think that “real” communism has never been tried. It would work if we just had better and more committed communists!”

Too true. But that state apparatus never actually “withers away does it”?

And the Communist leadership will do what they do best;
- Argue incessantly about who is taking the “correct” path
- Establish personality cults
- Build “socialist realist” (meaning brutally ugly) monuments
- Rape peasant girls
- Imprison and slaughter their populace

Ahh, comrade, what a glorious future awaits us all!

Oct 26, 2009 - 10:27 am 54. tanstaafl:

Leftist political operatives have been putting up a certain breed as their titular head of state for several decades now…They went from a hangdog, to a hound dog, to a show dog.

Succinct, that.

Arf

Then, you complain that Obama is not going to Berlin to look pretty and give speeches, because he will be too busy working on actual policy.

Oh, actual policy. Playing golf, flying abroad to yak, raising bucks for democrats from coast to coast, giving interviews & press conferences…all to a degree surpassing (by orders of magnitude) previous Prezzydents.

14 more Americans dead in Afghanistan and Obama’s likely busy scheduling more democrat party fund raisers & confabing with Rahm, David & Valerie as to how to handle the Foxnews, Chamber of Commerce, Humana, etc. brouhahas those Chicago fixers have stirred up.

Oct 26, 2009 - 10:29 am 55. ETAB:

David S – again, how about providing factual data for your assumptions? Surely you, as a philosopher, know the difference between fact and fiction?

Therefore – what tax relief for the poor? Most of them don’t pay taxes.

And could you explain how tripling the deficit, which must result in generations of citizens paying, paying the interest ..rather than their tax dollars paying for actual services…how does this help the poor? Doesn’t it keep people poor? And without services? hmmm?

Could you provide us with factual data that the ’stimulus’, with its pork projects, has actually helped the economy? Double digit unemployment? Facts please.

Could you also provide us with factual data that the current deficits are providing ‘universal health care’ and that there will be no further deficits devoted to this agenda?

Could you also provide us with factual evidence that the left did NOT complain about deficits under Bush? I’d suggest you take a look at such complaints, which were endemic among the left (eg Huffington) as well as the right.

The Iraq and Afghanistan wars are funded, in addition to the normal Defense Budget, by supplementary bills not included in the federal budget.

So, are we to understand, David S, that you object to fighting back against Islamic fascism? Could you explain what we should do?

And could you provide factual evidence about the ‘largest accumulation of debt in world history’ vs Obama’s tripling of this deficit? Isn’t that last action ‘the largest accumulation..etc?

Oh, but you say that HIS deficit is a good deficit, while that of Bush is a ‘bad deficit’. Ahh. The problem, David S. is that you, yet again and despite your philosophical expertise, provide no facts.

Facts matter; they are more real than fiction. Heh.

So, what do you mean by ‘tax cuts for the wealthy’ and please explain why stripping people of the results of their work is wrong. If I recall correctly, you are quite fond of the Heritage site, and they recommend that the Bush tax cuts be retained.

http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/wm956.cfm

For example, and in contradiction to your ‘only the wealthy got tax cuts’, such cuts were across the board. If they are repealed, the lowest bracket will move from 10 to 15%.

The investment and capital gains tax cuts are vital because the investors PUT BACK this money into more investments, more industry construction, more employees being hired. Heh – I bet you think that people who get money from investment jut put it in an old sock. No, they invest money in other projects. That’s better than the govt taking their money and spending it on Air Force One trips to New York.

And please explain whatyou mean by ‘warfare around the world’. Be specific, and please tell us which wars and why, you oppose.

What do you mean – ‘dismantling our social and financial safety nets’? Please be specific.

You are right, David! You have to tax to spend. Incredible insight! Errr…well, you aren’t really right. Because, if you tax at a high rate, then..the people don’t have any money to spend..and so, you can’t tax them, because there’s no money from sales taxes, and no money for owners to pay workers, and no money for owners to build new factories and hire new workers. So…David The Philosopher, you are wrong. If you tax a population too much, you’ll destroy their ability to ‘make an economy’.

Might I also suggest, with your philosophical expertise, that you refrain from such argumentative fallacies as ‘the biggest in the world’, ‘largest in world history’ etc. These are, as I’m sure you remember, fallacies of generalization.

