During the last Republican Presidential debate, Byron York of the Washington Examiner asked Congresswoman Bachmann, "So, as President of the United States, will you continue to 'submit' to your husband (Bachmann had once said that she didn't want to study tax law but did so because her husband had told her to do so - and that it was her duty to submit to him)?" It was a totally legitimate question, in my opinion. But the people in the audience (may of them Bachmann enthusiasts, no doubt) booed Mr. York. They evidently thought that it was a gotcha tupe question strictly meant to embarrass the insurgent candidate/tea party favorite................................................................................................As for Mrs. Bachmann's response to the question, being that I can't exactly remember what it was that she said, couldn't have been all that eventful/cogent. I seem to recall an initial "deer in the headlights" type of look and then some absurd redefinition of terms but that's about it...................................................................................................Look, folks, I've made numerous references to the stupidity of the American public. And I'll continue to stand by these proclamations. But I don't think that we'd ever be stupid enough to elect this woman. I mean, yeah, Obama lacks competence at times. But at least the dude is a) bright and b) reasonable (he's shown a willingness to compromise, for instance). Bachmann - no and definitely no.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
According to Accounting Today, "Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., called for cuts in corporate taxes and the elimination of capital gains and estate taxes in a speech last weekend..."
Now, in Will's last post he said, "Whether the increased economic activity that could possibly result from doing away with the corporate tax would make up for this loss in revenue [if the capital gains tax was not also increased]".
So Will thinks lowering or eliminating the corporate income tax is the way to go... perhaps even if the capital gains tax is not raised...
Michele Bachmann wants to lower one and eliminate the other. Better to get 50 percent of what you want than zero, right?
Will, I think Michele Bachmann might be the candidate for you. I wonder how long before we see a post from you informing us that you're voting for MB in the primary and urging everyone else to do the same?
"But I don't think that we'd ever be stupid enough to elect this woman."
I suspect you are right, Will, but remember that there is group of people in Minnesota who are stupid enough to elect her in the first place.
And the stupid could spread!
"But I don't think that we'd ever be stupid enough to elect this woman."
People said the same thing about Bush
People make billions by never underestimating the stupidity of people;
Pet Rocks for example
Screw you, wd. I wouldn't vote for frigging Bachmann at gun point. I'm for raising taxes on the wealthy and you know it. And I said that the only Republican who I would even CONSIDER voting for would be Huntsman. So, as is often the case with you, you're totally full of shit.............Bachmann won't get the nomination, Jerry. It's either going to be Romney or Perry and you pick your poison; the phony or the crazy.
"the phony or the crazy" That's the choice...for republicans.
Unfortunately, all of the really good Republicans are confined to the dustbins of history; Lincoln, TR, Ike, Rocky, Javits, etc..
But Michele Bachmann is calling for cuts in the corporate tax rate! We all know Will desperately desires mercy be shown the poor, downtroden corporations by eliminating all their taxes.
I doubt, that if Barack Obama is re-elected, the corporate income tax will be cut (at least not as much). If Michele Bachmann is the nominee... how could Will NOT vote for her?
Like I said earlier... isn't it better to get half of what you want rather than none of what you want? I know I'd take half of what I wanted rather than none.
Bachmann.... each. IF she does get the nomination, she has no chance of getting in the White House.
Unless somehow the Democrats choose to run Sanders/Kucinich against her.
-------------
WD said: "I doubt, that if Barack Obama is re-elected, the corporate income tax will be cut (at least not as much). If Michele Bachmann is the nominee... how could Will NOT vote for her?"
I doubt President Obama will cut tax rates. But he will continue to work to reduce overall corporate tax revenuesfrom corporations as he will continue policies that will force companies to shed jobs and move overseas.
I'm not a one issue voter, wd. Are you?......And I ask you once again, why do you hate us educators so? My teacher retirement is invested in stock and mutual fund equity and your moronically high corporate income tax is eating away at my retirement fund. Not a big fan of that situation , dude.
You're wasting your breath, dmarks. wd will simply never understand the concept of "unintended consequences".
Will: My teacher retirement is invested in stock and mutual fund equity and your moronically high corporate income tax is eating away at my retirement fund.
A high corporate income tax is NOT eating away at your retirement fund... it's just a delusion you're suffering from.
A NYT article from 5/31/2011 by Republican Bruce Bartlett says, "the United States actually has the lowest corporate tax burden of any of the member nations of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development".
Mr. Bartlett's conclusion is "the truth of the matter is that federal taxes in the United States are very low. There is no reason to believe that reducing them further will do anything to raise growth or reduce unemployment".
And corporate taxes are a small share of government revenue. It is the republican economic policies that crashed the economy that are causing your retirement fund to be eaten away.
Or maybe, given how well the stock market has been performing, you've just made a bad choice of stocks and mutual funds.
