Oh, maybe they should go ahead with their literacy test, EVERYONE has to take it. I think the majority of these folks would not pass any serious US history or civics test.

I'll bet half of Congress couldn't pass a US History or civics test.

Palin's so stupid, I'll lay even odds she pushes for a repeal of the 19th Amendment. Anyone broadcasting this?

Utterly hilarious! I'd love to see those morans take a "literacy test." They should be careful what they hope for...

Had we a literacy test in 2000, GWBush would never have come close enough for the supremes to get involved.

just sayin'

In Funny Times Feb 2010, Will Durst told the following joke: "Easy to understand why [the Teabaggers] are so leery of public health care when you realize how obviously they've been failed by our public education system."

Being dismissed as a bunch of mentally challenged racists is why this movement is going to succeed. You'll hear our response in the voting booth.

We do need competence tests for every federal representative. Think about it --- we require hair-dressers, insurance agents, doctors, lawyers, electricians etc... to pass competence tests in this country, but the people who vote on legislation that affects our future are not required to demonstrate any competence at all. We should have something akin to the bar exam for every candidate, before they are allowed to even run for office.

I never failed anyone who didn't earn it.

It's important to separate the "teacher" part of the system, which is generally pretty competent, from the "admnistrative/bureaucratic" part of the system (i.e. my bosses), which is pretty incompetent. (Which, by the way, is why a lot of them go into administration to begin with - they are not competent in the classroom.) The education system has/is failing in many respects...but not because of the teachers.

I know it was a joke, but we a fairly maligned profession, us teachers, when in all fairness we do the best we can with what we have to work with.

Furthermore I think what really fails our country (and people like the teabaggers in general) is a lack of respect for actually being educated. Educated people are somehow "elitist"? For being educated? I don't get it (I'm uneducated in the psychology of being uneducated!) And the truth is (to continue my above point about the difference between administration and teaching) that being educated as a teacher is seen as something to be 'managed' by administration, because they don't want us to 'put off' parents by being too smart, coming across as arrogant, pompous, know-it-all (does that sound familiar? Why, it's just exactly why teabaggers don't like us liberals - we think we know too much!)

I'll share a very recent example, something I got in "trouble" for just a couple of days ago: I somehow got on a bulk email list originating with a parent of one of my students, and I received this (as did a number of my colleagues):

Keep the prayer going please.

Lord, I just want to say THANK YOU, because this morning I woke up and knew where my children were. Because this morning my home was still standing, because this morning I am not crying because my husband, my child, my brother or sister needs to be buried out from underneath a pile of concrete, because this morning I was able to drink a glass of water, because this morning I was able to turn on the light, because this morning I was able to take a shower, because this morning I was not planning a funeral, but most of all I thank you this morning because I still have life and a voice to cry out for the people of Haiti. Lord I cry out to you, the one that makes the impossible, possible, the one that turns darkness in to light, I cry out that you give those mothers strength, that you give them peace that surpasses all understanding, that you may open the streets so that help can come, that you may provide doctors, nurses, food, water, and all that they need in a blink of an eye. For all those that have lost family members, give them peace, give them hope, give them courage to continue to go on! Protect the children and shield them with your power. I pray all this in the name of Jesus!!! To all my friends please continue to forward this so that we can pray together for the people in Haiti . We here are truly blessed!!!!!

So I responded, en masse...

While I understand the sentiment of this note to the people of Haiti who are in dire circumstances, praying to Jesus or any other mythical entities will not resolve their issues. An honest study of Haitian history will reveal that Western colonialism is a big part of the reason that Haiti remains to this day the poorest nation in the hemisphere, and institutions like the World Bank and the IMF keep countries like Haiti in a position of Economic Slavery.

If you are really interested in understanding the plight of countries like Haiti, read

Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by John Perkins
A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn
and read journalist Greg Palast's blog at www.gregpalast.com

The earthquake that devastated Haiti was nobody's fault but Mother Nature. The aftermath is a disaster decades in the making.

**PS I'm sure you didn't expect a response like this, but it is one of the hazards of sending bulk emails. I would suggest in the future that you Bcc all of the recipients in mailings like this, or you are apt to get a similar response, at least from me. Cheers!

I got reprimanded not for being right, or educated, or trying to enlighten people a little...but for being challenging, for making people feel badly, for causing tension between the school and the community.

Here's your sign...

Brook @ 6

We do need competence tests for every federal representative.

wow...um...so...you do realize Tancredo wasn't talking about "competence tests" for office holders, right? (the irony filling the gaps here being unbeleivably palpable) And you do realize that what he was calling for is contradictory, on almost every level, to the populist constitutionalism that the tea baggers have bee conned into beleiving they beleive in, right?

Without a condemnation for Tancredo's remarks, I'll have to presume you don't understand any of that, beleive he was referring to "competence tests" for office holders, and thus somewhat underscore his actual (incredibly offensive) point in one of the most ironic (and sad) ways.

I was referring to post # 4 re: competence tests --- which we need to implement.

Tancredo's point was that the voter registration process is out of control in many states, which is why there are lawsuits flying around. The Constitution does not give non-citizens the right to vote.

We happened to be in DC when the tea baggers were there for their rally, and we did see a number of racist signs including - Obama Go Back to Africa. Some of the tea baggers were just interested in the tax or health issues but the presence of the hard core racists was troubling.

The TEA party is quite apt in their name in that they are the heated masses of angry nativists and pseudo- nationalists steeped in a bitter brew of resentment and rage. Want to know where the GnoP's 23 percent went? Here they are. Like you kick over a decaying log in the woods and see a white wiggling mass of goo. Pity that there are legit concerns they express however, the whiff of unexpunged hate and bigotry keeps them from gaining more than a protest vote. Better for all concerned to just pack up the teabagging lot, move to Idaho, and secede from the US. I promise never to ever enter. They must promise to never leave. They can practice their Aryan fapping session to their dark hearts content and we can run the rest of the country in peace.

What's really hilarious is that all of the law and order conservatives that were driving us towards the police state by loading up their local police forces are now crying that they are paying too much in taxes and several towns are now having to cut back on services because of the downturn in tax revenue.

Let them eat cake cop car tires.

Tea Bagger Brook @ 10 tried to backtrack with:

I was referring to post # 4 re: competence tests --- which we need to implement.

Right. Except post #4 did not refer to "competence tests" either. It referred, satirically, to "literacy tests", the same offensive practice that Tea Bag Tancredo offensively opened the Tea Bagger convention yearning for.

(And, to #4's point, though it should go without saying, "literacy tests", such as they were done in the Jim Crowe era, certainly would *not* have kept GWBush from coming close enough that the SCOTUS could give him the election, even though he got fewer votes --- both nationally and in FL --- than Al Gore. If anything, such "laws" would have given Bush a huge margin of victory, since so many minorities would have been kept from voting, as those "laws" were meant to accomplish.

If actual literacy tests were given, since self-identified Republicans have been shown time and again to be far less informed than self-identified Dems, of course, most Dubya voters couldn't have cast a ballot at all. Just as #4 asserts.)

Tancredo's point was that the voter registration process is out of control in many states, which is why there are lawsuits flying around. The Constitution does not give non-citizens the right to vote.

No. That was not Tancredo's point by a long shot. And no, there are not "non-citizens" voting, despite what you democracy-hating, Constitution-loathing, conspiracy theory whacko Republicans-pretending-to-be-independents enjoy pretending. That, of course, is backed up by George W. Bush's own DoJ who put more resources into prosecuting mythical "voter fraud" than any DoJ in the history of this nation. (Here's a bit of help for you on that point.)

I could give u many more links, hundreds if not thousands of them, from this blog, and mountains of peer reviewed evidence all over the place. But it's likely easier for you to come here and play out your misinformed/disinformed fantasies instead of actually trying to educate yourself about actual facts since you are a very helpful stooge for the partisans who are playing you for a sucker on ALL of these points.

Other than that, Tea Bag On, Brook!

Brook at #6 said, "Being dismissed as a bunch of mentally challenged racists is why this movement is going to succeed."

I'd guess the opposite. Coming across as a bunch of mentally challenged racists is why that movement is going to fail.

We should have something akin to the bar exam for every candidate, before they are allowed to even run for office.

Why don't we just hold an election? That seems pretty selective.

Big goverment was never a problem when they were calling the shots. Their hangup is that everyone has a equal voice and have the power to use it. Tancredo is deluding himself if he thinks that he can tap that bitter tea to get back the reigns of power. Demographics are against them. And since the teabaggers have chosen to annoy liberals than increase their population, they have only guaranteed themselves as spoilers for the GnoP for decades to come.

SYD, "decades"? really? I predict no bagger will get more than3% in any election anywhere in the country this fall and by this time next year their corporate creators will have thrown in the towel.

Soul Rebel @8

Good on you, mate!

RE: #10 - "The Constitution does not give non-citizens the right to vote."

The Constitution does not give anyone the right to vote, citizens or non-citizens. The states decide voter qualifications.

Camusrebel (#17)

"I predict no bagger will get more than 3% in any election anywhere in the country this fall.."

I think you're probably right. The problem is what additional percentage will ES&S give them?

The movement is already chalking up gains by forcing Obama to abandon cap and trade and start talking small biz tax cuts and fiscal discipline. Look for more gains in the next election.

It's important to note one of our prime targets is John McCain in the next election. We want him to ride in the AZ sunset, and Lindsey Graham has been sanctioned by the movement as well. This is why he backed off carbon legislation. Obviously GOP candidates are the only ones that are going to get support, unless some progressive Democrats campaign on cutting he size of government and our federal budget. We'll give any candidate a fair hearing. If we help get some new blood elected and they fail in the mission, then it will be time to look at another party in this country.

"We'll give any candidate a fair hearing.."

Brook. Please. I've read all about your Tea Party's intended "purity tests". If by "a fair hearing" you mean you'll NOT burn in effigy any candidates that don't subscribe to the Tea Party's all too recently ignited "big government" paranoia despite the years of unprecedented deficit spending that didn't seem to bother them a bit; if by a "fair hearing" you mean you will actually attempt to HEAR the dissenting voice a candidate with an I.Q over 60 who doesn't need effin' CRIB NOTES to get through a speech packed with friendlies; if you mean your buddies will refrain from shouting them down in a corpuscle busting, heart attack inducing fit of finger-biting rage; if by "a fair hearing" you mean to imply that your Tea Party movement is open (?) minded enough to even pretend to show interest in anything that lies outside the rhetoric of their FOX approved talking points --- then I think you are either:
a) much smarter than your peers
b) unable to grok your own groups' track record for hyperbole and hypocrisy
c) full of shit

I think Spoiled Yapping Pup has summed it all up perfectly.

