NYT: Tax hikes for thee, not for me

posted at 11:51 am on December 10, 2012 by Mary Katharine Ham

They’ve got their sweet subsidy and they’re not going to let it be jeopardized by something so silly as letting anyone else keep more of their own money:

As they continue to wrangle over the year-end fiscal deadline, both Democrats and Republicans are considering caps on federal income-tax deductions.

That could be very bad news for residents of New York, New Jersey and other states and cities that rely heavily on their own income taxes. Such a cap would reduce the value of the deduction for state and local income taxes, which has been part of the federal tax code for a century (though the deduction has been diluted by the alternative minimum tax). That could substantially reduce middle-class disposable incomes in high-tax states, which, in turn, would put pressure on those states to cut taxes and the services they have long chosen to provide. (A cap would also affect property and sales taxes, though those are spread around more evenly among all the states.)…

The theory behind the deduction was that the amount paid to states in taxes is not really part of an individual’s disposable income, because it is obligatory and, therefore, should not be taxed twice. Over time, the deduction has become the equivalent of a subsidy from the federal government to states that believe in a strong and active government. That may infuriate conservatives in low-tax states like Texas, who hate subsidizing states with different views of government’s role, but it’s actually a good thing for the country.

Phil Klein, at the Washington Examiner, has suggested this deduction elimination should head up the list of those put on the table by Republicans. No such luck on that during negotiations thus far, but the idea is interesting, if for no other reason than to watch the NYT crowd squirm over their own tax break for rich folks:

As the Washington Examiner editorialized earlier this month, the state and local tax deduction is unfair for a number of reasons. To start, it means that Americans who choose live in low-tax states have to effectively subsidize those who choose to live in high-tax states. It also means that people who live in high-tax states are somewhat insulated from the effects of electing politicians who raise taxes to pay for more government.

The deduction also disproportionately benefits taxpayers with higher incomes. The CBO has written that, “the deduction largely benefits wealthier localities, where many taxpayers itemize, are in the upper income tax brackets, and enjoy more abundant state and local government services. Because the value of an additional dollar of itemized deductions increases with the marginal tax rate (the rate on the last dollar of income), the deductions are worth more to taxpayers in higher income tax brackets than they are to those in lower income brackets.” In 2009, according to the CBO, those who earned over $100,000 enjoyed 73 percent of the tax benefit from this deduction. An older 2007 study by the Tax Policy Center found that 53 percent of the tax hike associated with repealing the reduction would fall on those earning over $200,000.

If this deduction were eliminated, it would trigger an anti-tax revolt at the state level. Residents of high-tax states would put more pressure on state lawmakers to cut taxes.

The NYT explains that the deduction is super-awesome, even though it requires smaller-population states with lower incomes to subsidize their public sector, because their public sector is doing the righteous work of taking care of citizens. The way the NYT explains this, red states are just falling down on the job what with their budgeting within the bounds of sanity and not becoming California and Illinois. As much as I enjoy subsidizing the moral superiority of Manhattan editorial writers, what they fail to recognize is that all of this generosity at the hands of other states can’t go on forever. What if all 57 states decided to accrue $150-500 billion or so in debt? It actually requires a modicum of restraint to make sure the state can continue to provide the benefits it has promised. But whatevs, just keep serving the least among us— by which I mean anyone who works for the government and might be in danger of contributing a cent toward their own health coverage— without ever wondering whether you can afford it. I’m pretty sure that’s how the country’s best charities work, right?

In other news, Politico headlines its Battleground poll today: “Hike taxes on the rich.” I don’t want to minimize the political pickle Republicans are in— 60 percent support tax hikes on those over $250K— but check out the accompanying graphic. Can you identify something round about that last line that has higher support even than tax hikes on the rich but not a daggone person is talking about?

Spending vs. Tax Hikes

Most of the poll results follow the pattern of Obama-era polling— everyone thinks everything sucks and none of it is deemed his fault—but a couple interesting tidbits from the internals, which signal an opportunity for Republicans to capitalize:

Since the era of Ronald Reagan, women have traditionally been more open to cutting defense spending than men. This has changed in recent years, and now women take a harder line than men on the military budget. While 41 percent of men favor making significant defense cuts and 56 percent oppose them, only 34 percent of women favor cuts and 62 percent oppose them. That’s a 15-point spread.
Women believe the world is more dangerous, Democratic pollster Lake explained, and they see cutting the military budget as harmful to the troops.

Democrats split evenly on whether to increase taxes on small businesses making more than $250,000, with 49 percent in favor and 49 percent opposed.

The opposition to raising taxes on small business provides a critical opening for GOP negotiators.

“I don’t think we are aggressive enough about standing up for small business, and we cede too much of that to Republicans,” said Lake.

And, by “capitalize,” I of course mean totally fail to capitalize.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

OLD & BUSTED: T-bills

New hotness: C-Bills (as in China money) or maybe OBAMAbucks (to go along to OBAMAcare).

PappyD61 on December 10, 2012 at 11:54 AM

A 2 Trillion dollar platinum coin will solve all that ails us. Let It Burn.

njrob on December 10, 2012 at 11:58 AM

As much as I enjoy subsidizing the moral superiority of Manhattan editorial writers, what they fail to recognize is that all of this generosity at the hands of other states can’t go on forever. What if all 57 states decided to accrue $150-500 billion or so in debt?

I got it. Germany bails them out!

I love this class.

Axe on December 10, 2012 at 11:58 AM

Peter Schiff: Majority Doesn’t “Have A Right To Steal My Money Just Because They Voted For It”
http://realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/12/10/peter_schiff_majority_doesnt_have_a_right_to_steal_my_money_just_because_they_voted_for_it.html

PETER SCHIFF: First of all, I’m in the top two percent. Right now, I’m paying 45% of my total income in income taxes, both to the state of Connecticut and to the federal government, and if you take the 3% Medicare tax. After the tax hikes go into effect next year, more than half — more than half of my total income is going to go to the government. You tell me, what’s fair about that when medieval serfs pay 25%, I’m paying half? I don’t care what the majority voted to do, they don’t have a right to steal my money just because they vote for it.

###

SCHIFF: You know what the wealthy are going to do? They’re going to invest more abroad, they’re not going to work as hard, they’re not going to pay as much in taxes, they’re not going to employ as many people. Their employees are going to pay all the taxes.

Galt2009 on December 10, 2012 at 11:59 AM

Too bad we don’t have any party that wants to cut spending across the board.

BroncosRock on December 10, 2012 at 12:01 PM

pathetic.

Tim_CA on December 10, 2012 at 12:02 PM

Residents of high-tax states would put more pressure on state lawmakers to cut taxes.

Catastrophe!!

alwaysfiredup on December 10, 2012 at 12:05 PM

To start, it means that Americans who choose live in low-tax states have to effectively subsidize those who choose to live in high-tax states. It also means that people who live in high-tax states are somewhat insulated from the effects of electing politicians who raise taxes to pay for more government.

Hope and Change. Success! Lean Forward.

What, you expect D.C’ers, Detroiters, New Yorkers and whatever people in Philadelphia are called to pay their own bills? Come on now, that’s what the the other 12 districts are for, to provide for the Capitol and their Chosen Ones.

Bishop on December 10, 2012 at 12:07 PM

What’s to stop the oppressives from taking more from whom they deem as to have arbitrary not paid their fair share?

If they can arbitrarily decide that one segment of the population can be ripped off in the name of wealth redistribution, what’s to stop them from expanding that theft?

It started out as reaming the top 1%, now it the top 2%, soon it’ll be the top 10% then top 20%.

Do people realize that if they acquiesce to theft from one minority segment of the population, that they are acquiescing to theft from other segments of the population?

