The American Spectator : False Propheteering

Text Size

False Propheteering

By Jay D. Homnick on 1.15.10 @ 6:07AM

Obama prepares to make a killing -- in that nonprofit way of his, of course.

Profits are the enemy, we are lately told. They are a demon possessing the national soul, to be exorcised by the high priests of government.

Perhaps this all began with Hillary Clinton, back in late 2007, clomping toward her inevitable ascension to the Presidency. She noted the record profit of 39 billion dollars by Exxon and targeted it for redistribution to causes she deemed worthier. The man who supplanted her at the helm, Barack Obama, has been no less derisory of profit and its misguided seekers. Beyond campaign rhetoric in this vein, Obama besmirched profit in a commencement address at Notre Dame. He recommended graduates consider employment at nonprofits or in government.

Yesterday this trend reached a peak when the President announced a proposal to tax heavily banking profits and executive compensation he declared obscene. Despite the notorious legal difficulty in identifying behaviors eligible for this adjective, our chief executive apparently knows it when he sees it. People thus afflicted by moral blindness must have their money confiscated by the visionaries who occupy our capital.

Before even examining the premise of the unworthiness of profit, we should roundly reject the idea of expressing disapproval via taxation. It is one thing to levy a fine for a violation. To tax the proceeds of legal commerce punitively is to turn the revenue collector into a prosecutor. If a legislature deems an activity to be illicit, it has the power to forbid. By taking extra money for the Treasury while allowing this activity, it is practicing extortion and facilitating a bribe from citizen to government.

Back to profit, a much-maligned end, pursued eagerly from below, pursued angrily from above. What is profit exactly? It is a portion of price designed to exceed the amount of expense incurred in the production and marketing of an item. If it costs me $1 for the ingredients of the pizza, $1 for the electricity for the oven, $1 in employee working hours and $1 in storefront rent, I can charge $5 for the pizza and make $1 profit. This dollar then goes to me, the owner, the person who brought the ingredients, the location, the equipment and the staff together to make the pizza come into being.

In that scenario, I not only get all the profit, I take all the risk. I have to sign the leases for the store and equipment, do boatloads of bookkeeping for various governmental bodies and sign contracts accepting responsibility for worker compensation. If the business flops, as may well occur, I am left holding the bag, often broke and with shattered credit. The landlord gets his space back, the manufacturer repossesses his equipment and my cashiers wise up and get jobs at Wal-Mart. Under what theory of ethical behavior is my risk-to-profit transition illegitimate?

And what if I take on fifty times the risk by opening fifty such outlets and take responsibility for fifty times as many employees and in return I want fifty times the upside? That is obscenity to Mister Obama but to me that is leadership, that is courage, that is greatness..

Furthermore, the necessity to achieve profit is the best discipline known to mankind for maintaining reasonable fiscal models. If the landlord wants to double the rent, I move out of the store. If the wholesaler wants to double the price, I go to his competitor. Contrast this with the nonprofit and government models Obama so extols. Because they don't need to come out ahead, they see no need on imposing sane limits on the lower rungs of the ladder. The result is toilet seats sold to the Pentagon for $600.

Right now, in the heart of a severe economic downturn, Federal employees are averaging salaries of $71,000 compared to $41,000 in private industry. That figure is measurable. Less measurable is the productivity gap. Go into private offices at 7 p.m. and you are likely to find a few conscientious individuals still scrambling to complete projects. Go into a government office at 5:20 p.m. and you will find it dark and silent as a tomb.

Why do they get thirty thousand dollars a year more for less work? Not because they are such a superior class of accomplished experts. It is because they have sold us on the contrary notion that our industriousness is vice and their imperiousness is virtue. There is no profit in such a view and certainly no morality. It is the "profiteers" who benefit society far more than these quasi-regulators. One might even say the words of the profit are written on the subway walls and in tenement halls…

About the Author

Jay D. Homnick, commentator and humorist, is a frequent contributor to The American Spectator. He also writes for Human Events. Here he performs his original composition, "Buy You (Bayou) a Drink".

Letter to the Editor View all comments (92) | Leave a comment

Shucky| 1.15.10 @ 6:30AM

if business isn't allowed to be profitable, there is no sense in investing. only a fool would invest in stock while these communists are in power.

Alan Brooks| 1.15.10 @ 10:37PM

Only a fool would vote Republican while RINOs are in power at the GOP.

