You know what? Any feathers I ruffled by calling Bush an a**hole the other day will just have to stay ruffled. Read this from Andrew Tobias (h/t Kevin Drum):
… I feel the need to share the story of Skip Orr, whom I met Tuesday night in Grant Park watching President-elect Obama take the stage. A long-time Obama supporter, Skip had flown in from Japan for this. … As President of Boeing Japan, he found himself at a Democrats Abroad meeting pitching John Kerry — and then found himself outed as a Democrat in the New York Times. The next day Karl Rove called Boeing headquarters noting his displeasure — and referring to the great deal of business Boeing does with the government. Basically, he wanted Orr fired.
Like outing a CIA spy to punish her husband. Or firing a slew of Republican-appointed U.S. attorneys for not being partisan enough in their administration of Justice. Or — well — accusing your opponent of wanting to teach comprehensive sex education to kindergartners.
I think it was even worse than most people realize.
A**holes. Schmucks. Putzes. Whatever — they can’t get out of our lives nearly as fast as we need them to.
Amen! ya know-calling someone an a**hole is referring to the manner in which they behave and not because of the color of skin with which they are born. A**holes are cultivated after birth and make a real choice to be just such.
A**holes. Schmucks. Putzes.
If only I had pearls to clutch, or opposable thumbs to clutch them.
I’m not all that enthusiastic about an Obama Administration, but I’m more than ready to see these feckless, pompous jackasses out of the White House. If he only manages to accomplish that much, Obama might at least make my average bile level lower.
Plus, I won’t keep asking myself every time I see him “How did this moron ever get to be President?”
Rove might’ve been big if he wasnt so small. Hateful. Really hateful.
But wouldn’t the world be a better place if instead of calling people “a**holes” for having political differences, you could engage is civil, respectful discourse and reason together about differences. Surely you would agree that is a better way. Unfortunately, people too often succumb to the temptation to be what they oppose–”a**holes”. Not a good thing for them or anyone around them. By the way, the civility with which W is handling the transition is exemplary–something even the left-leaning talking heads have acknowledged.
I find it funny that the headline at salon.com right now is “Obama’s designated a–hole”
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/11/07/rahm/
By the way, here’s a myth Andrew Tobias and his ilk like to perpetuate: Appointments of US Attorneys were never policital until Geo. W. Bush came along. How naive (or misleading).
Word: too bad W usually had a smart ass hateful smirk for anyone who dared question him rather than show this excellent civility you now say he has.
Perhaps Lotus shouldn’t call him a//hole – a general term that could adequately describe the person who cuts you off in traffic. I agree it’s too tame a term and is not specific enough.
The following names are more specific and accurate:
Murderer
Liar
Torturer
Hater
Idiot
Divider
Decider
Elitist
Guy from Connecticut. Who pretends to be a Texan
Land Man
Alcoholic
Suffered of Oedipal Complex
guy who cares more for Iraqi freedoms than the freedoms of America
Confounded: You illustrate the problem well: Calling a recovering alcoholic (who seems to be succeeding) an “alcoholic” doesn’t do much for us or anyone else does it?
worddog @4-”a**holes" for having political differences”-it’s not the political differences that make these guys a**holes, it’s their total lack of respect for the constitution and the law that makes them a**holes.
I disagree with name-calling until someone earns the name-calling. Bush and crew earned it a long time ago.
Shortly after the Iraq war started, someone objected to me criticizing “our commander in chief.” I told them that Bush had no more moral authority over me than a bad Baptist preacher. I still feel exactly that way. He lost his moral authority a long time ago, and he earned all the names he’s tagged with.
Word Dog,
“Civil, respectful discourse” and “political differences” somehow explain an attempt to have someone fired from their job because they supported the other side?
Huh?
When someone has lied to me, taken my rights away, and caused me great financial, emotional, and moral distress, I believe I have a right to speak my mind.
In a democracy, even one as fractured as this, I have the right to be candid about how I view them. A**hole is being kind. I don’t need to dialogue.
Nothing changes what has been done to me and my country in the name of “freedom” these past 8 years. Nothing changes how Bush, Cheney, et al have padded the pockets of the wealthy, while brave Americans died in a war based on deception and lies.