Oct 26, 2009 - 10:37 am 56. Anonymous:

46: LA “This country of ours is in dire need of sincere and genuine debates about how to fix the damage caused by former president Bush.”

So the left calls for “sincere and genuine debate” by using demagoguery and insipid nonsense and we are expected to just run right out and support President Obama. Good luck with that approach, Skippy.

Oct 26, 2009 - 10:54 am 57. Graham:

David S sorta has a point when he says:

“he will be too busy working on actual policy.”

That policy is, of course, all about Obama as he flies off to collect his well earned Nobel.

You hit the nail on the head there, Dave.

Oct 26, 2009 - 10:58 am 58. Texexpatriate:

Why would Obama celebrate what was for him a defeat? Any victory of liberty is a defeat for tyranny, and for Obama. Any victory of tyranny is a victory for Obama.

Oct 26, 2009 - 11:04 am 59. Jim Baker:

Obama is just a tool. He is not going to change because we want him to. And he will only go away if he is forced to go. First, we have to root the communists out of Congress. Then we will have to beat Obama in at least a 40 state landslide, otherwise he will steal his re-election. Then we will have to try to undo all this damage to our country, which I don’t think we will ever be able to do. And, most importantly, we will have to always remember that the Democrat party has been controlled by communists for 80 or more years and this will not change any time soon.

Oct 26, 2009 - 11:25 am 60. George S.:

it doesn’t seem to matter what the topic is ….there is always one answer. …well maybe 2

1) this administration is pushing a social justice/marxist socialist program. so everything reflects that goal.

2) the obama administration (and much of the democrat party) is a criminal organisation.

Oct 26, 2009 - 11:37 am 61. steveg:

Always time to collect a Nobel PC price. As for Berlin, tee time conflict?

Oct 26, 2009 - 11:37 am 62. Maurice:

This is actually good because it is a major gaffe that the MSM will be forced to cover since it is a big international news story. Where is Zero? they will have to ask. And many thousands more will have to awake from their couches and notice that last November we elected an America-hating, vindictive, Marxist fraud as President.

Oct 26, 2009 - 11:41 am 63. David S:

@52. ScottR:

Can we please get some very basic economic principle straight here??

Joy of joys, yes. Where shall we start?

Number 1: The “rich” pay the lion’s share of taxes so a tax cut will go predominantly to them – that is just common sense.

It is entirely possible to cut taxes for lower income people without changing rates on the top earners. In case you need an example, you can examine the tax cut the Democrats passed this year, which reduced taxes on incomes under $250,000, while leaving taxes on higher incomes unchanged. So the tax cut doesn’t have to go predominantly to the rich – unless the purpose of the tax cut is to cut taxes on the rich.

Number 2: Tax cuts have proven to stimulate economic growth and the worst thing to do in a recession is to raise taxes.

Actually, there is no evidence to support this. Tax cuts have not been proven to stimulate economic growth – and the worst thing to do in a recession is to cut government spending, like the GOP would like to do. The reality is that Democratic administrations, with higher taxes, achieve better economic growth and better job growth than Republican administrations do with tax cuts. Of course, if you can cite proof that tax cuts stimulate economic growth, I’d be interested in seeing it. So far none has emerged.

Number 3: Progressive tax policies, beyond a certain point, become confiscatory and will drive the wealthy away – leading to a net decrease in tax revenue.

This is probably true – beyond a certain point taxes become confiscatory. We aren’t even close right now. Marginal tax rates in the 60-90% range are associated with greater than average economic growth, and broader prosperity – as well as increased tax revenue. So yes, there probably is a point beyond which taxes will drive the wealthy away – but it is in the 90-100% range, and we are nowhere near that level.

Please stop with the ill informed Marxist inspired class warfare rhetoric that is just wrong. It is beyond parody already!

There’s no class warfare rhetoric here. Just the facts. And the facts show clearly that progressive taxation is good for the economy, good for the people, and good for America. The parody is provided by folks who look at the last thirty years of failed policies and come back with the conclusion that we should have more tax cuts and that somehow this will produce a different outcome than the last trillion dollar tax cut for the wealthy.

The only thing that tax cuts for the wealthy accomplish is making the wealthy more wealthy.

Peace.

DS

Oct 26, 2009 - 11:41 am 64. Lili von Shtupp:

Well, maybe if the organizers of the the event in Berlin could make up a really kewl award (complete with check payable to the One), he might be bothered to show up. After all, this whole thing was completely unexpected and just came up with no warning….the Berlin commemorations, that is….