You attempted to fob off John McCain (as if he is a Reagan) and you got what you deserve. Someday you will realize that, and it will hurt.

Ray| 1.17.10 @ 12:13PM

Hay, you forgot to blame Bush!

Alan Brooks| 1.17.10 @ 4:54PM

"His own electoral success—twinned with handy victories and large majorities in both houses of Congress—was a referendum on his predecessor’s governance and the post-Lehman financial collapse. It was not an endorsement of European-style social democracy."

The above is Krauthammer in NR: notice how
"was a referendum on his predecessor’s governance"
leaves out that predecessor's name. Too shameful to mention?

Alan Brooks| 1.17.10 @ 5:01PM

... so let us have it clear: you are not conservatives, you are Republicans. Nothing you write can hide that fact; the GOP blew it for the 4th time ('96, 2000, '04, '08), and again, you got what you deserve but you are in denial--
it hurts too much to admit.
Doesn't matter that you might v. well beat Coakley in Mass, in 2012 you will blow it again because the GOP is too compromised.

JimBeam| 1.18.10 @ 2:59PM

Some people on the right these days would run Reagan out of the party for being too liberal. You know, the former New Deal Democrat who drank with Tip O'Neil, legalized abortion in California, granted amnesty to illegal immigrants, and sat down and talked with the Soviets. Even worse, he always reached out to Democrats!

denise| 1.18.10 @ 9:25PM

You are dreaming if you think that Republican voters wee happy with the John McCain primary win! It was Sarah Palin who stirred up the base. She is the one that almost beat Barack Obama. Repubs were ahead until Wall St crashed at just "the right time" for the Obama campaign, surprisingly!

brewpop| 1.15.10 @ 6:49AM

It's time for American citizens to ask that famous question: "Are you better off now than you were?"

Robert cloutier| 1.15.10 @ 6:53AM

Hey, how about giving non-military/security dept. bureaucrats more money if they promise to work fewer hours? Kinda' like when congress is in recess; more freedom for us.

Ret. Marine| 1.15.10 @ 7:02AM

More on point. The gubmint does not produce profits, nor does it produce anything outside of a misery index rating. Obama, a lesser form of intelligence, has absolutly no idea what a "hard days" work even means let alone the ability to be "responsible" for anything other than the role of a community organizer. The requirement for such a position is only the desire to rabble-rouse like minded teet suckers in hopes of "stealing" what "others" have worked for to "give it away" to those of his ilk who are either by choice too lazy to produce, and or unwilling to take "chances" to better their's or others around them in their lives.
What we see here is a simple minded man deluded to the point of "it's not fair" that others are either willing to work hard to gain better for them and their family, or take and make sacrifices to get there. Leadership is the key. I guess some would argue that he is a leader, this may be the case, but not that of real men who participate in working for a living.
Still fresh on my mind was the begining of this administration where the intent of the inviroment was to use scare tactics, lies and misinformation to make a case for the current inviroment of business's who were suffering as a result of the demoncrap party's involvement of the Community re-investment act, their involvement in the cloward-piven strategy, and the continuation to demonize the traditional role of hard work, ethic's, faith in one's fellow man and courage to do moral correct legislation to secure this inviroment.
What should be more of cencern to all is the fact that more than 53% apparently, of our fellow citizens has actively decided to participate in the thetf of others for personal gain because it's just not fair.

Ken (Old Texican)| 1.15.10 @ 11:11AM

Well, Marine,
Well stated.

I do want to correct that 53% number you ended with though.
It was merely 53 % of the people who actually got off their dead arse...and voted.

I have lost the number of the percentage of elgible voters who stayed home...but it was a BIG percentage.

True...we didn't have much faith in McCain to turn things around...and stay on OUR side of the aisle.

True...many Republican congress critters got too comfy sorta playing Santa Claus with OUR money.

I think the Brown success, (or lack of it), in MA will tell us if the sleeping giant has truly awakened yet.

Virginia and New Jersey successes equate in my mind to the battle of Midway during WWII. That battle certainly did not win the war...but it darned sure shifted our stance into offense from defense once and for all in the Pacific.

Prayers are important right now folks. Pray that MA voters get out and vote smart.

Ned| 1.15.10 @ 5:42PM

According to a Wiki article (yes, I know, but this is fairly uncontroversial stuff) 52.9% of votes cast went to King Zero - and approx 61.9% of eligible voters participated - meaning 32.7% of the country put Jimmy Carter's Evil Twin in the White House....

