![](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_x97oorE2c9c/S6ahTZCOu6I/AAAAAAAAA6Q/WhO_nWZHN4k/S220/ArizonaMiracle.jpg")
I can't think of anyone better to be the arbiters of greed than our benevolent overseers in government, such as Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton.
With the recent passage of the "TARP bonus" bill, it's obvious that our politicians are finally serious about tackling the problem of greed. It's about time, too. We've long had "hate crime" laws, so one had to wonder when the next deadly sin would make it on the legislative agenda.
This bill targets people at certain companies – most visibly the much-maligned AIG – taxing any bonus pay pushing one's income over the $250,000 threshold to the tune of 90 percent. Yet the popular conception of the legislation sells our enlightened overlords short, as their vision entails far more than bringing a handful of rapacious Gordon Geckos to heel. Henry Blodget explains writing at Yahoo! Finance:
If the "TARP bonus" bill the House passed yesterday becomes law, any of the hundreds of thousands of people who work for Citigroup, Bank of America, AIG, and nine other major US corporations will have to fork over 90 cents of every bonus dollar that puts their household income over $250,000.
That's household income, not individual income. If you're married and filing singly, you'll have to surrender anything over $125,000. Indefinitely.
. . . (If you're a $40,000 a year telemarketer at a TARP company married to a $210,000 lawyer, any bonus will be taxed). So this tax will be felt by a lot more than the handful of execs at AIG and Merrill who ran off with several million dollars apiece.
Yet we must amass the lynch mob and applaud Uncle Samantha for punishing the robber-baron villains in this story. And I admire the government's ability to divine the eternal truth that $250,000 is the magic number. That does seem to be the consensus; for instance, that old closet Fabian Franklin Roosevelt once said that no one should be allowed to earn more than $25,000, which today is approximately $265,000 adjusted for inflation (FDR had to settle for a 94 percent rate on all income over $200,000). It's also great how this uniform standard ignores that $250,000 doesn't go nearly as far in Manhattan, NY, as it does in, let's say, Bartow, WV. Because we all know how especially greedy people in high-cost-of-living areas are.
I know these anti-free-market statements must surprise you left-wingers, since you believe people such as me emerge from the womb incorporated. So you should know what I really think of big business. I'm suspicious of "big." Big is powerful. Big is threatening. Big is scary. I learned that watching Godzilla movies in the seventies. And I think millions of screaming Japanese would agree with me.
In all half-seriousness, the bigger an entity is, the more inefficient and corrupt it tends to be. Why, even the armed forces, with their vaunted military discipline, have paid $600 for a toilet seat (unless Men in Black was right and that was just to cover funding for space-alien investigation). Perhaps we should nationalize the armed forces. It's also true that the more an entity can do for you, the more it can do to you. This is one reason why people of faith understand that fear of God is as valid as love of God. Of course, some would say that our worldly false idols and faux gods are much more to be feared, as they're far from all good, and absolute power really can corrupt them absolutely. These people might be mystified that fear of big is conspicuously absent when the matter is government. These people might say that while Citigroup, AIG and other corporations own big buildings, government is the Godzilla that can send them crashing down on our heads. I'm sure these people are crazy.
I'm also sure that many – no, strike that – all AIG employees are greedy. I mean, we certainly can read their hearts and minds, and it's especially damnable because it's such an unusual fault. I mean, we're never greedy – it's always the other guy. Most of those who criticize greed refuse money and benefits above and beyond what they deserve, and they also possess inerrant judgment regarding what they actually do deserve. That's why I'm sure every reader of this piece will send me a $10 check, because I'm plainly under-compensated (OK, say it, I know I left myself wide open on that one).
And I can't think of anyone better to be the arbiters of greed than our benevolent overseers in government. We know that the Chris Dodds, Barney Franks, Nancy Pelosis and Hillary Clintons of the world would never accept salary, perquisites (or votes) they didn't deserve. They've only risen to the pinnacle of power in the hallowed arena of politics by being the ungreediest of the ungreedy – they're just downright doubleplusgood. Thus, I suggest what should be obvious.
We need a Greed Czar.