Oct 26, 2009 - 11:48 am 65. Donna V.:

As others have pointed out, why would bambi celebrate the dismantling of the Berlin Wall?

1989 was a very bad year for the left. Millions became free, which is never good news if you’re a Marxist. The upside for them is that bambi is doing his best to reenslave the masses.

Oct 26, 2009 - 11:50 am 66. Thomas_L.....:

ETAB – Good one! Get Vapid S. to type his stupid brains out and … we won’t read it! LOL

Oct 26, 2009 - 12:03 pm 67. ETAB:

Oh,and that ‘busy busy Obama’ has already spent more time on golf in 9 months than Bush did in two years.

And – he went to 23 fundraising events compared to Bush’s 6; and, after 7 months in office, Obama had given114 TV interviews compared to 37 for Bush and 41 for Clinton. He’s spent more time on primetime TV than any president. He’s on late night shows; he’s on joke shows..It’s all about Him.

All he does is talk, talk, talk. He’s in perpetual campaign mode. Promising this to that audience; the opposite to a different audience…on and on.

Does he sit and read the bills? Nope – that’s why he makes such errors when talking about them. Does he analyze long term effects? Nope that’s why he makes such errors when talking about such results.

These endless campaign talks, with misinformation and manipulation of the audience, these endless TV appearances, all sandwiched in between golf and empty ‘virtual content’ speeches at Show Me Off scenarios at the UN, etc…Does Obama ever work?

Or is he just continuing on his normative mode of life..as when he was the President of the Harvard Law Review, and left all the editorial work to others; all he did was show up to say ‘hi’ from time to time. Or his time as a ‘community organizer’ when all he did was tell the workers to ‘go out and organize’. Or his time as Senator when all he did was vote ‘present’ and then, began his endless campaigning for president.

Hard work, which requires reading, analyzing, studying, preparing, thinking things through…that seems foreign to Obama. He has no history of such work. He requires constant adulation and all he has to offer is words. Empty words.

Oct 26, 2009 - 12:05 pm 68. ETAB:

David S – please get your facts straight.

Obama did NOT cut taxes on incomes below 250,000. Kindly provide PROOF of this tax cut! What’s the new percentage of income tax?

Obama’s plan is not to cut the taxes, and many in this bracket don’t pay taxes, but to give CREDITS.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/37519

The article says “The problem with Obama’s characterization that his proposals are tax cuts is that refundable credits are calculated as outlays, or direct spending, not as reductions in tax rates, according to the Center. This means that, in budgetary terms, some of Obama’s tax cuts are actually spending increases.”

And “When compared with current law, people earning $20,000-$50,000 a year will see their effective tax rates — the amount of money the taxpayer actually ends up paying the government — increase on average under Obama’s plan, according to Tax Policy Center figures.”

Please provide proof that tax cuts don’t stimulate economic growth. After all, logically, and since you are a philosopher, you ought to be logical, leaving money in the hands of the people seems to be the only way to enable economic growth. It’s the people who set up businesses that employ workers, after all.

Your link is unscientific. There is no way that you can make a direct connection between Republican/Democratic and the economy. Do you know why? Because the economy is a complex adapative system (CAS) – have you never heard of the term? That means that you can’t indulge in linear causality. Do you know what that means? Ahh, you are a philosopher..so, of course you do!

Here’s a link to Milton Friedman debunking the notion that govt spending stimulates the economy. Do you know him? He won a genuine Nobel prize. For economics. For work he had done in the real world. Not the virtual world.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/rich-noyes/2009/02/01/debunking-myth-government-spending-stimulates-economy

And here’s another one with Friedman about tax cuts.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZmNhOWU4ZWZmY2NiOTUzZjRjZTg3N2MzOWI1NjI3ZTM=

David S – you write: “Marginal tax rates in the 60-90% range are associated with greater than average economic growth, and broader prosperity”. COuld you provide proof of this? Could you explain why taking most of someone’s income away from them leads to ‘greater than average economic growth”?

After all,if the people have no money left after taxes, how can they invest in new equipment in their factories, or hire new people? How can they spend money to purchase other people’s products? And if they live in a country that taxes most of your income, then why bother to work so hard to get a high income? Can you explain?