JC| 1.15.10 @ 9:13PM

Retired Marine.........You hit the nail on the head !! Bravo !

Denise| 1.18.10 @ 9:28PM

Has anyone here shook hands with Obama or Clinton? I have and I noticed one thing they had in common. Their hands were as smooth as a babies behind. Like they never worked a hard day in their lives. Girly hands,

Appleby| 1.15.10 @ 7:05AM

King Zero increasingly reminds me of the old joke that an expert is a man who knows hundreds of ways to get a date but doesnt actually know any women.

Alan Brooks| 1.16.10 @ 9:33AM

"an expert is a man who knows hundreds of ways to get a date but doesnt actually know any women."

You ought to commend him for being celibate.

Becky| 1.15.10 @ 8:13AM

And without the wealthy, Jesus' body would have hung on the cross until the birds ate it. That is what the government does (or doesn't do, human dignity and respect), and Golgatha wasn't called the place of the skull for nothing.

Money is the most talked about biblical topic. We live in a physical world, and Obama seems to live in a mental one. There is nothing morally wrong with possessing money, as a matter of fact God commands that if we have talents (also known as money), we use them or lose them (parable of the talents).

Most people, including our President seem to think the Bible says "money is the root of all evil," but it actually says "the love of money is the root of all evil." Michelle and Barack live like they like the rich life without qualms. Could it be that money is also power and that the love of power is the root of all evil? Doesn't our President seem to enjoy his power to change our lives and the fabric of the country, even brag about it? He isn't afraid of taking a big power profit.

Big business leaders should be ashamed of their lack of integrity in not coming out in defense of the role of profit. It isn't any wonder they are easy to demonize, they invite it. Now, after a year, I don't feel sorry for them. Like Roosevelt wanted to do, how about a 95% tax on the bastards? The time seems ripe.

The Bishop| 1.15.10 @ 11:40AM

Great points, Becky.

RAMIII| 1.15.10 @ 1:57PM

Becky, the one problem with a 95% tax is that it would ultimately come out of the consumer's pocket as all taxes ultimately do.

Furthermore I refer to Psalm 73:2-19 when I struggle with the injustice of those who love power/money and as result trample upon the "weak".

denise| 1.18.10 @ 9:31PM

Becky:
" Michelle and Barack live like they like the rich life without qualms. "
--------------------------------------------
They don't seem to mind spending it.

Denver Todd| 1.15.10 @ 9:01AM

What Obama doesn't know is that every single person is a profit center. You have make a profit with your labor, or you won't go to work. What I mean is that if the total of your transportation, childcare, and opportunity cost is greater than the wage, then you won't do the job.

Marcell| 1.15.10 @ 9:17AM

You are comparing apples to oranges, so where are the profits are you talking about in this sequence:

Fighting Goldman Sachs

On January 12th, 2010 BLACK CELL said:
Jan. 11: Town Square: Shareholder Ken Brown is suing Goldman Sachs for giving its employees more in bonus money than it earned. Brown's lawyer, Lynda Grant joins The Dylan Ratigan Show to discuss.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21.....6#34812406

denise| 1.18.10 @ 9:35PM

It had the money in lower securities. Once the market crashed there went its profits. A Corporation is responsible for paying its employees before it pays its shareholders. But it can't gave its Union employees the company.

Marcell| 1.15.10 @ 9:21AM

Thank God the Republicans & tea baggers are fighting on your behalf... "NOT!!"

Big banks' behavior unchanged

Jan. 14: Phil Angelides, chairman of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, talks about the testimony from Attorney General Eric Holder about warnings of mortgage fraud and risky bank practices, he received, which led to the financial meltdown.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21.....4#34866094

Howard| 1.15.10 @ 9:26AM

How about adding Fannie & Freddie to the toxic brew. These Government backed agencies lent out money to any one still faster than I visit a whore house on pay day.

Marcell| 1.15.10 @ 9:39AM

Okay.

& it still wont change your support for the corruption because you are blindly doing, & thinking, what your repug mommas & godess are tell you.

