Home > Economy > Reagan: Tax the rich

Reagan: Tax the rich

My oh my, how times have changed.

  1. Decline To State
    October 9, 2011 at 7:11 am

    Reagan could get away with this sort of rhetoric. Corporate America didn’t have nearly the strangle hold on our government as they have today. Corporate person-hood will never allow this “taxing of the rich” to cut into their often obscene bottom lines.

    And I fear it’s only going to get worse.

  2. Plain Jane
    October 9, 2011 at 7:43 am

    Lots of studies coming out that show income inequality slows economic growth. Imagine that.

  3. Me
    October 9, 2011 at 8:05 am

    there’s lots of studies coming out that show the opposite. I can find a study that would support just about anything.

    Saying this without any specifics means nothing.

    Imagine that

  4. October 9, 2011 at 8:10 am

    The “memory” of Reagan is as good as Reagan’s memory was in his final years. People have this god-like image of him that he never lived up to, and the things he said then would not fly now. Tea Party Parrots continue to parade him about, though, as does our current president. Both can’t be right, or can they?

  5. Plain Jane
    October 9, 2011 at 8:19 am

    Sorry, Me. I assumed that people reading this blog have computers and access to the internet to do their own research. Apparently you have a nanny lock on yours which prohibits that, so here you go:

    http://www.depeco.econo.unlp.edu.ar/maestria/topicosdis/pdfs/guillermo/gottschalk%20basic%20facts%20mobility.pdf

    http://qed.econ.queensu.ca/pub/faculty/lloyd-ellis/econ835/readings/deininger.pdf

    http://washingtonindependent.com/112989/florida-study-shows-income-inequality-slows-economic-growth

    http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2011/sdn1108.pdf

    Sorry, I couldn’t find a single study which said the opposite. Now its your turn.

  6. Plain Jane
    October 9, 2011 at 8:23 am

    I posted 4 links to studies which prove income inequality slows economic growth, but it’s in moderation. I can’t find a single study which contradicts them. Imagine that.

  7. Me
    October 9, 2011 at 8:24 am

    Where?

  8. Plain Jane
    October 9, 2011 at 8:25 am

    Do you know what “in moderation” means, Me? Are you hung over or just stupid?

  9. Plain Jane
    October 9, 2011 at 8:27 am

    I’ll post them one link at a time so the filter will let them through.

    Plain Jane says:
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    October 9, 2011 at 8:19 am
    Sorry, Me. I assumed that people reading this blog have computers and access to the internet to do their own research. Apparently you have a nanny lock on yours which prohibits that, so here you go:

    http://www.depeco.econo.unlp.edu.ar/maestria/topicosdis/pdfs/guillermo/gottschalk%20basic%20facts%20mobility.pdf

  10. Plain Jane
  11. Plain Jane
  12. Me
    October 9, 2011 at 8:28 am

    Actually I know what it usually means but i don’t understand it in your context. But thanks for calling names. That helped me learn.

  13. Plain Jane
    October 9, 2011 at 8:28 am

    #4:

    http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2011/sdn1108.pdf

    Sorry, I couldn’t find a single study which said the opposite. Now its your turn.

  14. Me
    October 9, 2011 at 8:29 am

    Thanks, your posts hadn’t shown up before my last post

  15. Plain Jane
    October 9, 2011 at 8:41 am

    Can anyone explain in what context “in moderation” with regard to posts made but not showing would be confusing?

  16. Me
    October 9, 2011 at 8:50 am

    I actually post very little on blogs and honestly did not understand what you meant. Got it figured out now. Probably because i’m not stupid nor hung over.

    I’m not sure why you couldn’t have just explained. If I had known you were posting links I never would have said anything. I would have just waited until they showed up so I could read them.

  17. Plain Jane
    October 9, 2011 at 8:58 am

    Here’s another study:

    Searching for the Supposed Benefits of Higher Inequality

    http://www.peri.umass.edu/fileadmin/pdf/working_papers/working_papers_251-300/WP258.pdf

    You made a claim but provided no links.