No, David, you haven’t provided any facts whatsoever. Not in even one single post. All you provide are your totally, incomprehensible, illogial OPINIONS.

You say: “The only thing that tax cuts for the wealthy accomplish is making the wealthy more wealthy”. That’s an incredible statement, worthy of the White Queen. Could you provide us with facts, and logic to explain this?

Oct 26, 2009 - 12:32 pm 69. mjishernameo:

My heart hurts when I realize what America has done by electing this….this…person.
He’s made enemies with middle America, the backbone and workhorse of this country. He’s made enemies of our allies. And allies of our enemies.

Please, let this enrage us enough to work hard to never, ever allow this to happen again. Let us work hard to get anyone of this genre out of office. Start local..get involved….I know I have…it seems the only hope we have.

God Bless Americans. God Bless America.

Oct 26, 2009 - 12:41 pm 70. Graham:

Did you miss this part David? It was in the link you provided, and again pointed out in the comments:

“Republicans tend to preside over recessions early in their terms, with growth accelerating as time passes; Democrats tend to preside over earlier accelerations followed by slowdowns as the term matures.”

What could that possibly mean David? Do you think you can reason your way to a conclusion that supports what you so desperately want to believe?

Oct 26, 2009 - 12:47 pm 71. goy:

@63. David S: – Democratic administrations, with higher taxes, achieve better economic growth… The only thing that tax cuts for the wealthy accomplish is making the wealthy more wealthy.

This is transparent, sophomoric bullsh!t, Zippy.

Here’s a direct quote from your cite:

Republican administrations tend to have recessions early in their terms, with growth strongest in the fourth year. Democrats tend to stimulate the economy on taking office, which leads to a prompt acceleration in growth, followed by a slowdown.

First off, this “theory” is completely debunked by the current administration. Not only have BHO’s inept economists gotten the result of the so-called “stimulus” completely wrong – ignoring past historic failures of these policies during the Great Depression and in Japan in the ’90s – but since taking office the economy has continued the decline begun with the Democrat Congress in 2007.

If one has any comprehension of how economic policies take effect – which obviously leaves you out – nothing could be clearer: the exact OPPOSITE of your assertion is true. There is no conceivable way ANY administration can stimulate the economy “on taking office” because it takes 1-3 years for economic policies to produce any substantive result.

Here’s the quote, corrected for economic reality, which recognizes that policies take time to have an effect on the economy:

Republican administrations tend to have recessions early in their terms as the effects of anti-business, economy-destroying leftist policies of the preceding Democrat administration are felt, with growth strongest in the fourth year, as their more rational economic policies take effect and make themselves felt in the market. Democrats tend to free ride off of the preceding Republican administrations (or, in Clinton’s case, take credit for the gains produced by the policies of the Republican Congress they have), pretending they’re responsible for stimulation of the economy on taking office. The economic policies of their predecessors lead to an acceleration in growth, followed by a slowdown as their own irrational economic policies again begin to take effect.

Meanwhile, tax cuts don’t make ANYONE “more wealthy”, Zippy. Wealthy people get more wealthy by earning more and/or investing and leveraging their existing wealth wisely.

The ONLY entity potentially affected by tax cuts is government. Tax cuts – regardless WHOSE taxes are cut – should logically make government LESS wealthy, LESS powerful and LESS able to purchase votes by giving away other people’s money. The paradoxical truth however, as seen during GWB’s administration, is that tax cuts can stimulate the economy to the point of producing historically record-high tax revenue. The real problems arise when we have a Congress that spends that revenue like drunken sailors to increase their own power, as we’ve had for the last 20 years.

Oct 26, 2009 - 12:48 pm 72. vivo:

33. David S:

“Nobody can win with you folks. Either he’s putting on a show, and therefore a fraud, or he is not putting on a show, and therefore a commie. It’s just like the good old days of witch burning. Damned if you float, and dead if you don’t.”

That’s the problem with one-way streeters.

42. ETAB:

“IF he puts on a show, THEN he’s a fraud; and
IF he does not put on a show, THEN he’s a communist’.”

You HAD to say this . . .

48. Sebastian Shaw:

“(Bush) is a small shallow man who will not be remembered for anything substantial save his own narcissism, high unemployment, & his fiscal irresponsible growth in government.”

