The American Spectator

HawkWatcher| 8.5.09 @ 4:25AM

Do I have the right to take my neighbors property and call it my own? Does my neighbor have a right to my hard-earned money to help him buy a new car? The answer is: NO. This is not the American way. In Obamas view, some of us are more equal than others, to hell with the law, we're in a crisis, only my ideas will work, yadayadayada, have some of Joes money, shut up, and go away.

I want my federal tax dollars directed to defending this nation and funding other Constitutional duties, not buying votes for the Pinkos in Washington. I know exactly who the president listens to, and most of the voices are not promoting liberty in America. No more federal "cash" programs...ever.

P.S. I read earlier (AmericanThinker) that of the top 10 vehicle brands sold under "cash for clunkers", 6 were foreign brands. The top 10 should have all been Ford vehicles, you ignorant neighbors of mine. What the hell is the matter with you? You take my money and send it offshore as foreign profit? I want a refund! I oughtta kick your thoughtless asses!

The more I learn, the madder I get, the more I despise Obama supporters. If the president and his gaggle of leftist minions want conservatives agitated this way, it's working. As they keep going against our wishes while naming us the enemy, it insures their defeat.

Becky| 8.5.09 @ 8:28AM

What we are hearing from the news is that only some citizens are to be taken seriously. Not only do some of us not trust our elected officials, it now seems our elected officials do not trust us.

We are being told that any opposition to what the winning party wants is bogus, and we should just be ignored.

They have the power and will do what they want. The fact that someone may not like the program doesn't mean they won't take advantage of it if they want. It is human nature.

I also despise Obama supporters the further this stuff goes on without serious adult like discussion of what they are doing. It feels like spoils are being divided out.

Liberal Reader| 8.5.09 @ 9:14AM

Say "No"?

Why do you think the program ran out of money so quickly?

It was a TAX CUT. People USED it. The auto industry benefited. Tax payers benefited.

bossy female| 8.5.09 @ 9:34AM

Wow, a liberal defending tax cuts? There's some "hope" and "change" for ya!

DAC| 8.5.09 @ 10:07AM

Dear Liberal Reader:
Your grasp of basic economics typifies the aggressive ignorance of your ideological fellow travelers. A subsidy is not a tax cut. Some taxpayers are benefitting at the expense of others. I know it's hard to grasp, but the billions in subsidies for those few taxpayers who are benefitting have to be generated by all taxpayers. The federal government is not the source of these billions--those of us who work and pay taxes are. As some wise man said, the problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other peoples' money. That's happening now; we'll all enjoy double digit inflation soon because of it. The auto industry, by the way, has already sucked up close to $100 billion of taxpayer money--is that not enough? If not, what is, and why exactly should the federal government be deciding this? Ponder these facts and questions as you go back to making your paper mache shrines to your god Obama.

Liberal Reader| 8.5.09 @ 11:06AM

Bossy Female --

1/3 of Obama's stimulus package is tax cuts for the middle class.

Rush Limbaugh never talks about it, but this information is available for anyone interested.

The cash for clunkers bill is a tax cut, too, and I'm all for it.

It's a tax cut that BENEFITS the MIDDLE CLASS.

I'm for tax cuts that benefit YOU, Bossy Female, not Donald Trump.

That's the difference between liberals and conservatives. Liberals want tax policy that favors average, everyday people who work hard; conservatives favor tax policies that fund exuberant frat parties for their very wealthy friends.

Liberal Reader| 8.5.09 @ 11:10AM

DAC --

Your economics are like your politics: stilted and stultified by supply-side propaganda and right wing radio bromides.

You come tell the men in my family, most of whom are carpenters who work very hard 40 or 40 hours a week that they're not "producers," that they "don't pay taxes" just because they're not big shots. You'd remember those guys every day it rained for the rest of your life.

I don't have sympathy for the wealthy. I think they should be treated fairly, but I have no feeling of moral solidarity with them whatsoever.

The middle class is what has my concern and my loyalty. I'm for tax policy that strenghtens and expands the middle class. Rush Limbaugh can go shove his five houses up his fat ass, for all I care.

DTCHOATE| 8.5.09 @ 11:23AM

Rasmussen ? Fox liar.

Pete| 8.5.09 @ 11:37AM

That's odd, I don't see any mention of the "wealthy" in DAC's post. Oh, I get it, only the wealthy pay taxes in LR's world - or at least deserve to. Except that's now how it works, right LR? Interesting attempt to change the subject when you get beat down by the truth. Your post amounts to, "Whaaaaaaaaa, everyone owes me money....whaaaaaaaa, I hate people more successful than me....Oh lordy, Obama gonna pay my rent, Obama gonna buy me a car...." Truly a disease, you people. Cooling is warming, subsidy equals tax cut, up is down. Here's hoping that a budget cut eliminates the subsidy that pays for your internet access.

Eat The Rich | 8.5.09 @ 11:50AM

I see some of us on here hate the rich. The problem is, according to the Obama administration, you're rich.

Liberal Reader| 8.5.09 @ 12:40PM

Pete and Eat:

I don't hate the rich. I just don't mistake myself for one of them.

Conservatives have tricked millions of middle class Americans into voting for Republicans whose policies FAVOR the rich.

Why they vote this way is puzzling, but not beyond surmise. They believe, perhaps, that by identifying with the wealthy they increase their chances of one day being wealthy.

The truth is, since the 1980s the U.S. has become LESS socially and economically mobile.

ENGLAND, with it's traditionally very inflexible class system, now has more social mobility than the U.S.