(Note: I did not once refer to the paranoid, fact-challenged, brainwashed, quarter population as TEATARDS even though Sarah Palin has given me and Rush Limbaugh the okay since we're COMEDIANS. I hope you all realize I am showing considerable restraint.)

Oh, and this:

The movement is already chalking up gains by forcing Obama to abandon cap and trade and start talking small biz tax cuts and fiscal discipline.

Your movement isn't forcing anyone to do anything - other than stop holding town hall meetings because you guys can't be civilized, thus crushing the spirit of debate / free market place of ideas that you guys are always honking on mightily about.

Obama has proven he doesn't need you on the radar to capitulate to jack-asses.

Jeannie, you're being awfully cynical. I'm sure Brook really would consider voting for a progressive Democrat who happens to be a far-right, authoritarian idealogue.

Brook @ 21:

Jeannie Dean already did a sufficient job of addressing your self-delusional inanities, so I won't pile on, other than to respond to this:

Lindsey Graham has been sanctioned by the movement as well. This is why he backed off carbon legislation.

By way of demonstrating how unbelievably disinformed and/or delusional you are, this is from last week's NYTimes:

Seriously, Brook. Get another news source. Fox is not serving you well. Unless you enjoy being played for a fool again and again and again. Up to you.

Brad-
By saying

Gosh, and sure is unfair to paint any of these Tea Baggers as racist, isn't it?

because a keynote speaker spoke, is a strech.

I think then to be fair ALL OF US, you, your readers, and myself are all war-mongers, racists, crusaders and slaughterers of innocents because a guest speaker (Obama) elevates the war. Simply because we are in this country, party, or whatever.

Is that your logic?

Don't get me wrong, I don't like Palin, Limbaugh, Beck or any of those pattsies, but I am not going to call then people the problem.

And just because i know literacy tweaks are on the prowl:

...is a "stretch."

....call "the" people the problem.

Brian...'patsies'. One 't'.

Palin may not be the problem (directly), but she sure as shit isn't the solution.

I've seen the Teabaggers first hand. They are mostly racist, even if they're not holding a racist sign. All you have to do is let them talk for 5 minutes after you mention Obama. Most of them are against educating children. That goes back to that old Libertarian thing of no government agencies that aren't in the original Constitution. Of course, they didn't take the thought process to the next level. While screaming for Charter or home schools (meaning, religious schools get federal money, and selective education- no talk of evolution) they forgot that it's those pesky public schools that educate most of us who couldn't afford to pay for private school. And vouchers for charter schools are not the whole tuition, they're merely vouchers for a portion. Therefore, it would be the ones who could already afford private school getting the vouchers and a discount paid for by the Federal government. This movement wants to take money away from public schools and still wants a literacy test, meaning, if you're not the elite, you don't get an education if they have their way.
It's not just those of color they don't want to vote, it's also the people who aren't well off. Which is most or us. And would include the Tea baggers.

Well, Graham has now shifted AGAIN after being sanctioned by SC conservative groups. He was for shelving climate legislation at town halls. Now, he's back in Washington. Graham is now another on the long list of vets in Congress that need to go.

I'd like for all of you to listen to your solutions to our fiscal problems. The chronic refrain is that "Bush was a spender" so that gives liberals cart-blanche now to keep spending us into oblivion? I mean, c'mon, folks --- this is your argument? Conservatives were sounding the alarm about spending during the Bush years along with the Blue Dogs.

This government is now asking for fresh billions to stimulate jobs in this country, even though they haven't used all the money we already legislated last year for the said purpose. Are you guys down with this? Are you down with using TARP repayments for further expansion of government rather than paying down the deficit, which is exactly what is going on?

Brad- any comment on #26

Sure, Brian. If you like. Was going to let that comment stand on its own, but if you want my feedback...Your analogy is totally off-base.

Now, if "we" as a group, say "The BRAD BLOG National Convention" invited Obama to be a speaker, the opening speaker, and he gave a war mongering speech, and we all applauded him loudly, asked no questions about it, didn't denounce it, etc., then yes, it would be appropriate to suggest "The BRAD BLOG Nation" were war mongerers.

Simply suggesting, however, that because we live in a country where the President has war mongering policies that somehow *I* am a war mongerer is ridiculous. I suppose if I applauded those policies, voted for him, promoted them appreciatively, etc. you could make that argument. But I have not done so, have been critical of those policies, as (I think) have you. So why would I or you be tarred by what he says?

Your comparison is nothing like what happened last week in Nashville, and I've still yet to see a single tea bagger denounce Tancredo or his comments. Quite the opposite, they've been justifying them!

Brook @ 30:

No. You don't get to keep dropping turds in the punchbowl, moving the goalposts after you're proven to be clueless time and time again. Either support your continuously inaccurate allegations, take 'em elsewhere. The bullshit is getting real tiresome, and I've got better things to do than to continually correct your endless misinformation.

Well, Graham has now shifted AGAIN after being sanctioned by SC conservative groups. He was for shelving climate legislation at town halls.

And your evidence for that? Or are you just making it up and/or parroting bullshit that you've been told by Fox and friends?

The chronic refrain is that "Bush was a spender" so that gives liberals cart-blanche now to keep spending us into oblivion? I mean, c'mon, folks --- this is your argument?

No. They are not. So, again, unless you can support your argument with evidence, knock it off, move along, or I'll be forced to presume you're purposely posting disinformation here.

The argument was that folks like YOU have suddenly become concerned about government spending now that there is a Democratic President, when you didn't give a damn about it for the previous 8 years, allowing your Big Government "President" to grow the government to an historically unprecedented size.

As to spending *now*, if you're not in favor of it, you haven't a clue about either economics or history. Go educate yourself. And not at Fox "News", k? Because they have played you for a stooge.

Conservatives were sounding the alarm about spending during the Bush years along with the Blue Dogs.

Really? Who? The only one who I know of who did that, the only *real* conservative Republican in Congress, was Ron Paul, and you people marginalized him, called him names, said he was crazy, from Mars, shut him out out Republican debates, and everything else in the world.

Beyond him, I'm unaware of any actual conservatives in Congress in the Republican Party.

Are you down with using TARP repayments for further expansion of government rather than paying down the deficit, which is exactly what is going on?

Don't know who "you guys" is. We don't think in lockstep around here (perhaps you're thinking of a different type of group?) But as far as I'm concerned, yes, now is not the time to start "paying down the deficit" given the state of the economy. And, as I said, if you don't understand why, you've got no clue about either economics or history.

i think what we should be asking is,,,,how do less than 600 people,with a main speaker that quit half way thru her term get this kinda press?

Attention braindead morons, teabaggers, etc...those against the public option and single payer:

39% increase in California:

Obama admin. demands justification for health insurer’s 39 percent rate hike

Insurer spent nearly $9.5 million lobbying against health reforms; CEO's annual salary tops $10 million

http://rawstory.com/2010...n-demands-justification/

Shove THAT up your arse!!! Keep on protesting!!!

COMMENT #34 [Permalink]
... karenfromillinois said on 2/8/2010 @ 11:06 am PT...

i think what we should be asking is,,,,how do less than 600 people,with a main speaker that quit half way thru her term get this kinda press?

Exactly! This is further proof that the corporate owned mainstream media is NOT liberal. It's a sham.

Thanks for the reply Brad,
very well thought out and I hear your point.
I guess I might ask if you pay taxes?
(No you don't HAVE to answer, but for the record I have refused for 6 years now.)
But again, I hear your point.

Once again, we ask Brad Friedman to lead us out of the $ 12 trillion wilderness --- oh and the multi-trillions extra we're going to need for Social Security and Medicare. What solutions is he offering us?

Friedman's response? I'm a hypocrite for asking the question. It does lead one to question how much Brad has even considered the implications of what we are facing.

Middle class Americans are looking for solutions, folks. They're not impressed by the intellectual hubris of liberals, which is why the wisdom of cutting the size, scope, and authority of the federal government is gaining traction. Try a little Earl Gray. You might like it.

Brook @ 38 rolled off the turnip truck with:

Friedman's response? I'm a hypocrite for asking the question. It does lead one to question how much Brad has even considered the implications of what we are facing.

No, you're a hypocrite for not giving a damn about the irresponsible spending of the federal government over the previous 8 years until you became a sore loser and didn't get your candidate in the White House.

It was *your* President and *your* Congress that led us into this deficit wilderness, after they were left with a surplus, and you didn't bother with your phony patriotism until after your folks had driven the bus off the cliff. If you're unaware of my warnings about all of that --- oh, and Ron Paul's, who you guys treated like a joke --- about running two wars, at least one of them unnecessary without bothering to pay for them, an $800 billion prescription drug plan, unpaid for, removal of oversight for corporations that bled you dry and then you bailed outl, and --- the biggest anchor of all --- Dubya's trillions in tax cuts for the rich.

None of which you gave a damn about as you "pulled the lever" twice Dubya, until you were unable to "win" another election, so decided to show up and be a pretend "patriot", but one who wouldn't know a true conservative principle if it bit you in the ass. And, by the way, the fake conservatism you've been fooled into believing in, has bitten you in the ass.

And all you can think to say is: Please sir, may I have another? Oh, and Liberals is bad cuz Fox, Rush, and Glenn told me so.

Stooge.

Brian R @ 37:

for the record I have refused for 6 years now.

Yeesh. Very terrible idea, Brian.

KarenFromIllinois @ 34 said:

how do less than 600 people,with a main speaker that quit half way thru her term get this kinda press?

Because the media is "liberal", natch (right Brook?).

Of course, 2400 at the last NetRoot Nation Conv. and how many of the cable outlets were there? Did CNN have 11 staffers there like they did in Nashville?

Of course, there was a major Presidential candidate at Tea Bag Nation this weekend unlike when Clinton, Edwards, Biden, etc. showed up to NetRoots Nation.

