Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
American Digest: And I like this from "The Blog That Nobody Reads", because it is -- mostly -- about me. What can I say? I'm on an ego trip today. It won't last.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Dr. Melissa Clouthier: Morgan Freeberg at House of Eratosthenes (pftthats a mouthful) honors big boned women in skimpy clothing. The picture there is priceless--keep scrolling down.
Exile in Portales: Via Gerard: Morgan Freeberg, a guy with a lot to say. And he speaks The Truth...and it's fascinating stuff. Worth a read, or three. Or six.
Just Muttering: Two nice pieces at House of Eratosthenes, one about a perhaps unintended effect of the Enron mess, and one on the Gore-y environ-movie.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
The Virginian: I know this post will offend some people, but the author makes some good points.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
Perhaps, Barry. Perhaps. We’ve been debating it hotly for the better part of a century. Some say it’s indisputable. Some say the “supply side economics” of the Reagan era, with the Laffer curve, and all that stuff has been “discredited.” Some will try to pull a global-warming-type fast one and insist “all the world’s economists agree” that a society thrives in an economy most helpful and robust when everyone has the same standard of living.
Well, here’s a question.
If the “science is settled” on economics and informed economists have long ago concluded that wage gaps and net-worth gaps are inherently toxic to the performance of a local economy…that “when you spread the wealth around it’s good for everybody”…how come when we vote in favor of that, it’s only for a little while? And if this is how economies work all the time, how come we only vote it in when the time is right? War protests. Republican scandals involving congressional pages. A clean and articulate young guy from Chicago…or Hope…or Plains. How come so many tumblers have to be tripped before the lock on that Pandora’s Box is opened?
How do you explain all these episodes in our nation’s history in which we gave this wealth-spreading the ol’ college try…and never once, in the aftermath, have we gotten together and said “Well jolly good, that settles it! Let it never be questioned again, now that we know that’s how it works!” Why would we continue to retreat from this if it isn’t a cul de sac? How come nearly every “fan” of Jimmy Carter’s that I find, was born after the day we fired Carter?
How come I have yet to have a job or paycheck offered to me by a poor or middle-class person?
When Reagan put a stop to that and let the evil rich keep their filthy lucre, we did not see a decade of blight and poverty. No, today the liberals tell me that was a “decade of greed.” Which means prosperity. Where, in our history, did we “spread the wealth around” so it would be “good for everybody,” at the advent of a similar decade of prosperity? When did that ever happen?
You say you’re going to cut taxes for 95% of everybody. And yet the government you’ll be running will collect more revenue. Which means you’re going to be whacking the other five percent more than twenty times as hard as the amount by which the average among the 95 will see his taxes go down. That’s just sixth-grade math, isn’t it?
So what you’re asking us to believe is…some folks will be hit with tax increases, thirty or forty times as large as the other folks’ tax cuts. And, in the wake of that, they will not be changing their plans. Particularly with the businesses they run, and the jobs they would have been creating. Even a tiny bit. To the contrary, those businesses will be expanding more, with less capital, because you’ll be…uh…er…ya know…uh, telling ’em to.
H/T for the video to Gerard.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I hit a high in 2003 of 113,000 dollars which wasnt too shabby for an ole country boy that didnt even finish high school but, my potential is a lot higher and all I need is a job to demonstrate that.
Problem is with all the taxes that our country already charges and Mr. Obama’s obvious tax the rich and give incentives to corporations to lay off more people and send more jobs overseas, I have been employed for maybe 25% of the last 6 years.
Yep, I can hear you now…Go get a job deadbeat.
I have personally submitted over 20,000 resumes in the last 6 years in at least 100 different formats and I’m not getting interviewed which means I’m not getting a job which means I’m not contributing to the future of our country.
Nope, I’m not asking for your symphaty here.
I’m just letting you know the facts and how they will effect us if we don’t get a handle on this tax more and more and send more and more jobs overseas.
You can read my resume under the link cut to the chase at http://www.KeepAmericaAtWork.com and you can read my comments about how offshoring is ruining our economy and all of the financial bailouts that our government is currently doing is just a bandaide that is going to make our situation much much worse when we finally decide to suck it up and pay off our debt.
Regards,
Virgil
- vbierschwale | 10/14/2008 @ 10:15I knew this bothered me for a reason, but I just figured out what it was. For all their talk of being Christian, Democrats don’t understand that capitalism is Christian. In the parable of the servants and the talents, Jesus says that the servant who is most productive is the one who will be rewarded. I think that must be why Democrats want to punish the productive.
- JohnJ | 10/14/2008 @ 18:15