90% of American adults will end their lives in the same social class to which they were born or in a lower social class. 90 fucking %.

The tax "breaks" W passed made people who were fantastically wealthy already even more wealthy; the "trickle down" has yet to occur.

So what? Only the rich deserve tax breaks because only the rich work hard?

Nonsense.

To hear middle class conservatives cry out for a more regressive tax system is just unbelievably frustrating. What are you thinking?

Paul in Hong Kong| 8.5.09 @ 1:01PM

Dear LR,

God bless you and those who share your views.

Less government, lower taxes, reasonable regulation, equal opportunity, and care for those in need are all conservative ideals.

Envy, jealousy, groupthink and class warfare are anathema to conservatives.

No doubt you agree with these principles!

Come join the conservatives!

Pete| 8.5.09 @ 1:11PM

In no way do I find it puzzling or frustrating that people in any "social class" would want to retain more of their hard earned money to spend as they see fit. There are no "tricks" embedded in that concept, no matter how much or little money you make. Fundamentally, if you believe you can make better decisions with your money than some government puke, you ought to think and vote conservative. And before you accuse me of being rich (as if that is a bad thing - say, Obama and his 'czars' are filthy rich, you know), let me assure you that I am not; not by my own standards nor those of your corrupt Messiah. I am simply unwilling to cough up more of my money so that that horse's ass can accrue additional power and play social engineer with what has (historically, anyhow) been the greatest nation on earth.

Liberal Reader| 8.5.09 @ 1:28PM

Pete --

You give the obligatory Limbaugh speech, but it doesn't have anything to do with reality.

The progressive tax system (the wealthier you are, the more you pay) helped expand the middle class in this country. In the 1950s, the top tax rate climbed to 95%! Now it's something like 35%.

I'm not saying we should confiscate the wealthy; I'm not for dusting off the guillotines (although reminding the upper classes of their existence every now and then is healthy and prudent).

I'm saying we should eliminate tax policies that simply make already wealthy people filthy rich, and concentrate policies that will enlarge the middle class and make it more stable.

This is not some wild idea I'm pulling out of the air. It's been the general philosophy behind taxation in this country for the last century, when America moved from being a third-world agrarain economy to a world power.

Liberal Reader| 8.5.09 @ 1:31PM

Pete --

The fact that since Reagan we've become decreasingly mobile doesn't bother you?

Reagan's "revolution" in tax policy has benefited the top 2% of earners; the broad middle and upper middle class has seen its buying power decrease along with the likelihood of aspiring to higher earning.

Pete| 8.5.09 @ 1:41PM

a) I have probably caught Rush's show fewer than 10 times in my life

b) I can't help (or understand) your type.

Who is spewing party lines? What is this?

"I'm saying we should eliminate tax policies that simply make already wealthy people filthy rich, and concentrate policies that will enlarge the middle class and make it more stable."

Democratic drivel if I have ever seen it. You people won't be happy until you have choked businesses to death and everyone gets an equal government per diem. Your grand idea is to confiscate as much money as possible from producers and give it out as YOU see fit. Except instead of some utopian hippie altruism you get pork and corruption - see stimulus package and every other federal program in the history of the country. I sincerely hope your vision for the country never comes to pass, though we are clearly headed in that direction at present.

And spare me your "facts."

DAC| 8.5.09 @ 2:13PM

Though we're far from the original discussion point, LR still can't manage to figure out the difference between a subsidy and a tax. Nor can I understand how my original point morphed in his Leninist (see the guillotine half-kidding remark) egalitarian mind to being a defense of "wealthy" (I'm sure he'd be happy to define that for us) taxpayers as opposed to his Dukakisian "little people." Obama and his band of zealous oligarchs are screwing all taxpayers, who ALL pay now, pay too much, for the primary purpose of enriching his political supporters--many of whom are among the filthiest of the filthy rich (e.g., union bosses, whose interests diverge from their rank and file like never before). Let's review for the simple minded: ALL taxpayers subsidizing some for the primary benefit of the politically connected is bad tax policy and bad social policy, as it (pretty clearly) engenders deep resentment among those taxpayers who realize they're being screwed. As LR would know if he read articles not sourced from the White House or People magazine, even if Obama's totalitarianism was fully implemented by his Congressional minions, and income above $500K in the U.S. were taxed at a 100% tax rate, the revenue wouldn't even cover a quarter of his 2009 budget. That's ok with LR, I suppose, because it would teach those rich folks a lesson. Yeah. Keep burning the incense at your Leninist temple, LR. Or just move to Cuba, Zimbabwe or North Korea and see where your and Obama's ideas are in full flower. Enjoy.

Liberal Reader| 8.5.09 @ 5:36PM

DAC --

You lie. Under Obama, people in the middle class are paying LESS in taxes than they did under Bush. There has been NO tax increase on the wealthy yet. A tax increase on the WEALTHIEST Americans is being contemplated for '11, but it has NOT been enacted.

The rest of what you've written is just empty talk.

Pete| 8.5.09 @ 6:32PM

LR-

You are an idiot. This is the second time in this string where you have gotten flogged by DAC and come back with something that isn't even in his post. Please highlight where DAC mentions middle class tax increases? (and by the way, the meager SUBSIDY handed out by Osama did nothing to underlying tax rates, but that is for another time) The way I read it, DAC is making a broader point about taxes and the current government in general, and he makes it well. It sounds a lot like what I said above...that I (and anyone with a brain in any "social class") am loathe to give any money (much less incrementally more soon) to people like your messiah who will sluff it off to their buddies or attempt to change the country to fit their twisted social views.