Oh, and then there were those Ron Paul Revolution Tea Parties (you know, the real ones) in 2007 and 2008 with bigger crowds than the Tea Baggers get, but no coverage.

I could go on and on now. So I won't.

But I'll point you to my latest --- not unrelated story --- instead.

Rightwing media: Palin is "folksy", "down to earth", and a "busy mom" (why not busy HOCKEY mom???) for writing crib notes on her hands.

http://mediamatters.org/research/201002080024

COMMENT #38 [Permalink]
... Brook said on 2/8/2010 @ 7:48 pm PT...

Middle class Americans are looking for solutions, folks. They're not impressed by the intellectual hubris of liberals, which is why the wisdom of cutting the size, scope, and authority of the federal government is gaining traction.

Where were you from 2000 to 2008??? We're spending 2.5 billion a week on the wars of lies at last count.

Intellectual hubris? How funny. Teabagger types and Bush jockeys love hubris, they just hate the intellectual part.

Brook tiresomely blathered,

Once again, we ask Brad Friedman to lead us out of the $ 12 trillion wilderness --- oh and the multi-trillions extra we're going to need for Social Security and Medicare. What solutions is he offering us?

Sorry, Brook, what was your solution again? Oh, cut taxes, right? Yeah, that'll fix budget shortfalls right quick.

"Middle class Americans are looking for solutions, folks."

The only factual thing you said, and--surprise--the only one that isn't a senseless, spit-up partisan squawking point.

"They're not impressed by the intellectual hubris of liberals. . . . "

Sorry, who are you to speak on behalf of middle-class Americans? I still don't think I've heard.

More importantly, if any large segment of middle-class Americans honestly believes that liberals' intellectualism is to blame for our present economic riptide, it only speaks to that segment's own gullibility and willful ignorance, and to the press's ongoing failure to distinguish itself from a propaganda machine.

" . . . which is why the wisdom of cutting the size, scope, and authority of the federal government is gaining traction."

Oh! So you're only interested in paring down the federal ficus when there are liberals in charge. You really do have a good reason for having stood idly by while never-blush Bush sold more of this country's future to China than every previous president combined, while creating layer after layer of federal extra-structure. Conservatives can spend all they want, so long as they're not liberals.

I'm amazed the cognitive dissonance hasn't caused your head to implode yet. Honestly, Brook, I've tried to talk to you as a human being, but you seem to have no interest in being anything more than a mockingbird. I'm starting to agree with Brad's assessment, as post by post you look more like some sort of self-styled agent provocateur. It's like you're arcing haphazardly from lightning rod to lightning rod expecting to somehow burn down the house. You've made it pretty clear you're not here to discuss anything.

The Teabag movement represents the collective resentment of thousands of people who, while they don't know much, do know that they are stupid. And they hate us for being...not stupid...

Sarah Palin is absolutely the perfect leader for their kind of idiocy. Really, though, it's just like "Your chocolate got in my peanut butter..."

Soul, what we know is that politicians take more money out of our pocket than any corporation. I've already pointed out it's 50% for middle class folks. Half my cell bill is tax, for example. Add it up, my friends.

In exchange for this we've got states, municipalities, and a federal government drowning in debt. Instead of dealing with this 4 alarm fire going off around the country, Congress is fighting climate change and trying to pass a health bill that even liberals have denounced. Anyone want to keep preaching the wisdom of Democrats?

The McCain's, Grahams, Hatch's and every other GOP shill for the globalist New World Order have to go, but so do the Leahy's, Kerry's, and Feinsteins. McCain is first, and we've got a good shot at removing him. Would that the progressives would wake up and do the same in their party.

Brook @47

50% of the Federal debt is owed to the Federal Reserve, a private banking cartel.

ALL...I repeat ALL of your income taxes goes to pay the Federal Reserve debt.

So yes it's corporations that are picking your pockets, the Federal Reserve, Wall Street et al...

They've done an outstanding job of bait and switch...they're blaming the nation's problems on "big government", when in actuality it's the corporatcracy and the Federal Reserve that is your "big government".

You should do more critical research...and stop parroting Tea party untruths.

I'm sick of the tactic, btw, of people on the right/Republicans/teabaggers crying and whining that when people point out they're wrong, stupid, etc...those people are "intellectuals". That is so ridiculous! What kind of logic or sense is that defense?

So in other words, if they're WRONG about something, they don't defend the actual issue, they say the people pointing out that they're wrong are "intellectuals".

Can I say this to all those who keep doing that? FUCK YOU!!!

I'm going to try that: the next time I'm blatantly WRONG about something, my reply will be: "Are you some sort of intellectual???"

CUT THE CRAP OUT WITH THIS "INTELLECTUAL" STUFF OR I'M GOING TO GO BALLISTIC!!!!!!!!!!

Brad @ #40

Yeesh. Very terrible idea, Brian.

I can think of many bad ideas, like supporting the bad ideas of war with my money!Or pretending that paying taxes is the "right" thing to do.

Maybe the bad idea was posting it?
I thought about that, but hell, I know who is right and wrong. And it has nothing to do with legal or illegal.

I also am earning pennies a year, on top of not owning anything. This keeps me out of "trouble."

I must live with some principles.

Otherwise, I would love to hear your thoughts on my "bad idea."

Cheers

I would like to join Big Dan in his justified "FUCK YOU" for the very same reason.

Maddow leads with in-depth piece on Tancredo's speech / history of "literacy tests":
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#35304909

Go ahead, Brook. I DOUBLE DARE you to learn yerself up on the "intellectual hubris" of 7th grade FACTS that we here all worship around here. Especially after your just plain embarrassing comments, above. You just don't get that we require LINKS around here - VERIFYABLE LINKS to an undisputed record of facts so we can see for ourselves whether or not your arguments are valid.
Ideally, you should have several sources all pointing to the same facts that back up your statements.

I know, critical thinking is all "intelluctually hubris-y" n' all, but btw - so is using the word "hubris". Did you know that's GREEK? (I bet you didn't, you little intellectual pucker-nip, you.)

Links, please. Graham change his mind? We need a link. And Fox News doesn't count. (In most cases, neither does MSNBC.) Why? Because it's opinion-tainment. It's a lie-snack. And as you have evidenced here over and over again - because FOX NEWS is full of wrong, wrong-ish liars. And I hope I don't need to point you to the numerous, gazillions of links I have to back that statement up. (If you need more paletable links about "literacy tests" in the south in the 60's outside of MSNBC - Google it.)

well i did the blockquote thingy wrong but what i was quoting from brook was her complaint that congress was still working on healthcare reform...healthcare costs have risen to 17 % of gdp,with the boomers retiring ,this is unsubstainable

[ed note: You need to remember to close the blockquote. You can either highlight what you want to blockquote and then hit the button once, or hit the button, put in the text and then hit it again to close the code. Works either way. —99]

brook said,

I've already pointed out it's 50% for middle class folks. Half my cell bill is tax, for example. Add it up, my friends.

In exchange for this we've got states, municipalities, and a federal government drowning in debt

brook has identified a huge problem here but to suggest that lowering the corp tax rate is the answer is simplistic...for example brook,what level of corp tax earnings do you think is the problem? less than 50 grand of earnings and the corp tax is 15 %,is that too high in your opionion?

we shouldnt lump all corps into one evil entity any more than baggers should lump all librals into 1 evil entity,,,state laws have forced most small business peops into forming corps,this is basically for the benefit of insurance companies,in illinois an indiviual working by himself must supply a workmans comp certificate,THAT COVERS NO ONE at a grand a yr

brook,how do you feel about re enstating the death tax? i personally think this is the fairest time to tax a person

or if that is not an idea you like what about stopping the tax credits for large corps that ship jobs overseas?

Big Dan @49& 50

definition of 'intellectual'

in·tel·lec·tu·al | adj.
1. a. of or relating to the intellect; b. rational rather than emotional.
2. appealing to or engaging the intellect: an intellectual book; an intellectual problem.
3. a. having or showing intellect, especially to a high degree [see Synonyms at intelligent]; b. given to activities or pursuits that require exercise of the intellect.

noun
a person possessing a highly developed intellect.

So when a Tea Party minded or anti-intellectual soul uses the term 'intellectual' as a putdown...
Thank that person and continue to school said anti-intellectual....

I mean come on...Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin and Adam Smith were intellectuals.

Facist minded Tea partiers and right wingers hate intellectualism because intellectuals expose the irrationality of their ideas.
Their Kool Aid is too sweet for 'intellectuals' to ruin..

Corporate Income Tax Rates--2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005

Taxable income over Not over Tax rate

$ 0 $ 50,000 15%
50,000 75,000 25%
75,000 100,000 34%
100,000 335,000 39%
335,000 10,000,000 34%
10,000,000 15,000,000 35%
15,000,000 18,333,333 38%
18,333,333 .......... 35%

Single Taxpayers--2009

Taxable income: Tax:
Over But not over Tax +% On amount over

$ 0 $ 8,350 $ 0.00 10 $ 0
8,350 33,950 835.00 15 8,350
33,950 82,250 4,675.00 25 33,950
82,250 171,550 16,750.00 28 82,250
171,550 372,950 41,754.00 33 171,550
372,950 ....... 108,216.00 35 372,950

i posted both the corp tax rates and the ind tax rates because i feel its a good idea to actually see the numbers we are discussing...why does a corp pay less from 33,950 to 50,000 than an indvidual?
and from 75 to 82 grand a corp pays less by 9 %
and why does the corp tax dip from 39 % to 34% after 335 grand?
and why does a corp making 335 thous pay a higher % than a corp making 18mill?

at the risk of becoming an outcast to my libral friends here at bradblog,,,here is an example that stuck out to me ovr last few days of a bloated goverment....it was reported that 46 separate law enforcement agencies were involved in security for the super bowl...46 agencies...there has got to be some bloat in that number,,,and i would ask,what do these agencys keep busy with when it is not superbowl sunday?(look for the 6 pot plants in a 1000 acre feild? or read emails or whatttt)

I AM "middle class", btw...that person above was saying "middle class" as if we're not middle class!

Blue Hawk and Karen get to the crux of the problem.

First, the Federal Reserve has created a debt virus that can never be repaid. Every dollar printed with debt attached requires another dollar printed to pay the interest --- with debt attached.