    It seems obvious that inequality causes slower economic growth, but now there are studies which prove it. And not just in the US in times of crisis, but all over the world. In fact, there is growing evidence that the greater the income inequality, the more likely economic crises will occur.

  18. Mitch
    October 9, 2011 at 9:15 am

    Me,

    I hope you’ll post your reaction to reading the studies that PJ has pointed out.

    Your initial stance, “you’ve got studies, I’ve got studies,” has been sold to the public as a clever response to those who cite the weight of scientific evidence.

    As with tobacco and climate change, subgroups *can* buy their own studies that say what they want them to say. But they can’t change the overwhelming balance of the evidence, and they therefore can’t change the majority of the studies. So they put out their own bought-and-paid-for studies and assert “you’ve got studies, I’ve got studies,” hoping and assuming that the public will remain too lazy to bother trying to tell which studies are real and which are pure purchased propaganda.

    It would make my day if someone who’d parroted the propaganda line actually discovered that it was propaganda and not truth.

  19. Bolithio
    October 9, 2011 at 9:27 am

    ra ra @ PJ 825. Relax honey – where all in this together!

  20. Me
    October 9, 2011 at 9:28 am

    Mitch,
    That was actually my point. I actually agree with Jane’s position. I did not understand that she had posted links at that time as her 8:19 post had not shown up. I was trying to point out, maybe not clearly, that saying there are studies means nothing as anybody can buy a study to prove anything they want.

    She did get a little cranky though.

  21. Plain Jane
    October 9, 2011 at 9:34 am

    That would turn decades of socio / psychological studies on their ears, Mitch. I’ve actually seen instances of where someone “gets it” momentarily, but they shortly revert back to their former views, usually based information from the same, already discredited, source. It’s what they want to believe. I’ve given up on the hope of conversion, but appreciate the stimulus to broaden and deepen my own knowledge in these discussions.

  22. Plain Jane
    October 9, 2011 at 9:39 am

    You’re right, Me. I do get cranky when people respond as you did. I shouldn’t assume that everyone who posts here has enough interest in the topic to have read news about it. But you see, I get slammed for posting links to facts as opposed to my own opinions; and I get slammed for not posting links to support a statement that has been in the news and on the opinion pages of all the major newspapers around the world for months. I just can’t win.

  23. October 9, 2011 at 9:54 am

    It has been known to humanity for several hundred years that concentration of wealth leads to economic and social stagnation and then ulitimately to the chaos of revolution. This was settled in the Enlightenment.

    This is the reason that progressive taxation – that is taxing the wealthy at a higher percentage than the poor- was invented. That is the estate taxes were invented. All to counter the bad social effects of concentrated wealth.

    There is such a thing as human progress. This was all settled and agreed upon 300 years ago.

    have a peaceful day,
    Bill

  24. Plain Jane
    October 9, 2011 at 9:58 am

    Which proves how powerful and effective the right wing propaganda machine has become, Bill. Repeat, repeat, repeat.

  25. Mitch
    October 9, 2011 at 9:59 am

    Bill writes: “There is such a thing as human progress. This was all settled and agreed upon 300 years ago.”

    And, sadly, there’s such a thing as human regress. This has been evident since the mid-to-late 70s, at least.

  26. Thorstein Veblen
    October 9, 2011 at 10:18 am

    I notice a few right wingers on tv talking about the french revolution, like this OWS is akin to it and is a bad thing. But my impression is that the french revolution, on the whole, was a good thing. The alternative was to continue a corrupt regime with growing inequality of incomes and outcomes, and increasingly improverished masses of people. Hmmm, maybe some similarities after all.

    30 years ago I couldn’t have imagined that Democrats would be considered lefties for repeating Reagan ideology. And that there would be such fear of democracy by a sizeable portion of our people. This is truly a bizarro world we live in.

  27. Plain Jane
    October 9, 2011 at 10:22 am

    These people would have been British monarchists in our revolution, Thorstein.

  28. tra
    October 9, 2011 at 10:29 am

    “This was settled in the Enlightenment”

    Apparently some prefer the Dark Ages.

