Anyone who has ever listened to Jack Hunter knows he speaks to ALL these issues (militarism, corporatism, etc.). Wake up from your faux bipartisan comas before you find yourselves and the rest of us thanks to your stupidity in another "civil war". This one fought along class lines and not so much along geo-political boundaries. All the wealthy, "educated" and elitist so-called "liberals" who can't wipe for themselves will then be screaming for help. Y'all make me sick.
One other thing, your partisan pacifism that doesn't exist anymore now that the Obamanator is prez sickens me even more....
Glad to see stupidity is alive and well in the South, Fishface. Your oversimplification of the connection between military spending and income tax were born from a freshman level CofC class, I am sure. God forbid we restructure unsustainable "gimme more" programs like the Medi/Medi disgrace, Social Security, and a bloated war chest. But that would really over complicate things for your simple fish brain, would it not?
Cutting will not do any good as long as Uncle Ben is printing up digital money not worth the paper it is not printed on. We need this money to murder innocent children in the name of protecting our freedom, I guess. There is no solution except to end the wars and Fed. But it ain't happening.
Why, Jack, don't you go after the BIG problem that causes these huge deficits and debt: The Big Money Corporations, AND Their LOBBYISTS? These are the folks who write the legislation, and why on earth would any of it benefit 'we the people'? But NO, you would rather attack the budget, and other ideological things, that make your commentary ridiculous at best.
Another thing. The Tea Party, from your perspective , must be a large faction of the US government, for you to assert the 'targeting' of congressmen if they don't do what 'you' want them to do with the budget cutting. When was the last time a 'strong-armed' tactic such as this actually worked?
You have the public's ear(at least some of it), and should use it wisely.
If you like the Southern Avenger, you're probably an ignoramus as well. It's no surprise that a certain crowd still fighting the Civil War would respond to the dog whistles blown by uneducated propagandists like Jack. It takes no talent to foment hatred and bigotry. Jack is nothing more than a terrorist making empty threats toward Republicans who dare not support his unpopular policy agenda.
Wow Fish Pimp...you're not very nice. I, for one, happen to think the Southern Avenger and Richard Todd have a great gig, full of local news and thought provoking discussion. Of course, I'm sure Jack is really tore up about your nasty comments and as soon as he has a moment to slow down between gigs (writing books, paper columns, radio hosting, and appearing on national tv) he'll take the time to have a hurt feeling - Then, maybe you, too, can feel like you accomplished something with YOUR time.
Hey Jack, are you a radio host? Judge Napalatano introduced you as a radio host. Do you, in fact, host a radio show in some other market (Niagra Falls area, I'm sure) or are you trying to inflate that Tues/Fri deal on Richard Todd's show into a hosting gig? (caught your Friday morning snooze fest. I forgot what it was about)
But let's get into why you are the stupidest man in Charleston media. Man up? You said "man up" on national television? Could you be a bigger douche bag? That's a line for a woman. You should have held up your pinkie finger and giggled when you said that. Or at least tried to pull off Sara Palin's wink. Good gracious, how emasculating for you!
Look, you want to get federal spending under control? You need to tie military spending directly to the income tax. A war tax. Such-and-such a number of military personnel sent overseas triggers increases in federal income tax rates to pay for them. Bringing troops home leads directly to tax cuts. People who want to start wars need to pay for them upfront.
@Nofaith: thank you for repeating your non-informative claim... I've encountered many people that use the retort "I don't have time for this" in arguments they've otherwise been waist-deep in. It is nonsense.
What you don't get is my point that you've used the classic rhetorical falsehood of attacking the messenger, when you absolutely cannot back up that claim. If that assertion (MoJo is bunk) is baseless, then why believe the other things you say?
You, clearly bearing a PhD in economics also trotted out the 47% of people don't pay taxes myth. The poor do get significant tax relief, but still pay SS and MediCare taxes so to say they pay "none" is disingenuous at best. Because of our marginal tax system, you pay the same tax rate on the first few brackets of your income into which those awful, awful poor people do, too. You and I don't get EIC and other poverty-level breaks, but I'll tell you that I'd rather earn my pay and pay my taxes than have the "luxury" of being poor.
You also assumed that I'm a liberal, and that you earn more than I do. You assume that I covet your awesome dollar signs. I have no idea what you earn, but I don't envy you. All this because I assert that the wealthy actually benefit significantly from a robust civil sector. I guess that makes me pinker than Lenin.
Somewhere along the line, David Letterman lost his focus on comedy and decided to become a soap box liberal who still hasn't figured out that Bush and Cheney no longer in office, that you can do so many lame jokes at the expense of Sarah Palin (who despite being loony has taken more than her unfair shots from Letterman). I should add that Letterman, who occasionally thanks his lucky stars at the wonders of modern medicine and how it save his life with open surgery, took time to mock Cheney shortly after his serious heart problems.
Jon Stewart can blend the two together -- sometimes making sense and sometimes crossing that fine line -- but Letterman whose wisdom cannot keep pace with his wit cannot. He has turned into a bully, an elderly curmudgeon, who while superior to Leno when he's at the top of his game tries to hide some of his shortcomings with his self-depricating humor.
It's really sad. I so enjoyed Letterman for so long, but now turn the TV off at 11:30 p.m. and read. I guess in a sense, I should thank Letterman for making me a more well-rounded person.
A middle class is needed for the health of the country. The middle class buys items and helps the economy. Without the middle class there is no economy -- only the rich who have everything they want and the poor who have very little. Purchases by the poor will not keep our economy running; they have too little discretionary money.