Second, cutting the corporate tax is a far more effective means of dealing with this crisis, because every sector of the economy will benefit. Obama's stimulus is going to pick and choose who gets a boost, and it will most certainly go to corporations and union shops that support the party in power. (Like GE) If the stimulus doesn't work after we've spent all these billions, what will Obama do for a second act?

I argue cutting the corporate tax will not only boost employment but pass savings onto consumers, lowering prices in the highly competitive food and retail industries. This will help the people struggling the most to make ends meet.

The bottom line is funding government with taxes and debt interest banking is a 20th Century model that is obsolete and new solutions must be found.

brook i doubt u will find many on this board that will argue that the fed and fractured banking are not a huge part of the problem but you need to speak in specifics,broad general corporate tax cuts will in fact benefit the fed..that is no solution,thats pouring gas on the fire

Brook @ 61 said:

cutting the corporate tax is a far more effective means of dealing with this crisis, because every sector of the economy will benefit. ... I argue cutting the corporate tax will not only boost employment but pass savings onto consumers

And yet, none of those things happened, when your ingenious scheme was enacted over the last decade. Strange. But, by all means, let's try the same thing again! What could possibly go wrong?!

(BTW, corporate taxes in the U.S. --- for those company's who actually pay any --- are virtually the lowest in the entire industrialized world. Just FYI. Other than that, worked great under Bush! So let's do it all again!)

Watching Chris Matthews tonight (my masochism shines through!) but he ran a clip of Megan McCain calling Tancredo out on his racism (and linked it to the TeaBaggers.) Good for her.

Excuse me, Mr. Friedman, when did we cut corporate taxes in the past decade?

Karen, we should all be supporting Ron Paul's bill to audit the Fed and go farther than that by demanding a repeal of the Fed Reserve Act. The promise of the Fed was they were going to put an end to the boom and bust cycles of the 19th century. We're still waiting 100 years later for that one.

Brook @65

Excuse me, Mr. Friedman, when did we cut corporate taxes in the past decade?

Bush quietly signs corporate tax-cut bill
$136 billion measure assailed for catering to special interests

And...to go with what Brad stated in comment @63....

Two out of every three United States corporations paid no federal income taxes from 1998 through 2005, according to a report released Tuesday by the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress.

I ask you again Brook...please do some objective research....you're simply parroting the same old lies and half truths we've heard from "free marketers" over the last 30 years.
You sound indoctrinated.

Brook said, foolishly, @ 65:

Excuse me, Mr. Friedman, when did we cut corporate taxes in the past decade?

I'd say there's no excuse for you, given your extraordinary record of proving how disinformed you seem to be on just about everything you've ever asserted here in comments at The BRAD BLOG. Oh, and please call me Brad.

This from AP:

I've tried to suggest to you, again and again, that you've been played for a stooge by the propagandists you've been following, rather than actual news. But if you refuse to pay attention, and wish to keep playing the fool, that'll be up to you and your duped tea bagging friends, of course.

What Thomas Jefferson REALLY meant when he championed for a "small government"

When Jefferson railed against government, he had in mind the predatory tyrannies of old Europe.

"Under pretence of governing," he wrote, "they have divided their nations into two classes, wolves and sheep."

He didn't want the American government to become another pack of wolves, or an enabler of wolves. He opposed exploitation of the governed by any form of power --- government or corporate. Jefferson's enmity to European-style oppression was equal to his enmity to Alexander Hamilton, the conservative movement's true hero and champion of centralized power in the service of business. What Jefferson wanted, in historian Daniel Boorstin's words, was "a government too weak to aid the wolves, and yet strong enough to protect the sheep." In other words, government exercising the just powers of a regulatory state --When Jefferson railed against government, he had in mind the predatory tyrannies of old Europe.

"Under pretence of governing," he wrote, "they have divided their nations into two classes, wolves and sheep."

He didn't want the American government to become another pack of wolves, or an enabler of wolves. He opposed exploitation of the governed by any form of power --- government or corporate. Jefferson's enmity to European-style oppression was equal to his enmity to Alexander Hamilton, the conservative movement's true hero and champion of centralized power in the service of business. What Jefferson wanted, in historian Daniel Boorstin's words, was "a government too weak to aid the wolves, and yet strong enough to protect the sheep." In other words, government exercising the just powers of a regulatory state --

Seems "small government" Tea partiers need a history lesson and some context....Tea partiers have been duped into advocating for the very thing they're against.

for a history lesson and some context...
try this link

More from the article @69

It's that benevolence that today's tea-stained reactionaries call "big government." Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, among the largest segments of government spending, aren't instruments of government power. They're means of insuring health and a measure of dignity in old age. Reactionaries want those "reformed," with debt --- never their concern for 30 years --- as their smokescreen. The $44 billion Department of Homeland Security, the $700 billion Department of Defense, the $50 billion complex of 16 spy agencies, and the colossus of federal and state police and prison forces --- those are instruments of classic and often abusive government power, not to mention debt. Yet, those are the sacred cows, or wolves, of the conservative theology that wants to "take back our country."

The slogan is the "tea party" movement's favorite, although "movement" is a misnomer. It's an everything-but-kitchen-sink convergence of an overwhelmingly white, resentful, evangelical populism with denialists of all sorts (vaccines, global warming, swine flu), tax abolitionists, "birthers" (Obama is a Manchurian Muslim implant from Kenya), anti-immigrants, militia-type survivalists, neo-Confederates and garden-variety racists who can't stomach a "negro" as their president. Deride these gun shows on speed at your own risk: They're resetting the political agenda.

brook,
you will get no arguement from me about auditing the fed..i would go farther and say the solution to our money problems in america is to NATIONALIZE the fed....imagine if the us treasury(and therefore the american peoples) benefitted from fractured banking rather than the private owners of those favored banks that make up the fed!!! but you didnt come in here rallying against the fed...you said the solution is to broadly cut corporate taxes...i posted the current tax rates and some specific questions about whr you as a tea party peop want cuts ,if you want to answer my questions and discuss specifics i would love to hear your thoughts

What I have said is that i want a flat corporate tax rate, and i would like to see 15%, but that is probably not realistic. This would be a real tax cut and not targeted tax breaks ala... Brad's post.

McCain's idea on a simple form for personal tax is actually pretty good too. If you don't want to take all the deductions and credits and just pay a flat rate, you file the simple tax form at 17.5%.

brook, if you look at the corp tax rates i posted @ 56 you will see that a flat corp tax rate of 15 % reduces the tax for all corps making ovr 50 grand a yr,leaving the lil guy(making less than 50 grand) shouldering the highest percentage burden...is this what you intend? what you are proposing gives the corp making 15 mill a year a 20% tax rate decrease and nothing for the lil guy...seriously thats what tea peops want?

brook ,

i am also surprised at you championing mccains idea about a flat 17.5% tax because that would be a tax raise for every indvidual making under 33,500,is that who tea peops intend to spread the biggest share of burden to? the peops making the least?

i was also surprised since in post 46 you said the tea peops were targeting mccain

but i will say mccain had 1 good idea during the previous election,to dbl the ind exemption from 3500 to 7 grand a yr...it is insane to think any person can maintain the necessities of life on 3500 bucks a years...3500 bucks which still have ss and medicare fees taken first

The corporate tax of 15% would be a flat tax --- no exceptions, no deductions, no tax breaks. everybody pays the same rate, so that is fair. the rate would be low enough that the googles and mcd's would find it less expensive just to pay the tax rather than an army of lobbyists and lawyers trying to find tax loopholes.

McCain's tax is voluntary, meaning you can still take the 1040 standard deduction if you want to or opt for the flat tax --- whichever works best for you.

None of these ideas will be implemented. We've got a President hell-bent on "spending our way" out of this recession, driving us headlong into national default. He's suddenly now proclaimed himself to be an agnostic on middle-class tax hikes. Is there any campaign promise left standing this guy hasn't tossed aside or completely flopped on?

brook,

just to be clear,,,is their nothing in your personal tea peops idea vault that benefits the lil guy? and please dont try the..every1 will benefit because corps will pass savings on..thats just not going to happen,,,in fact it would be illegal because as we both know corps have no reasponsibility to anything but their bottom line

Karen i am a lil guy and i will benefit greatly from a corp tax reduction. As you've pointed out, the poorest sectors already don't pay any federal income tax at all. it's hard to give them any more relief on taxes.

Getting control of our fiscal situation is essential for the survival of all the services provided by the government. the current situation is unsustainable. We cannot afford any new federal programs. We need to be cutting the federal workforce by at least 5% and slashing budgets in every department, including the military. The lil guys will be hurt the most, if we turn into Greece.

The tea party is also actively engaged in killing cap and trade, which will raise the utility rates you pay for gas and electricity. Again, this hurts the poorest sectors the most.

Brook...

You're just parroting things that have little true merit.

Respectfully...I ask you to make a case other that what you heard on the Rush Limbaugh show...or show that you have actually THOUGHT about the ideas you propose here. Because what you seem to be proposing hasn't been born out in actual experience...

BlueHawk, which ideas are you talking about? State governments around this country are slashing budgets and laying off employees --- basically down-sizing government due to reduced tax revenues. They don't have a license to print money. Are you suggesting the federal government should not follow this common sense approach the states are taking?

Have we ever tried cutting the corporate tax rate to stimulate the economy in the past?

Brook, surely you're aware that laying off more people, as you advocate, directly results in further depressing tax revenue that pays for all government services, including the really important ones, at the local, state and federal level.

Very simply put, the economic data shows that in a severe economic downturn, the federal government injects liquidity into the system, it keeps the economic system by becoming the buyer of last resort.

You also asked: "Are you suggesting the federal government should not follow this common sense approach the states are taking? Have we ever tried cutting the corporate tax rate to stimulate the economy in the past?"

Yes, it's been tried, and the data shows that tax cuts do not lead to job creation. For example, There was zero net job creation in the 2000s, even after the Bush Administration pushed through two historic tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.

Not only did tax cuts for the wealthy mean that the vast majority of Americans were paying a higher percentage of their income than the rich for the costs of running a stable society, the tax cuts also greatly reduce revenues, leading directly to the current deficit due to the cost of two wars in the Middle East. The wealthiest Americans --- those who own the means of production --- took their gains and speculated in the stock market instead of creating jobs. No jobs means no tax revenue means deficits means cuts in the most basic services.