Ray| 1.17.10 @ 12:19PM

Where do 'big banks" get all that money? From the deposits, of course! What do you get when you deposit money in a bank? You get interest payments, of course! What happens when the government raises taxes on bank? You get less accrued interest, of course! So, who's going to be hurt when Obama raises taxes on banks? We all will, of course! It's so simple even a Liberal can figure it out.

denise| 1.18.10 @ 9:40PM

Its what you can see on CSPAN tapes. Barney Everything's fine Frank and Chris Countrywide Dobb Screwed up our financial system with their sub-prime mortgage loans through Freddie and Fannie. they helped COOK THE BOOKS, while the campaign donations kept coming. Obama and Dobb heading the donation list.

Great Grandma| 1.15.10 @ 11:29AM

Marcell if you are listening to and believing MSNBC, you are naive and misinformed. If you haven't figured out by now that they do not accurately report the news, you are not paying attention.

The Crazy Old Coot| 1.15.10 @ 10:44PM

Let's be honest. The banks aren't entirely to blame for the meltdown. As they say, it takes two to tango, and just because some moron mortgage banker/broker is willing to underwrite an interest only or negatively amortizing mortgage with 100% or more financing does mean the consumer needs to sign up for such a thing.

Unless this commission subpoenas a half dozen or more of these morons and grills them much like Maxine Waters did when the CEOs of the banks when called before the House Financial Services Committee doesn't treat them as a victim of the "mean nasty banks" this commission is nothing but a politically grandstanding farce.

If you want the right to borrow hundreds of thousands of dollars, you have the responsibility not to sign the damn loan documents if you don't understand them!

The Crazy Old Coot| 1.15.10 @ 10:45PM

That should read "does not mean the consumer needs to sign up for such a thing. "

denise| 1.18.10 @ 9:47PM

The banks didn't do anything, they are regulated.. It was all of the smaller unregulated companies that sold the sub-prime mortgage loans which were then sold as bundled securities to Banks all over the world. That is why Congress freaked because our AAA Bond ratings were going to be effected.

Thin about this, Obama trained ACORN activists to picket Smaller banks in Chicago and accuse them of racism for not loaning mortgage money. They blackmailed the banks. The first bank to go down from sub-prime mortgages was Superior Bank in Chicago in 2002 or 03. One of his closest campaign people owned the bank........Maybe he knew it would take that many years to take down Wall St!!!He did work on Wall St while going to Columbia. READ HIS BOOK.

Marcell| 1.15.10 @ 9:36AM

Let's take a look at your real leader, Sarah," Abubika the fake godess," Palin telling us how to create new jobs.

Part 3: Sarah Palin Debuts On "Hannity" As FOX News Contributor - 01/14/10

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....._embedded#

We are going to have fun with Sarah Pallin around with repugs this year.

Sir| 1.15.10 @ 9:43AM

Ms. Marcell, what an absolute short-sighted and shallow moron you are. The thing you seem to miss about real conservatives is that we are all our own leaders. Hence, we only "follow" what makes sense and what we would have done ourselves if not for the volunteer (Palin, Jindal, etc., but not too terribly many to choose from).

Sheesh. Idiot. Twit. Your bra is too tight.

David Gonzalez| 1.15.10 @ 9:50AM

"The result is toilet seats sold to the Pentagon for $600. "

This transaction took place during the first Reagan administration. It wasn't a toilet seat---it was a custom-designed, corrosion-resistant, molded cover assembly for toilets aboard the Navy's P-3C "Orion" antisubmarine aircraft. The plane was still very much in service, but it was out of production---which meant that Lockheed, the plane's manufacturer, had to re-tool the molds and other equipment needed to produce the covers. The cost of doing so ran well over thirty thousand dollars. The Navy had ordered fewer than sixty units. Do the math. To draw a (possibly flawed) analogy, let's say that you are fortunate enough to own a 1932 Bugatti. Let us assume that a front fender is hopelessly crushed in some mishap. Now, the original manufacturer is no longer extant---but were it still around, try to imagine what it would cost to have the company tool back up to manufacture but a single fender to replace the damaged one. That's kinda-sorta the situation the Navy found itself in when it determined that these sophisticated covers had to be replaced. IIRC, eager-to-criticize-the-Reagan-administration Democrats raised so much Hell (one congress-critter sent an aide out to a local hardware store to buy a cheap conventional toilet seat---which the hack waved on the House floor, shouting that his aide had purchased it for about three dollars!) that Lockheed eventually took a bath on the tool-up costs and lowered the price to $100 per copy. Yet, folks who didn't spend a lifetime in Naval Aviation (as I did) still use the "$600 toilet seat" metaphor to describe any government wasteful-spending boondoggle.