The Wisconsin governor, in trying to eliminate unions, is attacking the existence of the middle class. That is actually not good for anybody. These people don't make that much money. They don't even make enough money to be included in the group that pays the highest rate of income tax.
The people who are attacking the middle class in America by attacking unions are doing a great disservice to our country.
I have already explained why showing small snapshots of data from Mother Jones has little relationship to the arguement you are trying to make. As you stated, they get their information from publicly available data. You might want to look at all this data in the whole rather than just the years that you want to look at because that you think that they prove your point. Your inability to understand this is not my issue, pretty much explains why you have the beliefs that you do and validates Jack's commentary.
My credibility is not shot. The fact that you cannot prove that the data you are using justifies the opinions that you are espousing is the baseless claim. Sorry, fail. Big time fail. Fail to end all fails.
Feel free to respond but I will not any longer. I typically make it a practice to avoid discussing economics with liberals becasue they don't understand it. Thanks for proving my theory.
Oh, and this took me about 5 minutes to type up while I sipped on a cup of coffee. Break is over. Time to go back to work and earn some money for you to covet. Don't worry, though, Bush spent enough in eight years that my taxes will be going up and Obama wasted enough in two that they are going to go through the roof so you will get your wish. I will, by government force, continue to pay for the 47% who don't. You should be proud, your beliefs are those that have gotten us annual and long term $1.5T deficits, added more debt in the last two years than anyone else and have kept unemployment at 9.5%. And I am the one who is discredited - hah!
@NoFaith: so you have no data. I could have provided you with data quite quickly, probably within 60 seconds on just about any news source. MoveOn.org is a freaking mess that does deliberately distort stories; I saw it many times in their email bulletins that drove me quickly from them. HuffPo is less likely to spin but certainly works a strong hype angle... plus their page format sucks.
That being said, your tell was "I don't have all day to look at every blog on the internet..." We're not talking about every blog on the internet, we're talking about the one you disparaged. You clearly, based on the amount of time you've put into commenting in this thread alone, have plenty of time.
Thus my assessment stands: baseless claim, credibility shot.
Extremism in defence of ****** is no *****. Jack, you are dumb today. You may be smart tomorrow.
you are a very insightful person Mr. Hunter. thanks for the blog. I never miss one.
Aren't you just precious?
sorry factory, I don't have all day to look at every blog on the internet for the one or two numbers or facts that you might believe to disprove you. Just the fact that you believe that MoJo (or HuffPo or Townhall or politico or moveon.org) are not twisting their data to make their point is naive at best. Do a little more than blindly follow MoJo, mediamatters and moveon.org to form your opinions and you would understand what I have been saying. My point, which actually agrees with mat-c's reference to Reich is that corporations don't pay taxes, they just pass them on ultimately to individuals. I thought that was a pretty obvious statement and really don't think that it needs numbers backing it up.
As I said, trying to argue the simple economics that taking away more and more of someone's earnings makes them less productive with people who think that it is morally correct to do so is pointless. It does not matter how many numbers I throw up about the positive effects of lower tax rates as you and mat-c just want to sit around and wait for the rich folks to make the money and get the government folks to take it way and give it to you. In the mean time you complain that the rich don't give their fair share when they are providing more than their fair share on a percentage and proportion basis.
And believe me, I was not chuckling at all. It was out and out laughter. Just like watching the lightsaber kid spinning around thinking that he was displaying flashes of brilliance and mastery of 'The Force' until he actually saw himself on youtube and realized how silly he looked. Absolutely hillarious!
Have a great day, I know I will!
@NoFaith: your answer had no data... thus your assessment of MoJo is baseless. Chuckling is even less intimidating on the internet, and just as meaningless. FAIL.
I actually would have been happy to see some citations, as I get a lot of links to MoJo shared with me and am usually suspicious of new (to me) news outlets.
The protesters are using imagery that is just as irresponsible as that used by high-level political figures and elected officials in the GOP. Shame on them.
The primary differences:
1. Grunt-level protesters on the GOP side use far worse racist, inaccurate, hateful, and poorly-spelled signage and imagery, because they are terrified of misconstrued visions of the future and in some cases a future under a black president.
2. The protesters in WI are not national political figures, but have quite legitimate and immediate fears that their livelihoods are at stake.
Me talking to my neighbor about politics, or posting something on Facebook reaches a few dozen people, tops. Sarah Palin saying something, or worse Tweeting a middle-school-esque string of lolspeak (Twitter's fault, not hers) immediately reaches millions and then is carried by the major news networks ad infinitum.
Enjoy the remainder of your false equivalence.
Clowns to the left of me, clowns to the right.---
Here I am stuck in the middle with you.
I almost forgot. I work almost exclusively for those "ultra-rich elite who would never stoop so low as to ever even thank you for your work."
Not only do they thank me, they frequently slip a few Benjamins my way as a token of their thanks, and they refer their "wealthy, elitist" friends to me for further work. I succeed only because they have the wherewithal to purchase my services and expertise. I guess you could say I'm one of those poor schlubs who is getting "trickled on", although less so since the market downturn.
Now, do you think I want those folks to do better, or worse? How does them being poorer make me wealthier? I take no pleasure in seeing a wealthy man stripped of his wealth, whether by a thief in the night, or a taxman in broad daylight.
Envy will kill you, but not without making the journey to death a most unpleasant one.
Ultimately, I'm happy, and another man's success cannot diminish my happiness, unless of course, I engage in envy and covet that which rightfully belongs to another. Just as the ring ultimately destroys Gollum in LOTR.
Powered by Foundation
© Copyright 2017,
Charleston City Paper