After all, with the precedent TARP sets, we now stand at the precipice of a new age of fairness. We've long targeted certain groups with tax policy, most notably those who earn more than the average burned-out, ponytailed, jowl-breakdown, closet-socialist ex-hippie. But now we've opened up a whole new world of targeted taxation. And given what people complain about, I can envision what's on the horizon.
We can have the Barry Bonds Bill, to tax the earnings of athletes above that $250,000 threshold. I mean, I always hear how sportsmen are overpaid, and why should they earn more than a nurse or schoolteacher? Bonds himself was making a cool $22 million annually (plus endorsements) as of 2006, and that was partially the result of using steroids to pump himself up bigger than a government bureau. Skin 'em to the bone, I say.
Then we can have the John Edwards Act, to tax trial lawyers on all earnings above, you guessed it, 250G. Think about it: Why should a man get rich bankrupting hospitals? Oh, don't misunderstand me. Greedy doctors and hospitals should be broken, but that can be left to Barack Obama and socialised (British spelling. Since we're becoming like Europeans governmentally, let's really get into the spirit) medicine. There's no reason for greedy lawyers to get rich performing that noble task.
Finally, I have a few more suggestions: The Ludacris Act and the Russell Simmons Act, for rappers and rap moguls. The Madonna Act, The Cher Act, The Dan Rather Act, and, before my act gets old, I'll say that I'm not intellectually capable of itemizing America's millions of sin phenomena in need of remedy. Only the government can do that. But I can provide a basic outline.
We need to address all the Seven Deadly Sins. The climate is right for a Greed Czar right now, but we also need a Wrath Czar (hate), a Sloth Czar, a Gluttony Czar, an Envy Czar, a Lust Czar and a Pride Czar. And, at risk of seeming presumptuous, I now present my nominees for these posts.
Greed Czar: Rod Blagojevich or William Jefferson. No one understands a problem like someone who has been there. Democrat Louisiana Congressman Jefferson has gotten his hands dirty, down in the gutter, wallowing in gobs of money, as evidenced by the fact that authorities found $90,000 worth of marked bills in his freezer. He well understands the lure of cold cash. As for Blagojevich . . . 'nough said. We'll choose the one who manages to stay out of prison.
Lust Czar: This is a no-brainer – Bill Clinton. Barney Frank is a close second for once having a call-boy operation run out of his home, though.
Hate Czar: Barack Obama's longtime friend and pastor Jeremiah Wright, and Reverend Joseph Lowery can be his assistant. Who better to make sure that "white will embrace what is right"?
Envy Czar: Since Winston Churchill said the "gospel of envy" is socialism, I'll have to go with Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders. I respect the fact that, unlike other Senate socialists, he's honest enough to proclaim what he is.
Gluttony Czar: There are many worthy of mention in this category. One that comes to mind is Democrat Gerald Nadler, a congressman from my state who was once affectionately called "Congressman Waddler" by former Senator Alphonse D'Amato. Yet the obvious choice is a relative unknown, Republican member of the Mississippi house W.T. Mayhall, Jr. Representative Mayhall made all the other contenders look like poseurs in 2008 when he distinguished himself by proposing HB 282, a bill that would have prohibited restaurants in his state from serving fat people. It also would have had the positive unintended consequence of addressing greed in restaurateurs, since fat people constitute about 75 percent of the industry's customers in Mississippi.
Pride Czar: This is easy – Al Gore. Who else but the man who invented the Internet and knows he can save the planet from imminent ecological disaster?
Sloth Czar: I'm the man. If you understood my lifestyle, you'd know why. But I'm sure I'd be good at enforcing industriousness on everyone else.
Moreover, we may be approaching a fortuitous intersection of political will and scientific discovery. It is being reported that scientists are developing the ability to read minds with brain scanning equipment, which means we perhaps won't have to long rely on merely circumstantial indicators of sinful thoughts such as monetary compensation or dalliances with interns. I mean, just because a medical assistant only makes $19 an hour doesn't mean he isn't flushed with feelings of greed upon receiving his paycheck; just because a man is never caught in adultery doesn't mean lust is absent from his heart. But such things won't matter soon, as our government will just be able to determine if a subj . . . er, citizen is manifesting untoward thoughts. So if little Johnny exhibits brainwaves associated with greed upon collecting his 50 cents for a glass of lemonade at the stand, Uncle Sam can tax a portion of it sufficient to make his brainwaves, uh . . . as Barack Obama would say, change.