Al Cameron| 1.16.10 @ 2:34PM

Re David Gonzalez mail re Jay's reference to gov waste & $600.00 toilet seat. DG version has the ring of truth. Sounds like Dems distortion game. Like ketchup being counted as a vegetable for foodstamp. Where can I find out more???

tailgunner| 1.19.10 @ 6:27PM

He's right.

I was an aircraft structural mechanic in the Navy who spent eight years maintaining P-3 Orion interiors and other structural and hydraulic systems.

Including crew toilets.

Dustoff| 1.15.10 @ 9:53AM

Guys... & Gals.

Marcell hangs out at Human Events most of the time, and yes he makes the same stupid remarks there too.
Not to worry, he's easy to shut down because his lack of knowledge is "well" very limited.

led miner light| 11.25.10 @ 1:44AM

In short, just as we still rely on nation-states for international security, we must still rely on national governments to protect individual rights. Your freedom still depends on where you live.

Marcell| 1.15.10 @ 9:57AM

Sarah Palin says that, "Free Market enterprise should be able to drive our economy, not government."

What is the free market remedy for our latest economic crisis, & why should a president be held accountable for a bad economy in your free market pipe dream?

Sen. Kaufman: Obama should tax bankers

Jan. 15: Sen. Ted Kaufman, D-Del., joins the Morning Joe gang to discuss financial regulatory reform and President Barack Obama's proposed 10-year, $90 billion tax on the largest financial institutions.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21.....7#34876647

Ryan| 1.15.10 @ 1:20PM

How about some things rarely tried?

Cut and simplify taxes. Allow EVERY American - rich and poor - to keep their own money.

Cut government spending.

Reform health care to true free-market alternatives, where the consumer is placed in the driver's seat.

TURK| 1.15.10 @ 10:29AM

Marcell is a front moniker for the paid leftists on the dem breast who hang around the Spectator site and filibuster the space. Like good ol SLT, having any repartee with them is a waste of time and space.

Mike| 1.15.10 @ 10:35AM

Predictably, AmSpec in its eagerness to attack Obama is no longer is interested in exploring the issue of how corporations made, and are making, their profits and at whose expense.

Sir| 1.15.10 @ 2:14PM

Mike, "...at whose expense" would be the corporation itself. It's known in the world of business, which you seem to know nothing about, as Cost of Sales, Overhead, and SG&A.

If people don't want to patronize a corporation, they don't have to... unless they get the health insurance mandate in the final bill.

Wonderful, what our country is coming to, huh?

No.

Ray| 1.17.10 @ 12:23PM

Mike, the consumers "make" that money for the corporations. When taxes are raised, the corporations raise their costs or reduce their service to the consumers. You know, the little people. So, who's going to be harmed by this? We, the little people, of course.

LQQKY| 1.15.10 @ 10:42AM

The messiah has shown his true colors by refusing to go to Massachusetts to support the dumb dumocrat candidate. Miracle of miracles -- this is the first time since his inauguration that he has forsaken an opportunity to travel! TOTUS thinks that she will lose and therefore the messiah will do nothing. As usual, he is the first rat off of a sinking ship.
BTW: I believe that the messiah and his dumocrat party are currently in transparency mode, to find a way to "BLAME BUSH" for the earthquake in Haiti. (Not intended as gallows humor but food for thought)!

Bob Miller| 1.15.10 @ 10:46AM

We need a new czar to tell us which high-level government employees are giving away, or shoplifting from, the store called "the citizens' money", and how much net loss this has caused to the nation. The other czars will probably be part of this elite group.

Ken (Old Texican)| 1.15.10 @ 11:18AM

OK guys,

What is the "ideal" profit percentage, combining the "fairness issue" with the "incentive issue"?

Thoughts please!

Tim| 1.15.10 @ 1:31PM

The Government likes around 50%, although they call it taxes, not profit.

Bill| 1.17.10 @ 8:31PM

It's what the market will bear. It depends on the industry, the product and what the end user is willing to pay. This is what regulates the amount of profit.

Marcell| 1.15.10 @ 11:25AM

Dustoff| 1.15.10 @ 9:53AM

Guys... & Gals.

Marcell hangs out at Human Events most of the time, and yes he makes the same stupid remarks there too.

Not to worry, he's easy to shut down because his lack of knowledge is "well" very limited.

