Comments on: An anonymous blog poster’s expression of angst

By: Another Chuck

Another Chuck — Sun, 17 Feb 2013 17:01:43 +0000

Jason, I believe accountants and lawyers for the most part, are super-bright people. I’m am complaining about the tax code and our litigant society….which increases the number of people needed in these professions. Accountants and lawyers are merely conducting business under the rules the powers that be have inflicted upon us. I am complaining about the rules and the idiots that perpetuate them.

By: Dan Casey

Dan Casey — Sun, 17 Feb 2013 15:00:01 +0000

“Trickle down” never was designed to actually trickle down. It was designed to put more money in rich people’s pockets, and to fool others into believing that the middle and lower classes would benefitl, too.

From that perspective, it DEFINITELY worked. But it just never trickled down.

Suckers!

By: Jason Perdue

Jason Perdue — Sun, 17 Feb 2013 14:13:21 +0000

AC, no doubt the IRS could be streamlined, but the Flat Tax is regressive and puts way more money in the pockets of the wealthy than it does into middle class and poorer folks. This will not lead to the increase in productivity you propose, because middle and low income folks buy the products that stimulate productivity. In my view, the trickle down theory has not worked. Folks who make the money haven’t put that money back into business in a meaningful way. Aren’t corporate profits more or less at an all time high? Why hasn’t that money been funneled back into business in the form of new jobs? You probabaly know the answer to that question better than I.

So, ALL government, accountants, and lawyers take money from the economy without production? Are you saying that you do your own books and you handle all your legal work? Are you saying that you don’t need/support interstate highways, safe food, safe drugs, police, firemen, trash pick-up, public education? No doubt our local, state, and federal governments can be improved, BUT, and AC, this is a pet peeve of mine, private business is no less or more effective than government agencies. Both have plusses and minuses. There is corruption in both.

You have your reasons, AC, why President Obama gets under your skin, but he has proven to be more pro-business than you will admit. He helped save thousands of auto industry jobs. He went very easy on blatant Wall Street abuses. And he threw a nice bone to the insurance industry with the Affordable Care Act. Sounds pretty business friendly to me.

By: pammala

pammala — Sun, 17 Feb 2013 12:14:09 +0000

“Pounding my head into a brick wall”

oh so NOW I see why your have the opinions that you do

By: Another Chuck

Another Chuck — Sun, 17 Feb 2013 04:49:42 +0000

Jason, revenue is a huge part of the equation. And the only way to get significant tax revenue is by expanding the GDP. Increasing taxes moves money around, but does not create new dollars. I believe we need a pro business government that promotes hiring, productivity and energy independence. I believe we need a president that feels the same . The IRS, all government, accountants and lawyers take money from the economy without production. Theyvare detractors Flatten the tax code and most of this leeching goes away. Taxes should be able to be filed on a post card.

By: Jason Perdue

Jason Perdue — Sun, 17 Feb 2013 04:09:56 +0000

AC, how long should it take us to reduce the budget deficit to an acceptable level?

I believe you said you run a business. If you had a deficit, would you look only to cut expenses, or would you look to cut expenses and increase revenues?

BTW, fundamental change would have been in the form of a single-payer healthcare system. Fundamental change would have returned tax rates formthe wealthiest Americans at least the 50-60% area. Fundamental change would have been in the form of clear regulations on the financial industry. Fundamental may well have included aggressive prosecution of the Wall Streeters who had a major role in this financial crisis. President Obama has not authored fundamental change!

By: Dan Casey

Dan Casey — Sun, 17 Feb 2013 03:28:22 +0000

We don’t have the luxury of NOT operating in the Keynesian fashion. Unless you want to be like Greece, w/ 25% unemployment.

By: Another Chuck

Another Chuck — Sun, 17 Feb 2013 03:16:19 +0000

Ok,some of these great social programs and experiments have potential merit. The problem is that both parties have not managed OUR money with due dilligence and responsibily, and Obama is a total joke. Therefore, we don’t have the luxgury to spend in the Keynesian way, or take chances on what might of might not work. So now, we HAVE to cut spending, control our own energy even to the point we can export it, and be pro expansion of business so revenues and the GDP can expand. Do I dislike Obama? Obviously yes! Why would anyone want to fundamentally change the greatest and most benelovent nation in the history of mankind. Tweak it, yes. But Obama is trying to do just what he said,

By: Sandi Saunders

Sandi Saunders — Sun, 17 Feb 2013 01:57:38 +0000

I have to thank all you angry insulting conservatives. You do for voters what a certain poster does for religion. Nothing could make us look better than you do. Especially the class “Bob” brings to the table.

By: Warren

Warren — Sat, 16 Feb 2013 23:51:27 +0000

149.”…if I were Reid I would pass something he considers reasonable and have the debate. If the GOP would block a reasonable budget package, then he would have them on record, right? That seems like good politics to me.

Comment by Another Chuck

That gets at the crux of the problem this country faces. AC’s “conservative” programmers have been acting exclusively in terms of politics for a long time, even pre-dating Obama. But good politics and good governance aren’t the same thing, and partisan obstructionism isn’t loyal opposition.

AC, good politics and good governance aren’t the same thing, and more than 47% of the U.S. electorate would rather reward good governance than politics. As conditioned as middle aged white Americans (especially southern men) are to think of public issues in adversarial terms as if they were meaningless team sports, they aren’t. And as democracy and American opportunity cause the electorate to become less like the one that you’d prefer, the rewards for sincere attempts at governance will continue to grow at the expense of insincere politics. Mike Deaver, Lee Atwater, Roger Ailes and Karl Rove’s legacies do not include enduring governing principles.

Too bad for dittoheads, but solutions are for winners, and scoreboards are for losers.

So congratulations, AC, you’re WINNING!!! Your “side” is WINNING!!! All the other “side” is doing is merely succeeding, but you’re WINNING!!!