Thank God we are about to have our country back, with our Constitution restored.
Rogerwilco, you make a good point (without name-calling). W did squander a level of moral authority that is normally accorded the office of President (as did B. Clinton in entirely different ways). But calling W or Clinton names for their mistakes just doesn’t add anything to the debate. That’s all i was saying. Have a nice weekend.
Commentor, i have no idea what point you are making. Perhaps you can help me understand.
This sounds like a “conversation” with my ex-wife. Let’s move things along here ….
Lilaruby, as i understand your position, you don’t want any debate or reasoning about Bush. You just want to assert your right to call him an “a**hole” or whatever. You certainly have that right to name-call without dialogue, and no one is suggesting you are not entitled to call Bush any name you wish as often as you wish. In fact, as therapy, I recommend you watch MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann. He does this in a rant every night. He’ll make you feel better! At least initially… Happy Weekend!
Now, who are the “haties” ? Someone remind me. LOL.
Rejoice…rejoice….Obama has won. Now, all the problems of America and the world will be solved. Whether gainfully employed or not, all Americans will have cheap ethanol or biofuel or a full charge in their vehicles, a home….er home mortgage with low interest rates and optional payments, home heating and cooling from the sun and wind, a free range chicken in the pot, fresh organic veggies for that chicken, more union labor, more tax cuts…er rebates from redistribution of the wealth of others, more liberal talk shows on your radio whether anyone is listening or not, govt.- run free healthcare, no more wars, no more global warming or cooling, a warm and fuzzy glow from the loving feeling coming our way from our former enemies around the globe, no more burden of our risky 401(k)s, instead social security run pension plans for all , open borders, drivers licenses to all, US citizenship to all, etc. etc. Its time to reach across the aisle and give your former political enemies a big ol’ unifying hug. Teach the world to sing, in perfect harmony. Share a coke and a smile. Peace on earth.
gg@ 10: amen.
He tried to suspend habeus corpus for US citizens. Rove is a evil little man who deserves to be in prision, he has ruin hundreds of people lives including many in this state for purely political purposes.
-A Rove hit list survior (barely)
The time for any dialogue or debate about Bush is over for me. I have wasted all the time and energy I wish to “debating” or discussing his failures. Perhaps the transition will be his success. I will invest any such time and energy in looking toward fixing the mess we are in.
Here’s not only to a great weekend, but a better future for our country!
Now, who are the "haties" ? Someone remind me. LOL.
President Bush broke the law when he had people kidnapped and held indefinitely without trial (War Crimes Act of 1996).
He broke the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act willingly on numerous occasions, and admitted as much. He had plans to do this even before the 9/11 attacks.
He revealed the cover of an undercover CIA agent, and thus broke the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.
He treated the Iraq NIE so carelessly that, if he were any other employee of the federal government not so favored, he would have been convicted of violating the National Security Act, or would have been fired for gross incompetence.
He started a war that, while technically covered by the AUMF, is almost certainly illegal according to the U.N. Charter.
So who’s “A Friend of the Law”, now? Someone remind me, LOL.
I’m supposed to be civil to this guy? If there were such a thing as karma, Bush would be spending the rest of his sorry life in stress positions, listening to bad rap music at high volumes, and being given nothing to do but read some religious text – just like the more fortunate of his numerous victims.
Asshole seems appropriate to describe the source of a lot of fowl output (chickenshit). We have been dumped on with Katrina nonresponse (“good job Brownie”), Iraq war (lasting longer than WWll), torture, economic policy/actions engineered against the bottom 90%, Halliburtongate, Plamegate, illegal wiretap, ad nauseum. Man that’s a lot of shit. So Yeah, ASSHOLE fits. Chickenshit ASSHOLE fits even better.
AFOTL 17, I know you’re primarily being a smartaleck, and I speculate that a few drinks caused you to exhibit sour grapes, but I wonder if you really think Obama proposes “redistribution of the wealth of others?” Even George Will thinks the wealth redistribution argument was silly, as he said the Sunday before the election while discussing subsidies for sugar cane growers. Redistribution of money for the common use is the nature of any tax or subsidy. That’s where we get our “slabs” that Robert Penn Warren described so poetically and well.