--------------
You probably are not going to believe that one of my mentors was the president of my local committee colleges. His last wards of advise before he moved up the latter to a bigger & better job was that he explained to my journalism instructor that she couldn't stop the new age from getting their message out, because we will find other ways to do get our message out, "American Spectator."

Here is the link to my real response called, "Political Chess."
http://www.humanevents.com/art.....ID=1281551

Gill O’Teen ✝✡| 1.15.10 @ 2:08PM

What do students at “committee colleges” major in? Community organizing?

The solution for any company unable to make a profit is bankruptcy. However, I am a big fan nowadays of companies not making a profit. That leaves nothing for the gum’mint to tax. Hopefully, the cure is not worse than the bite.

Finally, Galt day is only 5 days off. Those still looking for ideas as to how they can celebrate have two good new choices right now:
1) Contribute to Scott Brown’s campaign against the kommie machine - I believe these are tax deductible, or
2) Contribute to any of the many trustworthy tax-deductible charities which are committed to helping the people of Haiti. Any contribution to the federal gum’mint for this purpose does not count towards the Galt Day celebration.

Gill O’Teen ✝✡
gill.Oteen07041776@gmail.com
Celebrate Galt Day 1/20/2 Yo (aka 2010 A.D.)
“God made our parents
Our lives and our liberties
We made our gum’mint”

Wow!!| 1.15.10 @ 11:38AM

Grammar is not my specialty, but I make up for it with my die hard love & commitment to our country, Patriotism, something repugs really wish they had.

tailgunner| 1.19.10 @ 6:34PM

Twenty years in the Navy, including 13 months on the ground in Bahrain during OP Desert Storm.

But no, I'm not a 'patriot' by your standards.

This is 'patriotism' for Democrats: In 2000, Dems deliberately disenfranchised nearly 800 Florida military members by frivolously challenging their absentee ballots in their 2000 attempt to steal the state for Gore.

I'm actually proud not to be considered a 'patriot' by Democrats.

The Bishop| 1.15.10 @ 11:43AM

Outstanding analysis. Even though I live in the shadow of the University of Notre Dame, there is no pride in knowing that last year's graduates heard that abominable admonition. May your tribe increase, Mr. Homnick.

pugsley| 1.15.10 @ 12:09PM

As long as I can remember the profit margin must be pegged at minimum 40% to account for taxes and overhead, which includes all manner of things to keep the business geared up and for downturns which occur from time to time. I always shot for 50% myself to accumulate cash reserve which is a must in a downturn. This thumbnail has always worked for me and I am in one of the toughest businesses going, the oilfield...boom to bust!

Northern Rebel| 1.15.10 @ 12:28PM

Profit is inherently evil, because it allows the serfdom the liberty to make bad decisions, that the kingdom must be protected from.

Any profit accumulated by average Americans, should be remanded immediately to the federal government, so wiser people can use it for the better of the whole.

The serfs are not mentally equipped to make those important decisions.

Dave M.| 1.15.10 @ 12:55PM

Ken (Old Texan), Here's a better question: Who gets to decide what the "ideal" profit percentage is?

Ret. Marine| 1.16.10 @ 7:12AM

The Markets?

bullwhacker| 1.18.10 @ 1:09PM

Like the article says, its the freakin investor. Its their money and their risk, damnit!

Cheryl F.| 1.15.10 @ 1:22PM

This didn't just start recently. When tobacco made "obscene" profits all sorts of taxes were imposed upon it. Then government started telling the tobacco farmers how much land they could grow tobacco on. The government also decided where and how the tobacco companies could advertise their product.

I warned people at the outset of the tobacco bullying that it would lead to other products getting the same treatment and no one believed me. They all thought the government had our "best interests" at heart because of the medical issues associated with smoking.

My answer is no. They saw a product they could demonize in order to collect profitable taxes. The government only cited medical issues AFTER the taxes had long been imposed on the product.

It's only when their own toes are being squashed that people truly understand what's happening and has been happening for a long time.

Oldefarte| 1.15.10 @ 1:26PM

In a words of Obama, it's called WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION, from PRIVATE to PUBLIC industry. Government does not PRODUCE anything----they only TAX [steal?] from the fruits of others' labors. The fruits/income is slowely being confiscated by Obama's government, so that he/they can redistribute same to his/their indigent/impoverished constituents!!!!!

ghd hair mk4 dark| 1.15.10 @ 1:43PM

GHD Hair Straightener on sale
Cheap GHDs Styler

Ken (Old Texican)| 1.15.10 @ 2:19PM

OKOK!
I had hoped to get more responses about "appropriate" profit percentages.