  29. tra
    October 9, 2011 at 10:36 am

    Of course you don’t actually have to go all the way back to the Dark Ages to find income disparity similar to what we see today — you just have to look back as far as the period leading up to the Great Depression.

    Here are four easy-to-understand charts that demonstrate the outcome of decades of “class warfare” (waged by the super-wealthy against the rest of us):

    http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/10/03/334156/top-five-wealthiest-one-percent/

    According to the last chart:

    From 1960-1969, about 10% the nation’s income gains went to the top 1%, while about 65% of the nation’s income gains went to the bottom 90%.

    From 2002-2007, about 64% of the nation’s income gains went to the top 1% and only about 12% of the nation’s income gains went to the bottom 90%.

    The only other time period in American history that had a comparable level of disparity in income growth was in the decade leading up to the Great Depression (when the top 1% were pulling in 70% of the nation’s income gains).

  30. Plain Jane
    October 9, 2011 at 10:48 am

    And then there is the evidence that countries with less income inequality and greater financial regulation weren’t so negatively impacted by the great recession. Of course, greater income inequality enables greater political power to achieve legislation, including that which further increases income inequality. Is this a great system or what?

  31. tra
    October 9, 2011 at 10:50 am

    With all the squealing about how any attempt to increase taxes on the rich and super-rich amounts to “class warfare,” it’s helpful to keep a little perspective:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/how-obamas-tax-hikes-will-really-impact-the-rich-in-three-easy-charts/2011/03/03/gIQAmbbLIL_blog.html

    These three charts illustrate both (1) how huge the average after-tax income of the top 1% is, and (2) how little they are being asked to sacrifice even if the current proposals to raise their taxes were to pass.

    Of course these facts will not stop the super-rich from squealing like stuck pigs…but knowing the facts does make it easier for those of us in the 99% to realize just how ridiculous that squealing is.

  32. Plain Jane
    October 9, 2011 at 10:53 am

    I could tolerate the leg humper if it EVER contributed anything to the discussions. But all it does is hump, hump hump. It should be neutered.

  33. Anonymous
    October 9, 2011 at 11:29 am

    Tra, Jane, and Bill, you are truly too stupid for words!

  34. tra
    October 9, 2011 at 11:47 am

    It appears that 1129 is unable to refute the facts.

  35. Migh Finances
    October 9, 2011 at 12:49 pm

    O.K. 11:29 was me.

    I just know in my gut that it’s wrong to limit the wealth people are allowed to accumulate.

    Doing so crushes the aspirations of every young American who dreams of looting the U.S. Treasury in bailouts, having 700 imperial military bases protecting their access to other nation’s child-labor and natural resources, enjoying a justice system dedicated to enforcing their contracts, and all without having to pay one dime in corporate taxes.

    Liberals are dream killers!

  36. King George
    October 9, 2011 at 12:57 pm

    Alas, had I not accumulated such wealth, there would be no “U.S.”

  37. Alf
    October 9, 2011 at 1:00 pm

    11;29 Is that the Brady Bunch checking in? Lo info bloggers LOL.

  38. Anonymous
    October 10, 2011 at 1:08 am

    ‘Not my time’: New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie ended speculation today about whether he will run for president in 2012, saying he will not. “Now is not my time,” Christie told reporters at the New Jersey Statehouse. His decision means that three months before primary voting is set to begin, the Republican race remains focused on two men: former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and Texas Gov. Rick Perry.

    Christie was joined by Gov. Bobby Jindal in Baton Rouge last week for a private fundraiser at Rob Arkley’s home, according to someone present at the event.

    Read more about Christie’s decision not to run in the Newark, N.J.-based Star-Ledger.

  39. Anonymous
  40. Tea & Cracker Party Patriot
    October 10, 2011 at 7:29 am

    This is an obvious fake CGI animation produced by Soros and his fellow travelers in Hollywood. Our National Savior would never speak commie garbage like this.

  41. October 10, 2011 at 7:50 am

    “I just know in my gut that it’s wrong to limit the wealth people are allowed to accumulate.” 12:49

    I won’t even get out of bed unless I can make 400 times
    what my workers make.
    To bridle me would crush my aspirations.