Cujo, down boy,…heel…… goooooood attack dog.
roger, Obama, has literally stated that he does indeed plan to redistribute wealth through government policies.
Of course, we do indeed already have existing govt. policies that redistribute wealth to some degree. And yes, the collection of taxes and spending of those tax dollars for the good of many is, in a sense, an indirect redistribution of wealth.
But, I think the problem lies in the more direct form of this type of redistribution. The primary culprit is the “earned income tax credit”, which basically pays out “tax rebates” to folks who did not pay any taxes to begin with. In other words, they owed no taxes due to their level of income, after factoring in all available deductions and credits. And thus, they paid no taxes. But, they are still getting money back directly from the government. I do indeed believe that the democrats’ stated tax plans will increase the number of people eligible for such monies, and the amount of the monies.
And the danger lies in an ever shrinking number of people paying the taxes to help support the ones who don’t. This fosters too much of a something for nothing system that will eventually implode. The ones paying the taxes, who are seeing their tax burden increasing and increasing, will eventually take actions to avoid those taxes —-and such actions will not benefit our economy.
I will use myself as an example. I make a decent living and can afford to do most things that I want to within reason. But, at the same time, I cannot afford to take lavish vacations, buy really expensive vehicles, buy a large boat, buy a vacation home, etc. Those are the types of things most folks associate with the affluent or “rich”. I am NOT “rich”, at least not in worldly treasures (I am blessed by the good Lord in many ways, so this is not whining). And the suggestion that I am indeed “rich” by some democrats in their attempt to justify their efforts to increase my taxes even more (right now, combining federal and state taxes and local property taxes, approx. 1/2 of what I make goes to govt. ) is ridiculous and makes me angry. It not only is not true, but it also plays into a type of class warfare that is not healthy for this country. Obama started out his tax plan by announcing many times, on national tv. during the debates, and elsewhere, that those making less than $250,000 per year would NOT see their taxes increase. Now, lately, including after the election, we are seeing this figure plummet to $150,000 and below. And for a working couple, getting below $150k, you are talking about the middle class, not the “rich”. If this turns out to be true, and these lower figures are the threshold for significant tax increases, then the middle class will take a beating. And Obama will have been proven disingenuous at best, a liar to be more precise.
We are heading toward a new modern day Boston Tea Party over taxes, when many in the middle class reach the point of paying to government (state and federal) over 50% of their gross income. We are very close to that point right now.
The tax increases are not just in the area of income taxes. The dems in Congress plan to increase the total amount of income upon which social security and medicare taxes are levied —this will increase your annual taxes and lower the amount of your bring home pay.
If the Bush tax cuts are repealed, and the capital gains taxes doubled as planned, you will pay twice the amount of taxes on any gains you incur from the sell of stocks, real estate, etc. It is my understanding that the current tax rules that allow one to sell their primary residence without paying taxes on the gain, so long as they step up to a more expensive home, will be on the chopping block as well. Ditto the provisions that allow those 55 or older to sell their home with no taxes on the gain, so they can use the funds to downsize and put into their retirement. All of these types of measures will hurt the real estate market, and the stock market, not to mention the pocketbooks of many in the middle class.
And we are likely to see an elimination of the current unified tax credits for estate taxes that prevent many small businesses and farms from having to be sold by the heirs of a deceased just to pay the estate taxes. Under the current rules, a person with an estate worth over a million dollars can pass that estate tax free to the heirs. IT does not take a lot of land to reach that approx. 1 million threshold, or buiding, home, etc, especially when combined with all other assests AND life insurance proceeds which factor into the calculation of the amount of a taxable estate (many in the middle class have policies of $500,000 or much greater).
The alternative minimum tax provisions, which have been thankfully revised on a yearly basis to prevent an absolute hammering of many in the middle class, are still out there. IF the Congress does not continue to suspend or modify the impact of these provisions on an annual basis, there will be millions in the middle class significantly affected by such a huge annual tax increase, for which they would not have withheld enough taxes for along the way. (The AMT needs to be eliminated or permanently adusted to a threshold income level that does not affect the middle class).