Oct 26, 2009 - 1:28 pm 73. David S:

@67. ETAB:

“First, you complain that Obama has done nothing but look pretty and give speeches.”

Oh,and that ‘busy busy Obama’ has already spent more time on golf in 9 months than Bush did in two years.
…
All he does is talk, talk, talk. He’s in perpetual campaign mode. Promising this to that audience; the opposite to a different audience…on and on.
…
Hard work, which requires reading, analyzing, studying, preparing, thinking things through…that seems foreign to Obama. He has no history of such work. He requires constant adulation and all he has to offer is words. Empty words.

Well done. You covered all the talking points. Yes, Obama has been busy. I like that. There’s a lot of work to do, and time for golf is well earned.

68. ETAB:

…

Let’s take a look at the tax cuts contained in the stimulus package in a little bit more detail. First is the Making Work Pay tax credit. As I mentioned, this applies to single filers making less than $95,000 and joint filers making less than $190,000. Using the IRS tax tables that I linked to earlier, this means that about 102 million taxpayers, or about 92.4 percent of “working” tax filers, will be eligible for the credit.

A credit reduces the tax payable – it is a tax cut, regardless of how you account for it.

Adding everything up, I come up with about 98.6 percent of working tax filers – see upthread for how I caveated that description – who are eligible for one or more of these tax cuts.

Please provide proof that tax cuts don’t stimulate economic growth. After all, logically, and since you are a philosopher, you ought to be logical, leaving money in the hands of the people seems to be the only way to enable economic growth. It’s the people who set up businesses that employ workers, after all.

People facing a higher income tax are more likely to spend money to employ more workers, to grow the business, rather than take a higher personal income. Income tax rates are a great way to encourage reinvestment.

Your link is unscientific.

So is the contention that tax cuts drive growth.

Here’s a link to Milton Friedman debunking the notion that govt spending stimulates the economy. Do you know him? He won a genuine Nobel prize. For economics. For work he had done in the real world. Not the virtual world.

Nice. Here’s what Milt said:

The Keynesian view that the spending is stimulative assumes that the funds the government borrows would not otherwise have been invested in the private capital market… In addition, it assumes that there are unemployed resources that can readily be brought into the work force by activating the excess funds held by individuals, without raising prices or wages.

That is a possibility in some special cases, such as the Great Depression in the 1930s, when there had been a major reduction in total output and prices were very far from their equilibrium level.
…
Government spending financed by creating new money. …if the initial position were one of deep recession with unemployed resources, a much larger fraction of the increase in spending would be absorbed by an increase in employment and output, and a much smaller fraction by a rise in prices.

So, basically, stimulus works when there is excess capacity, or when the stimulus is financed by creating new money – which is exactly what is going on now. In fact, this article is a great argument for government stimulus in the specific circumstances we have today. Well done.

And here’s another one with Friedman about tax cuts.

Did you notice he was discussing what to do when the government has a surplus of income? That was back in the Clinton years, before Bush passed tax cuts which destroyed the budget. Moreover, he is not making an argument about the relationship between prosperity and tax rates – he is making an ideological argument without any factual support. He admits as much.

“Yes, that’s a moral argument, absolutely.”

So all you have proven is that Friedman was a fan of smaller government. I knew that already.

After all,if the people have no money left after taxes, how can they invest in new equipment in their factories, or hire new people? How can they spend money to purchase other people’s products? And if they live in a country that taxes most of your income, then why bother to work so hard to get a high income? Can you explain?

Businesses purchase equipment and hire employees with pretax income.

You say: “The only thing that tax cuts for the wealthy accomplish is making the wealthy more wealthy”. That’s an incredible statement, worthy of the White Queen. Could you provide us with facts, and logic to explain this?

Yes, it’s all around you.

Peace.

DS

Oct 26, 2009 - 1:30 pm 74. ScottR:

“Republicans tend to preside over recessions early in their terms, with growth accelerating as time passes; Democrats tend to preside over earlier accelerations followed by slowdowns as the term matures.”

David S. – hoisted on his own petard. I am not surprised.

Oct 26, 2009 - 1:38 pm 75. baal:

Best quote lately:
From VDH on NR.
“But, after just a few months in office, that proved not to be the case. Just as a number of planets had to line up precisely to allow an inexperienced hard-left ideologue to be elected president, so there would have had to be a similar configuration to allow him to govern successfully.”