Of course, I don't claim to be a seer or even a futurist. But I do know about the power of precedents and can recognize another giant step toward a perfection of the human spirit that only complete submission to the angels of government can bring. You may say that I'm a dreamer, that it can't be done. I say something else.
Yes, we can.
Isn’t it strange how we treat words? All this talk of Czar? Can we not remember what happened to the last Czar Nicolas II of Russia, his wife Alexandra, and their four children? Not only were they deposed, but also the Bolshevics murdered them in cold blood. On August 14th, 2000, this same man was recognised as a martyred saint by the Russian Church. So, which type of man does the title Czar represent, was he a Saint or a devil?
On the other hand, we would not use the title Fuhrer, which simply means leader in German, any more than we would name our children Adolf.
I liked your article, but these questions creep into my mind and I wonder why we have such reverence for the word “majority”, but we would never embrace the word Bolshevic when they mean the same thing. But then, Hitler ignored the lesson of Napoleon and took his army to Moscow in the winter. Such is the nature of man.
Sorry Sloth Czar TM has been taken by me. Lived on the principle for the past 10 years. Great read. J.C.
Mr. Duke,
As for your last point, about technology that can read our thoughts: I realize that your column is designated as "humor," at least this website classifies it as such. Nevertheless, I respond as though you might be seriously thinking about this.
The seven deadly sins are sins when they are acted upon, not merely when they are contemplated. Thus it was plausible (though politically disastrous) for Jimmy Carter to tell Penthouse magazine that although he had committed adultery in his heart by looking at other women, he had never committed adultery. The point is that what makes humans a higher life form than others is our ability to be motivated to restraint by our conscience.
You had fun writing this column, it seems to me. Have you ever written a column about how you expect George Bush's enterprise in Iraq to be paid for?
You see, writing is fun, but solving problems is hard work.
Ruminator,
You kind of missed the point, didn't you? Let me explain: see, by imagining a future in which the government forsees people's thoughts ahead of time and then prevents them from happening, Selwyn Duke is making an allegorical comparison to those today who harbor a desire to control people's actions as well as their thoughts (exemplified by things such as hate speech laws). George Orwell invisioned a similar type of thought control in his novel 1984, enforced by a "thought police". In this way, people are robbed of the opportunity to exercise restraint and therefore do not truly possess "free will". See, sometimes one uses "humor" or satire to reveal something more complex to those who might be seriously thinking about it instead of simplistically focusing on the superficial elements of the story looking for something to nitpick in order to engender feelings of their own profundity.
Solving problems is indeed hard work though. For instance, how will we pay for George Bush's 500 billion dollar "enterprise in Iraq" when we have 3.5 trillion dollars of newer debt to pay for immediately due to Barack Obama's "enterprise in America"?
Patrick: Asking the humorless to recognize humor is like asking the turgid to think. It can be done, but always painfully.
I don't think I missed the point. The purpose of the hefty tax on bonuses and income above $250,000 was to raise revenue to support government and pay for things such as invading other countries, fighting Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, welfare entitlements, salaries of Congressman, bridges in Alaska (or whatever else was done with that money), pork barrel spending for the true Porkmasters such as Senator Byrd, and stimulus packages such as those enacted by presidents Bush and Obama. The purpose is not to eliminate the impulse of greed.
So it is a leap for the author to start talking about this provision being a step in the direction of controlling our thoughts. I didn't find it really entertaining, and if was a serious theory it is open to rebuttal.
1984 came and went. It was an interesting book, but today seems more speculative than ever.
The author makes the point that some of the supporters of the tax increase (John Edwards and other democrats) will be forking over more money. Could that mean there is a trace of generosity in their corrupt souls?
ruminator,Orwell as well as Rand are looking like today's news. I do believe that two of Orwell's books are appropriate to today's events…animal farm and 1984. Animal Farm seems the most appropriate since we have reached the state of "pigs are more equal than others" substitute Democrat for pigs and you get the drift…tax dodger in charge of Treasury,other tax dodgers nominated for high positions, nationalization of financial institutions, all to favor the pigs. Hmmm
Imagine a world without greed. Envision total poverty both economic and intellectual. While the Omessiah is floating the non-producers boats he is sinking the producers…Atlan is Shrugging. A wonderful formula for failure offering equal opportunity poverty!