Galt2009 on December 10, 2012 at 12:08 PM

Do not fear the fiscal cliff. Let all of the rates rise. This should finally wake up the 49% or so that have not realized how serious this is. Next (and stay with me on this one) the Republicans must make the argument that everyone needs to pay atleast some level of taxes. After all it is patriotic and the duty of every citizen to support their countries and the valuable benefits (security under a strong armed forces, representation in foreign countries through our missions, social security, and now obamacare/health care (lets face it aint going away).

You see once someone has “skin in the game” then that is their money you are wasting. They will care about wasted spending and higher taxes. Now they do not. It is just like the United Nations the majority of countries pay little or nothing into it so why not waste or steal the American’s,Germany’s, U.K. etc $

Natebo on December 10, 2012 at 12:08 PM

subsidizing states with different views of government’s role, but it’s actually a good thing for the country.

It really isn’t but if you like your bloated state and local bureaucracy you can keep it and pay for it.

CorporatePiggy on December 10, 2012 at 12:08 PM

Pretty sure some people don’t know what “across the board” means.

forest on December 10, 2012 at 12:09 PM

Everyone, including the Tea party is interested in cutting spending on EVERYONE except THEMSELVES.

I say cut it all, but most importantly, CUT PAYMENTS TO 0 FOR INDIVIDUALS at the federal level.

No Social Security, no Medicare… get rid of it all. Welfare and Social Security and their derivatives make up more than HALF of the federal budget. $1,945 billion out of $3,600 billion.

astonerii on December 10, 2012 at 12:12 PM

There are some departments of the federal government that just need to go. I’m always shocked that the New York Times and its ilk can rationalize this stuff. Do they have so much money that they aren’t affected? There just has to be too many people and organizations benefiting financially from this lunacy.

Cindy Munford on December 10, 2012 at 12:12 PM

American politicians are corrupt imbeciles, the harder they squeeze the less revenue they extract from the tax payer, because the revenue keeps declining out of desperation to increase that revenue they squeeze harder resulting in a continuing decrease in revenue. They have themselves in a catch-22 losing cycle.

Arthur Laffer, one of America’s most brilliant economists created something called the “Laffer curve” It is a mathematical equation that shows the relationship between taxation rates and revenue generated by those rates. his equations proved that the highest revenue generating taxation rate is approximately 17.5 percent.

The professional political class, being populated primarily by sociopathic corrupt ba$tard have decided that math is racist or something and Laffer’s equations be damned, they can’t understand Laffer’s equations, but they damned sure know that 35% is more of 100 then 17.5% is. being both sociopath’s and imbeciles at the same time they are intellectually and constitutional incapable of grasping that higher taxation rate cannot and will not result in increased revenue.

SWalker on December 10, 2012 at 12:13 PM

SWalker on December 10, 2012 at 12:13 PM

The ones pulling their strings know all of this. It is part and parcel of their plans.

astonerii on December 10, 2012 at 12:17 PM

The obvious liberal answer is RAISE TAXES SOME MORE! “We’ll teach those evil rich people!”

GarandFan on December 10, 2012 at 12:20 PM

Fuck them; you want to raise taxes on the rich, well YOU’RE IT, b1tches. You asked for it, you can suck it, you can pay it.

Midas on December 10, 2012 at 12:21 PM

Latest Democratic slogan for the current negotiations:

“Barack Obama: fighting like hell to protect America’s middle class from Bill Clinton’s tax rates!”

tbrosz on December 10, 2012 at 12:22 PM

Yes, the federal deduction for state income taxes has to go, if for no other reason that the rest of us should not be subsidizing the poor governance of states like California and Illinois.

How much is the newly passed California Prop 30 alone going to cost the rest of us? Get out your checkbook and write some checks folks!

slickwillie2001 on December 10, 2012 at 12:23 PM

Hilarious. I remember when Texans were allowed to deduct their property taxes for a couple of years. The income taxed states howled about it.

Yep. Eliminate the state income tax write down and watch the dynamic change.

DanMan on December 10, 2012 at 12:25 PM

Do not fear the fiscal cliff. Let all of the rates rise. This should finally wake up the 49% or so that have not realized how serious this is. Next (and stay with me on this one) the Republicans must make the argument that everyone needs to pay atleast some level of taxes. After all it is patriotic and the duty of every citizen to support their countries and the valuable benefits (security under a strong armed forces, representation in foreign countries through our missions, social security, and now obamacare/health care (lets face it aint going away).

You see once someone has “skin in the game” then that is their money you are wasting. They will care about wasted spending and higher taxes. Now they do not. It is just like the United Nations the majority of countries pay little or nothing into it so why not waste or steal the American’s,Germany’s, U.K. etc $

Natebo on December 10, 2012 at 12:08 PM

Is the “fiscal cliff” really that much different from Simpson-Bowles, as compared to doing nothing?

slickwillie2001 on December 10, 2012 at 12:27 PM

SCHIFF: You know what the wealthy are going to do? They’re going to invest more abroad, they’re not going to work as hard, they’re not going to pay as much in taxes, they’re not going to employ as many people. Their employees are going to pay all the taxes.

Galt2009 on December 10, 2012 at 11:59 AM

Yeah, Schiff just made O’s naughty list. He’s gonna hear IRS sleigh bells on his roof… “HO HO HO… fork it over naughty boy!!!”

Naga… Naga… NotGonnaMakeMoneyHereAnymore!!!

Marcola on December 10, 2012 at 12:27 PM

New York Times –propaganda organ of big government–’nuff said.

Just get rid of all deductions. Everyone files a 1040EZ.

ProfShadow on December 10, 2012 at 12:27 PM

THE PAPPY PLAN.

1. Seal the border.

2. 10% across the board spending CUTS……..REAL CUTS.

Fair, simple, and “shared sacrifice”.

If they were serious, and we had more than just the Democrat Party and the OTHER Democrat Party we’d have a chance but instead whining and moaning about how the gop treats us like house slaves is better than getting out there and freaking starting a third party……THAT’S CONSERVATIVE.

gop……..LET IT BURN.

PappyD61 on December 10, 2012 at 12:27 PM

Look at these hypocritical swine, with huge apologies to the clean pigs.

God damn Google and their masters.

Schadenfreude on December 10, 2012 at 12:30 PM

Transformation through Redistribution.

Not a complicated process to understand.

FlaMurph on December 10, 2012 at 12:30 PM

Yes, the federal deduction for state income taxes has to go, if for no other reason that the rest of us should not be subsidizing the poor governance of states like California and Illinois.

How much is the newly passed California Prop 30 alone going to cost the rest of us? Get out your checkbook and write some checks folks!

slickwillie2001 on December 10, 2012 at 12:23 PM

Yea, except for all it’s fiscal insanity, you are not subsidizing California. California pays in 30 Billion a year more than it receives back from Mordor on the Potomac. This is not to suggest that our politicians here in California are not bat$hit crazy Marxist ba$tards, they are. The California GDP is 1.9 TRILLION a year (1/6th of the entire US GDP), a beast of that magnitude takes a damned lot of Marxist killing to kill. In the purest of Southern intentional insults, God Bless Jerry Brown’s heart, cause he and his fellow Marxist ba$tard democrats sure are trying to kill California.

SWalker on December 10, 2012 at 12:31 PM

Transformation through Redistribution.

Not a complicated process to understand.

FlaMurph on December 10, 2012 at 12:30 PM

Reparations – they have overcome, the collection of Fools.

Starve the Looters!!!

Schadenfreude on December 10, 2012 at 12:31 PM

**Sigh**

Americans by a 60/38% margin want to raise taxes on Americans earning more than $250,000 a year, but by a 59/38% margin are against making “significant” defence cuts. If only we had an educated populace!