Oct 26, 2009 - 1:41 pm 76. Thomas_L......:

ScottR: – Don’t be silly. Vapid S. has no petard.

Oct 26, 2009 - 1:56 pm 77. goy:

@74. ScottR: – David S. – hoisted on his own petard. I am not surprised.

Pity poor David – the lone, willfully ignorant voice of moral adolescence and insanity in a mature, rational world.

Oct 26, 2009 - 1:56 pm 78. George S.:

the trolls/useful idiots have their marching orders. they didn’t get ideology overnight and they wont leave it easily so there really is NOOOOO point trying to debate or educate them.

they will be the jailers in your future. they are shrilling for the results of YOUR labour.

THEY WANT YOU TO PAY THEIR WAY.

if you haven’t seen the link below it is worth visiting. You will probably want to see the whole interview.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzdYLyhwGLc

the next link explains the other problem (not the troll infestation).

http://www.faithfreedom.org/obama.html

this last link is just pure fun.

http://www.pbase.com/opinion/maniacal

Oct 26, 2009 - 2:12 pm 79. ETAB:

No, david s, a ‘tax credit’ is not the same as a ‘tax cut’. It does NOT reduce the ‘tax payable’. Read the article.

You are also mixing up personal and corporate taxes. Individuals with high personal incomes won’t have the money to spend on investments. These investments enable corporations to set up factories and hire workers. The individual can’t reduce his tax rate by saying he wants to employ workers! But his high personal tax means that he has nothing to invest.

If your corporate taxes are high, and if there is no money from individuals to invest in that corporation, then, you don’t have the funds to hire workers and purchase new equipment. Try again, david.

I presume you know that Friedman was against the Keynesian view? And, you left out Friedman’s critique:

“More generally, however, theory suggests and experience confirms that government spending financed by borrowing from the public does not provide a stimulus to the economy.

Japan provides a dramatic recent example. During the 1990s, the Japanese economy was depressed. The government tried repeated fiscals stimulus packages, each involving increases in government spending financed by borrowing. Yet — or maybe therefore — the Japanese economy remained depressed.”

I suggest, David, that when you quote, that you glean the concepts of the whole article. He’s completely against government intervention, going through it carefully, pointing out how it would lead to more unemployment and inflation.

Would you please provide evidence that Bush’s tax cuts ‘destroyed the budget’. That’s a strange statement. If his budget included tax cuts, then how could they destroy it?

Please provide proof that tax cuts don’t help the economy.

No, David, you still don’t get it. If businesses don’t sell products, because consumers don’t have the money to purchase them, they can’t purchase updated equipment and hire workers. If investors can’t keep their investment money, then, there is no money available to invest in a corporation for such expenses.
And if a business’s pretax income is so low that he can’t afford equipment and workers…And kindly remember that taxable income does NOT allow a company to write off all their equipment expenses, etc.

No, your answer of ‘it’s all around you’ is not an answer..well, except in Alice in Wonderland. But in the real, not virtual world, what is the explanation for your statement:

“The only thing that tax cuts for the wealthy accomplish is making the wealthy more wealthy”.

Kindly explain – with facts..and not empty statements of ‘it’s all around you’.

Oct 26, 2009 - 2:18 pm 80. Jim Baker:

Don’t pity Davis S. He is a troll who thinks he is doing the good work of the collective. His take on Milton Friedman is specifically ignorant. He has never even read one chapter of a Milton Friedman book.

Oct 26, 2009 - 2:20 pm 81. Karl Marx:

Dear David S.,

I was wrong. Every attempt to implement my idea failed. I’m responsible for more democide in the 20th century than any other person.

Take my advice and STFU.

Sincerely,

Karl

Oct 26, 2009 - 2:32 pm 82. tanstaafl:

Geez, David S…

Do your employers at the ski club know how you’re spending your time?

(oh wait, you’re a privileged member of the “me” generation, doing important ideological stuff on their nickel…)

Oct 26, 2009 - 2:37 pm 83. baal:

Obama is a twit who makes Bush look presidential, which is hard to do. That said…we need to legalize pot and stop locking children up with real criminals. Just had to throw a libertarian point in there…insulting the 400 lb asexual shut ins that work for soros holds little interest for me today.