The article may not be entertaining to you because you favor a czar of greed. How will the country and the world progress when no one wants to get better? How will it progress when the producers go into a defensive shell? Then who will provide for the non-producers?
And please remember that Democrats get a pass on paying taxes so no they do not have a trace of generosity in their corrupt souls.
Atlan = a typo for Atlas
I am a democrat and I pay significant taxes. So do Bill Clinton and John Edwards. As Bill Clinton said a few years ago, "I like George Bush. But he just gave me another tax break which I don't need. i don't know how you can pay for two wars with three tax breaks."
Two more examples: Massachusetts is so democratic it's the only state that went for George McGovern. But is it definitely not one of your poorer states. Lot of federal revenue coming out of Massachusetts, from Democrats. NY and California too.
Academia: by all accounts, a hotbed of liberalism, populated by lavishly compensated professors (if you don't count adjuncts) who are paying a lot of tax.
ruminator: Just curious. Do you define "significant" as 5 or 6 figures?
Let's see, significant taxes paid = how much? Great examples of states paying lots of taxes as well 3 soon to be bankrupt…oh no they won't the Omessiah is stealing from me to keep them afloat with CA being the worst due to Democrat legislative majorities that can't begin to deal with the illegals they harbor and the huge drain on the welfare state. MA finally going under slower than I expected but sinking nonetheless.
To me if you match my tax bill or exceed it you are paying lots of taxes so start with the Federal bill of almost $40K from a poor old semi-retired working to pay his taxes. I hate socialism
Five figures Phillip. Certainly feels significant. No one likes paying taxes. I hope we're not going to argue about that.
Mickey: If ruminator's "significant" personal tax liability isn't 6 figures (placing him in Clinton and Edward's bracket), then he’s just blowing smoke about things he really doesn’t comprehend.
As a side note, in calculating the taxable income of “significant” taxpayers like Clinton and others, foundation money isn’t subject to the same tax laws as ordinary income. Foundations can provide numerous non-taxable personal benefits. [Having run the national marketing agency for several national non profits, I actually know something about these perks]. Then of course there are the gifts to Democrat politicians that never get taxed unless they are vetted for higher office (Daschle), the “campaign contribution” shakedowns from Congressmen (I had to pay about $1000 toward the $20,000 bill Dick Gephardt charged my firm when I was in Washington DC to “educate” us on an upcoming piece of legislation), and the non-payment of taxes on 1099 income (Geitner) that remain unpaid as well until they want to acquire more political power.
As for speaking engagements, all this of course is moot as my Old Buddy Ron Kirk (another Democrat and former mayor of Dallas) showed, since only those speaking engagements that are actually reported get taxed. I could go on and on with real world examples of how the tax system actually works, but that would ruin the fantasy of people who thinks academics pay “significant” taxes. They didn’t when I was in that world, and they still don’t today relative to small business people. Higher self-employment taxes alone make this a moot point.
People without “significant” income are always eager to spread the wealth of those with “significant” income. They also generally have no idea what they’re talking about when they speak about the real world. As a small businessman with “significant” personal tax liabilities, I operate in the real world. And like the other top 10% (with a minimum 6 figure tax burden) that pays over 70% of all taxes, I’m not an idiot (which is how I earned the right to pay “significant” taxes in the first place.) So instead of participating the Obama tax fraud, I choose to exercise my intelligence. http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2009/02/17/barack-obama-is-making-me-rich/
ruminator: The difference between this website and the Huffington Post is that we generally expect commentators to argue more than their "feelings".
Well Phillip what I meant was that if you worked as many hours per week as I do, and paid the taxes that I pay, and lived on the after tax income that I live on, you would feel that your tax bill was significant, and I would understand why you would feel that way. You're right that I don't know much about running a small business that employs people, although I do have self employment income. Double the social sucrity tax, because no employer to pay half.
I think when John Edwards was a trial attorney he probably paid quite a bit of taxes. My point was that some democrats pay a lot of tax and would pay less if they were trying to help republicans get elected., but choose to be democrats out of (I don't dare say principle, not in this joint) but philosophy. such folks are often found in blue states.
ruminator: Again, if all you want to do is trade feelings on an issue, I feel that people choose to be Democrats because they are not smart enough (or industrious enough) to actually understand how the world works, and thus succeed within that framework, or make realistic changes to it. Rather, they just imagine a different reality, feel strongly about it, and consider this a meaningful effort.