The expiration of the Bush tax rates on the top 2% will raise about $80 billion a year, assuming no behavioural modifications, or fund the government for about 7.69 days. According to Democrats, raising taxes on the “evil rich” is the magical elixir that will solve all of our fiscal woes while not impact employment or the economy in the slightest.

ON THE OTHER HAND, the 9.4% cut to most defence programmes — except those exempted in the sequestration law — that hits in 2013 is called “devastating” by Secretary of Defence, Leon Panetta, “deeply destructive” by the White House, “catastrophic” by Republicans across-the-board, and require preventative defibrillation for nation-building/Arab Spring cheerleaders like Bill Kristol. The amount of cuts next year is $50 billion.

$80 billion in tax rises = Magical unicorn dust that solves budgetary woes, erases wrinkles, reverses receding hairlines, and will cause a 2 stone reduction in weight overnight!!!

$50 billion in defence cuts = “devastating,” “deeply destructive,” “catastrophic,” etc.

What NONE of them tell people is:

1. The 9.4% cut is to the BASELINE BUDGET for the defence department. It is NOT a 9.4% cut to the FY2012 budget. As with the rest of the Federal budget — even when it isn’t passed **eyeroll** — spending increases automatically across-the-board every year. These increases are built in and require Congress to do nothing. So, if the baseline budget increase for defence is 5%, the sequester cut is actually 4.4% of what we spent in FY2012.

2. Below are the amounts spent on defence since 2001 – keep in mind that the Iraq War is over:

2001: $366.2 billion

2002: $421.7 billion

2003: $482.9 billion

2004: $542.4 billion

2005: $600.0 billion

2006: $621.1 billion

2007: $652.6 billion

2008: $729.6 billion

2009: $794.0 billion

2010: $847.2 billion

2011: $878.5 billion

2012: $902.0 billion

That’s a 146.31% increase in defence spending since 2001. It goes hand-in-hand with the overall explosion in Federal spending. In FY2001, the government spent $1,862.9 trillion. In FY2012, the Federal government spent $3,795.6. That’s a 103.75% increase in spending since FY2001!

3. The above figures should give pause to any fiscal hawk. Our dire fiscal condition requires MASSIVE spending cuts and there can be NO sacred cows. I simply refuse to believe that everything that we spent $902.0 billion on this year in defence-related expenditures was absolutely, positively, matter-of-factly, without-a-shadow-of-a-doubt the difference between the US having the strongest military on earth and being the UK or France.

4. Beware the “Raise property taxes or we’ll have to fire first responders and teachers!” routine. Both Democrats and Republicans are arguing that, if we cut defence, it will cost hundreds of thousands of military and defence contractor jobs. Of course there will be job losses…if we cut waste, fraud, abuse, AND WEAPONS SYSTEMS THAT THE MILITARY DOESN’T WANT, BUT HAS BECOME “SACRED PORK.”

That’s why we need to go through the defence budget and find the billions in savings that can be made and make cuts where they are sensible and necessary, which is what we MUST do with the rest of the Federal budget, as well.

Resist We Much on December 10, 2012 at 12:32 PM

The fiscal cliff is a fiscal cliff because it doesn’t cut spending or raise taxes enough.

The GOP should make the case for lower spending, but demand just 1 thing: that we start paying for all the government we love so much. Maybe when people face a 60% tax bill will they finally think twice about voting these clowns into office.

That means no more borrowing and no VAT! The pain of taxation must be felt directly, by the voter, and not diluted through borrowing, inflation, or a VAT. Financing in these ways just makes it easier for the Left to hide the true cost of government and to blame the inevitable ensuing price increases and stagnation on “big business” or “capitalism”.

EddieC on December 10, 2012 at 12:33 PM

Is the “fiscal cliff” really that much different from Simpson-Bowles, as compared to doing nothing?

slickwillie2001 on December 10, 2012 at 12:27 PM

Nope

Natebo on December 10, 2012 at 12:34 PM

Just get rid of all deductions. Everyone files a 1040EZ.

ProfShadow on December 10, 2012 at 12:27 PM

Flat 10% consumption tax. Encourage living more frugally (our culture desperately needs this) and the math is so simple a retarded 6th grader could do it.

Offer a one-time amnesty for declaring any illegal tax shelters which will be taxed at 100% thereafter when found. If you can’t live by rules that fair and simple, you don’t deserve mercy.

MelonCollie on December 10, 2012 at 12:36 PM

The deduction also disproportionately benefits taxpayers with higher incomes.

While I agree with the idea that the taxes that states impose on their citiens should be totally borne by those individual states (i.e. no deduction on federal taxes) I really can’t stand this asinine theme that is constantly pushed up by the left (and now some on the right) that those in higher brackets “benefit more” from any deductions. Of course, deductions MEAN MORE to people in high brackets … because they PAY MORE in taxes. But they don’t “benefit” in that the government isn’t stealing as much money from them. Barky made this stupid argument about “the rich” (though he meant “the high earners”) unfairly benefitting more from the charitable deductions because they were in higher brackets and got to write off more of each dollar. Well, duh! That’s how it is because the progressive tax structure is, itself, UNFAIR and stupid. If the income were flat, as it should be, then the charitable deductions would be the same for everyone. Barky and the left were arguing for the fairness of a flat tax in terms of charitable deductions … but no one on the right jumped on that and held them to task on the fairness of a flat tax, generally.

Every dollar earned in a paycheck should be taxed the same – fairness at the dollar level. The idea of a progressive tax structure is actually the OPPOSITE of what is normal, that in percentage measures people tend to understand that percentages (to be fair) go down as absolute numbers go up. It’s one thing for a small company to grow 100% a year while it’s quite another for a gigantic company to perform that feat. One pays X% on a small bill of $100 but when the bill is $1,000,000 the natural feeling is that something quite less than X% is appropriate – and that intuition is correct. Even a flat percentage is not “fair” for aggregated dollars, and everyone knows this. But, somehow, only in taxes … we have the idea that the percentages should do the opposite and INCREASE with the absolute numbers … and people have accepted this perverted view as natural. Unreal. And pathetic.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on December 10, 2012 at 12:36 PM

EddieC on December 10, 2012 at 12:33 PM

Exactly!

Resist We Much on December 10, 2012 at 12:36 PM

Resist We Much on December 10, 2012 at 12:32 PM

Amen. The defense budget should be cut by 30% right now at minimum and frozen at that level for at several years.

EddieC on December 10, 2012 at 12:36 PM

Offer a one-time amnesty for declaring any illegal tax shelters which will be taxed at 100% thereafter when found. If you can’t live by rules that fair and simple, you don’t deserve mercy.

MelonCollie on December 10, 2012 at 12:36 PM

what about the legal tax shelters?

SWalker on December 10, 2012 at 12:37 PM

EddieC on December 10, 2012 at 12:36 PM

Pining for the ol’ “peace dividend”?

Defense spending is not the problem. Not even close. You know … something happened in 2001 that changed things …

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on December 10, 2012 at 12:39 PM

The obvious liberal answer is RAISE TAXES SOME MORE! “We’ll teach those evil rich people!”

GarandFan on December 10, 2012 at 12:20 PM

Latest Democratic slogan for the current negotiations:

“Barack Obama: fighting like hell to protect America’s middle class from Bill Clinton’s tax rates!”

tbrosz on December 10, 2012 at 12:22 PM

And those evil rich people will respond by cutting back on hiring limos, gardeners, maids, cooks, etc; and will cut back a bit on buying boats, cars, mansions, electronics, airline tickets, hotel rooms, etc, etc.
Yup, that will sure help all those middle class people who depend on those jobs to make a living….

dentarthurdent on December 10, 2012 at 12:40 PM

what about the legal tax shelters?