  42. High Finance
    October 10, 2011 at 11:45 am

    Who gave you the right to decide how much others are allowed to earn ?

  43. Plain Jane
    October 10, 2011 at 11:52 am

    No one, HiFi. But the constitution gives the people the right to decide how much to tax via their representatives.

  44. October 10, 2011 at 11:57 am

    Do you have employees High Finance? Who gives you the right to decide how much they are allowed to earn?

    I know, another day, another unanswerable question. You should consult a philosopher, Hi Fi.

    have a peaceful day,
    Bill

  45. High Finance
    October 10, 2011 at 3:01 pm

    My employees are free to leave & work for others Bill. I do not decide how much they are allowed to make. I can only decide how much I can afford to pay them.

    A huge difference Bill, do you understand the difference ?

    Yey PJ, that is what Dillinger, Baby Face Nelson & Bonnie & Clyde said also. The gangsters took our money with a gun. The politicians do it with a pen.

  46. Plain Jane
    October 10, 2011 at 3:29 pm

    Don’t you believe in the constitution, HiFi?

  47. Anonymous
    October 10, 2011 at 4:00 pm

    “…that is what Dillinger, Baby Face Nelson & Bonnie and Clyde said also.”

    So that’s what a stillborn analogy looks like. Ewww.

  48. Apologist Not
    October 10, 2011 at 4:37 pm

    Hi-Liar only believes in a Constitution that allows corporations the right to outsource jobs under the protection of over 700 foreign military bases, a court system enforcing corporate contracts, and a stable currency.

    Hi-Liar doesn’t like the public, (that’s subsidizing it), to have a say in taxation.

    Just pay the bills and STFU!

    Hi-Liar is a traitor.

  49. Anonymous
    October 10, 2011 at 4:39 pm

    High Finance says:
    October 10, 2011 at 11:45 am

    “Who gave you the right to decide how much others are allowed to earn” ?

    You voted for Reagan twice, surely you can answer your own question moron!

  50. Bolithio
    October 10, 2011 at 5:13 pm

    Personally I think the ‘tax the rich’ slogan is bad news. People are too liable to misunderstand that. And what is rich? Its sort of like a ‘what is old growth?’ issue. Grey. Intentionally.

    We need to shift the compass to corporate tax. From all I can tell, the most significant problem is the corrupt tax system. Close the loop holes – for real – and set fair rates. Trying to frame it as an ideological war on greed is about as misguided as the war on terror.

  51. Anonymous
    October 10, 2011 at 5:21 pm

    Reagan’s philosophy was by lowering taxes to a fair level, more taxes would be paid. Do that without trillion dollar deficits and we may have a bright future.

  52. Plain Jane
    October 10, 2011 at 6:16 pm

    Reagan lowered some taxes and raised others. Lots of working class families ended up with higher taxes than they paid before Reagan.

  53. Mitch
    October 10, 2011 at 6:49 pm

    Bolithio,

    Corporate taxes are extremely problematic. If you want a progressive tax system, you want to be able to tax individuals based on their income. Corporate taxes would effectively be evenly distributed amongst all shareholders, eliminating the possibility of progressivity.

    I think every corporation should (if they aren’t already required to) allocate any retained earnings on a per-share basis, and the shareholders should be taxed annually on their share of the retained earnings, just as shareholders now pay taxes on their dividends and capital gains.

    I also think the tax system should be used to make it very unprofitable to have 100 to 1 spreads between the most highly paid executive and the most low paid employee. One tax I /would/ like to see corporations pay would consist of a heavy tax on any salaries or bonuses exceeding 10x or 20x what the lowest paid employee makes. Something has to be done to reign in obscene executive pay — executives have not suddenly become worth 10x what they were 10 years ago.

  54. Anonymous
    October 10, 2011 at 7:19 pm

    Give them a few more years patenting life-forms and distributing terminator seeds, and all that stuff about taxes won’t matter much.