California passed the largest corporate tax cut in state history, yet the state's unemployment rate remains among the highest in the nation. That corporate tax cut not only has not led to new jobs creation, it severely reduced revenues that have led to layoffs in all sectors, in both local governments and every business that does business with state and local governments, further depressing revenues from corporate and individual taxes. It is very basic Econ 101 that the circulation of money keeps everyone going, not just those 'bloated government'.

Again, the economic data shows the 2000s were a "lost decade" for the U.S. economy, the evidence directly refuting, in this case, that the Bush tax cuts in any way boosted the economy. The tax cuts boosted the economy for a short time, but only temporarily, only for the wealthiest families, as the middle class showed declining wages. The boom was unsustainable and in the end we have no lasting assets, a crumbling infrastructure, the stock market is right back where it was in 2000 --- but now we have widespread unemployment and the deepest economic downturn since the Great Depression.

The links above are just two small examples of it, but the mountains of evidence show that tax cuts do not drive job creation.

Brook -

I (and others) have repeatedly shown you where you were completely wrong on talking point after talking point. Instead of admit you were wrong and/or disinformed, you simply keep trying to move the goalposts to new, equally wrong and/or equally disinformed assertions.

Your latest suggestion for a flat tax (both income and corporate) will *raise*, not lower, the taxes for both the folks at the bottom of the ladder, and the corporations at the top.

I'm glad you are among the few who might get a tax break with your plan, but the rest of the folks you hope to help or suggest fuel the economy with jobs, will not.

Furthermore, as Des alluded above, cutting government spending during a recession is a proven disaster. To suggest, as you did, that "We cannot afford any new federal programs. We need to be cutting the federal workforce by at least 5% and slashing budgets in every department, including the military" suggests you have absolutely no education about economics or modern American history.

It was FDR's government spending and employment programs (CCC, WPA, etc.) that got the economy back on track during the Great Depression, along with greatly increased government *regulation* (not de-regulation!) of banks, etc.

When he cut back on gov spending a few years later, the economy began to downslide again, until WWII led to increased gov spending again which eventually helped to revive/save the economy.

You also wrote:

The tea party is also actively engaged in killing cap and trade, which will raise the utility rates you pay for gas and electricity. Again, this hurts the poorest sectors the most.

Another swing, another miss. I'll let Desi respond to this specifically, but in short, while rates will go up an avg. of $175 or so per household, the various breaks and subsidies for those who can least afford that increase, along with the jobs programs that go with it all, are said to more than make up for the hit you claim the "poorest sectors" would see.

Again, I'd like to think that not everyone is as disinformed as you in the Tea Party movement, but I now doubt. Especially given yesteday's poll showing that just 2% of self-identified baggers know that they received a federal tax *cut* last year, while 45% of them actually think their federal taxes were *raised*.

There ya go. Now feel free to create new goal posts rather than just admitting you were wrong, and then wrong, and then wrong, and then wrong again.

Well Mr. Friedman, you've accused me of being wrong before, and i was forced to embarrass you with evidence to the contrary. We wouldn't want that to happen again, would we?

Cap and trade is clearly another attempt by the New World Order central banking cabal to get the world's first global tax in place under the guise of a global carbon credit exchange. This, of course, will be firmly under their control, and they will skim billions off the top, before 3rd world nations see a dime of it. How is it that a busy entrepreneur knows this and the investigative reporter on this blog doesn't?

Please folks, learn the difference between personal tax cuts and corporate tax cuts, before you post. Des's example of a corporate tax cut in CA won't even take effect until 2011. Progressives have run the state of CA in the ground, and their unsustainable welfare/pension obligations will require a massive federal bailout.

Really, the burden of proof is on progressives to prove that Obama's top down stimulus approach is a better plan than cutting the corporate tax rate. We handed him $ 850 billion last year, and we've got very little to show for it. Let's hear it, folks. Tell me why this is going to work better. In the words of Tammy Wynette, stand by your man.

BlueHawk, which ideas are you talking about? State governments around this country are slashing budgets and laying off employees --- basically down-sizing government due to reduced tax revenues. They don't have a license to print money. Are you suggesting the federal government should not follow this common sense approach the states are taking?

Have we ever tried cutting the corporate tax rate to stimulate the economy in the past?

I'll take your last sentence first...
Yes W Bush did it in the mid-2000s; it led to the greatest economic meltdown since the great depression and grew government debt like never before... Cutting corporate taxes only stimulates board room bonuses and off shore investment; hardly a job making engine for America.
State revenues are down because unemployment is well over 10% and businesses are doing less business because the unemployed DON'T SPEND, American companies can't compete with goods being made in China, Taiwan and the Phillipines by American companies that W Bush gave tax breaks to enable them to move overseas. That impacts State revenues...both for personal income taxes and business income taxes.
Chinese goods carry a 2% tariff in America, while American goods carries a 20% tariff in China. That is a major reason for the economic meltdow., Overseas markets are closed to American goods...while overseas goods have full access to American markets.

What you're ignorantly proposing will only deepen the economic crisis...laying off more government workers in order to alleviate unemployment and stimulate the economy ? In what topsy-turvy universe does that make sense ?

Your ideas are a highway to abolishing the middle class and turning the United States into a society where 5% of the population owns all the wealth and resourses....hell we're basically there now. Your ideas will only further those ends.
In your society the population is little more that chattel slaves who will cut each other's throats for a minimum wage job...while the rich live in luxury in the gated castle security compounds. Yours is a corporate fascist state.

I think Karen asked you earlier...just what ideas do you have that will relieve the pain or the common man. All you're proposing is further goodies for those that are the cause of the current economic mess.

And you haven't cited one credible source for your assertions...if you read back everyone responding to your comments have cited numerous credible sources for their conclusions.
You haven't.

Okay...why is my comment #83 awaiting moderation ?

"Well Mr. Friedman, you've accused me of being wrong before, and i was forced to embarrass you with evidence to the contrary. We wouldn't want that to happen again, would we?"

When was THAT? How 'bout a link or something, Brook, to show me where you've embarrassed Brad with his wrong-ness and corrected him with your right-ness? Because I've read every comment on this thread and it seems to me that's the exactly OPPOSITE of what has occurred.

But you do that a lot. State the transparent, easily researched, blatant opposite of what is, and when it's pointed out to you, you gloss over it and create facts you like better. Your comments are so off-base that most of the time I think you're joking.

"Please folks, learn the difference between personal tax cuts and corporate tax cuts, before you post."

The condescending tone made me chortle, when you can't "look up the difference" between literacy tests in the 60's designed to keep blacks from voting and "competancy tests for federal representatives" before posting;(which you were so wrong about you then walked it back only to once again wrongly conflate Tancredo's speech with "the voter registration process being out of control in many states" --- and incredibly you posted that, too!

Do you think we can't scroll up and read for ourselves, DoofusBoofy? That kind of wrong-i-tude SHOULD be the kind of super-embarrassing gaff that gives normal people pause to re-evaluate what they think they know. But not you. You just plod right on as if you were never so crudely stupid, and then act as if calling you out on it makes us "intellectual elitists".

And you never, ever, ever give us an effin' link. Why? Why is that, Brook? We've asked you over and over again to provide alternative sources to back up your arguments, and you can't seem to do it.

Are you just a lazy "busy entrepreneur"? Or is it that there are no links outside Rush, Beck, or some Fox-spun pundit that adhere to the kind of truly embarrassing misinformation on which you like to dine and dash?

"Really, the burden of proof is on progressives to prove that Obama's top down stimulus approach is a better plan than cutting the corporate tax rate."

I don't even LIKE Obama, and that's wrong. The burden of proof? This isn't a court of law - this is Economics 101. Did you even read Brad / Des' / BlueHawk's long, thorough, well-sourced responses (complete with bars and graphs and actual facts) in a sincere effort to affect the GARBAGE you've been spoon-fed?

Burden of proof, my ass.

Brook, from everything you write - you are a base, basic, no frills, angry Republican. Not some kind of "independent thinking libertarian" that's "part of a movement designed to reshape the American body politic", as it seems you'd like to believe. I see very little willingness in you to buck the (wrong) Republican dominant talking points that SHOULD be in direct opposition to what you claim you value. You're all hat, no cattle.

To me, it seems MOST Teatards (like my formerly favorite, now Zombi-fied Aunt Sue) are angry republicans who THINK they've just "awoken" to a country in crisis, when a) they don't know how we got into this mess, so they believe the people who put us here who are now espousing that it's all Obama's fault and fiscal responsibility has nothing to do with war spending.

You're all being riled up by Dick Army (rich bitch who LLLooooOOOVEEES Gerrymandering, as I believe you once espoused you do not), the Birch Society (couldn't be more diametrically opposed to free thought), and the Heritage Foundation, responsible for a TON of wrongness. These are the people steering your Teatards, Brook.

As a REAL independent / former Ron Paul supporter, I resent (and mock) your hijacking of our message and replacing it with so much hot-air, long-winded, propaganda TRIPE.

(I left out Karen from Illinois when referring Brook to the many, many fine posts that have proven Brook so stupifyingly wrong~! How COULD I? Apologies.)

Bureau of Labor Stats --- the Bush years. He had a low of 3.3% and left office with 6.7%. Hmmm... that doesn't jive with all the tax cuts were useless posts we've heard out here.

G.W. Bush 2000-2004 Unemployment rate avg 5.53%

This was better than Clinton's first term.

Okay, so you got your numbers crunched for you --- now let's see your #'s! I'm still trying to understand where throwing all this deficit-busting stimulus at the economy is going to work.

Jeanie, when the right-wing Christian bashing out here got into gear, i pointed out that Obama had been using black Christian churches to openly campaign for years. This was disbelieved, but there are umpteen youtubes to prove it.

Brook @ 82:

Cap and trade is clearly another attempt by the New World Order central banking cabal to get the world's first global tax in place under the guise of a global carbon credit exchange. This, of course, will be firmly under their control, and they will skim billions off the top, before 3rd world nations see a dime of it. How is it that a busy entrepreneur knows this and the investigative reporter on this blog doesn't?

Because the busy (pseudonymous) entrepreneur can say anything they want, pull any inaccurate talking point or whacked out conspiracy theory out of their ass, with no evidence to support even a piece of it, while the investigative reporting on this blog actually has be able to support what he reports with stuff like facts and independently verifiable evidence.