SWalker on December 10, 2012 at 12:37 PM

Taxed at 10%.

Everyone should get the same offer: no extra taxes for anyone, for anything, but no exceptions either. 10% is elementary mathematics to compute, isn’t asking more than God, and is well within the Laffer Curve.

Exceptions will only to be made in time of declared war by Congress. Said declarations will also include civilian rationing and the restarting of the draft (so ya’d better d@mn mean it), plus the war declaration will have to be revoted on every 4 years.

That system is the closest we can humanely come to true fairness (not liberal ‘fairness’) and it just can’t be made any simpler. If people refuse to live by that system there is just no excuse.

MelonCollie on December 10, 2012 at 12:45 PM

Hope and Change. Success! Lean Forward.

Bishop on December 10, 2012 at 12:07 PM

Left out “Grab your ankles.”

Axe on December 10, 2012 at 12:49 PM

SWalker on December 10, 2012 at 12:37 PM

MelonCollie on December 10, 2012 at 12:45 PM

We have lost the language on what is and is not a ‘tax shelter’. The proggies are now referring to the Mortgage Interest Deduction as ‘entitlement spending’ and a ‘tax avoidance’ measure.

Still all quiet on the EIC front however.

slickwillie2001 on December 10, 2012 at 12:49 PM

We have lost the language on what is and is not a ‘tax shelter’. The proggies are now referring to the Mortgage Interest Deduction as ‘entitlement spending’ and a ‘tax avoidance’ measure.

Still all quiet on the EIC front however.

slickwillie2001 on December 10, 2012 at 12:49 PM

Hmm. Good to know…and disturbing.

MelonCollie on December 10, 2012 at 12:50 PM

Resist We Much on December 10, 2012 at 12:32 PM

I won’t argue with any of your numbers, or what you’re saying. As a defense contractor I see the waste and bloated bureaucracy on a daily basis, so cuts could easily be made, if made in the right places, without hurting the military.

However, I would suggest you lay out the same figures for entitlement spending – and see how they compare to the defense budget. The basic reality is that defense is a relatively small part of the overall federal spending – but one of the few Constitutionally valid responsibilities for the federal government. Entitlements are the part of the “budget” that are bankrupting the country – and they aren’t even a valid expense for the federal government according to the Constitution.

dentarthurdent on December 10, 2012 at 12:51 PM

4. Beware the “Raise property taxes or we’ll have to fire first responders and teachers!” routine. Both Democrats and Republicans are arguing that, if we cut defence, it will cost hundreds of thousands of military and defence contractor jobs. Of course there will be job losses…if we cut waste, fraud, abuse, AND WEAPONS SYSTEMS THAT THE MILITARY DOESN’T WANT, BUT HAS BECOME “SACRED PORK.”

That’s why we need to go through the defence budget and find the billions in savings that can be made and make cuts where they are sensible and necessary, which is what we MUST do with the rest of the Federal budget, as well.

Resist We Much on December 10, 2012 at 12:32 PM

That last part is the key. If we eliminated the mandatory pork spending that Congress forces on us, for programs the military doesn’t even want, we could make a pretty good impact on the defense budget without harming military capabilities.

But that is still small beans compared to entitlements.

dentarthurdent on December 10, 2012 at 12:57 PM

Can you identify something round about that last line that has higher support even than tax hikes on the rich but not a daggone person is talking about?

You mean that the stupid public is 70% in favor of spending cuts across the board, just don’t touch 60-70% of the current budget? (Since last I checked SS, defense, and medicare count about that much of the budget.)

Dave_d on December 10, 2012 at 12:57 PM


will cause a 2 stone reduction in weight overnight!!!

My you are British. the reference to stones and spelling of “defence”. Here we say defense.

I do not argue that we need to trim defense spending some but a good deal of the increase is due to better pay/benefits to the military service members. Long overdue and an issue that the Ds handled brilliantly. I agree with an earlier comment cut all Federal Agencies 10% across the board and tell them that they are to do more with less and that we expect better results with less funding. They will find the waste or their leadership will be gone. If we cut defense too deeply we will become toothless tigers and unable to defend this country and the free world. We are still the last best hope for people looking for freedom and to escape caste systems.

Other thoughts. Start denying Social Security Disability to Freeloaders that just want to go on the dole. Every cut counts. No more PBS subsidy, no more foreign aid until we are running budget surpluses. Only a fool borrows money and gives it to someone else.

Natebo on December 10, 2012 at 12:59 PM

The fiscal cliff is a fiscal cliff because it doesn’t cut spending or raise taxes enough.

The GOP should make the case for lower spending, but demand just 1 thing: that we start paying for all the government we love so much. Maybe when people face a 60% tax bill will they finally think twice about voting these clowns into office.

That means no more borrowing and no VAT! The pain of taxation must be felt directly, by the voter, and not diluted through borrowing, inflation, or a VAT. Financing in these ways just makes it easier for the Left to hide the true cost of government and to blame the inevitable ensuing price increases and stagnation on “big business” or “capitalism”.

EddieC on December 10, 2012 at 12:33 PM

I’ve been saying the same thing. The GOP offer should simply be: we’ll let you have whatever taxation you want as long as the annual budget is balanced.

gwelf on December 10, 2012 at 1:00 PM

I’m reasonably certain the Romans didn’t have blogs but, if they did, my guess is that they came to resemble ours today.

I totally agree that free-spending liberal/socialists seem to be numb above the neck, unable to comprehend big-number math, much less deny themselves (or their pet feel-good-about-being-me projects) anything. They actually believe, apparently, that they have a deific quality which allows them to vote, “Let there be more money, more cake, more circuses, more of everything for everyone, because more is great!” and that all this will come to pass.

It’s true that they’re delusional. But, the frightening part of all this is, it’s happened before, over and over throughout the history of empires such as ours and the means to stop it have not, until now, been successful. If they exist. It’s the old “vote to spend more of other people’s money” syndrome, combined with the natural inclination of government to grow. Otherwise, what do all those people do in Washington, if it’s just defense and, otherwise, leave us alone?

Problem: delusional people don’t know they’re delusional. And telling them so won’t change a thing. The only good news? Most of America doesn’t agree with them, even it they think they do. Ask yourself, what would you rather have, a chance or a check? Easy answer (excluding the bums who will always be bums).

If there is to be any success against this creeping iceberg, those in opposition (I don’t say Republicans because I have little faith that they’re up to the task) are going to have to speak straight, in simple terms, and shake a lot of people out of this opium-induced state of “entitlement” to bounty. Folks, there is no bounty. The safe is empty. Upstairs the bankers are swilling laced punch at the 24/7 party that is known as Washington, D.C. but, downstairs, the thieves (uh, that’s us, the public, through our supposedly-trusted representatives) have made off with all of it, and left an IOU for that much more again.

This “fiscal cliff” is not even a mole hill compared to the fiscal disaster lurking out there in the dark, waiting for the U.S.A. Titanic to meet it head on. Somebody (actually, a lot of us somebodies) better wake this country the f#%* up and soon.

IndieDogg on December 10, 2012 at 1:01 PM

You mean that the stupid public is 70% in favor of spending cuts across the board, just don’t touch 60-70% of the current budget? (Since last I checked SS, defense, and medicare count about that much of the budget.)

Dave_d on December 10, 2012 at 12:57 PM

I’m good with “across the board” if its really across the board – which sequestration is NOT.
Try just the entitlements umbrella. That accounts for over 60% of the “budget” and is the one major area that I don’t believe is Constitutionally valid for the federal government to be spending.

dentarthurdent on December 10, 2012 at 1:02 PM

My plan:

Get rid of social security. Instead say that your taxes are buying X shares of America, to be paid out at the time of your retirement. The shares grow over time, with dividends as applicable backed by confidence in the country. Hence, now each American is invested in the performance and returns of the economy writ large.

I also say we have a flat tax, (again used to buy shares in America for which you get a quarterly statement). The statement lists how many shares you own and how much they are worth at the current time, with projections as to how much they will be worth in retirement.

Precident has already been set with Obamacare, 16th Amendment, etc.

antisense on December 10, 2012 at 1:02 PM

Resist We Much on December 10, 2012 at 12:32 PM

I agree that defense could be cut – though I’m not sure what the right level is. I’ve also read that as a % of GDP defense spending has been going down for years and years, while entitlement spending has been increasing and will continue to skyrocket (I’m sure you’d agree that entitlement spending is the real problem).

I do think a sensible and reasonable approach is going to involve defense cuts (at least to the locked in increased due to baseline budgeting) but this also gives Democrats a lot of cover. Democrats and the media give the impression – which is gobbled up by liberals and low information voters – that taxing the rich and cutting defense is going to keep the big government redistribution scam go operating in perpetuity.

gwelf on December 10, 2012 at 1:05 PM

Too bad we don’t have any party that wants to cut spending across the board.

BroncosRock on December 10, 2012 at 12:01 PM

http://www.conservativepartyusa.org/home/issues/

psrch on December 10, 2012 at 1:06 PM

All I’ll say about what essentially is the same status quo churn we’ve seen for the last two years is that “across the board” cuts are about as stupid and cowardly a way to dealing with the situation as there is- short of the orange one caving on stated principles.

It’s bad public policy because not all government programs, agencies, or spending is equal.

Happy Nomad on December 10, 2012 at 1:07 PM

Wanting the center of gravity to shift down, as low as possible, is politically Conservative, and wanting it localized at the top is Progressive. The problems we are experiencing now are the results of out politically Progressive shift. The federal government currently extracts so much money directly from the citizens of the republic — and assumes it has the preeminent claim to their money — that the states can’t govern. And the federal government does this for control. It takes all the money the people would have spend on their roads, for example, and then offers to give that money back to the states if the states write laws the federal government wants, like laws setting the speed limit where the federal government thinks it should be.

Supporting the Washington bureaucracy is making it impossible for us to build the lives we’d like to build. We can’t manage out roads, parks, public areas, charitable healthcare structures, schools, or anything else. We have more money than we would ever need, and could create a higher quality of life than we’ve ever had, if we weren’t being robbed on a daily basis by a distant and disinterested government.

Just talking.

Don’t miss this thing, by the way: Unserious People.

Axe on December 10, 2012 at 1:09 PM

From the NYT article quoted:

Texas is proud not to have an income tax, but it also has by far the highest percentage of uninsured people in the country.

“By far?” If you check out the link they give, Texas is number one at 25 percent uninsured.

The massively-taxed state of California is tied with three other states at number four, with 20 percent uninsured.

tbrosz on December 10, 2012 at 1:10 PM

All I’ll say about what essentially is the same status quo churn we’ve seen for the last two years is that “across the board” cuts are about as stupid and cowardly a way to dealing with the situation as there is- short of the orange one caving on stated principles.

It’s bad public policy because not all government programs, agencies, or spending is equal.

Happy Nomad on December 10, 2012 at 1:07 PM

That gets to the heart of what I’ve only marginally touched on with my Constitutional arguments. While I’m ok with “across the board” cuts – I would prefer to see some departments, like Education, Energy, EPA, and several others completely eliminated. But I doubt that will ever happen.

dentarthurdent on December 10, 2012 at 1:10 PM

There’s plenty of defense related spending that can be cut. It is still government spending, and as such a theft, (although Constitutionally mandated), from the private sector where it is utilized much more efficiently.

Still doesn’t change the fact entitlements, welfare, and insane health spending are the real drivers of debt. Grown men are making a career of being permanently disabled due to “back pain” and depression.

In my town 2000 Somalis turned out for 200 rent-controlled apartments and had to be maced into submission. They parked at the apartment and church lot next door, all over the streets, and in people’s driveways. This cannot continue forever.

antisense on December 10, 2012 at 1:12 PM

Democrats and the media give the impression – which is gobbled up by liberals and low information voters – that taxing the rich and cutting defense is going to keep the big government redistribution scam go operating in perpetuity.

gwelf on December 10, 2012 at 1:05 PM

Can we quit calling the parasites, moochers, and takers “low information voters?” These bastards knew exactly what they were voting for- free stuff for them to be paid for by somebody else. The bill may be foisted on future generations, another part of society, or simply reneging on promises made to another group but make no mistake that sluts like Sandra Fluke were not “low information” when they voted to force religious institutions to pay for their birth control. Obamaphone lady knew full well that voting for the rat-eared wonder protect her ability to be a parasite. Same-sex marriage advocates voted for Obama even though that is essentially a tax on a myriad of societal institutions. Same goes for those pushing amnesty for illegals.

None of these parasites voted for Obama because they didn’t know any better. They were just too greedy, lazy, and selfish to care so long as they got their freebies.

Happy Nomad on December 10, 2012 at 1:13 PM

I won’t argue with any of your numbers, or what you’re saying. As a defense contractor I see the waste and bloated bureaucracy on a daily basis, so cuts could easily be made, if made in the right places, without hurting the military.

However, I would suggest you lay out the same figures for entitlement spending – and see how they compare to the defense budget. The basic reality is that defense is a relatively small part of the overall federal spending – but one of the few Constitutionally valid responsibilities for the federal government. Entitlements are the part of the “budget” that are bankrupting the country – and they aren’t even a valid expense for the federal government according to the Constitution.

dentarthurdent on December 10, 2012 at 12:51 PM

Luv, I would end ALL welfare and subsidies TODAY. I would also end Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. If you got the impression from my post that I am some sort of cut-defence-so-that-we-fan-create-a-socialist-utopia kind of Progressive lunatic, I very much regret that. It was certainly not my intent.

Apart from pointing out the explosion in defence spending — and, obviously, I am fully aware of the change in circumstances since 2001 — and the FACT that the country is broke, which requires that there be NO sacred pork, the point of my post was the polling numbers.

60% – 38%: Increase taxes on the “evil rich,” which will fund 7.69 days of Federal government spending and are counter-intuitive to basic Keynesian principles because even tax rises are contractionary and Maynard opposed same in weak economic conditions. The expiration of the Bush tax cuts for the “evil rich” is a meaningless jaunt in pure “envy” politics, which are poisonous. I chose to become an American to get away from such destructiveness.

59% – 38%: Do not make any “significant” cuts to defence. “Significant” being defined by Democrats and Republicans as $50 billion out of a $900+ billion defence budget.

I am all with you on entitlements. In fact, I’d wager that I am far more radical than the overwhelming majority of people that frequent HA. I just don’t buy into the ring-fencing of defence, which too many Americans, including solid conservatives and Tea Partiers, do. I believe that the brokest nation in the history of civilisation MUST start making better choices in the way that it spends limited resources.

Resist We Much on December 10, 2012 at 1:15 PM

Happy Nomad on December 10, 2012 at 1:13 PM

Up twinkles!!

dentarthurdent on December 10, 2012 at 1:16 PM

Resist We Much on December 10, 2012 at 1:15 PM
Don’t worry – I understood what you were saying – and agree with you. But since that original post focused on Defense, I was just saying I’d like to see the same layout for entitlements and show the comparison.

dentarthurdent on December 10, 2012 at 1:19 PM

Here’s an idea: no deduction can be taken for a value greater than the average for that category. So, if there is a group who will argue to the death to save every single category, we can finesse that whole fight. And we can argue “fairness” for a change, and scumbags like the NYT will have to agree with us.

How would it work?