  55. Plain Jane
    October 10, 2011 at 7:27 pm

    You don’t think CEO’s like Leo Apethecker should be paid $25 Million for failure after 11 months on top of his $1.2 M salary, $4 M signing bonus and 4.6 M in relocation expenses? Imagine how badly he would have done if they had only paid him $500,000 a year!

  56. High Finance
    October 11, 2011 at 9:58 am

    One thing this blog proves for certain. Greed is not limited to the wealthy but runs rampant through the poor and middle class as well.

    PJ, Mitch, 4.39pm and Apologist Not are prime examples.

  57. October 11, 2011 at 10:01 am

    There goes HiFi again, pretending everyone he disagrees with is envious of him.

  58. Plain Jane
    October 11, 2011 at 10:16 am

    That’s all he has, H. People who want a tax system that actually works for the benefit of all Americans must be jealous because if they weren’t they would be cheering for the US to become a third world country where, believe it or not, the wealth inequality is even worse than ours. If he had half a brain he would be able to understand that when most wealth is concentrated at the top there is little commerce to support any businesses. Short sighted greed is what is destroying this country and HiFi cheers for it.

  59. High Finance
    October 11, 2011 at 11:16 am

    One thing we can be sure of, nobody is envious of you Heraldo.

  60. October 11, 2011 at 11:42 am

    The progressive tax rate protects our domestic industry.

    Hurwitz, would he have pulled a gazillion dollars a year
    from Palco if he had to face a progressive tax rate?

    Tax the rich doesn’t just suggest a bit of social equity it also protects our industries from arbitragers.
    Mr. HiFi how do you address arbitrage.

  61. October 11, 2011 at 11:46 am

    You only wish, desperately so, for people to envy you, HiFi.

  62. Plain Jane
    October 11, 2011 at 11:51 am

    Only people like HiFi envy people like HiFi. I’d feel sorry for him if he wasn’t such an ignorant anti-American hater doing his damnedest to destroy this country for his own profit.

  63. High Finance
    October 11, 2011 at 12:09 pm

    PJ, your comments are sillier & more hysterical than ever today.

  64. Plain Jane
    October 11, 2011 at 12:13 pm

    And yours are just the same, tired old corporate hackery, HiFi. You can’t refute the facts so you are left with pathetic insults. People are waking up to the fact that corporations and people like you are traitors and like most traitors, you do it for money. Shame on you!

  65. Apologist Not
    October 11, 2011 at 12:26 pm

    In an actual debate Hi Fi would be laughed out of the room, he wouldn’t have lasted a second on Firing Line.

    He never offers any sources because he has only bigotry, sophistry, lies, and epithets to work with.

    The American empire is teetering, and it’s not due to Hi-Liar’s homeless defecating in bushes.

  66. Plain Jane
    October 11, 2011 at 12:31 pm

    Thanks for your misplaced concern, HiFi. You should get out of that Fox bubble and check out what the majority of people are saying today. The corporatocracy that you so love is going to be dismantled and democracy re-established. I’ll donate to the therapy you’ll require if you are ever to rejoin humanity, but not holding out much hope because sociopaths are very resistant to treatment.

  67. High Finance
    October 11, 2011 at 12:32 pm

    Just trying to help PJ.

  68. Not A Native
    October 11, 2011 at 12:32 pm

    C’mon, at least Hi Fi 9:58 acknowledges that the rich are greedy. Thats a big admission by someone who formerly declared that their wealth accrues solely from the benefits society receive from their efforts.

    Good show Hi Fi, even if you did it unconsciously in making a false argument that poor people are no less greedy than the rich.

  69. Mitch
    October 11, 2011 at 12:52 pm

    I’m envious of Heraldo, HiFi. He/she/they has created something of great value. He/she/they just doesn’t charge for it.

    There are many FACTS about Humboldt County that I’d have never learned were it not for the Herald. I can’t offer the same compliment to the paid news sources.

  70. October 11, 2011 at 12:53 pm

    A question for you High Finance.

    Do you believe in freedom?

  71. Plain Jane
    October 11, 2011 at 1:08 pm

    That doesn’t compute with people like HiFi, Mitch. They don’t believe anything that is free has value. If it isn’t for sale to the highest bidder, they have no interest in preserving it. You can look at their views on polluting the commons, buying our government and privatizing everything for profit.