FOLKS..."APPROPRIATE PROFIT PERCENTAGES" ARE WHAT CUSTOMERS ARE DELIGHTED TO PAY...FOR THE GOODS OR SERVICES.
DUH!
(how much are you willing to pay to watch your government bankrupt you? hmmmmm?)

davelnaf| 1.15.10 @ 2:33PM

Obama and his fellow travelers in Congress are in over their collective head and are going to bring the Democratic Party to its knees; in which case his presidency will indeed have been a watershed event in US history.

Marcell| 1.15.10 @ 2:41PM

I am looking forward to that day. That means that the conservatives will have to produce a better product than a repug.

Northern Rebel| 1.15.10 @ 2:39PM

Ken:

As usual, You've nailed it!

Same with job performance. You are worth the exact amount that someone is willing to pay you.

When people ask me how to tell when somebody is overpaid, I tell them there is only one way to tell:

When your boss dumps you!

JTOO| 1.15.10 @ 2:53PM

The profit motive is exactly as much as the market will bear, and is moderated by the invisible hand of free and open competition, if you make so much profit that you entice others into the market who will under price you, then you lower the price until you deem the price too low to continue in this pursuit and you leave the market. It is self correcting as long as the impediments to the market are minimal (meaning not too much gov't interference). The trillions of self interested consumers will buy what they want for how much they value it, and not a penny more. If there is transparancy as to work conditions and reasonable gov't regulations, the people will, over time, make value adjustments up or down for firms that don't abuse their employees, or do civic good with thier profits... or they will value the product less if the offerer is producing less quality. A free market can price everything perfectly, and profits will over time equalize as people enter and firms leave .

Marcell| 1.15.10 @ 4:57PM

The virtues of capitalism. Say no to conserva-crapitalism,

The people will, over time, make value adjustments up or down for firms that don't abuse their employees, or do civic good with thier profits... or they will value the product less if the offerer is producing less quality.

"Well said!!"

Ps. I still can't get past this one:

" Ken Brown is suing Goldman Sachs for giving its employees more in bonus money than it earned that year."

Ken (Old Texican)| 1.15.10 @ 7:26PM

JTOO,
You are precisely correct of course. Thank you.

I was simply giving everyone a simple handle to hold in their hands....to sorta' remind them.
Best regards

Franklin| 1.15.10 @ 10:33PM

Dang, I started a two week project this week so I can't spend all day on my 'pooter. I would have been able to answer that ... um, yea, weeell. heh

It's time we all take a refresher course on capitalism. I was listening to talk radio the other day talking about how capitalism works. I was amazed at how clueless I was to what Obama's actions are doing to our system. We are in grave danger if we let him continue.

Marcell| 1.15.10 @ 5:01PM

I call it "Washing machine money!!"

Have a Great Evening | 1.15.10 @ 8:25PM

Well black cell, hope you got my explanation of "Southern strategy." 87 percent of GOP voted for voting rights act 1964.

If in 2010 there are a few racists in GOP? Well there are racists in Dem party too. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson would be two I could name.

------

That is why I am glad they are playing out like white sheets.

This is the QUOTE OF THE YEAR

"We the people need to realize this and note that while we battle with each other over whatever SYMPTOM the elites put in our faces, they are chipping away at the foundation of our country. When the foundation gives, the building that is America will lean, the walls will crack and the building will fall."

Jan 15. American Man, Arkansas

..."WAKE UP!!"

Marcell =)

Alan Brooks| 1.15.10 @ 10:32PM

If the GOP doesn't like Obama, why don't they run better candidates for POTUS?

Yosemeti Sam| 1.16.10 @ 1:48AM

Upon being inaugurated, cum slip of the tongue,
BHO thenceforth proclaimed re his cabinet choices save Gates - no, not the filthy rich profiteer of Windows fame -send in the clowns.

And, it's been a circus - ever since.

LOL.

Alan Brooks| 1.16.10 @ 9:27AM

Doesn't make sense; you people talk about competition all the time but you run weak candidates-- like a company offering a lesser product.

Can't get over it: you ran Dole in '96 and expected him to win?

Alexis| 1.17.10 @ 2:36AM

I have only one thing to say to you and that is you are a idiot. Stop drinking the bozo kool-aid

Liberal Reader| 1.16.10 @ 9:59AM

No ... see, you've got it all wrong. The President doesn't get to KEEP tax dollars, you dumb asses. They are spent according to the will of the people's representatives in Congress.