Really, the burden of proof is on progressives to prove that Obama's top down stimulus approach is a better plan than cutting the corporate tax rate.

That's already been proven. Your corporate tax cuts, largest in a generation during the Bush era succeeded in ensuring that middle-class incomes stayed flat or declined, while corporations made record profits and helped push the economy over a cliff in the bargain.

Your Republican plan failed. Dressing it up in tea baggers clothing doesn't make it anymore of a successful economy policy than it was the previous time it failed (only to rely on the government to bail it out, of course, as folks like you seem to believe in privatizing profits and socializing losses and failure.)

We handed him $ 850 billion last year, and we've got very little to show for it.

For a start, as you've been shown here time and again, what we have to show for it is that he saved the economy (for now) from the brink of the irreperable failure that your failed heroes left for him. Here's just a few pieces of evidence for that.

Let's hear it, folks. Tell me why this is going to work better. In the words of Tammy Wynette, stand by your man.

He ain't my man. Didn't vote for him, not particularly impressed with him. That said, compared to the unprecedented historical disasters that you tea baggers proved to be in office, I'd take his shitty job over your complete and utter failure any day.

In a subsequent note, you've managed to try to rationalize the fact that your faith-based economic policies managed to take an unprecedented surplus, turn it into an unmitigated defecit disaster when real wages stayed either flat or declined for the "little guy" you pretend to (or have been conned into) acting as if you give a damn about.

You continue to define epic fail with each new post, Brook. Though I must admit, were it not for your American-hating folks being so damned dangerous to society as as a whole, it would otherwise be quite amusing seeing you twisting in the wind and yet coming back again with another helping of: "Please smack me again."

But thanks for keeping us safe from the NWO and reality. We're all very impressed with your fact-free, disinformed entrepreneurship. Keep up the bad work.

"Jeanie, when the right-wing Christian bashing out here got into gear..."

What are you talking about, Brook? "Out" where? Here at Bradblog? I don't remember anything like that. Got a link?...And then explain to me what that has to do with anything? We were talking about the proven effects of corporate tax cuts on the economy and who's really controlling your tea-strings messaging and how, somehow unbeknownst to you, they oppose the spirit of your own stated convictions...but now you want to make it about Obama's...black church funding.

Wow and Why? I've already stated I'm not an Obama fan, so you don't have to persuade me to acknowledge his spotty judgment.

"This was disbelieved..."

It WAS? Because you say it was, I'll just go ahead and believe you. Even with your proven track-record of being 100% wrong, I'm such a simp I'll just take you at your convoluted word. Now that THAT's settled - disbelieved by who? Bradbloggers? Democrats? Snorty-pepperhornies? Got a link?...

"...but there are umpteen youtubes to prove it."

Great. Then finding one and providing a link to it for the rest of us shouldn't be too hard.

Jeanie, my posts on this thread start at 28 responding to some anti-Christian nut.

https://bradblog.com/?p=7643

Fed shareholders Goldman Sachs spend millions lobbying for cap and trade and getting ready to create the next bubble...

http://www.goldmansachs6...p-and-trade-jackpot.html

http://www.scribd.com/doc/16885819/16750444352

Oh!~ Okay. You're referring to a Frank Schaeffer piece (who you incorrectly call "Larry" in the thread you referred me to) but okay, Brook, a link is a start.

I don't agree with Frank on much. Many of us here don't agree with Frank. He comes out of the gate raging based on his intractable pre-suppositions - just like someone else I know around here. (Named BROOK - just in case the subtle noodge didn't take.)

As a self-proclaimed Evangelical, I can see why you'd feel offended by his posts. Frank offends a lot of us. Welcome to the club. You don't see the rest of us bringing it up in a completely unrelated thread as if we'd been persecuted for our deepest held beliefs, do you?

Really. The inclusion of viewpoints you don't happen to agree with, Brook, doesn't make for "right wing Christian bashing" any more than all of your wrongnesses from all the threads added up make for "worthwhile reading".

Consider yourself the ballast, Brook.

Woah. I'm reading some of the things you wrote in that thread, Brook, and now I see why you don't link to stuff you wrote when we ask you to.
You're rightly ashamed.

I'm not going to bite here, Brook, and retro this thread back 3 weeks into your Christian "issues". I grew up in the deep south and long ago disavowed talking Revelations or Race with Evangelicals. Elvis, fine. We can talk about the King all you want. But religion? I respectfully recuse...

But your anti-ACORN / anti REV WRIGHT comments there speak for themselves, bullying, sad. Amazing to me that you feel so picked on when you're so clearly on the wrong side of Might for Right, of the murderous injustices committed against the poor by the rich, even as you profess to worship the same Christ who railed and passionately preached against it.

ACORN helps poor people. Helps them find housing. Helps them vote. Blackwater / XE (not on your radar) rapes women, kills innocents, imprisons it's own, and defrauds the taxpayer to the tune of zillions...

WWJD?
"Who would Jesus Defund"?

Okay! Brook! I don't know about ever finding enough common ground for a game of touch football, or even 4-square or botchy-ball - but we may have just found a tiny patch of green grass on which we can agree to picnic polite:

Goldman Sachs.

I'm sincerely juiced that your second link is to the Rolling Stone Matt Taibbi piece! I sent it to my Aunt-tea Sue when it came out and she was upset about the bailout - and she never even read it, didn't seem to care at all. It was most disheartening.

So, great.
Hooooly cow that was a long walk for a small nugget. Not sure it was worth it, but I'm glad I didn't give up on your link-less-ness.

That said, I'm going to have to investigate your second link a bit further. While grandly amused, I might be a little wary of a site that calls itself:
www.goldmansacs666.com

...or maybe I might not.

Brad, if you know GS is behind the push for cap and trade, why are you supporting it?

Brook @88

Bureau of Labor Stats --- the Bush years. He had a low of 3.3% and left office with 6.7%. Hmmm... that doesn't jive with all the tax cuts were useless posts we've heard out here.

Let's break that down shall we ?
Bush took office in January '01
umemployment=4.2%
Bush left office January '09
unemployment= 7.6%

You're wrong yet again
Brook why do you want to ignore '04 to '08 ?

G.W. Bush 2000-2004 Unemployment rate avg 5.53%

This was better than Clinton's first term.

Clinton took office in 1993 with unemployment at 7.3%...in 1997 after his first term Jan.97 unemployment was 5.3%
source here
You're wrong yet again Brook...in Bush's first term unemployment rose, in Clinton's first term unemployment fell.
Clinton left office with unemployment at 4.2%;down from 7.3 when he took office.
Bush inherited a 4.2% unemployment rate and rose it to 7.6%
source here
That's what corporate tax cuts get you...

Brook you're credibility here is taking a beating...

Brook @#88: Time and again people here have provided you with sourced links to help you learn some basic economics, but you ignore them and move on or make up some other canard or post completely unsourced, ideological BS that is easily disproved with a 30-second Google search.

Here are some numbers for you, since you apparently missed them:

The Bush years were a "lost decade" for all but the top 1% of Americans. Reality puts the lie to the rightwing canard that tax cuts lead to job growth.

The Great Recession began in December 2007, during the Bush Administration. Reagan began the process of thirty years of systematic dismantling of the regulatory structure put in place after the Great Depression, and when Republicans got possession of all three branches of government, they finished the job, and everyone got to see exactly what comes from Republican economic policies: the global financial system was literally (not figuratively) on the brink of total collapse in September 2008, during the Bush Administration. In the midst of the crisis, Wall St. and the wealthiest 1% banked enormous profits then walked away, socializing their losses onto you, removing from the economy all the money that would otherwise have gone into services and growth investment for you.

When the Republicans were in total power all those years, why didn't they give you a tax cut for your small business?

Clinton handed Bush near-record low unemployment. By the time Bush left, unemployment had doubled, and within one month of his leaving office, unemployment skyrocketed before any of Obama's policies could be put into place.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau the country lost ground on all measurements during the Bush years, including negative wage growth and negative job growth for the middle class.

No matter how many different ways you try to massage the numbers, the economy historically does better for the middle class under Democratic administrations than under Republican ones. All but one of the last seven recessions occurred during Republican administrations. Biggest expansion of national debt? During Republican Administrations.

"The last three decades have seen a seen a momentous shift: The rich became vastly richer while working-class wages stagnated. Economists say 80 percent of net income gains since 1980 went to people in the top 1 percent of the income distribution, boosting their share of total income to levels unseen since before the Great Depression."

Unless you're in the top 1% of income in America, Brook, when Republicans talk about tax cuts they're not talking about you. They never were talking about you.

You're the only one here who is fooled by your revisionist history. Which is so weird, because you consistently advocate for policies that are against your own best economic interests. When you cut the economy down to the bone marrow today, you undermine your future and the future of American global competitiveness --- the source of all future tax revenues and our future economy. Seriously, pick up an Econ 101 book.

brook said,

i think it would be helpful for the discussion to know what your corp earned say last year and what salary you took before those earnings were reported

as for the lil guy benefitting...the least earning corps (under 50 grand) already pay 15 % so under your flat tax corp plan every1 but the lil guy does benefit,,,you said they already pay nothing but thats not true

you have been debating with others defending the bush years,,,i gotta ask again,did you support china entering the wto with no protections for american workers? because thats were this melt down has come from...our manufacturing base has been shipped overseas and tragically i fear it will nevr come back...to make it simple,the unemployment that we are seeing has been years in the making,yes the middle class will have to find new ways to survive but with the 95 % of the countries wealth in the hands of the top half of 1 % those ways of survival will have to include govt programs

ok the quote from brook is here that i was responding to,

Karen i am a lil guy and i will benefit greatly from a corp tax reduction. As you've pointed out, the poorest sectors already don't pay any federal income tax at all. it's hard to give them any more relief on taxes.

...didn't Brook start posting about the same time Damail disappeared? Hmmm.

Maybe Brook isn't real. Right? That's the only excuse I can think of. Gotta be some Harvard Law Professor getting on his giggles somewhere by cock-blocking our discussions posing as an evangelical, entrepreneuring, teabagger...

...and a 'very busy' one, at that.
Clever ruse.