If New York resident pays $20 thousand in state income taxes, that $40 grand is not going to be fully deductible, if the average across the country is less. Same with real estate taxes. If the average state income tax bill in America is $2500, then $17,500 of the victim’s NY income taxes aren’t deductible, and if average real estate taxes across the country are 10% of what they are in New York, then 90% aren’t deductible.

Boom. Less government spending follows.

MTF on December 10, 2012 at 1:21 PM

I believe that the brokest nation in the history of civilisation MUST start making better choices in the way that it spends limited resources.

Resist We Much on December 10, 2012 at 1:15 PM

And you start making “better choices” by prioritizing your cuts. Defense are not the cuts that should be at the top of the list (as they are the only cuts the dems will happily commit to). Defense represent the LAST cuts to be made.

You can’t make “better choices” if you don’t first establish your prioritizing of feral government spending … and the un-Constitutional expenditures have to go FIRST, with feral MediCAID being right at the very top of the list. Of course, Barky and the lunatic left specifically supercharged feral MediCAID with ObamaScare and guaranteed that it would take over the whole feral government – even as it is un-Constitutional and not supported by taxes paid by anyone who sucks off of it.

And measuring defense spending starting at fiscal 2001 is kind of silly. That was the end of the decimation of the military by Clinton and marked a major turning point when that decimation of defense was visited upon us in the starkest of manners.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on December 10, 2012 at 1:22 PM

While I’m ok with “across the board” cuts – I would prefer to see some departments, like Education, Energy, EPA, and several others completely eliminated. But I doubt that will ever happen.

dentarthurdent on December 10, 2012 at 1:10 PM

IMO, it either happens in one sweeping measure or not at all. If you chip away at extra-Constitutional spending like energy or education you get special interests demonizing any cuts at all. Try getting rid of farm subsidies, for example. Or telling the states they aren’t getting any more federal spending for teachers’ salaries.

Across the board cuts simply don’t set priorities among the various way government spends money. Some of the big-ticket items in defense, for example, are critical development and building of platforms. For example, if defense takes a 20% hit on its budget- Do you stop spending on aircraft carriers or do you toss out the personnel that would man them? In the meantime, Education takes a 20% hit and discontinues one of the many worthless programs it maintains or “cuts” spending to said programs by not factoring in budgeted increases.

In short we send people to Washington to make the hard decisions not to hide behind “across the board” cowardice.

Happy Nomad on December 10, 2012 at 1:22 PM

Sorry mistyped “$40 grand” when I meant “$20″ in the example. Making mistakes like that is how we got ObamaCare, and I’m sorry.

MTF on December 10, 2012 at 1:23 PM

Such a cap would reduce the value of the deduction for state and local income taxes, which has been part of the federal tax code for a century

That may be, but when the first tax form came out in 1913, the tax rate was 1% on income over $3,000. The average wage in that year was $728. In 2012, those numbers would be $70,096.06 and $17,009.98 respectively.

The reason for the roaring twenties was becasuse we had a low tax rate, and very few government programs. With the progressive nature of our tax structure, we now pay higher rates with ever increasing government ‘assistance’ measures. And those making just over 450K to 1M, they only paid an extra 1%. Oh…those were the days.

Patriot Vet on December 10, 2012 at 1:24 PM

Can we quit calling the parasites, moochers, and takers “low information voters?” These bastards knew exactly what they were voting for- free stuff for them to be paid for by somebody else. The bill may be foisted on future generations, another part of society, or simply reneging on promises made to another group but make no mistake that sluts like Sandra Fluke were not “low information” when they voted to force religious institutions to pay for their birth control. Obamaphone lady knew full well that voting for the rat-eared wonder protect her ability to be a parasite. Same-sex marriage advocates voted for Obama even though that is essentially a tax on a myriad of societal institutions. Same goes for those pushing amnesty for illegals.

None of these parasites voted for Obama because they didn’t know any better. They were just too greedy, lazy, and selfish to care so long as they got their freebies.

Happy Nomad on December 10, 2012 at 1:13 PM

I agree they knew they were voting to keep government benefits – but they actually do believe it will go on forever via taxing the rich and cutting defense etc.

If these people actually believed that we were quickly approaching the situation where the whole blue model of social welfare will collapse – that public pensions, SS, Medicare/Medicade and all the rest of it won’t be there they might vote differently.

I do think the country is probably lost but part of me still thinks that the reason many Americans want European style government intrusion and spending is because we don’t yet have European style taxation on the middle class. The only hope I see is if Americans start to actually pay for the government they vote for they will reverse course. European liberals for the most part don’t deny that the middle class must be heavily taxed in order to keep the benevolent state going but here in America liberals will lie about this (except for Howard Dean who talked about it recently).

gwelf on December 10, 2012 at 1:24 PM

Resist We Much on December 10, 2012 at 1:15 PM

And as I said in other posts, I’m a defense contractor. So on the one hand, I’m probably a little biased; but on the other hand I see the waste every day – and am very familiar with the pork programs Congress forces on us that we (the military) don’t want or need.

One thing that would make a huge impact is to stop the bureaucratic concept that your organization MUST spend all the money its allocated or you lose the unspent money and your budget gets cut next year – and the government people don’t get promoted by saving money – they get promoted by spending money and building organizational empires. Change that mentality (although that may be impossible) and you save HUGE amounts of money.

dentarthurdent on December 10, 2012 at 1:25 PM

Everyone, including the Tea party is interested in cutting spending on EVERYONE except THEMSELVES.

I say cut it all, but most importantly, CUT PAYMENTS TO 0 FOR INDIVIDUALS at the federal level.

No Social Security, no Medicare… get rid of it all. Welfare and Social Security and their derivatives make up more than HALF of the federal budget. $1,945 billion out of $3,600 billion.

astonerii on December 10, 2012 at 12:12 PM

I would agree with this IF the federal government paid back every cent taken For Social Security and Medicare to the payees. For those already on Social Security and Medicare, they get to keep their benefits. The federal government took the money from the payees they need to pay it back, since the federal government is breaking the contract.

IowaWoman on December 10, 2012 at 1:27 PM

I am all with you on entitlements. In fact, I’d wager that I am far more radical than the overwhelming majority of people that frequent HA. I just don’t buy into the ring-fencing of defence, which too many Americans, including solid conservatives and Tea Partiers, do. I believe that the brokest nation in the history of civilisation MUST start making better choices in the way that it spends limited resources.

Resist We Much on December 10, 2012 at 1:15 PM

Something else. I was what they call “hawkish” just a few short years ago, but the ham-fisted way we’ve applied force lately has made me a little sick, and the news seems to be concertedly softening me up for a further adventure . . . Our military could be better equipped and better funded than it is now with a significant reduction in cost if we just stopped allowing ourselves to be used by our chubby allies and changed our footprint to allow for a little more “defense” in our “offense” . . .

I don’t want to be called an isolationist (I’m not) — so I’ll drop it. :)

I think we can cut the defense budget meaningfully and still be comfortingly/terrifyingly (pick a side) strong.

Axe on December 10, 2012 at 1:29 PM

SCHIFF: You know what the wealthy are going to do? They’re going to invest more abroad, they’re not going to work as hard, they’re not going to pay as much in taxes, they’re not going to employ as many people. Their employees are going to pay all the taxes.
Galt2009 on December 10, 2012 at 11:59 AM

This. My dad asked me what I was going to do about this because I was complaining over the weekend. I told him work less. Make less money and not expand my business. Not like I would be able to in this Obama economy anyway. Stupid covetous leftists wither don’t understand that the more you punish success, the less of it you get, or they don’t care because controlling other people’s lives like good little tyrants is more important to them than a thriving society.

jawkneemusic on December 10, 2012 at 1:30 PM

Everyone, including the Tea party is interested in cutting spending on EVERYONE except THEMSELVES.
astonerii on December 10, 2012 at 12:12 PM

I consider myself a part of the Tea Party, I have NO problem with the federal government cutting spending on my benefits IF they pay me back the money they took from me for these benefits!

IowaWoman on December 10, 2012 at 1:31 PM

From the NYT article quoted:

Texas is proud not to have an income tax, but it also has by far the highest percentage of uninsured people in the country.

“By far?” If you check out the link they give, Texas is number one at 25 percent uninsured.

The massively-taxed state of California is tied with three other states at number four, with 20 percent uninsured.

tbrosz on December 10, 2012 at 1:10 PM

This is driven by illegal aliens! If you look at the states with high numbers of uninsured, they will be border states or states with high per capita numbers of illegal aliens. Obamacare specifically exempts illegal aliens!

Obamacare was pushed through based on numbers of ‘uninsured’, yet doesn’t address the most significant numbers of ‘uninsured’!

slickwillie2001 on December 10, 2012 at 1:34 PM

“Beware the ‘Raise property taxes or we’ll have to fire first responders and teachers!’ routine. Both Democrats and Republicans are arguing that, if we cut defence…”

Resist We Much on December 10, 2012 at 12:32 PM

Can Joe Biden far behind with a claim that “if we cut defence by $1, more women will get raped!”?

Resist We Much on December 10, 2012 at 1:38 PM

This is driven by illegal aliens! If you look at the states with high numbers of uninsured, they will be border states or states with high per capita numbers of illegal aliens. Obamacare specifically exempts illegal aliens!
Obamacare was pushed through based on numbers of ‘uninsured’, yet doesn’t address the most significant numbers of ‘uninsured’!
slickwillie2001 on December 10, 2012 at 1:34 PM

That’s because it was never designed to fix the “problem”, rather it was designed to exacerbate it to lead us into a top down, command control communist lite government take over of a huge chunk of our economy. These people are tyrants. We live in a soft tyranny.

jawkneemusic on December 10, 2012 at 1:39 PM

Can Joe Biden far behind with a claim that “if we cut defence by $1, more women will get raped!”?

Resist We Much on December 10, 2012 at 1:38 PM

Depends. Will those women be allowed to buy their own guns to provide their own defense?

dentarthurdent on December 10, 2012 at 1:41 PM

The point is being missed so badly by the NYT that it is just laughable.

Nobody would try to avoid taxes at any level if they thought the government was spending their money wisely. Even the Peter Schiffs of the world would not mind giving up half their income if they thought it was buying goods and services that the public really needs at a reasonable cost. This is why so few still want to cut defense, because defense has always been the area where people think we get our money’s worth. We don’t mind gasoline taxes, because they go directly to pay for roads which we need and that is done rather efficiently.

It’s the rest of the government that people are sick of paying for because it isn’t delivering. A trillion dollars now for welfare programs which are not getting anyone off welfare. Farm subsidies that continue even as land and crop prices are at record levels. Billions to failing public schools with no demand for fundamental reform. $80 billion in green energy loans to pay off campaign donors and show off a few “green jobs” for nothing but an ideological fantasy. “Food stamps” that people use to buy cigarettes and beer, while they can afford hair weaves and acrylic nails and $150 sneakers. Bank bailouts, homeowner bailouts, car company bailouts. The favored few, the lazy and dumb, and those with lobbyists get the goodies, we get nothing but we still have to pay through the nose.

Liberals, hear this: give us government that works at a reasonable price, and we’ll pay for it.

rockmom on December 10, 2012 at 1:42 PM

We live in a soft tyranny.

jawkneemusic on December 10, 2012 at 1:39 PM

The “soft” part is just in disguise.

Schadenfreude on December 10, 2012 at 1:49 PM

The “soft” part is just in disguise.

Schadenfreude on December 10, 2012 at 1:49 PM

Murder by hugging.

Axe on December 10, 2012 at 1:52 PM

SCHIFF: You know what the wealthy are going to do? They’re going to invest more abroad, they’re not going to work as hard, they’re not going to pay as much in taxes, they’re not going to employ as many people. Their employees are going to pay all the taxes.

Galt2009 on December 10, 2012 at 11:59 AM

This. My dad asked me what I was going to do about this because I was complaining over the weekend. I told him work less. Make less money and not expand my business. Not like I would be able to in this Obama economy anyway. Stupid covetous leftists wither don’t understand that the more you punish success, the less of it you get, or they don’t care because controlling other people’s lives like good little tyrants is more important to them than a thriving society.

jawkneemusic on December 10, 2012 at 1:30 PM

Its called Operant conditioning – punish certain actions and you discourage those actions. Have a rat push button and receive a pellet of food and it’ll keep on happily pushing that button. Apply an electric shock for the same action and it’ll stop that behavior.

Despite Tax Increase, California State Revenues in Freefall
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/07/CALIFORNIA-STATE-BUDGET-GOES-OFF-THE-CLIFF

California State Controller John Chiang has announced that total state revenue for the month of November 2012 fell $806.8 million, or 10.8%, below budget.

We’re down to a point where we’ve lost control over our own property – the only thing they can’t control is our behavior – whether we produce money for them to steal.

That is the final checkmate in this little game they are playing – don’t produce so that they can’t take what you’re produced.

Galt2009 on December 10, 2012 at 1:54 PM

We live in a soft tyranny.

jawkneemusic on December 10, 2012 at 1:39 PM

The “soft” part is just in disguise.

Schadenfreude on December 10, 2012 at 1:49 PM

“The Founding Fathers knew a government can’t control the economy without controlling people. And they knew when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. “

Ronald Reagan

It’s not going to stay soft that long.

I imagine that people in past societies entering into these era’s thought the same thing. We however don’t have the excuse of not knowing how this will turn out in the end.

Galt2009 on December 10, 2012 at 2:00 PM

. Our military could be better equipped and better funded than it is now with a significant reduction in cost if we just stopped allowing ourselves to be used by our chubby allies and changed our footprint to allow for a little more “defense” in our “offense” . . .

I don’t want to be called an isolationist (I’m not) — so I’ll drop it. :)

I think we can cut the defense budget meaningfully and still be comfortingly/terrifyingly (pick a side) strong.

Axe on December 10, 2012 at 1:29 PM

^^This. If Progs weren’t so incredibly stupid and foolish about My Progressive Little Ponyland, they’d take a look across the pond and learn that Western European-style socialism is a FAILURE…EVEN AFTER AMERICAN TAXPAYERS HAVE PICKED UP THE TAB FOR THEIR DEFENCE FOR MORE THAN 7 DECADES.

The UK and France, who were the real drivers behind the “Let’s Get the Lypsynka of Libya and Who Cares Who/What Takes His Place?” campaign, nearly depleted their ENTIRE STOCKS OF TOMMYHAWKS IN THE FIRST FOUR DAYS. When it fired its FIRST Tommyhawk on Qaddafi, it was #64…of a STOCKPILE OF A WHOLE 64 MISSILES!!!

When the US and France conducted joint exercises in the Strait of Hormuz, Muffin had to call Sarko to beg him to call Obama and plead with him to allow Her Majesty’s Royal Navy to participate! The bloody British Navy BEGGING to be allowed to participate in exercises to keep one of the most important and strategic waterways in the entire world open for shipping! Unfuckingbelieveable.

Less than a century ago, the British Empire RULED the world’s seas, 20% of the global population, and 25% of the Earth’s land masses. Now, it has ONE aircraft carrier. 2 years ago, the Coalition proposed that HMRN merge with France’s Royal Navy and Marine Nationale and share carriers. Considering the fact that England has historically been enemies more than allies with France, the howls of protest were as one would imagine they would be if Obama suggested a similar merger with Putin.

Seriously, I am not a colonialist or imperialist, but shyt! It took the Germans less than a century to breed militarism out of their people — suggested course at military academies: “From Prussification to Pussification in Less Than A Century” — and even less time for “Rule, Britannia!” to become “Rule, National Health Service!” I doubt whether we could even defend The Falklands, if that Bolivarianist, Evita-wannabe bytch, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, decided to invade.

Resist We Much on December 10, 2012 at 2:03 PM

Galt2009 on December 10, 2012 at 1:54 PM

Exactly what has happened everywhere else the government has tried to jack up tax rates to fund their over-spending habits – England, Illinois, New York…….

dentarthurdent on December 10, 2012 at 2:03 PM

. Our military could be better equipped and better funded than it is now with a significant reduction in cost if we just stopped allowing ourselves to be used by our chubby allies and changed our footprint to allow for a little more “defense” in our “offense” . . .

Axe on December 10, 2012 at 1:29 PM

^^This. If Progs weren’t so incredibly stupid and foolish about My Progressive Little Ponyland, they’d take a look across the pond and learn that Western European-style socialism is a FAILURE…EVEN AFTER AMERICAN TAXPAYERS HAVE PICKED UP THE TAB FOR THEIR DEFENCE FOR MORE THAN 7 DECADES.

The UK and France, who were the real drivers behind the “Let’s Get the Lypsynka of Libya and Who Cares Who/What Takes His Place?” campaign, nearly depleted their ENTIRE STOCKS OF TOMMYHAWKS IN THE FIRST FOUR DAYS. When it fired its FIRST Tommyhawk on Qaddafi, it was #64…of a STOCKPILE OF A WHOLE 64 MISSILES!!!

When the US and France conducted joint exercises in the Strait of Hormuz, Muffin had to call Sarko to beg him to call Obama and plead with him to allow Her Majesty’s Royal Navy to participate! The bloody British Navy BEGGING to be allowed to participate in exercises to keep one of the most important and strategic waterways in the entire world open for shipping! Unf*ckingbelieveable.

Less than a century ago, the British Empire RULED the world’s seas, 20% of the global population, and 25% of the Earth’s land masses. Now, it has ONE aircraft carrier. 2 years ago, the Coalition proposed that HMRN merge with France’s Royal Navy and Marine Nationale and share carriers. Considering the fact that England has historically been enemies more than allies with France, the howls of protest were as one would imagine they would be if Obama suggested a similar merger with Putin.

Seriously, I am not a colonialist or imperialist, but shyt! It took the Germans less than a century to breed militarism out of their people — suggested course at military academies: “From Prussification to Pussification in Less Than A Century” — and even less time for “Rule, Britannia!” to become “Rule, National Health Service!” I doubt whether we could even defend The Falklands, if that Bolivarianist, Evita-wannabe bytch, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, decided to invade.

Resist We Much on December 10, 2012 at 2:04 PM

I imagine that people in past societies entering into these era’s thought the same thing. We however don’t have the excuse of not knowing how this will turn out in the end.

Galt2009 on December 10, 2012 at 2:00 PM

Some learn by reading about others, some learn by watching others, and some just have to pee on that electric fence for themselves to see what happens….

dentarthurdent on December 10, 2012 at 2:04 PM

Depends. Will those women be allowed to buy their own guns to provide their own defense?

dentarthurdent on December 10, 2012 at 1:41 PM

It was a snark post. Remember when Bidumb went to Michigan and said that more wimmenesses would be raped if Republicans didn’t immediately pass Obama’s jobs bill?

They always resort to Henny-Pennyism. It’s so typical of The TEAT Party.

Resist We Much on December 10, 2012 at 2:06 PM

TOMMYHAWKS
Resist We Much on December 10, 2012 at 2:04 PM

Just a minor nit from a defense guy – but it’s tomahawk – as in the old American Indian hatchet.

dentarthurdent on December 10, 2012 at 2:07 PM

It was a snark post. Remember when Bidumb went to Michigan and said that more wimmenesses would be raped if Republicans didn’t immediately pass Obama’s jobs bill?

They always resort to Henny-Pennyism. It’s so typical of The TEAT Party.

Resist We Much on December 10, 2012 at 2:06 PM

Ya – I got that.
Just wanted to throw in a 2nd Amendment slant.

dentarthurdent on December 10, 2012 at 2:10 PM

Galt2009 on December 10, 2012 at 1:54 PM

Exactly what has happened everywhere else the government has tried to jack up tax rates to fund their over-spending habits – England, Illinois, New York…….

dentarthurdent on December 10, 2012 at 2:03 PM

And each and every time the oppressives claim that it won’t happen this time…

And yet the same old rules of basic physiology kick in and voila!

Followed by another Marxist a few years later with the fantastic idea:

Let’s tax the tar out of one segment of the population and disburse the proceeds to everyone else.

……………….. and the Low information voters buy into it like a trout on a fishing fly.

Galt2009 on December 10, 2012 at 2:17 PM

Galt2009 on December 10, 2012 at 2:17 PM

As they say in Maine – ayuh.

dentarthurdent on December 10, 2012 at 2:19 PM

Just a minor nit from a defense guy – but it’s tomahawk – as in the old American Indian hatchet.

dentarthurdent on December 10, 2012 at 2:07 PM

Thanks. I’m not a big tool girl. :-)

Resist We Much on December 10, 2012 at 2:22 PM

Thanks. I’m not a big tool girl. :-)
Resist We Much on December 10, 2012 at 2:22 PM

So size really doesn’t matter…..
The tomahawk is a pretty big tool….

Sorry – couldn’t resist it much…

dentarthurdent on December 10, 2012 at 2:27 PM

‘Toon of the Day: The Debt of Infamy

Freaky-deaky! Evidently, Ramirez and I both kinda/sorta have the antennae on our tinfoil hats adjusted to the same frequency today!

Resist We Much on December 10, 2012 at 2:29 PM

dentarthurdent on December 10, 2012 at 2:27 PM

You owe me for the carpet cleaning (it’s white, too)!

LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL
LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL
LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL
LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL
LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

Resist We Much on December 10, 2012 at 2:32 PM

Resist We Much on December 10, 2012 at 2:32 PM

Mission Accomplished

dentarthurdent on December 10, 2012 at 2:38 PM

American politicians are corrupt imbeciles, ased revenue.

SWalker on December 10, 2012 at 12:13 PM

Exactly. But what is truly sad, and very unfortunate for us citizens, is that they don’t see themselves as corrupt nowadays, as times have changed.

That is, in the olden days, an individual or group seeking favors or special treatment from their state or federal representative, quietly passed them a sack full of money.

Nowadays, that’s no longer done, as it’s too easy to get caught. So the kickbacks are provided in much more subtle, but very real, ways. For an example, just google the name of 0bama’s Chicago buddy who bought them their Hyde Park home, Tony Rezko.

So the politician has never accepted a sack of cash as a direct bribe, so they see themselves as legit. Yet they most certainly are not.

T-E-R-M L-I-M-I-T-S

FlatlanderByTheLake on December 10, 2012 at 2:53 PM

You owe me for the carpet cleaning (it’s white, too)!
Resist We Much on December 10, 2012 at 2:32 PM

I’ll trade you carpet cleaning bills. (3 dogs and 2 cats)

dentarthurdent on December 10, 2012 at 2:58 PM

Can you identify something round about that last line that has higher support even than tax hikes on the rich but not a daggone person is talking about?

The cynical among us might wonder if that’s the reason they put it at the very bottom — so no one sees it.

Mot me, of course. I have complete faith and hope in the New York Times…..

tom on December 10, 2012 at 3:36 PM

Comment pages: 1 2