Oct 26, 2009 - 2:39 pm 84. Commuter:

‘People facing a higher income tax are more likely to spend money to employ more workers, to grow the business, rather than take a higher personal income. Income tax rates are a great way to encourage reinvestment.’

This is beyond parody. There is no rational reason to waste a moment on someone who can make a statement like this.

Oct 26, 2009 - 2:41 pm 85. David S:

@74. ScottR:

David S. – hoisted on his own petard. I am not surprised.

If you were to actually read for comprehension, you would not make such a foolish pronouncement. Try reading the article again.

With only few exceptions, Republican administrations have presided over increases in unemployment, and Democrats over declines.

Though the picture so far is of the Republicans as the party of austerity and the Democrats as the party of stimulus, there’s a surprise when it comes to changes in the federal deficit: Republicans are more liberal with the red ink than Dems.

Over the long sweep of history, the distribution of income in the U.S. became more equal from the early 1930s through the late 1960s, and has been growing more unequal ever since. But there are some partisan patterns to this story. On average, inequality has risen in Republican administrations, and fallen in Democratic ones.

…under Republican administrations, growth is strongest at the 80th percentile and above; under Democrats, it’s pretty equal across the distribution.

You can try to spin the data, but the facts are clear – the GOP is a party that represents the interests of the rich, at the expense of the other 80% of Americans.

Peace.

DS

Oct 26, 2009 - 2:48 pm 86. Nedarc:

It is painfully clear what these people are, who now reside in the ‘White House’. What is not so clear is: How the hell, were we so stupid to elect this abomination called Obama. This will surley be a sad footnote in American History.

Oct 26, 2009 - 2:53 pm 87. Graham:

85. David S:

If you were to actually read for comprehension, you would not make such a foolish pronouncement. Try reading the article again.

“Republicans tend to preside over recessions early in their terms, with growth accelerating as time passes; Democrats tend to preside over earlier accelerations followed by slowdowns as the term matures.”

And don’t try blathering on about income inequality now David (or do, you don’t appear to have any hesitance in looking foolish). You linked to the article with the following text:

“Democratic administrations, with higher taxes, achieve better economic growth and better job growth than Republican administrations do with tax cuts”

As you read for comprehension, notice that you don’t mention income equality. You are speaking of economic growth in the context of tax cuts.

Nice try (not really) though David.

Oct 26, 2009 - 3:06 pm 88. Graham:

As an additional note, David, why did you even bother linking with the text:

“Democratic administrations, with higher taxes, achieve better economic growth and better job growth than Republican administrations do with tax cuts”

???

If you’ll read for comprehension, the article you provided has no support whatsoever for the contention made in the link text provided. In fact, the only mention of the word “tax” in the entire article is:

“Some of this reflects different tax policies, with Reagan and Bush 43 cutting, and Clinton raising income taxes.”

You can try to spin what you’ve said, but the facts are clear: The data provided in the article you supplied as support for your contention does no such thing.

Oct 26, 2009 - 3:20 pm 89. deguello:

AMAZING LIES DAVE!SIMPLY AMAZING! DEGUELLO,

Oct 26, 2009 - 3:22 pm 90. baal:

85. David S: Yes, the republicans suck. But as I’ve said before the relative fecudity of dog feces to cat feces does not make dog feces any more yummy…
FYI:Frustration with the republican party by political conservatives and libertarians is one of the principal reasons this site is so popular.
It is because of the failures of the republican party to represent the interests of its constituency that has put this nation in the peril that it is in with the leftist worm Obama.
Barack Obama is a man who spent years serving a slumlord. Now he polishes the boots of dictators with his tongue.

Oct 26, 2009 - 3:25 pm 91. ETAB:

david s -you’ve assured us that you provide factual data and that you are an expert philosopher. Yet you keep making the most fundamental errors in logic!

Stop with the generalizations..dicto simpliciter..

And, your statement that people facing higher taxes will employ more people is, as noted, beyond parody. As I said, you make even the White Queen seem rational. By the way, this contradicts your other ‘winging’ it statement where you opined that tax cuts only ‘make the wealthy more wealthy’.

So- which is it? More wealthy or hiring more workers?

And why the heck should income distribution be equal? Do you know what type of society this is found in? It’s called a No-Growth economy, where everyone is more or less in a median income level. Not much diferentation in skills or income.