Civics anyone?

Jimbo| 1.16.10 @ 11:31AM

". . .better candidates. . .", Brooks, or more photogenic, more glib candidates? I think you're recommending the latter. In any event, I often find myself casting a vote AGAINST someone rather than FOR the one whose name I checked.

Northern Rebel| 1.16.10 @ 12:06PM

As much as it pains me, Alan Brooks is right about republican nominees. The country club repubs name country club members, and doddering old fools like mcCain, because they believe the pap from the media, and want to be adored by them, as the democrats are.

It's been firmly established that conservatism works everytime it's tried.

The democrat nominee would have won 70% of the vote if not for Sarah Palin, which is why the socialist/dems are terrified of her, and have been trying to destroy her Chicago style.

It wouldn't suprise me if they hired a hit man.

Elaine| 1.16.10 @ 11:23PM

So true and O-slama just keeps plunging the knife deeper. Is there any way, any way this man can/could be impeached??????

Ret. Marine| 1.17.10 @ 5:33AM

The CONgress is solely responsible for the articles of impeachment, what do you think the odds are at anything resembling this happening with all three branches being held by who?

kevin | 1.17.10 @ 9:28AM

regrettable that like minded people who mostly get together here can't "reorganize" America into 10 conservative states and 40 "liberal" states. Let 10 years go by and I would guarantee that the libs will be canibalizing each other and living in broken down shacks. Us conservatives will of course, finally be living in freedom and enjoying life without liberal parasites.

kevin | 1.17.10 @ 9:30AM

"YEAH, I SAID IT!!" -Mark Levin

Ray| 1.17.10 @ 12:39PM

It's ironic (read that as hypocritical) that Obama, in his quest to help the little people get affordable loans, has, in a stroke of Liberal insanity, hit upon the best plan to make sure that affordable loans are no longer available. By taxing the "obscene" profits of large banks, which issue the majority of loans to American citizens, Obama will force the banks to raise their loan interest rates, thus increasing the costs of those loans and placing them out of reach for the very people who need them most.

My interest rates for my mortgage is already high enough, I can't afford for them to increase even more do to Obama's love of punishing the "obscene" profits of bank's that supply the very capital needed to make those loans, thus reducing supply (profits are also know as Capital, you know)and forcing a price increase upon the very people who can least afford it.

martinusbear| 1.17.10 @ 2:13PM

The article’s illustration of profit is flawed. “Normal” profit includes all the cost of the business, including any wages paid to employees and, very importantly, the businessman himself. When the business revenue equals these costs, the business has made a normal profit and the business is a success. Revenue above normal profit, “supernormal” profit, is typically used for reinvestment, expanding the business, or in dividends to investors. One thing that makes modern Wall Street so ugly is the amount of revenue that goes to grossly inflated salaries to the businessmen. These huge salaries leave nothing for the economy as they leave little money for real economic growth investment, or investor dividends. If all the pizza makers colluded to make $1M/year salaries, we would not continue to buy pizza because we have other choices. When big investment bankers collude to make outrageous salaries, it becomes the cost of doing business.

Smitty| 1.17.10 @ 6:21PM

I'm no economist but isn't profit that portion of RECEIPTS that exceeds cost, rather than a portion of PRICE? The author says it's that portion of cost "designed".....but often, profit exceeds design therefore making the limitation of profit as to some measure of price incorrect. Just sayin...

JiggleTheHandle| 1.18.10 @ 11:49AM

Watch out the only really large pot of gold remaining is the pension funds. Here it comes.

keyboard555| 1.20.10 @ 2:15AM

WHERES THE JOBS/
ARE YOU BETTER OFF TODAY, THAN YOU WAS 1YR. AGO.
ENOUGH SAID

Office 2007 Professional| 1.29.10 @ 1:57AM

Office 2007 Professional
Office 2007 Ultimate

http://www.us-chaneloutlet.com| 4.3.10 @ 5:54AM

Starting tomorrow, chanel 2010 is moving its SoHo store into a temporary 10,700 square foot duplex store at 134 Spring Street. Its current shop across the street at 139 Spring will be closed for renovations until mid-September.
Rents in the immediate area run around $300 a foot for the ground floor.
Visit the official Chanel website ：newest chanel