We can trade feelings and opinions on a variety of other issues too. None of this will actually advance a real understanding of an issue — that “real understanding” being a necessary condition to operate effectively within and/or implement meaningful change in the real world. For some people, this feel-good exercise makes them feel like they’ve contributed something meaningful. For myself, it’s a complete waste of time. Opinions are like a**holes — everyone has one.
You made a number of definitive statements like “higher life forms” restrained by their “conscious”, without offering anything other than your opinion. Like many other authors and commentators on this website, I’ve explored this issue to. But I don’t simply offer an opinion and walk away from the statement. http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/08/25/what-kind-of-car-would-jesus-drive-to-take-his-girlfriend-to-an-abortion-clinic/
You talk about “The purpose of the hefty tax on bonuses and income above $250,000 was to raise revenue to support government and pay for things such as invading other countries, fighting Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, welfare entitlements, salaries of Congressman, bridges in Alaska (or whatever else was done with that money), pork barrel spending for the true Porkmasters such as Senator Byrd, and stimulus packages such as those enacted by presidents Bush and Obama.” You ignore the fact that 250K is NOT the level for “hefty” tax increases, that the military budget under Obama is being cut (using baseline budget calculations), and that Congress — not the President — passes tax legislation. You further lump in the taxes supposedly paid by Clinton and Edwards with your “significant” tax burden, which is nothing of the sort. And finally, no need to repeat the silly foundation for your NY/CA/MA feelings, which Mickey has already addressed.
You say “I think when John Edwards was a trial attorney he probably paid quite a bit of taxes.” You have absolutely no ideas what taxes he actually paid relative to his total wealth, since as an attorney with “significant” income he had onshore and offshore ways to shelter his income, not to mention the foundation he established.
And when you say “My point was that some democrats pay a lot of tax and would pay less if they were trying to help republicans get elected., but choose to be democrats out of (I don't dare say principle, not in this joint) but philosophy. such folks are often found in blue states.”, it shows me you have absolutely no idea about how politicians and their donors behave. http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2009/03/13/what%e2%80%99s-really-going-on/
Your comments are rhetorical, not analytical. If all you’re interested in is sharing your feelings, the Daily Kos is always looking for new contributors.
I've never been to the daily Kos of the Huffington post. I find it boring to talk only to people who agree with me.
Regarding the "higher life forms" discussion: I offered not just an opinion, but the example if Jimmy Carter's interview with Penthouse Magazine. Refute it if you can. It is relevant to this author's decision to go beyond discussion of outcomes of the seven deadly sins and to delve into the role of government in changing how people think, which he would oppose, and I would also. I wonder though, that government has always been in the business of influencing or enforcing how we think. For example, murder is illegal. If that's true then isn't the question to what extent should they be allowed to do that?)
Before everyone gets all excited, that last part was only a question.
Sigh. Killing involves death. Murder involves death. Execution involves death. And yet, none of these acts are identical, either in the act itself, their implications, or their consequences.
This is an example of analysis. But, apparently this is hard work, so I will just say that I feel your comments are wrong.
Phillip, I don't think you know what my income is, so I reiterate that my tax bill is significant in that it has a significant effect on my lifestyle. I could add that it has a significant positive effect on the United States Treasury (a fact that brings me some pride; I've been paying my share for your president's Iraq war), since there are millions of people in my bracket. I never said it was significant relative to the amount of taxes you, or John Edwards, or anyone else pays. You've been disputing a claim that I did not make.
Why is it that every Democrat or liberal who enters the conversation here has to measure, frame, or otherwise ground his/her comments in "feelings". I feel my taxes are significant, so they are. No other objective standard of measurment (relative to others who pay taxes, the total taxes collected, etc.) is needed. As long as you feel it, it's significant.
And why, when their arguments are exposed as emotions or rhetoric and not analysis, do they always feel the need to lie or dissemble about the truth.
"I never said it [ruminator's tax burden] was significant relative to the amount of taxes you, or John Edwards, or anyone else pays. You've been disputing a claim that I did not make.