If you have a population all engaged in living off welfare, well, that will give you an ‘equal income distibution’. If you have a population living, primarily, off low wage jobs that require little education or skill..well, that too gives you an ‘equal income distribution’.

But, if you have a population focused on progress, innovation and development, then, you’ll have a great disparity in income equality. You’ll have some workers requiring long training and high skills and earning high incomes, you’ll have some taking risks by investing in, let’s say, starting up a new technology and eventually earning high income.

And you’ll have some who won’t have the skills, wont put in the years of training and work, won’t take the risks and hard work..and who are content to work as employees rather than employers..they’ll get a middle income.
And you’ll have others with no skills, no ability or desire to learn and they’ll be low income.
Did you know that without that top level, neither of the other levels could exist?

Please explain your hostility to wealth, and how you feel it harms a society.

Oct 26, 2009 - 4:08 pm 92. Jason S:

His reasoning is really quite simple and personal. When the Berlin Wall fell, leftists in this country wept silently and secretly, despite revelations of all the barbarism practiced in the USSR beforehand. Barack Obama still believes the failed model can work with his benevolent dictation replacing that of Stalin’s, and cannot bring himself to celebrate its humiliation at the hands of an imperialist country such as the one he presides over.

Oct 26, 2009 - 5:55 pm 93. JulianG3:

Obama does not like this holiday. May Day is more his style.

Oct 26, 2009 - 6:25 pm 94. Paul:

I wonder what, if anything, the fall of the Berlin Wall meant for the young Barack Obama? …. If the end of the Cold War had sent any shivers down his spine the fall of 1989, it didn’t seem to have left any lasting imprint on his political psyche.”

Are you kidding? My guess is the young bho was probably mortified that such a horrific end could come to such a historic monument to his apparently then-shaping ideology. And if anything today, it is most likely a bad, humiliating memory, one he feels more comfortable ignoring as much as possible.

Oct 26, 2009 - 8:24 pm 95. David P:

David S.
After completing your studies at Liberal U. with Professor Academia Dole, I recommend spending a year abroad modestly living out of a backpack. Treat yourself to an empirical journey through the Middle East, Africa, and Europe then return home to America and tell me what you see in our MSM that isn’t fallible?

Oct 26, 2009 - 9:05 pm 96. myth buster:

Here’s another thing David S. misses- higher taxes increase interest rates. Not only do higher taxes deplete savings, but the lenders demand a higher rate of return to compensate for the higher taxes they have to pay on their interest. This raises the cost of capital and the cost of living at all levels, which in turn retards the economy.

Oct 26, 2009 - 9:40 pm 97. goy:

@91. ETAB: – david s … your statement that people facing higher taxes will employ more people is, as noted, beyond parody.

Here’s a bit of “anecdotal evidence” (aka observable reality) refuting the notion that higher taxes encourage economic growth.

Oct 27, 2009 - 6:58 am 98. goy:

@94. Paul: – My guess is the young bho was probably mortified that such a horrific end could come to such a historic monument to his apparently then-shaping ideology.

It’s important to understand how the narcissistic / morally adolescent psyche functions: their overriding tenet is: “it’s not MY fault!”

In the case of socialism – which has failed, or is in the process of failing, everywhere it’s ever been tried – it’s never socialism’s fault that it fails. It’s always the fault of the people trying to implement it or, if it results in massive murder by a socialist government, then of course it wasn’t ’socialism’ that government was practicing. By that definition, international socialism (communism) isn’t socialism; national socialism (fascism) isn’t socialism. This is how the left demonstrates Einstein’s observations on insanity: repeating the same thing over and over, expecting a different result.

Oct 27, 2009 - 7:07 am 99. John:

Well, here’s one good reason for anyone to skip Fall-o’-the-Wall festivities: Europeans themselves miss Communism. Just read an opinion piece on dnevnik.si claiming that America’s health-care system (whose existence is taken on faith – an Eastern European can’t imagine an enterprise operating outside a “system”) commenced its collapse in the Reagan era, when profits started going into individuals’ pockets instead of the Treasury. You almost can’t overstate how clueless these people were and are.

Oct 27, 2009 - 10:42 am 100. Arial Frost:

Why would a man who was brought up as a Muslim, who claimed to be a
Christian only when he felt it was necessary in order to run for
president concern himself with America? Why indeed!

Nov 5, 2009 - 9:14 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: