Gerard Depardieu says au revoir to high French tax rates

posted at 3:31 pm on February 24, 2013 by Jazz Shaw

Will we soon be scrapping the phrase “Going Galt” for “Going Gerard?” Could be.

MOSCOW — French actor Gerard Depardieu is officially a resident of One Democracy Street in the Russian city of Saransk, about 400 miles east of Moscow.

According to Russia’s RIA Novosti news agency, the actor traveled there on Saturday to pick up his residency papers, the last step in his quest to flee France’s new proposal to tax top incomes at 75 percent.

In December, Depardieu appealed to Russian President Vladimir Putin, with whom he has maintained a warm relationship, saying he would seek Russian citizenship which would allow him to enjoy the country’s 13 percent flat tax rate.

At an annual press conference Putin said he would give him citizenship if asked and a few weeks later did so by decree.

We can leave aside, for the moment, his choice of Russia as a new home, particularly given the earlier news today. But politics aside, you can see how a 13% flat tax rate would be appealing to somebody who makes as much money as Depardieu when compared to the new, tax and spend rate of 75% he was looking at in France. The French government won’t lose a measurable amount of revenue from one citizen moving out in terms of actual cash, but what they do lose is credibility. The actor remains a very popular figure in his former home country, and the public relations effect of seeing the government’s policies chase him out of the nation can’t be good.

Here in the United States we have people like Phil Mickelson who have considered similar moves, but at least we only have to move to a different state, not give up our citizenship. (At least not yet.) But limiting it to sports figures won’t be enough. What we really need is some of the top earning actors at the Oscars tonight to come out and declare that they’ll be leaving California for lower tax states. Of course, that would bust the entire liberal argument on fiscal policy, so they must be in a bit a conundrum. Ah, the perils of success.


Related Posts:

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

I hope he has a plan for dealing with the blackmail, kidnappings, and other unpleasantries of Ruskie life.

Blake on February 24, 2013 at 3:35 PM

You mean Gerard Depardieu the guy who, with his buddies when he was young, thought it great sport to gang rape girls, that Gerard Depardieu?

Can we find a new paragon of tax virtue, please?

M240H on February 24, 2013 at 3:37 PM

I doubt Gerard will spend much time in that third world country.

Philly on February 24, 2013 at 3:40 PM

His new Address:

Gerard Depardieu formally registers as a resident of the Russian region of Mordovia, giving his address as No. 1, Democracy Street – @AFP

Feb 23, 2013, 7:19 a.m. by editor
=====================================

https://twitter.com/AFP

canopfor on February 24, 2013 at 3:42 PM

Happy Birthday to the ‘Hawk.

David Burge ‏@iowahawkblog

@TwitchyTeam compiles my birthday insults http://twitchy.com/2013/02/24/birthday-roast-iowahawk-asks-for-birthday-insults-twitter-delivers/?utm_source=autotweet&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=twitter

davidk on February 24, 2013 at 3:35 PM

davidk on February 24, 2013 at 3:43 PM

I hope he has a plan for dealing with the blackmail, kidnappings, and other unpleasantries of Ruskie life.

Yes, let’s idolize those who trade freedom for a life of comfort in a dictatorship. After all, it’s all about money and you should relinquish your personal liberties when there’s economic benefit. I’d love to see his short list of new countries- Russia, Saudi Arabia… maybe Vietnam.

bayam on February 24, 2013 at 3:45 PM

You mean Gerard Depardieu the guy who, with his buddies when he was young, thought it great sport to gang rape girls, that Gerard Depardieu?

When you have protection from the Russian mafia, all kinds of things are suddenly legal.

bayam on February 24, 2013 at 3:46 PM

The French government cannot figure out that 13% of something is better than 75% of nothing. Go figure. Neither can the US government.

MrX on February 24, 2013 at 3:47 PM

Gerald, it’s all fun until Putin censors you, steals your wealth, and throws you in prison on trumped up charges.

Philly on February 24, 2013 at 3:48 PM

The problem with the French Gubmint is that its French.

SparkPlug on February 24, 2013 at 3:54 PM

I hope he has a plan for dealing with the blackmail, kidnappings, and other unpleasantries of Ruskie life.

Blake on February 24, 2013 at 3:35 PM

He not going to live there…..it is just a front and Russia will get his tax money – not the French.

redguy on February 24, 2013 at 3:54 PM

Yes, let’s idolize those who trade freedom for a life of comfort in a dictatorship.

bayam on February 24, 2013 at 3:45 PM

You must be referring to supporters of Democratic politicians.

Aviator on February 24, 2013 at 3:54 PM

Yeah, what’s the potential downside here? After all, a dictator with the power to declare you a citizen by decree also has the power to…well, I guess Gerard will find that out in due time.

CitizenEgg on February 24, 2013 at 3:55 PM

Yes, let’s idolize those who trade freedom for a life of comfort in a dictatorship. After all, it’s all about money and you should relinquish your personal liberties when there’s economic benefit. I’d love to see his short list of new countries- Russia, Saudi Arabia… maybe Vietnam.

bayam on February 24, 2013 at 3:45 PM

…you are braying about America and your brainless boob Barock…beanbrain!

KOOLAID2 on February 24, 2013 at 3:57 PM

Such a crying shame when a rich man wants to keep more of his money. Where is his social consciousness; doesn’t he know he owes all those people less well off than him? Bet he would vote Republican if he could. /

Liam on February 24, 2013 at 3:57 PM

Yes, let’s idolize those who trade freedom for a life of comfort in a dictatorship.

bayam on February 24, 2013 at 3:45 PM

You must be referring to supporters of Democratic politicians.

Aviator on February 24, 2013 at 3:54 PM

I’d love to know if bayam had his taxes raised to 75% if he would leave or just take it up the rear.

VegasRick on February 24, 2013 at 3:57 PM

Yes, let’s idolize those who trade freedom for a life of comfort in a dictatorship. After all, it’s all about money and you should relinquish your personal liberties when there’s economic benefit. I’d love to see his short list of new countries- Russia, Saudi Arabia… maybe Vietnam.

bayam on February 24, 2013 at 3:45 PM

Wow, Bayam actually stating that Russia is a dictatorship. Quite a step for one of our resident statists who normally worship the power of the state as embodied in Russia and China. As far as freedom goes, the freedom to surrender 3/4 of what one earns to the state for the privilege of residing there doesn’t seem very “free” to me. Reeks somewhat of a tyrannical bent, having to work for the government 3/4 of the time you are earning money.