Here's another example of where the illogical, ideological blinders "Brook" is wearing have helped to push the U.S. down the slope of global competitiveness:

China Sees Growth Engine in a Web of Fast Trains:

[T]he [664-miles] Guangzhou-to-Wuhan train is
just one of 42 high-speed lines recently opened or set to open by 2012 in China. By comparison, the United States hopes to build its first high-speed rail line by 2014, an 84-mile route linking Tampa and Orlando, Fla.

Gosh, Brook, your business could've been one of those that would've had all sorts of new business, if only the U.S. had invested in our people and tangible assets instead of blowing it all in the stock market.

Hawk, if you have a problem with those #'s talk to the Bureau of Labor Stats.

It's interesting that none of the brilliant minds out here have attempted to answer my ??? in # 82. Are you guys as good at real substantive debate as you are at cynical condescension? The jury is still out.

Brook @#82, most investigative reporters can tell the difference between actual news and paranoid ravings. An evidence-free rant on cap-and-trade being part of the New World Order Secret Global Domination Plan (oh noes! hide! they know you're on to them!) is utter nuttery.

Was cap-and-trade a NWO conspiracy when George H.W. Bush implemented it? Industry said it would destroy the economy back then, too. Then came the biggest economic expansion in U.S. history. Even Reagan championed the difficult process of saving the ozone layer.

Like most self-absorbed rightwingers unable to see past their own perceived short-term self-interest, your cap-and-trade rant falls within the Rogue & Mavericky template.

Here are the real numbers:

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the U.S. cap-and-trade program will cost $22 billion annually, or about $175 per household, by 2020.
...
The CBO analysis estimates that the legislation will cost the richest U.S. households $245 a year, and the poorest will see gains of $40 a year.

FYI, the CBO clearly states their estimate does NOT include any of the expected cost benefits from the legislation, from reduced public health spending ($120 billion a year from air pollution alone), reduced costs of military defense of our oil supply, or reduced costs for cleanup & mitigation from industrial activities and natural resources extraction, among others, which are currently borne by you the taxpayer.

The revenue from the cap-and-trade system will also reduce the deficit --- both the House and the Senate versions --- using the free market system, two things you claim you care about.

Putting a price on carbon pollution is a rational, market-based approach that has already been supported, successfully implemented by Republican presidents, and puts the cost of pollution and the market incentive where it belongs: on the polluters.

Apparently you're one of a select few who want your tax dollars to be spent cleaning up industry pollution, who like dirty air and contaminated water....

@93, well duh. Of course Goldman Sachs would have part of any market-based system for carbon trading. Who did you think would participate in it --- kittens? There isn't a market system in the world that operates without market participation by market players. No actual changes in the market will ever occur without buy-in from market players themselves.

It's proper regulation and oversight that makes the difference. So I'm curious --- did you support GS back when they were lobbying for deregulation of the financial system, the repeal of Glass-Steagall and the CFMA of 2000, along with CDOs, CDSs, and AIG's other nifty financial innovations?

For the record, @#97, neither Brad nor any of the bloggers at The BRAD BLOG have stated one way or the other whether they "support cap-and-trade" legislation currently before Congress. Readers here are perfectly capable of gathering info and analysis from multiple sources, and analyzing these extremely complex policy proposals for themselves. We simply report the facts and (non-idiotic) analysis, and leave all the voodoo scare-mongering to rightwingers, who live in a fact-free world anyway.

Des, in #99 you said Bush was a lost decade; now you're saying he presided over the biggest expansion in history!

We're praying for you, my friend.

Indisputable proof your Constitution is under assault by the New World Order.

IMF wants a global tax on banks
http://www.aim.org/aim-c...ama-push-for-global-tax/

UN wants a global carbon tax

http://epw.senate.gov/pu...A-23AD-4F29-FE59494B48A6

WHO wants their own global tax paid to them

http://www.globalresearc...context=va&aid=17102

President of EU declares 2009 "first year of global government" ON CAMERA!

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

Obama's NSA Chief publicly declares he takes his orders --- directly from Henry Kissinger.

http://www.cfr.org/publi..._on_security_policy.html

Des, do you need any more, my friend? The evidence of a hidden agenda is all around you. The question now is what are you going to do about it?

Ladies and Gentlemen of Bradblog....

Brook has his carousel fired up...Personally I think Brook is enjoying the circular nature of his arguments. It's a lost cause to back and forth with him/her.

I get the sense that he giggles with every response. I'm not wasting another tittle on this lost soul....

Peace Brook...

p.s. I know you'll delude yourself into thinking "you've won"....so be it...you're full of unshakable delusions anyway...no sweat

Brook said:

Des, in #99 you said Bush was a lost decade; now you're saying he presided over the biggest expansion in history!

You are not only gullible, self-defeating loon, apparently you can't read either. DES referred to George H.W. Bush who was followed in office by Democrat Bill Clinton who presided over the largest economic expansion in history, leaving a budget surplus behind until George W. Bush drove the entire economy over the cliff that you want to throw it over again with the same failed policies.

Dope.

"Personally I think Brook is enjoying the circular nature of his arguments."

I do too, BlueHawk. Even relishing the role.

So a good question for us might be how do we collectively address (Brook's) terminal case of Super-Duh without allowing our discourse to get hijacked and sucked into Paranoid DumDumLand? Seriously. We need a workaround and fast.
Thoughts are things.
And maintaining Brook's basement-level, substandard crouch is bad positioning for all of our brains.

We're not making Brook any smarter, he/she is making us dumber! (And LOVING it...)

From George Saunders "The Braindead Megaphone":

"Imagine a party. The guests, from all walks of life are not negligible. They've been around: they've lived, suffered, own businesses, have real areas of expertise. They're talking about things that interest them, giving and taking subtle correction. Certain submerged concerns are coming to the surface and - surprise, pleasant surprise - being confirmed and seconded and assuaged by other people who've been feeling the same way.
Then a guy walks in with a megaphone. He's not the smartest person at the party, or the most experienced, or the most articulate.
But he's got a megaphone.
Say he starts talking about how much he loves early morning in spring. What happens? Well, people turn to listen. It would be hard not to. It's only polite. And soon, in their small groups, the guest may find themselves talking about early spring mornings. Or, more correctly, about the validity of Megaphone Guy's idea's about early spring mornings. Some are agreeing with him, some disagreeing --- but because he's so loud, their conversations will begin to react to what he's saying. As he changes topics, so do they...
...His main characteristic is his dominance. He crowds other voices out. His rhetoric becomes the central rhetoric because of it's unavoidability.
In time, Megaphone Guy will ruin the party. The guests will stop believing in their value as guests, and come to see their main role as reactors-to-the-Guy. They'll stop doing what guests are supposed to do: keep the conversation going per their own interests and concerns. They'll become passive, stop believing in the validity of their own impressions. They may not even notice...that their thoughts are being limned by his. What's important to him will come to seem important to them..."

(cont'd)

"We've said Megaphone Guy isn't the smartest, or most articulate...but what if the situation is even worse than this?

Let's say he hasn't carefully considered the things he's saying. He's basically just blurting things out. And even with the megaphone, he has to should a little to be heard, which limits the complexity of what he can say...favoring the...anxiety or controvery-provoking ("Wine running out due to shadowy consipracy?") or the gossipy, "Quickie rumored in south bathroom!") and the trivial ("Which quadrant of the party do YOU prefer?")

We consider speech to be the result of thought (we have a thought, then select a sentence with which to express it), but thought also results from speech (as we grope, in words, towards meaning, we discover what we think.) This yammering guy has, by forcibly putting his restricted language into the heads of the guests, affected the quality and the coloration of the thoughts going on in there.

He has, in effect, put an intelligence-ceiling on the party.

Hawk, i know i'm winning a debate when one of two things happen.

1. the other resorts to name-calling, because they have nothing else to offer up

2. the other cannot or will not answer basic logical questions.

Jeanine, allow me to put a question to you. Adding the business to the right and left of me, we employ about 30 people. I'm guessing a corporate tax cut will put 50 to 100K a year back into our collective pockets. That's money we can use to give raises and/or hire new folks. Yes, believe it or not, we want to give our people raises.

Obama's stimulus is offering us absolutely nothing. That money is going to go to union shops or swing states where Democrats are in trouble.

So, Jeanine, can you please answer the question this time. Why is this trillion $$$ stimulus plan better than a corporate tax cut to stimulate jobs across the board?

Jeannie --- great excerpt on "Megaphone Guy"! Also applies to the Breitbart/O'Keefe threads, and in the larger sense to all rightwing distraction media.

Brook may try to lower the I.Q. of the discourse with his transparent, constantly moving targets and circular "reasoning" (being generous there) but he hasn't succeeded. Everyone here has replied with cogent, sourced, evidenced-based arguments.

The only thing Brook has succeeded in doing is confirming the intellectual bankruptcy of his ideology, which doesn't stand up to basic scrutiny. He's exposed his own hypocrisy, confirming his outrage only appears when Democrats are doing it. Brook repeats the same arguments & "questions" over and over again, glossing over or completely ignoring the sourced, evidence-based answers he's received. Note he's asking again about corporate tax cuts, demanding answers without answering any of the questions posed to him before.

IMHO it's a useful exercise to roll through the evidence and the reasoning again, if one is in the mood for it. Plus, I really enjoy your writing and troll-stomping acumen - and am always appreciative of the new evidence, new resources, and incisive new arguments that you guys bring! (like the "megaphone guy" analogy)

Otherwise, unless you're so inclined, simply don't feed the trolls. Ignore them and they'll wander off sooner.

Dorkus Brook, that question has been answered for you over and over again. Re-read this thread if you want the answer to that, (you won't) over and over again.

Click some of the links provided (you won't), over and over again. Not biting. Done. If that makes you feel like you're "winning", well, your delusions will continue to ride high (as a kite) no matter what I do or don't write. here.
As evidenced by this thread you've tortured and twisted beyond recognition.

Go back a read it and see (which you won't.)
Done with you and this thread, DoonyBrook.
But have fun with yourself braindead megaphoning, arguing against your own stated interests, wrongly ranting, bad-mouthing and bad-MATHing, over-hyperbolatin', (sorry - too big a word?), counter-counter insulting, wrongful tracking, stupid-boasting, man-boob beating ways.

(From now on I will only respond to Brook with a link. A link and a smile. She/he can either respond to the link, comment on the info in the link, ask a legitimate question about the link or I will not respond to any Brook queries. Until you catch up and get your personal act together,
Thhhhhaaaa-thhhhat's all, Brook!)

See? Lookee there, he did it again --- he must be 'winning the debate' because he still believes everything he says! Of course, most people would say part of 'winning' any debate requires actually succeeding in shooting down opposing arguments, convincing the audience, or changing minds on at least one or two points. BrookFAIL.

Jeanie Dean @111 &112

Megaphone guy...you hammered the bullseye...

good stuff there...

No, Des, i'm winning the debate because none of you guys even know the difference between personal tax cuts and corporate tax cuts. Yes, Hawk, i find you guys very amusing. Karen is the only one that knows anything.

Here's another nugget to penetrate this blog's fog: Google Prescott Bush coup. You will return pages of links describing the coup attempt that W's grandfather was a part of to overthrow FDR. Gen. Smedley Butler blew the whistle on the coup and saved the Constitution. It's in the Congressional Record, so it must be true.

So, folks, ask yourself this question --- how is it that the son and grandson of a traitor make it through a Presidential campaign, and this very embarrassing incident never comes up? How is it that this event has been scrubbed from the history books? How is it that nobody went to jail or was shot for treason?

When you find the answers to these questions, folks, then you will be at the beginning of your education to the big picture. We need Americans on both sides of the aisle to wake up and understand what is really going on, but I am not hopeful about this crew.

brook,
lets explore the 3 small businesses recieving the reduced tax rate of 15% and assume the 3 small corps each earned 100 grand,,,,the change you are proposing would save each business from the current 34% to 15 % at a collective savings of 57,000 dollars(or 19 grand a piece) i personally think 15 is lil too low,i could live with 20 % @ the 100 grand max catogory as long as the lil guy in the 50 grand and under recieved a reduced rate of say 10 % and that ind taxes were nevr higher than corp taxes at same level,,,now we get to the tough stuff..how do we make up that 57 grand in lost revenues? refer back to my post 56 for the current corp rates,i suggest getting rid of the decrease in rates at 335,000 to 10 mill(for whatever reason the rate drops from 39% @335,000 to 34% at 335,000 to 10 mill) and getting rid of the drop of 3 % after 18,333,333...whoosh bob ,problem solved

its just an idea,what do you think?

brook,
bush did cut corp taxes,here is a copy and paste from one of the earlier links,

updated 3:44 p.m. CT, Fri., Oct . 22, 2004
WASHINGTON - With no fanfare, President Bush Friday signed the most sweeping rewrite of corporate tax law in nearly two decades, showering $136 billion in new tax breaks on businesses, farmers and other groups.

Intended to end a bitter trade war with Europe, the election-year measure was described by supporters as critically necessary to aid beleaguered manufacturers who have suffered 2.7 million lost jobs over the past four years.

********

what the article doesnt say is that the reason manufacturing was suffering was that china had entered the wto in 2001,the same week as sept 11th as a matter of fact..and the exit of manufacturing jobs was in full swing

brook said,
So, folks, ask yourself this question --- how is it that the son and grandson of a traitor make it through a Presidential campaign, and this very embarrassing incident never comes up? How is it that this event has been scrubbed from the history books? How is it that nobody went to jail or was shot for treason?
*********************************
how could tea peops support the same party that put this guy in office? i am fiscally conservative and socially very libral,i vote dem because it is the only alternative to the "12 rich guys that run the worlds control" and because i am Christian and only the dem party seems to care about "the least of them"

i think from reading your posts that you have identified the problem but the solutions you are suggesting would benefit the 100 grand plus corps the most....my targeted tax cuts are much more effective i think

and brad ty so much for the libral use of ur broadband space

Brook, just wanted to point out two things: First, you don't know any of us and therefore don't know what we know or don't know about anything. It's weird that because you're unable or unwilling to read/comprehend/acknowledge the many sourced, evidence- and reality-based links that have been provided, you then twist yourself into all sorts of pretzels to declare none of us 'know the difference between personal and corporate tax cuts'.

Yeah, whatever.

I'm sure you'll also not be able to grasp the import of this:

Tax Rates for Top 400 Earners Fall as Income Soars:

The incomes of the top 400 American households soared to a new record high in dollars and as a share of all income in 2007, while the income tax rates they paid fell to a record low, newly disclosed tax data show.
...
Since 1992, the bottom 90 percent of Americans have seen their incomes rise by 13 percent in 2009 dollars, compared with an increase of 399 percent for the top 400.
...
The top 400 reports understate actual top incomes because of deferral rules. For example, managers of offshore hedge funds who deferred their gains may not be counted in the top 400 reports
...
Most of the income going to the top 400 tax returns is from capital. Salaries and wages accounted for only 6.5 percent of the top 400's income in 2007, down from 7.4 percent in 2006 and 26.2 percent in 1992...
...
The biggest source of income was capital gains, which are taxed at a maximum rate of 15 percent.
...
The report shows that the number of the top 400 who paid an effective tax rate of 0 percent to 10 percent declined slightly, to 25 in 2007 from 31 in 2006. In 1992 only 6 of the top 400 paid an effective income tax rate of less than 10 percent.

Another 127 paid 10 percent to 15 percent in 2007, up from 113 in 2006.

Only 33 of the top 400 paid an effective tax rate of 30 percent to 35 percent, which is the maximum federal tax rate.

In other words, you're paying a higher share of your income to taxes than the super-rich, and yet you advocate for tax policies that perpetuate that inequity.

This also proves the many points made earlier that cutting taxes --- regardless of whether those are personal or corporate taxes --- does not translate into job creation. The big corporations and the wealthy people who own them kept the money for themselves, and never actually created any jobs with the 400% gain in income they earned during the last decade. We know this because of the NEGATIVE job creation from the Lost Decade of the Bush years.

You say you'd like a corporate tax cut. Based on your previous statements and empirical evidence, let's just say I'm skeptical that you'd actually take that tax cut and give that money to your employees.

Karen, the illusion of a Democratic party looking out for the little guy should be apparent by now. Both parties are heavily compromised. The elites that run the Fed cover their bases. They are not about to allow Congress to shut them down like Andrew Jackson shut down the first nat'l bank.

you should consider all the people out there that don't want to work for someone else anymore. they want to pursue their individual dreams. Small business is under assault. The unemployment tax hikes are killing us now, and i'm barred from ever even being able to use it as a corp owner. We need tax relief. If you're just scraping by, it's easier just to shut down and go work for someone else.

I vote conservative because our federal government is no longer accountable. We really have no idea what they are spending our money on, and Congress is toothless in enforcing discipline. If i don't like the greedy bastards at BAC, at least i can take my money to a local bank.

I think we can all agree we need to revoke the Federal Reserve Act, and maybe that is a cause we should unite on. The Fed take our money and use it to target corps they want to control, especially the media. This is how you can have a coup against FDR, and the people are never told about it. The rabbit hole the Fed has dug runs deep, and most Americans have no idea how sophisticated and powerful they really are. I'm talking about controlling technology that leaves wind and solar in the dust but keeping it under a lid, because releasing it to us means they lose control. If you ever talk to black ops guys they may not confirm free energy technology exists, but they won't deny it either. Read between the lines.

brook,
i agree with much of what you said but i am still baffled as to why you wont discus my specific suggestions on tax rate changes(post 119) afterall i have given your proposals due thought,specifically why do you want a decrease in rates for the 335,000 plus crowd?

sorry, karen, i had so many #'s thrown at me, i can't respond to all of it.

I do not agree with Des that cutting taxes does nothing for the economy. The Bush meltdown was caused by cheap credit and lax regulation. it had nothing to do with taxes, and Bush hit 3.3% unemployment, which is about as low as you get during his 2nd term. That's not to say he was a good Prez.

Low-income corps (under 50K) are usually one or two man shops, so they usually file as Sub-Chapter S or LLC. This taxes them at their personal rate, so they already get a tax break there.

I favor a flat tax --- no deductions, no gimmicks. If you start a progressive scale, you open the door to all the corporations that demand tax breaks and a list of reasons why.

Right now, nat'l default is in the cards, no matter what the tax rates are, so i will vote for politicians that cut taxes and prepare for what is coming. I joined the Tea Parties, because i am convinced our federal gov is no longer run by the Constitution, and there is plenty of evidence to support that. Transferring power back to states and cutting the size of the federal government needs to happen, and the sooner the better.

Brook said:

I joined the Tea Parties, because i am convinced our federal gov is no longer run by the Constitution, and there is plenty of evidence to support that.

When your tea parties (as opposed to the real ones circa 2007 that you guys derided and ignored) start giving a damn about the Constitution and the things it actually calls for, like accountabilit for the rule of law including treaties which all prohibit torture and equal rights for all --- even if you're gay --- letme know. I might be interested in joining.

Until then, you and they are nothing more than disgruntled, posing, sore loser Republicans in demon sheep clothing.

brook,
i have enjoyed the discussion but you are wrong on so many levels,you say the melt down had nothing to do with tax cuts but the tax cuts were a huge part of the defict exploding under bush,you say the unemployment was decent under bush and ignore his wto agreements which has robbed us of our manufacturing base...and the part thats starting to irrate me...you say u hate the elites but you wanna give them tax cuts....yes brook we have to find ways to survive but remember this...the gated communities cant be safe if the inner city is on fire and i dont know about being an evangilist but being a Christian i believe we must take care of "the least of them"...i saw ur attack on obama ovr that poor crazed woman shooting peops because she didnt get tenior.....im not happy with obama for a multitude of things,first and foremost not prosecuting the previous criminals but to bring him into that discussion,in that unpatriotic way was kinda beneath u.....the really sad part is unless you are part of the 335 grand and up crowd,we are in the same boat...and the fed is the real prob but how can we hope to overcome that problem together if we cant stand each others company?

Karen, you missed the point on the IRS post. What i said was she was a victim as well as Mr. Stack. Both of these people were clearly under a sinister form of mind control. The CIA has been working on this since WWII, and they can program people to do just about anything they want. There is nothing more horrifying than having your own mind stolen from you.

Take a look at this video of Bill Clinton in what the CIA refers to as "park mode". The implications of this video are ominous.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-pzqMUTyfI