Ruminator's Comment 9: "I am a democrat and I pay significant taxes. So do Bill Clinton and John Edwards."
So, when you say 'I pay significant taxes and so does John Doe', this doesn't mean that 'you pay significant taxes and so does John Doe.'
The only comment I actually agree with that you've made is "writing is fun, but solving problems is hard work."
Phil,
Use your head. When I say "my tax bill is significant to my lifestyle" I could cite as examples that if my taxes were lower I could drive a Lexus instead of a Ford, live in a house instead of a condo, send my daughter to Boston University instead of a state college in Ohio, and so on. These are not feelings, these are events in people's lives.
This is a stupid argument, anyway. I pay what the government requires me to, same as you. I maintain that you and I are equally meritorious on the issue of taxes. I'm sure you disagree.
When I say "I pay significant taxes and so do Clinton and Edwards" I have not said in what sense these things are to be considered significant. You insist on interpreting my use of the term "significant" in a way which was obviously intended.
You are too smart a guy to let it appear that it is such a struggle for you to understand people.
In addition, it is insulting to you to dismiss another person's tax bill as "insignificant."
Again, my point that wealthy people sometimes choose to be democrats even though it could cost them in taxes if they vote democratic, you have not weighed in on this, but I suspect it's because you think they are idiots.
Awfully nice talking with you.
"Obviously not intended" is what I should have written.
I feel that what you think is not something I can believe, so my opinion cannot be the same as your feelings.
Everybody thinks they pay too much ("significant") taxes. This isn't an emotion-based opinion forum, so what you or anyone feels is irrelevant to understanding the truth of a matter.
As to your statement that “my point that wealthy people sometimes choose to be democrats even though it could cost them in taxes if they vote democratic, you have not weighed in on this, but I suspect it's because you think they are idiots,” it’s clears you haven’t followed the links I gave you that addressed this very subject.
“Yes, the Republicans held together for the most part in blocking the first Obama stimulus package (or more accurately, the Pelosi-Reed stimulus package), claiming that it had too much pork and wasteful spending. But when it came to advancing these same principles in the recent continuing authorization of government services, the Republicans were just as pork-filled as the Democrats. No one seriously believes that if the majority of current Republican Congressmen and Senators were suddenly to gain power, anything fundamental would change. Sure, we'd have less overt anti-capitalist legislation, but as for eliminating government waste and pork, it would be like re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic time.
“Add to this the fact that liberals with money are willing to spend their money on acquiring power, while conservatives with money are in it solely for themselves. I'm not speaking here about the Obama-rich conservatives making $250,000 or so. They'll write a check for a thousand or two every once and a while. Rather, I'm comparing the George Soros' of the world to the Boone Pickens' of the world. Soros pumped in bazillions of his own dough to create Moveon.org to achieve a political goal. Boone Pickens pumped in $25-50 million of his own money to educate the country about the benefits of wind power and natural gas — two commodities he just happens to have a direct financial interest in promoting.
“The wealthy Left aspires to power to exert control over others, and reshape the country into its image. The wealthy Right uses the acquisition of power as a means to further line their own pockets. Until the ROWGs (rich old white guys) on our side look beyond their own immediate interests, we're going to keep losing this battle.”
And no, I don’t think everyone is an idiot. It only applies to certain people who work hard to earn that designation.
Congratulations.
Phil:
The whole problem began when Mickey told me that democrats "get a pass on paying taxes" which I refuted, using myself for factual data. The use of the word "significant" was probably an unnecessary editorial comment. If I had said "I pay the lawful amount, Mickey" then maybe you and I could have spent this afternoon on some more intelligent activity.
It's funny that my arguments to you are idiotic because they seem to be nothing but emotion; whereas, Mickey's fabrications don't seem to prompt your insistence on intellectual rigor and discipline.
I pay a lawful amount of taxes, as does virtually everyone else who isn't being considered for an Obama cabinet post. [Note to file: "Lawful" means only what the law says I must pay, not what is objectively appropriate. It's lawful to abort children in this country just as it was lawful to once own other human beings. Being "lawful" is not the end of an analysis; it's the starting point.]
Moreover, as a device to further an analytical discussion, interjecting the word "lawful" only underscores the point Mickey and others in the public eye have been making. Since opinions now pass for analysis, here’s some other analysis of the matter.