AZfederalist on February 24, 2013 at 3:58 PM

When you have protection from the Russian mafia DOJ, all kinds of things are suddenly legal.

bayam on February 24, 2013 at 3:46 PM

braying again!

KOOLAID2 on February 24, 2013 at 3:59 PM

I’d love to know if bayam had his taxes raised to 75% if he would leave or just take it up the rear.

VegasRick on February 24, 2013 at 3:57 PM

…75% of the brayingass income…probably comes from “tax credits” !

KOOLAID2 on February 24, 2013 at 4:01 PM

…75% of the brayingass income…probably comes from “tax credits” !

KOOLAID2 on February 24, 2013 at 4:01 PM

What was I thinking, he has probably never paid any taxes.

VegasRick on February 24, 2013 at 4:03 PM

I hope he has a plan for dealing with the blackmail, kidnappings, and other unpleasantries of Ruskie life.

Blake on February 24, 2013 at 3:35 PM

Nah, he’s in Putin’s inner circle, one of his treasured collection. All he has to plan for is staying up late drinking at Moscow and St. Petersburg cocktail parties.

Gingotts on February 24, 2013 at 4:03 PM

Yes, let’s idolize those who trade freedom for a life of comfort in a dictatorship.

bayam on February 24, 2013 at 3:45 PM

You must be referring to supporters of Democratic politicians.

Aviator on February 24, 2013 at 3:54 PM

I’d love to know if bayam had his taxes raised to 75% if he would leave or just take it up the rear.

VegasRick on February 24, 2013 at 3:57 PM

It’s bayam; he’ll give you 75% of his EITC for that sort of thing.

M240H on February 24, 2013 at 4:05 PM

M240H on February 24, 2013 at 3:37 PM

via IMDB…

Time magazine ran a profile that mistakenly suggested that Depardieu might have “participated” in a rape at the age of nine. The claim was based on an interview carried out 13 years earlier and was the result of an incorrect translation. Depardieu is now careful about proper translation.

Observer. At age nine
*************************************************************

When you have protection from the Russian mafia, all kinds of things are suddenly legal.

bayam on February 24, 2013 at 3:46 PM

You’re an idiot.

Solaratov on February 24, 2013 at 4:05 PM

I’d love to know if bayam had his taxes raised to 75% if he would leave or just take it up the rear.

VegasRick on February 24, 2013 at 3:57 PM

No one is suggesting that this country revert to the sky high tax rates of the Eisenhower administration. The more relevant debate is whether the US should return to it’s historical base of tax income as a percentage of GDP, between 18.5% and 19.5%.

Among the wealthy, income has increased- by around 10% since 2007- while that of the middle class is near a 20 year low. Nothing even remotely close to ‘redistribution’ is underway, despite the claims from some radio entertainers. Not even the dreadful redistribution that was in place before George W., when both cap gains rates and the top tax brackets were much higher, is within reach.

The economic and social benefits of greater inequality are only growing. Rejoice.

bayam on February 24, 2013 at 4:06 PM

Yes, let’s idolize those who trade freedom for a life of comfort in a dictatorship. After all, it’s all about money and you should relinquish your personal liberties when there’s economic benefit. I’d love to see his short list of new countries- Russia, Saudi Arabia… maybe Vietnam.

bayam on February 24, 2013 at 3:45 PM

Wait a minute.
Democrats & Liberals are always telling us we need to relinquish our personal liberties bcs if we do things that personal liberties let us do, like drink more than 16 oz of soda, society has to incur economic consequences of their free choices. And how about the economic consequences of those who choose to remain poor & not look for work bcs they’re on welfare?
I’ve been asked to relinquish my personal liberties so you can redistribute my income to these people.
So are you guys about $$ or aren’t you?
WTF did you learn the definition of irony, or didn’t you?

Badger40 on February 24, 2013 at 4:07 PM

bayam on February 24, 2013 at 3:46 PM

You’re an idiot.

Solaratov on February 24, 2013 at 4:05 PM

…transparency!

KOOLAID2 on February 24, 2013 at 4:08 PM

No one is suggesting that this country revert to the sky high tax rates of the Eisenhower administration. The more relevant debate is whether the US should return to it’s historical base of tax income as a percentage of GDP, between 18.5% and 19.5%.

Among the wealthy, income has increased- by around 10% since 2007- while that of the middle class is near a 20 year low. Nothing even remotely close to ‘redistribution’ is underway, despite the claims from some radio entertainers. Not even the dreadful redistribution that was in place before George W., when both cap gains rates and the top tax brackets were much higher, is within reach.

The economic and social benefits of greater inequality are only growing. Rejoice.

bayam on February 24, 2013 at 4:06 PM

Why do you think that is? You don’t think that’s happening bcs the Federal & state governments are growing so big & intruding upon citizens’ liberty & taking more & more of their earned income that this is happening?
You don’t think onerous regulations that strangle small businesses before they can even have a chance of getting off the ground are contributing to this?
YOu don’t think the ever burgeoning dependent class isn’t doing some of this?!

Badger40 on February 24, 2013 at 4:10 PM

…75% of the brayingass income…probably comes from “tax credits” !

KOOLAID2 on February 24, 2013 at 4:01 PM

What was I thinking, he has probably never paid any taxes.

VegasRick on February 24, 2013 at 4:03 PM

Here we go again…
Yes, you’re superior to anyone who supported Clinton’s tax rates, because those people are ‘takers’ and don’t actually pay any taxes, including Greenspan and Paul O’Neill, opponents of the Bush tax cuts from within the highest positions of GOP power.
But anyone who demands tax cuts that can only be financed by deeper deficit spending isn’t a taker. Those people are freedom lovers.

bayam on February 24, 2013 at 4:12 PM

He should say adieux, not au revoir.

Schadenfreude on February 24, 2013 at 4:14 PM

Russia is now better off on taxes than France and the US…go figure!

Schadenfreude on February 24, 2013 at 4:14 PM

The economic and social benefits of greater inequality are only growing. Rejoice.

bayam on February 24, 2013 at 4:06 PM

Obama enables it, fool. You and him own it. Rejoice!!!

Schadenfreude on February 24, 2013 at 4:16 PM

The economic and social benefits of greater inequality are only growing. Rejoice…that’s why all of JugEars supporters are not paying any taxes…like the good folks from General Electric…Warren Buffet…Google…Facebook…Government Workers in his own departments…all his Solyndra buddies…etc. (just let me help you bray your thoughts!)

bayam on February 24, 2013 at 4:06 PM

KOOLAID2 on February 24, 2013 at 4:16 PM

No one is suggesting that this country revert to the sky high tax rates of the Eisenhower administration.

bayam on February 24, 2013 at 4:06 PM

But the 100% tax rates beyond a certain income like FDR championed are acceptable?
You do know most Democrats like Obama & friends think everything FDR thought & tried was awesome, don’t you?

The economic and social benefits of greater inequality are only growing. Rejoice.

bayam on February 24, 2013 at 4:06 PM

There’s always going to be inequality. And that’s bcs people choose their own paths.
The inequalities you wish to change will never go away.
You wish to institute equal misery.

Badger40 on February 24, 2013 at 4:16 PM

Live by punitive taxation, die by it, you French morons.

rrpjr on February 24, 2013 at 4:16 PM

I guess he can live in a house in France if he wants to. With his extra money from the lower tax rate he could buy more houses.

22044 on February 24, 2013 at 4:16 PM

The Solyndras, Buffets, Soroses, bankers, Wall Street pull Obama’s strings. They own him.

Enjoy, bayam and yours. All fools who brung/kept Obama, may he destroy you royally. YOU deserve NO less.

Schadenfreude on February 24, 2013 at 4:17 PM

bayam on February 24, 2013 at 4:12 PM

I’m just curious why you are for a bloated Federal government doing things it is not supposed to be doing, which goes against everything our founders were for.

Why is it you support a all reaching stifling government that hinders people in pursuing their dreams?
Why is it you think everyone needs to have equal income?

Badger40 on February 24, 2013 at 4:19 PM

Only several months ago bayam said that California would have a budget surplus for this year.

Since that was another proven lie, bayam has pushed it to 5-7 years.

sentinelrules on February 24, 2013 at 4:20 PM

By the way, I looked up Depardieu’s comment about gang rape. Apparently it was a mistranslation of what he said and was not the outrage it appeared to be.
In the same article, though, there was a mention of Bill Maher and some deplorable comments he made. The article’s subject was dumb things that celebrities say.

22044 on February 24, 2013 at 4:21 PM

Russia is now better off on taxes than France and the US…go figure!

Schadenfreude on February 24, 2013 at 4:14 PM

On paper they have been for a long time actually. With factoring in the corruption and protection costs, it’s probably about a push now.

But don’t worry, we’re picking up our corruption game.

Gingotts on February 24, 2013 at 4:25 PM

Why do you think that is? You don’t think that’s happening bcs the Federal & state governments are growing so big & intruding upon citizens’ liberty & taking more & more of their earned income that this is happening?

No, fed and state governments ARE NOT taking more and more of your earned income. This easy to fact check using Google. Your parents paid far higher taxes to build out this nation’s infrastructure. Why should people feel a sense of entitlement toward lower taxes?

You don’t think onerous regulations that strangle small businesses before they can even have a chance of getting off the ground are contributing to this?

The middle class of the industrial base has been absolutely gutted. George Bush lowered regulations across the board, and even that didn’t lead to significant job growth during one of the greatest economic bubbles in US history. There’s no easy path to restoring lost manufacturing jobs, although.

The US is never going to undercut China- spend a week trying to breathe in Beijing and you’ll understand one reason why. Yet the digital and knowledge economies in the US are growing at a stellar pace and literally have negative unemployment for those with the right skills.

bayam on February 24, 2013 at 4:26 PM

Will we soon be scrapping the phrase “Going Galt” for “Going Gerard?” Could be.

Maybe Depardieu is in the vanguard of reversing the trend of those white Russian émigrés who fled to Paris during the Russian Revolution.

jix on February 24, 2013 at 4:32 PM

bayam on February 24, 2013 at 4:26 PM

When you make an argument about “entitlement to lower taxes”, you out yourself as a big government socialist.

22044 on February 24, 2013 at 4:33 PM

Yes, let’s idolize those who trade freedom for a life of comfort in a dictatorship. After all, it’s all about money and you should relinquish your personal liberties when there’s economic benefit. I’d love to see his short list of new countries- Russia, Saudi Arabia… maybe Vietnam.

bayam on February 24, 2013 at 3:45 PM

Are you really this stupid? The government taking 75% of your earnings is freedom? Let’s just all give 100% of our earnings and live more equally in freedom…

The stupidity on the left never stops amazing me.

irishinfidel on February 24, 2013 at 4:33 PM

Here in the United States we have people like Phil Mickelson who have considered similar moves, but at least we only have to move to a different state, not give up our citizenship. (At least not yet.)

He is fortunate that he is French. He can take up residence in another country so that he can avoid paying French tax rates. The same cannot be said for the beacon of freedom, the good ol’ US of A. The Federal government imposes its tax laws no matter where you live. I wish I were as free as the people of France.

antifederalist on February 24, 2013 at 4:34 PM

No, fed and state governments ARE NOT taking more and more of your earned income. This easy to fact check using Google. Your parents paid far higher taxes to build out this nation’s infrastructure. Why should people feel a sense of entitlement toward lower taxes?bayam on February 24, 2013 at 4:26 PM

If these facts are so easy to check on Google, then please identify them for us unlearned folks here. And be sure to include how these figures were attained.

So all of these new taxes on things that have been added over the years are not taking more of my earned income? You sure about that?
Really? So the brand new taxes that have been called into existence since before my parents were born does not actually cause me to pay more in taxes than they did?
What is wrong with you? You actually believe this garbage?
And it would be nice if you would stop with the George Bush nonsense. Progressive policies, whether they have been instituted by a Republican or Democrat are all harmful.
A lot of these destructive policies started with Wilson, gained huge momentum with FDR, & continued to steam roll ahead as the entitlement programs continued to pile on along with the addition of new alphabet government agencies that take more & more tax payer $$ to keep them going.

Why should people feel a sense of entitlement toward lower taxes?bayam on February 24, 2013 at 4:26 PM

This is a powerful statement.
You seem oblivious to the fact this nation was founded precisely bcs the Patriots felt entitled to lower taxes.
You are the enemy of liberty.

Badger40 on February 24, 2013 at 4:34 PM

No, fed and state governments ARE NOT taking more and more of your earned income. This easy to fact check using Google.

Why not provide a link? Whatever you link to include all taxes, not just Federal income taxes. In include payroll taxes and sales taxes.

antifederalist on February 24, 2013 at 4:35 PM

Why is it you support a all reaching stifling government that hinders people in pursuing their dreams?

Why did unemployment projections created by Moody’s and other analysts demonstrate that Romney’s lower regulation regime would not result in significant job growth?

And why do so many countries with lower unemployment rates, including Germany and Canada, also have far stricter and broader regulations?

Why is it you think everyone needs to have equal income?

Why do you insist that the historical gaps in US income inequality should be replaced with a much weaker middle class in order to benefit the top 1%? How does this promote aggregate US spending that grows the economy?
Why do you pick Peru and other third world countries as models for income distribution?

bayam on February 24, 2013 at 4:36 PM

bayam on February 24, 2013 at 4:26 PM

When you make an argument about “entitlement to lower taxes”, you out yourself as a big government socialist.

22044 on February 24, 2013 at 4:33 PM

This is quite possibly the most ironic thing I’ve ever seen him say.
Absolutely astounding, the stupidity of this statement.
The Boston Tea Party is a perfect example of Americans’ entitlement feelings to lower taxes.
Without it, there would never have been an America.

Badger40 on February 24, 2013 at 4:37 PM

bayam on February 24, 2013 at 4:36 PM

You are a fool. When taxes are low – that strengthens the middle class.

22044 on February 24, 2013 at 4:38 PM

If these facts are so easy to check on Google, then please identify them for us unlearned folks here. And be sure to include how these figures were attained.

Bruce Bartless served under Reagan.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/31/are-taxes-in-the-u-s-high-or-low/

bayam on February 24, 2013 at 4:41 PM

Why do you insist that the historical gaps in US income inequality should be replaced with a much weaker middle class in order to benefit the top 1%? How does this promote aggregate US spending that grows the economy?
Why do you pick Peru and other third world countries as models for income distribution?

bayam on February 24, 2013 at 4:36 PM

You seem to think it’s the government’s job to shape the economy.
It is not.
It’s the government’s job to be a simple referee & to not pick winners & losers.
I never insisted any such thing.
What I want to know is why you think the government is supposed to be shaping society & economies & deciding how much $$ people make in the 1st place?
You look at this country’s founding & you will find in it’s heyday, the poorest of people lifting themselves up to the greatest of heights.
And notice that everybody in this country, even the poorest of our poor are doing loads better than so many people in other countries.
Our poor are someone else’s rich.
It is not for you nor the government to decide who gets what.
You stay the frack out of the way & only do what things you are enumerated to do in the Constitution.
There are always going to be poor people. But there are certainly more rich here than anywhere else in the world.

Badger40 on February 24, 2013 at 4:41 PM

bayam on February 24, 2013 at 4:36 PM

You are a fool. When taxes are low – that strengthens the middle class.

22044 on February 24, 2013 at 4:38 PM

Funny how some of the lowest middle class tax rates were in place over the past 10 years as the middle class absolutely lost ground. Facts can be painful to confront.

bayam on February 24, 2013 at 4:43 PM

It appears State Farm may be leaving Illinois for Texas:

http://taxfoundation.org/blog/after-illinois-tax-increase-state-farm-reportedly-moving-operations-texas

bw222 on February 24, 2013 at 4:45 PM

Bruce Bartless served under Reagan.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/31/are-taxes-in-the-u-s-high-or-low/

bayam on February 24, 2013 at 4:41 PM

Figures. a nyt link. The damage the media and our public school system has done in our country is irreparable.

but, but, but, he served under Reagan! Yeah so did Powell.

irishinfidel on February 24, 2013 at 4:45 PM

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/31/are-taxes-in-the-u-s-high-or-low/

bayam on February 24, 2013 at 4:41 PM

I’m sorry. but other than peer reviewed research by scientific economists, the blather coming out of all ‘articles’ from whatever source you’d like to pitch are not conclusive.
That includes ‘conservative’ sources as well.
Taxes are not less than they used to be on an individual.
And when I say taxes, I also mean fees, increased costs of doing business, etc.
I’m not just talking about taxes. IT’s the whole effect that government being bloated has on my ability to make a living.
And that includes my ability to start & maintain a business.
Which we are trying to do.

Badger40 on February 24, 2013 at 4:45 PM

bayam on February 24, 2013 at 4:43 PM

What facts? You have none and your premise is all wet.

22044 on February 24, 2013 at 4:47 PM

But anyone who demands tax cuts that can only be financed by deeper deficit spending isn’t a taker. Those people are freedom lovers.

bayam on February 24, 2013 at 4:12 PM

…oh you’re right!…JugEars WAS braying that he CUT taxes 17 times for small business or something and the middle class saw their taxes cut 57 eleventy times… in his campaign speeches!

KOOLAID2 on February 24, 2013 at 4:47 PM

It cannot have escaped anyone’s notice that the direction towards which Depardieu is headed to protect the fruits of his life’s labor from a rapacious, tone-deaf & confiscatory government is the Russian East not the West.

Where the Soviet Bear was born, lived, died not so very long ago and looks increasingly zombied-up and back for more.

Where Stalin, Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Rasputin and the Romanovs came from.

Where Vlad the Impaler rules with an iron hand today.

World.Turned.Upside.Down.

Sacramento on February 24, 2013 at 4:48 PM

Funny how some of the lowest middle class tax rates were in place over the past 10 years as the middle class absolutely lost ground. Facts can be painful to confront.

bayam on February 24, 2013 at 4:43 PM

So you’re not all all aware that the Federal government choosing the success of big business over small, certain companies over others, has helped contribute to this?
You don’t think that onerous regulations have contributed to middle class losing ground?
You don’t think that all of these EPA,OSHA etc regulations & agencies haven’t contributed to higher taxes & lost jobs & revenue for middle class people?
I am a middle class person.
The Federal govt’s intrusions & high taxes have contributed to getting in my way of me getting a better life for myself.
I am not alone.

Badger40 on February 24, 2013 at 4:48 PM

Yes I know Stalin was born in Georgia (part of the russian empire when uncle joe was born) & Marx was a Prussian.

Sacramento on February 24, 2013 at 4:51 PM

but, but, but, he served under Reagan! Yeah so did Powell.

irishinfidel on February 24, 2013 at 4:45 PM

I know a local guy who served under Reagan & helped institute more farm programs that resulted in him being able to enrich himself at the expense of tax payers & other farmers & ranchers like ourselves.
Reagan wasn’t perfect.
It’s not all on Reagan either.
People who think that government is a solution to problems are the the real problem.
Bcs of unjust farm programs, I have to compete with the Federal government’s farm payments for pasture rent.
Bcs they’re paying the farmers so much $$ it’s making it profitable for these guys to farm at a loss & they are as a result, digging up NATIVE PRAIRIE, & even rocky knobs to establish farm ground to get a PAYMENT.
I’m watching this happen all around me.
This is the Federal Govt & it’s Progressive policies at work.

Badger40 on February 24, 2013 at 4:52 PM

Why is it you support a all reaching stifling government that hinders people in pursuing their dreams?

Why did unemployment projections created by Moody’s and other analysts demonstrate that Romney’s lower regulation regime would not result in significant job growth?

And why do so many countries with lower unemployment rates, including Germany and Canada, also have far stricter and broader regulations?

bayam on February 24, 2013 at 4:36 PM

Do you realize you did not answer my question?
Being employed is not the same as being free to fully pursue your dreams to their fullest extent.
Somebody having a job means $hit when the job sucks & people were forced to work for someone else bcs they couldn’t realize their dream of owning their own business bcs government regulations made it impossible for a poor person to do so.

Badger40 on February 24, 2013 at 4:57 PM

Why should people feel a sense of entitlement toward lower taxes?
bayam on February 24, 2013 at 4:26 PM

I’m interested in how you can justify this statement, considering our Founding Fathers were exactly these kinds of people.

Badger40 on February 24, 2013 at 4:59 PM

Why should people feel a sense of entitlement toward lower taxes?
bayam on February 24, 2013 at 4:26 PM

Because we are.

Feeding the greedy monster government is, is the most un-American thing you can do.

Speakup on February 24, 2013 at 5:14 PM

$hit when the job sucks & people were forced to work for someone else bcs they couldn’t realize their dream of owning their own business bcs government regulations made it impossible for a poor person to do so.

Hold on, I don’t understand where you’re coming from. Are you talking about Joe the Plumber’s claims that regulations impeded his plans to start a large plumbing business? Exactly which stifling regulations are you referring to?

bayam on February 24, 2013 at 5:25 PM

So much misdirection in such a compact package:

No one is suggesting that this country revert to the sky high tax rates of the Eisenhower administration.

It’s interesting that you pick the Eisenhower administration as the source for “sky high tax rates” when it was really FDR and Truman who put those rates into effect. Top marginal rate at the beginning of Eisenhower’s administration was 92% after it was raised from 91% to 92% during the Truman administration. It came back down to 91% in 1954. Top Marginal Tax rates Also interesting that you seem to leave out the fact that the democrat president FDR had a 94% top marginal rate during his administration and actually proposed a 100% marginal rate at one point. Yeah, no disincentive to succeed there.

Could it be you picked Eisenhower, not because he implemented those rates (he didn’t), but because since Eisenhower was Republican you automatically think that readers of this blog will automatically think, “Eisenhower – Republican == good policy”? Hint: We aren’t like those on your side, we don’t just assume that a republican’s policies are all good.

The more relevant debate is whether the US should return to it’s historical base of tax income as a percentage of GDP, between 18.5% and 19.5%.

Individual Federal Income Tax has never been 18.5 to 19.5% of GDP. Income Tax as a % of GDP The only way you get even close is including corporate income taxes and that only gets you to 16% in the late 40′s

Among the wealthy, income has increased- by around 10% since 2007- while that of the middle class is near a 20 year low.

Interesting handwaving and math abuse: You say wealthy (definition unknown and relative) income up 10% since 2007. Let’s see, in 5 years, income for the wealthy has gone up about 2% per year (that’s not strictly precise because it ignores compounding, but actually is generous in the direction of your argument). Inflation is higher than that. Then you say that of the middle class (again, definition unknown and relative) is near a 20 year low. No way of comparing, you don’t say if their income has gone up or down, just that it is at a 20 year low. Relative to what? You want to play class warfare, at least provide some comparison numbers, not rhetorical nonsense.

Nothing even remotely close to ‘redistribution’ is underway, despite the claims from some radio entertainers.

Oh no, the fact that the top 1% who make 17% of adjusted gross income paid 36% of all federal income taxes could in no way be perceived as re-distributing income. Top 50% who make 87% of adjusted gross income pay 97.75% of income taxes. But that’s not re-distribution. oh no, nosiree, not taking from the productive to give to those who aren’t. Can’t draw that conclusion, don’t see any way one could think that. Even more interesting: top 0.1% paid 17% of total income taxes while making only 17% of total AGI. But we can’t look at that as re-distribution. Why no, that is just “fairness”.

Not even the dreadful redistribution that was in place before George W., when both cap gains rates and the top tax brackets were much higher, is within reach.

You say that as if redistribution is something that should be occurring.

The economic and social benefits of greater inequality are only growing. Rejoice.

bayam on February 24, 2013 at 4:06 PM

Whatever the @#$% that is supposed to mean. I’m sure it sounded good in your head before you typed it.

You really are a piece of work.

AZfederalist on February 24, 2013 at 5:26 PM

Maybe Depardieu is in the vanguard of reversing the trend of those white Russian émigrés who fled to Paris during the Russian Revolution.

jix on February 24, 2013 at 4:32 PM

I’ve been on Twitter too much today. I really wanted to retweet that.

I won’t steal it though, just give you a “well done” instead.

Gingotts on February 24, 2013 at 5:27 PM

bayam on February 24, 2013 at 5:25 PM

When you rely on the New York Times as your economics gospel, any presented proofs of overregulation will make sense to everyone else here, but bounce right off your thick head.

You’re welcome.

22044 on February 24, 2013 at 5:30 PM

Hold on, I don’t understand where you’re coming from. Are you talking about Joe the Plumber’s claims that regulations impeded his plans to start a large plumbing business? Exactly which stifling regulations are you referring to?

bayam on February 24, 2013 at 5:25 PM

That is obvious. Which stifling regs? How about all of them.
How about the regs that are legion concerning driving a semi truck professionally? How about EPA regs that tell me I need an exp-ensive $50,000+ feces containment station if I feed cows in one place more than 3 months out of the year?
Worried so much about some cow $hit & pi$$ that might get in the water, yet have no reservations about incentivizing farmers to do no till & use tons of chemical? (I’m not saying all these chemicals are necessarily harmful, bcs cow $hit & pi$$ in most cattle operations isn’t either).
How about regs that interfere with me as a rancher being able to have a fuel tank on my place? Did you know that I have been ordered by the Federal govt bcs of EPA to build a containment unit for spilled fuel? Even if I no longer store fuel in my tanks?
I could tell you lots of regs that have interfered with our ranhing & trucking business.
How about unhelpful CAFE standards that have made it loads more expensive to operate a vehicle?
Do you not even understand the enormous costs that have been handed down from all of this garbage the Fed has pushed upon the public regarding CAFE standards?
You have no clue.
I can only surmise that these Progressive policies, whether from a Republican or Liberal, have not affected you negatively.

You really are a piece of work.

AZfederalist on February 24, 2013 at 5:26 PM

Eisenhower is so easy to blame for lots of things. Those who know the history of that era know the truth of the evil that Wilson, FDR & his successors heaped upon this nation.

Badger40 on February 24, 2013 at 5:38 PM

AZfederalist on February 24, 2013 at 5:26 PM

Good work.

rrpjr on February 24, 2013 at 5:39 PM

I love it when that tard bayam shows up.

BallisticBob on February 24, 2013 at 5:40 PM

Correction, that should have been

Even more interesting: top 0.1% paid 17% of total income taxes while making only 7.8% of total AGI.

AZfederalist on February 24, 2013 at 5:26 PM

These are all from the 2009 IRS Statistics available on irs.gov. That’s the latest available statistics are always two years behind completed tax year (2012 is not complete until after April 15, 2013)

AZfederalist on February 24, 2013 at 5:47 PM

AZfederalist on February 24, 2013 at 5:26 PM

Good work.

rrpjr on February 24, 2013 at 5:39 PM

Oh yes it was.

I love it when that tard bayam shows up.

BallisticBob on February 24, 2013 at 5:40 PM

I’m amazed he says such incendiary things like this:

Why should people feel a sense of entitlement toward lower taxes?
bayam on February 24, 2013 at 4:26 PM

And will not bother to justify the sheer stupidity of it.

Badger40 on February 24, 2013 at 5:48 PM

Can’t draw that conclusion, don’t see any way one could think that. Even more interesting: top 0.1% paid 17% of total income taxes while making only 17% of total AGI. But we can’t look at that as re-distribution. Why no, that is just “fairness”.

According to a majority of the 20 wealthiest Americans listed by Forbes, that’s right, it is fairness. Funny how most of the great capitalists and entrepreneurs who built empires from nothing find your whining absurd.

You have no clue.
I can only surmise that these Progressive policies, whether from a Republican or Liberal, have not affected you negatively.

I never said that onerous and unnecessary regulations do not exist. I was asking a question specific to your comments that regulations prevented you from starting a business.

And I repeat the fact that Canada and Germany have much more painful regulations than the US, and lower unemployment. Cutting regulations won’t turn the economy around.

bayam on February 24, 2013 at 5:50 PM

bayam on February 24, 2013 at 5:50 PM

We are not Canada & Germany. That arguments scores no points as well.

Give it up already!

22044 on February 24, 2013 at 5:53 PM

I love it when that tard bayam shows up.

BallisticBob on February 24, 2013 at 5:40 PM

…but don’t you feel a little bad that he’s so stupid…doesn’t realize it…and keeps braying anyway?…some of our people are trying to educate the a$$…and it goes right through the wind tunnel between its ears!…its been like this for years!…its a mental masochist!

KOOLAID2 on February 24, 2013 at 5:58 PM

I never said that onerous and unnecessary regulations do not exist. I was asking a question specific to your comments that regulations prevented you from starting a business.

And I repeat the fact that Canada and Germany have much more painful regulations than the US, and lower unemployment. Cutting regulations won’t turn the economy around.

bayam on February 24, 2013 at 5:50 PM

I already gave a few general examples of onerous regulations. Your snark regarding Joe the Plumber tells me you you do not believe they actually exist. They do bcs I am & have experienced them. Negatively. As in LOST REVENUE & business opportunities.
And I will repeat, being employed does not equate into a SUCCESSFUL economy & liberty.
I never said cutting regulations would turn the economy around. But it would sure help.
What would turn the economy around is shrinking the Federal Government & get rid of entitlement programs.

Badger40 on February 24, 2013 at 6:04 PM

Where Stalin, Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Rasputin and the Romanovs came from.

Where Vlad the Impaler rules with an iron hand today.

World.Turned.Upside.Down.

Sacramento on February 24, 2013 at 4:48 PM

oh mama- Marx was a j-ew
as were Lenin//Ulianov and Leo Trotsky/ Bronshtein
they were j-ews hating the orthodox Russia, hating Christianity, hating Romanovs and finally destroying that great nation.
Very little to do with Rasputin, in fact, nothing at all.

magone on February 24, 2013 at 6:06 PM

but don’t you feel a little bad that he’s so stupid
KOOLAID2 on February 24, 2013 at 5:58 PM

Hell no.

BallisticBob on February 24, 2013 at 6:06 PM

Wonder if Russia’s “fast track to citizenship” is what these pols over here want to do?

If you pay, you stay?

——————–

Russians are leaving the country in droves

Some chafe at life under Vladimir Putin’s rule, but for many others, economic limitations are the prime motivator. Experts say the numbers have reached demographically dangerous levels.
November 14, 2011|By Sergei L. Loiko, Los Angeles Times

Dr. ZhivBlago on February 24, 2013 at 6:07 PM

Income tax is onerous, and was shunned in the strictest of term by our founders.

Income tax from the beginning was meant to punish those who had money purely to appease those who did not, brought only out of petty spite and jealousy.

Speakup on February 24, 2013 at 6:27 PM

According to a majority of the 20 wealthiest Americans listed by Forbes, that’s right, it is fairness. Funny how most of the great capitalists and entrepreneurs who built empires from nothing find your whining absurd.

bayam on February 24, 2013 at 5:50 PM

Yeah, that’s what they say. When talking to the stenographers from the DNC public relations arm such as Time, Newsweak, NYT, CBS, CNN, etc. they are all calling for paying their “fair share” and making sure loopholes are closed. But when it comes to their personal tax situations? They dig for every possible deduction and minimize the amount they have to pay. You didn’t think that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation was set up just to hand out money to the disadvantaged, did you? Your buddy Buffet whom you think we should all revere is in a dispute with the IRS over $1B+ that the IRS says his company owes in taxes. If your buddy Buffet was so in with “fairness” and paying his “fair share”, why is he even disputing the IRS, you’d think he’d be glad to write that check for the good of the country.

You see, the dirty little secret is that all of those folks you cite have already gotten theirs. We don’t have a tax on wealth, we have a tax on income. Those folks got their stack and used every loophole and tax dodge they could find. Now, they want to make it harder for others to accumulate wealth and regressive tax codes like this make the ladder that much harder to climb for new and aspiring entrepreneurs. Reduces the competition for those already in positions of wealth.

Please explain what is fair about having to pay 39% or more of one’s income just because one makes over some arbitrary amount of money. It’s fair that one person has to pay 0% of their income and another person has to pay 39% or more? Really? You have a really warped idea of “fair”. Your view of fair really seems to fit the definition of “envious” or “covetous”. Somebody else has more than you and you want the government to take it. Yeah, that’s fair.

Now, I’ve wasted enough time with you. It’s obvious all of this is going to bounce off that thick liberal skull of yours and you will just come back with another, “but the really rich people like Buffet and the Google kings think it’s right that they pay more”. Sad thing is there are too many like you in our country who view what others have earned as their rightful property and want the government to go take it. Seems it would be hard sleeping at night knowing that you are advocating stealing from the work of productive people just because you resent their success.

AZfederalist on February 24, 2013 at 6:28 PM

I won’t steal it though, just give you a “well done” instead.

Gingotts on February 24, 2013 at 5:27 PM

:)

jix on February 24, 2013 at 6:30 PM

Where Stalin, Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Rasputin and the Romanovs came from.

Is it against the law to state the fact that Lenin and Trotsky/ Bronshtein were j-ews who hated Russia and Romanovs and Christianity? Is it against the law to state the historical fact that both of them killed millions of christians and nobody screams holocaust
for years and years?
Why are you deleting this simple statmenet?
Does it somehow harm you? And if it does, then- why?

magone on February 24, 2013 at 6:32 PM

Yes, let’s idolize those who trade freedom for a life of comfort in a dictatorship. After all, it’s all about money and you should relinquish your personal liberties when there’s economic benefit.

bayam on February 24, 2013 at 3:45 PM

And yet, you voted for Obama… how do you square that circle?

dominigan on February 24, 2013 at 6:32 PM

Exactly which stifling regulations are you referring to?

bayam on February 24, 2013 at 5:25 PM

Well, there’s the 127 million hours needed to comply with all the regulation mandates in Obamacare (according to the House Ways and Means Committee)

And of course, that flood of new regulations that were saved up until after the election.

I would happily list the additional links for EPA, farms and gas/oil… but my comment would get stuck in moderation.

Still stand by your comment?

dominigan on February 24, 2013 at 6:45 PM

According to a majority of the 20 wealthiest Americans listed by Forbes, that’s right, it is fairness. Funny how most of the great capitalists and entrepreneurs who built empires from nothing find your whining absurd.

bayam on February 24, 2013 at 5:50 PM

Bayam, a mob of 1000 angry poor people can storm a rich man’s mansion, kill him and his family, and equitably distribute his wealth amongst themselves…and they’d still be a mob of 1000 angry poor people…and they won’t be getting any more because the man who knows how to accumulate the wealth is gone.

Printing money on government printing presses only works so long if you’re thinking of that. For people to value and exchange money for goods and services, it has to backed by some confidence. That may be precious metals, or not, but the point is it takes financiers and market forces to determine that or our currency is worthless. Zimbabwe comes to mind, and it was announced yesterday that Moody’s (I believe) just downgraded the UK from AAA to AA1 status.

From everything I’ve read, many major corporations are holding large amounts of cash in their accounts, and/or are buying precious metals. The question should be, “How do we get them to free up that capital so it can be used to advance society and to benefit workers?”

If these CEOs feel that they are going to have to pay through the nose, they will not hire nor expand. That will do the average worker no good whatsoever, and the government can support them via virtual money for only so long.

The Captains of Industry did indeed accrue large amounts of wealth. But, because they desired even more, they expanded their enterprises and hired more workers. That benefited everyone including those not directly employed by them. They did not stick their money under their mattresses and horde their wealth. The U.S. standard of living shot waaaay up and quickly when these gentlemen were alive and active in business.

No one says we have to like these people (the wealthy). I’d say the vast majority of us do not believe they should not have to pay any taxes. If nothing else, they spend more, they yield more to the Treasury in taxes. We WANT them to invest, hire, and spend.

Lastly, it’s not just the proverbial Capitalist sporting a cane and a tophat who’s getting hurt. It’s small businesses and their employees everywhere. They’re going out of business left and right. And, since workers have less to spend, are more heavily in debt, and are more uncertain about the future, it’s affecting large companies as well…such as Sears Holdings, Abercrombie & Fitch, JC Penney, Saks, Sweet Bay and several others. Even Wal-Mart took it on the chin in their earnings last month.

Dr. ZhivBlago on February 24, 2013 at 6:58 PM

My God, he must weigh 400 pounds.

Amazingoly on February 24, 2013 at 7:32 PM

Sorry, but this is the wrong guy to make into a hero.

Putin’s Russia suits him well.

blue13326 on February 24, 2013 at 7:32 PM

From everything I’ve read, many major corporations are holding large amounts of cash in their accounts, and/or are buying precious metals. The question should be, “How do we get them to free up that capital so it can be used to advance society and to benefit workers?”

If these CEOs feel that they are going to have to pay through the nose, they will not hire nor expand. That will do the average worker no good whatsoever, and the government can support them via virtual money for only so long.

Warren Buffet would say that historically, capital gains tax rates are a poor indicator of corporate cap expenditures for the simple reason that companies expand in response to demand, not in response to supply. In other words, if customers aren’t demanding more of a product, cheap financing or lower tax rates do not incentive capital investments. Companies grow for one reason only- to meet customer demand.

But I don’t really disagree with anything that you’re saying. You also have to keep in mind that government policy can’t necessarily encourage corporate spending for two major reasons. First, technology is enabling corporations to simply eliminate thousands of jobs that were necessary 10 years ago. Technology is vastly underestimated as a job killer (to the benefit of silicon valley and other tech centers).
Second, corporate growth has been subverted by short-term thinking. A recent HBS poll asked corporate CEO’s to consider this scenario: one of your business units has identified a new market and growth opportunity; after careful analysis, the ROI is deemed to meet or exceed IRR and every other key metric. However, the initial investment will cause the company to miss it’s next quarterly earnings. Would you make the decision to invest? 80% of CEO’s responded NO.
In other words, the vast majority of CEO’s are so attuned to the next earnings cycles that investments which promise to increase a company’s valuation over the course of 12 months are actually viewed as undesirable. It’s a characteristic of modern capitalism that policy can’t easily address.

bayam on February 24, 2013 at 7:37 PM

magone on February 24, 2013 at 6:32 PM

So…what’s your point?

They were Jews…and they were communists. Not all communists are Jews; and not all Jews are communists.

A lot of Jews are ‘liberals’…but a lot are not.

Solaratov on February 24, 2013 at 7:41 PM

A question I’d like to see answered is how many actors live in Kalifornia these days? I get the impression a good many don’t, with taxation being consideration. I get the impression many, if not most movies, are not even made in Kalifornia anymore.

Quartermaster on February 24, 2013 at 7:43 PM

They were Jews…and they were communists. Not all communists are Jews; and not all Jews are communists

Really? Don’t lie,
have you ever met one, who wās not a communist?
of course, they tell you they are just simply ,,liberals”

magone on February 24, 2013 at 9:10 PM

First, technology is enabling corporations to simply eliminate thousands of jobs that were necessary 10 years ago. Technology is vastly underestimated as a job killer (to the benefit of silicon valley and other tech centers).

But the Socialists believe that increased technology will mean less drudgery for mankind. It can’t be something great for the worker and something bad for the worker at the same time…can it?

I do agree that some facets of our current system will indeed change if and when technology advances even more. There could be new ways that workers will be able to thrive that we are not yet aware of. Perhaps not. But we need to allow things to take their natural course. Forcing socio-economic evolution DOES NOT WORK.

If corporations weren’t looking to expand at some time in the future, then they would just fire everyone, liquidate their assets and invest as they saw fit as individuals, or as individual corporate entities, whatever. They aren’t doing that for the most part.

Most of them know that they can’t simply get out and spin the roulette wheel of the stock market or other such systems and make money forever. They know that the real value of money is tied to productivity.

You also can’t forget the stockholders the CEOs have to answer to. They have to show increased profit at some point or they will lose their jobs, and/or the company may fold.

Also, it’s not technology (including online sales) shutting down individual small businesses, especially in the grocery and restaurant industries. Be that as it may, if technology was causing a shift of the work force, the economy wouldn’t be shrinking but at least holding steady.

Second, corporate growth has been subverted by short-term thinking. A recent HBS poll asked corporate CEO’s to consider this scenario: one of your business units has identified a new market and growth opportunity; after careful analysis, the ROI is deemed to meet or exceed IRR and every other key metric. However, the initial investment will cause the company to miss it’s next quarterly earnings.

Same thing with local, state and government thinking in setting up pensions, expanding government, increasing spending, selling bonds based upon future projections and so on. There are economic cycles even in the best of times.

Risk, loss and gain have always been part and parcel of this system. Overall there has been mostly gain, so the prospect of total economic collapse is due to other factors beyond missteps in business forecasts.

To me those factors include the increasing demand for resources…there’s only so much to go around and the Third World is consuming more of it…and a concerted effort by the Communists/Globalists to bring about economic collapse. As we saw with Russian and Chinese Cold War Communism, no system can survive repeated attacks especially when they’re already weak.

Another major factor is the increasing loss of industrialization in the U.S. and Europe. Russia and China (and others) are incapable of really taking the place of Western industrialization and technology. They have not gone through a natural socio-economic progression…without Western industry and technology to steal they will fail.

Just as the Middle East will go back to the Feudal Ages when their oil runs out.

Culture is sticky.

Dr. ZhivBlago on February 24, 2013 at 9:11 PM

Yes, let’s idolize those who trade freedom for a life of comfort in a dictatorship.

bayam on February 24, 2013 at 3:45 PM

I will never idolize you.

hawkdriver on February 24, 2013 at 9:26 PM

Why are you deleting this simple statmenet?
Does it somehow harm you? And if it does, then- why?

magone on February 24, 2013 at 6:32 PM

Because they’re part of the conspiracy, silly. Everyone knows that Hotair is controlled by the Bilderbergs.

RINO in Name Only on February 24, 2013 at 9:32 PM

Really? Don’t lie,
have you ever met one, who wās not a communist?
of course, they tell you they are just simply ,,liberals”

magone on February 24, 2013 at 9:10 PM

annoyinglittletwerp is gonna flip her lid when she reads this.

cptacek on February 24, 2013 at 9:55 PM

People who think that government is a solution to problems are the the real problem.
Bcs of unjust farm programs, I have to compete with the Federal government’s farm payments for pasture rent.
Bcs they’re paying the farmers so much $$ it’s making it profitable for these guys to farm at a loss & they are as a result, digging up NATIVE PRAIRIE, & even rocky knobs to establish farm ground to get a PAYMENT.
I’m watching this happen all around me.
This is the Federal Govt & it’s Progressive policies at work.

Badger40 on February 24, 2013 at 4:52 PM

Yep. Exactly. Older “farmers” are keeping their land to get the government payments/CRP payments, taking land out of production, and stopping younger farmers from getting a start. No one can out bid the feds for pasture or cropland. We are paying mostly around $16 / acre for our pasture. The latest round of CRP contracts were between $35 and $55 per acre. We offered $50 per acre to someone that was going to put productive farm ground into the CRP program, he got $35 and he STILL decided to do it because it was guaranteed money, and we were a risk.

cptacek on February 24, 2013 at 9:58 PM

That is obvious. Which stifling regs? How about all of them.
How about the regs that are legion concerning driving a semi truck professionally? How about EPA regs that tell me I need an exp-ensive $50,000+ feces containment station if I feed cows in one place more than 3 months out of the year?
Worried so much about some cow $hit & pi$$ that might get in the water, yet have no reservations about incentivizing farmers to do no till & use tons of chemical? (I’m not saying all these chemicals are necessarily harmful, bcs cow $hit & pi$$ in most cattle operations isn’t either).
How about regs that interfere with me as a rancher being able to have a fuel tank on my place? Did you know that I have been ordered by the Federal govt bcs of EPA to build a containment unit for spilled fuel? Even if I no longer store fuel in my tanks?
I could tell you lots of regs that have interfered with our ranhing & trucking business.
How about unhelpful CAFE standards that have made it loads more expensive to operate a vehicle?
Do you not even understand the enormous costs that have been handed down from all of this garbage the Fed has pushed upon the public regarding CAFE standards?
You have no clue.
I can only surmise that these Progressive policies, whether from a Republican or Liberal, have not affected you negatively.

You really are a piece of work.

AZfederalist on February 24, 2013 at 5:26 PM

Eisenhower is so easy to blame for lots of things. Those who know the history of that era know the truth of the evil that Wilson, FDR & his successors heaped upon this nation.

Badger40 on February 24, 2013 at 5:38 PM

The Lesser Prairie Chicken might end up on the Endangered Species list. If so, many of our Kansas acres might be impacted.

Also, wolves are showing up in Kansas, no doubt introduced in Wyoming/Idaho, etc, and moving around.

cptacek on February 24, 2013 at 10:00 PM

Comment pages: 1 2