Jerry, I understand that many corporations (can you say Google and Microsoft?) don't pay the full 35%. But there's also a cost involved in tax avoidance. The more time that a company is involved in trying not to pay taxes is time that could be much better spent actually, you know, doing business. So, either way, it's hurting pension equity.......And I've ALREADY told you that corporate income tax doesn't raise all that much in revenue. There's nothing new there.............And you, wd, throwing out YET ANOTHER red herring. I have already told you REPEATEDLY/DOZENS AND DOZENS OF TIMES that I am for RAISING taxes on the highest earners back up to the Clinton era (I'd even round it up to 40%) rates and getting rid of the special consideration for capital gains.............And it's not a delusion. Corporate taxation reduces stock and mutual fund equity. It's a fact. Hey, just because you're a frigging pauper with literally no stake in society and who would probably like it if in fact the Federal government started burping you like a baby, it doesn't mean the rest of us with something tangible to lose should roll the hell over for you.
dmarks: [Obama] will continue policies that will force companies to shed jobs and move overseas.
Unfortunately you are right about that. President Obama, like his predecessors, believes in free trade. But so do dmarks and Will Hart. So, HOW can you criticize him for "continuing policies that will force companies to shed jobs and move overseas" when YOU support those policies??
Jerry: It is the republican economic policies that crashed the economy that are causing your retirement fund to be eaten away.
You pointed out the obvious Jerry. Don't expect that to have any effect on Will's delusion, however.
Will: just because you're a frigging pauper with literally no stake in society...
I've never indicated what my financial situation is, nor do I intend to. It's none of your business.
I have investments that also aren't doing that well, but I don't blame a moronically high corporate tax rate... that would be moronic.
You won't even listen to Bruce Bartlett? I seem to remember you saying he was a reasonable Republican. Now, when he contradicts something you believe, he's lying? I definitely would call that a delusion. And a pretty powerful one at that.
No, Bruce Bartlett isn't lying, wd. You are. I've acknowledged that many of the bigger corporations (the ones with high powered tax attorneys) don't pay the 35%. But you won't acknowledge to do so requires effort/money that would be far better spent on doing ACTUAL business. And teachers, firemen, and policemen are heavily into the market via whole term life insurance and pension equity. Why should they have to be the collateral damage to your pathetic and shameless streak of envy?
I'm not lying Will. I think you ought to run, not walk to that linguists class you continually are urging me to sign up for. Lying implies saying something you know isn't true, which I am not doing. I believe everything I write (unless it is a joke like the comment where I suggested you were going to endorse Michele Bachmann).
It is actually you who is lying. My belief that taxes should be increased on the wealthy and corporations has nothing to do with "envy". I've explained this multiple times.
The reason is because I agree with Robert Reich who said, "My position is that even the rich will stand to do better if they have a smaller share of an economy that's growing very fast than if they have a big share of an economy that's basically static".
Also, you dodged the entire point for my posting the Bruce Bartlett quote... if he isn't lying, then WHY THE HELL are you whining and complaining about corporations having to pay (or not pay) the LOWEST tax rate among all the OECD nations??
My guess is you dodged the issue because you realized what BB said proves your entire theory largely wrong.
Jerry said: "It is the republican economic policies that crashed the economy that are causing your retirement fund to be eaten away."
If you are referring to the crash of 2008, that was caused by F&F which was a Democratic problem.
"President Obama, like his predecessors, believes in free trade."
Actually, that is one of the good things. Leaving trade decisions in the hands of the people instead of ruling elites. During the NAFTA period, job growth was steady and strong.
"But so do dmarks and Will Hart."
Of course. It's my business if i want to get a better deal, not the government's. Free trade is fair trade.
"So, HOW can you criticize him for "continuing policies that will force companies to shed jobs and move overseas" when YOU support those policies??"
1) I oppose his policies which force companies to fire people and move overseas, which mainly include overtaxation and overregulation.
2) I support no policies which force ocmpanies to shed jobs and move overseas.
How can my opinion that you're an envious stooge be a lie? It is what I firmly believe, based upon your constant ant-rich rhetoric and your almost casual suggestions that we tax heavily people far more successful than you. And it is you who constantly and indiscriminately throw the term, lie, about. You use it so often as to make it literally meaningless.............As for the corporate tax, I already explained this to you. Yes, some of the bigger corporations get around paying the 35%. But a) not all of them do (the mid-sized ones who cannot afford the luxury of high-priced attorneys) and b) THERE IS A COST TO TAX AVOIDANCE. The fact that these companies are wasting time and effort when they could be improving products and service delivery is a drain on companies and, hence, equity (you know, that little thing which teachers and policemen rely upon in the pension funds). Too much nuance, bra?
Post a Comment