  72. High Finance
    October 11, 2011 at 1:37 pm

    Everybody is “greedy” NAN, everybody. Your types fool yourselves into thinking only the rich are greedy by narrowly defining the word.

    Bill, I don’t answer stupid questions. Try again.

    PJ, you think the government could do a better job by taking over the Herald & running it ?

  73. Plain Jane
    October 11, 2011 at 1:41 pm

    HiFi, I don’t answer stupid questions. Try again.

  74. October 11, 2011 at 1:41 pm

    Everybody is “greedy” NAN, everybody.

    No, not everybody. You’re projecting.

  75. Anonymous
    October 11, 2011 at 1:45 pm

    do you hold an elected position HiFi?

  76. WhatNow
    October 11, 2011 at 2:08 pm

    On October 11, 2011 at 1:37 pm
    High Finance said:

    1)Everybody is “greedy” NAN, everybody. Your types fool yourselves into thinking only the rich are greedy by narrowly defining the word.

    2)Bill, I don’t answer stupid questions. Try again.

    3)PJ, you think the government could do a better job by taking over the Herald & running it ?

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Once again, this ever narcisstic shitstain demonstrates his belief that he’s the ultimate litmus test for understanding everyone’s value system and conscience.

    Having continually posted inane,ignorant, and sickeningly distorted views on a range of issues, when faced with a challenge to his twsited musings he retorts with his usual ad hominem attacks.

    Any government (and any society for that matter), absent loathesome, low life troglodytes like Highly Fried would be able to accomplish goddamn nearly anything.

    It’s having to fight the weight and drag of sociopathic lowlifes like “Migh Tai” that complicates any and all social structures.

  77. WhatNow
    October 11, 2011 at 2:09 pm

    “Anonymous says:
    October 11, 2011 at 1:45 pm
    do you hold an elected position HiFi?”

    In his tiny little mind, he’s emperoro of the known universe.

  78. High Finance
    October 11, 2011 at 2:28 pm

    Whatnow is a very immature child. Unable to tolerate dissenting views he can only attack. Much of his problem is that he feels inadequate and only the anonymity of the internet allows him to puff up like some tough guy.

    In real life he can only shuffle along and keep his head low.

    No 1.45pm I do not hold elective office. I would be too frustrated with the glacial speed of government bureacracy.

  79. October 11, 2011 at 3:43 pm

    Tch Tch Hi Fi you have positively confirmed that old adage, “There is no such thing as a stupid question…..” and you know how the rest of it goes.

    Since even the dumbest student deserves a second chance, here it is: “Do you believe in freedom?”

    have a peaceful day,
    Bill

  80. October 11, 2011 at 3:47 pm

    I believe you hi fi when you say you aren’t an elected official because no one could get elected saying the things you say. Even if you were careful some of the crazy would slip out of your mouth in the heat of the campaign.

    I do think though that you might work in the government bureaucracy at some level or if not there then in some tax farming non-profit.

    In 100s of comments here I have never seen one indication that you have any idea how to run a company in the private sector competitive environment. It is just beyond your knowledge and it shows. And your math skills are rudimentary. Sorry bro (or sis.)

    have a peaceful day,
    Bill

  81. High Finance
    October 11, 2011 at 4:28 pm

    LOL. I have been in the private sector all my life.

    Everyone professes their devotion to freedom even though many do not believe in it. Many of those, like you, don’t even realize their non belief. The biggest threat to our freedom is the federal & state government.

    I want to limit the power of the government except to protect people and provide a few basic services, like roads, that the private sector cannot. Almost by definition, liberals want to increase it.

  82. High Finance
    October 11, 2011 at 4:30 pm

    But do pray tell us Bill, why don’t you expand on your vast & successful experience in running businesses ?

    All I can see from hundreds of your comments is a total lack of understanding of how the business world or real world works. If you are employed, you have never worked for anything other than government.