Jay Leno: "I think Barack Obama is a genius. I think this is part of the plan. Do you ever notice when Barack Obama nominates someone, the first thing they do is pay their taxes? He's found a way to pay off the deficit. Nominate every single person in the country one at a time, until they pay" off the deficit.
Jay Leno: "As you know, Tom Daschle withdrew his name to be in Obama's cabinet, due to IRS problems. Yeah, he said, 'I will not be a distraction.' See, distraction is Washington talk for, 'Uh-oh, there's a lot more crap you don't know about yet.'"
Jay Leno: "Wasn't it just a couple months ago, these people were making fun of Joe the plumber for not paying his taxes?"
Jay Leno: "Daschle says that his problems with the IRS were unintentional. Well, of course they were unintentional. He never intended to get caught."
Jay Leno: "I guess" the Democrats "think IRS means, 'I'm really sorry.'"
Jay Leno: "The White House issued a statement today saying that the reason their nominees are having such trouble is that the new White House has set the bar very high. See, that shows you what's wrong with politics in this country. That's what the government considers setting the bar high, having to pay taxes like everybody
David Letterman: "I was stunned" by the Daschle story because "we don't expect Democrats to cheat on their taxes. No, we expect Democrats to cheat on their wives. That's how this is supposed to go!"
Conan O'Brien: "President Obama has asked the Senate to cut $50 billion from the economic stimulus plan. . Yeah. Obama says the government will no longer need the $50 billion once everyone in his cabinet pays their back taxes
I know this will be lost on some people, but this is an almost perfect example of the liberal analytical mind at work.
“Mickey told me that democrats ‘get a pass on paying taxes’ which I refuted, using myself for factual data.”
Forgetting about the concepts of irony and satire, or the admonition I gave that “asking the humorless to recognize humor is like asking the turgid to think — It can be done, but always painfully,” I want you to consider the following:
A general statement (intended as a philosophical incitement based on current events in the news) is refuted by an ad hominem reference to one democrat’s personal self-described situation.
So, in the future when a Liberal or Democrat says that Republicans are X, Conservatives do X, Republicans/conservatives are responsible for X, all you need to do is say “I’m a conservative or Republican, and that particular charge doesn’t apply to me personally, so it’s not true in any sense of the word, period.”
No more thought, no more facts, no more analysis is necessary.
And you wonder why people believe that man-made global warming is real despite the record cold temperatures these past few years, why 9-11 was an “inside job”, and why adding a few trillion dollars in new deficit spending will cut the deficit in half in a couple of years.
Well, looks like this one is off toward 100 comments.
Have to admit I enjoy poking the pointed stick more than writing well reasoned analyses, however this topic does deserve further analysis.
Interesting topic particularly when we get folks with no grasp of economics nor of running a company offering their plans to handle our economic disaster. First question is what disaster? So far both Democrats and Republicans have offered plans to save the people that caused problems from the derivitive designers to the home flippers and others that got houses they had no possibility of affording.
I suspect that this week will see a Republican push back aimed at helping those that actually pay their bills. By the way bankruptcy is a good plan for companies. Ugly when it goes to selling off all the assets but useful when reorganization brings forth a stronger entity. Remember a past generation of Iaococca's (sp?) Chrysler which emerged stronger and with innovative products. The existing system actually works when politicians keep their grubby paws off. One of my businesses (the bar/restaurant in New Orleans went full bust) but lucky for me I was more interested in tax benefits when we were establishing our LLP so I negotiated the tax benefits instead of profit participation leaving me neutral on the dissolution because I had already received my benefits.
The root issue is still bad mortgages in consumer markets and it appears that nothing is being done about this issue since a new bounty for the folks that should not get loans has been set up $15K of free money (read that as take money from those of us actually paying federal income taxes) and create a welfare program for home buyers. Scary but it will take a year or two for those loans to go bad…then who gets the blame…Bush?
Somehow I can't seem to build an econometric model that begins to suggest that the current Omessiah plans will do anything except to offer equal opportunity poverty except for those in the ruling caste.
Someone once told me long ago that the way to get rich in this country is by not paying taxes [we're talking legally here]. So how did all these politicians get rich?