  83. October 11, 2011 at 4:44 pm

    High Finance,

    I was a casino executive in Nevada for 15 years, managed departments with 50 employees, $10 million a year revenues, and over $1 million annual payrolls. I did it all the scheduling, hiring and firing and promotion all by myself without a secretary or an assistant manager.

    My department operated 24/7, that’s about the scale of running the EPD for 15 years, except my employees were unarmed.

    Your turn. You tell all of us your accomplishments now, we are all ears.

    have a peaceful day,
    Bill

  84. High Finance
    October 12, 2011 at 8:18 am

    Well gee Bill, it sounds like you were a flunkie not even worth a secretary or even an assistant.

  85. October 12, 2011 at 8:44 am

    No 1.45pm I do not hold elective office.

    So you regularly break into someone else’s office and use his computer?

  86. Plain Jane
    October 12, 2011 at 8:50 am

    Shame on you, HiFi! I’ve never had much respect for you, but your insult of Bill’s impressive work history is a new low even for you.

  87. October 12, 2011 at 9:22 am

    You asked me a question and I answered it, High Finance.

    Now give us your bona fides, its your turn.

    You see your lack of experience in the private sector shows when you call me a flunky for not having a secretary. The people I worked for valued a lean operation, but they paid me well for the work. People who have really worked in the private sector know that this is the way it is. You don’t.

    have a peaceful day,
    Bill

  88. Mitch
    October 12, 2011 at 9:30 am

    It’s also possible he works for a dinosaur company, Bill.

    But Heraldo seems to recognize a government IP address, and that sounds about right to me. An awful lot of people in government today shout the loudest about the incompetence of government. I can only guess they are self-aware, and assume it has to be as bad as they are. It doesn’t.

  89. Anonymous
    October 12, 2011 at 9:50 am

    Looks like HiFi has gone missing. :-O

  90. High Finance
    October 12, 2011 at 10:19 am

    HiFi has to work for a living and Heraldo speaks falsely again.

  91. October 12, 2011 at 12:07 pm

    Liar.

  92. October 12, 2011 at 12:22 pm

    What are your private sector qualifications Hifi? You are beginning to look like a poser.

    have a peaceful day,
    Bill

  93. Ed
    October 12, 2011 at 12:31 pm

    ” give him enough rope,…….”

  94. Fact Checker
    October 12, 2011 at 12:39 pm

    High Finance says:
    October 11, 2011 at 4:28 pm

    “The biggest threat to our freedom is the federal & state government….
    Almost by definition, liberals want to increase it.”

    W said the biggest threat to freedom was “terrerism”. Reagan, Bush, and Bush Jr. had deficits, William Jefferson Clinton had a surplus.

  95. Plain Jane
    October 12, 2011 at 12:58 pm

    HiFi has demonstrated a pathological aversion to facts, Checker. It seems to be the major component of frightwing derangement syndrome (FDS).

  96. High Finance
    October 12, 2011 at 1:22 pm

    Josh and the left cannot defend its positions so it must attack anyone that disagrees with it.

  97. Fact Checker
    October 13, 2011 at 8:00 am

    High Barf said:
    October 12, 2011 at 1:22 pm

    “Josh and the left cannot defend its positions so it must attack anyone that disagrees with it.”

    Never mind the facts High Barf. Reagan and Eisenhower were right, you and the Banksters are dead wrong.

  98. Plain Jane
    October 13, 2011 at 8:13 am

    ” give him enough rope,…….”

    pretty please

  99. tra
    October 13, 2011 at 11:05 am

    This just in:

    Bachmann says she wants to adopt the tax rates that we had under Ronald Reagan, because she says they brought about an “economic miracle.”

    But does she realize that tax rates were much higher then, and that therefore what she’s advocating is a massive tax hike?

    http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/10/bachmann-i-want-to-adopt-the-reagan-tax-plan-psstthose-taxes-were-higher.php?ref=fpblg

  100. Bob Morse
    April 11, 2012 at 3:48 pm

    For those of you who claim there is no contrdictory evidence, try this web site http://www.freeeconhelp.com/2012/03/does-income-inequality-slow-economic.html

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s