And the Congressional Dems are contemplating confiscation of our 401(k)s by transferring them to a mandatory govt.-run pension plan, administered by the social security system, that pays a guaranteed 3% return on your money (to the extent it really IS your money), to be funded by mandatory reductions from your pay. This will eliminate the voluntary aspect of the current 401(k) retirement plan and eliminate the flexibility and other benefits of such current plans (low interest loans from the plan for emergencies and other needs, which you pay back to yourself with interest, ability to manage your own funds, ability to earn a much higher yield than 3% over time, ability to decide when and if you want to contribute, ability to get the empoyers’ match that can be very good for employees, etc. etc. ).
So, back to the original question, do I think Obama proposes “redistribution of the wealth of others”? I honestly don’t know what Obama proposes. He has been all over the map on these types of questions. What I do know is what Obama has said to that effect, and that the dems in Congress do indeed intend to do most of what I have set forth above. And there are many who voted for Obama who think they are about to win the lottery, with much more coming their way from the government. So, the real question becomes, will Obama do anything to stop the dems in Congress? Veto? Will he attempt to deliver to many of his supporters on these unrealistic expectations?
We shall all find out together —soon enough.
I have several objections, but I only have time to mention one broad objection now. The propagandistic phrase “redistribution of wealth” has not been used, in my memory at least, against anyone but Obama. Not Bush 1 and not Clinton. I remember that both raised taxes, but no one is the political sphere attacked it as socialism. It was attacked for what it was: a simple tax increase. Only after the “redistribution” argument began getting political traction against Obama did it gain wide use. I reject the political tactic of calling a tax increase for the top two brackets “socialism” or “redistribution of wealth.” That’s only an indirect criticism of your position. My problem is mainly with the last few weeks of McCain’s campaign. We have seen language terribly abused in our recent politics. I’m no Roveaphobic, but he was a master of abusing the language to create his non-fact-based reality. Steve Schmidt was doing exactly that with the socialism argument.
The “trickle down theory” of Reagan and Bush II could be termed a redistribution of wealth, but that’s from the bottom up.
Lastly, but not leastly, I disagree with the argument that low income people don’t pay taxes, and therefore don’t deserve the earned income credit. Poor people pay sales tax, vehicle tax, property tax if they own an acre lot and a house, and all sorts of various “fees” (that famous weasel word to avoid saying taxes). I anticipate your objection that these are state taxes, not federal, but I would respond that you and I, as attorney-level-income-earners, get a break on our federal taxes via the deduction for state taxes paid. Whey should we object to the poor getting the earned income credit?
I see your points, but don’t agree with them.
Roger, regardless of all the nuance in either of our arguments, what most will be looking at will be the bottom line —- the amount of their bring home pay that they have to spend. If it goes down, they will not be happy. And I strongly suspect this is going to be the case with a large portion of the middle class —not just the actual “rich”. The “rich” can afford to do other things to avoid taxes —things that the average guy/gal cannot.
And on a broader scale, the real danger in these types of policies is that we continue to increase the numbers of persons who pay no income related taxes at all (income tax, payroll taxes such as ss, medicare, state income, etc.), and are thus not directly or personally affected by decisions to increase others’ taxes, except perhaps to receive more money for themselves. They have no skin in the game, but are allowed to affect others’ wallets and their own through their votes. When those numbers of folks greatly exceed the ones who are paying the taxes and thus footing all the bills, we will have reached a point of unsustainability and the implosion will be inevitable. At that point, “the mob” will rule and there will be anarchy and revolution.
I can tell you this with no hesitancy or equivocation. When my personal taxes (federal, state, local, etc.) get much higher than 50%, I will not continue to work as hard as I do. I will likely quit my current job so as to open my own business, to be able to take advantage of the tax breaks available for small business owners. Individuals who work for others, and make over the threshold to have to pay taxes, have NO tax breaks, other than mortage interest within their itemized deductions and pre-tax benefits such as qualified retirement plan contributions (eg 401(k) and health care plan expenses. That is about it.
In other words, if it gets much worse, I will do all that I can to avoid higher taxes —even to the point of going “off the grid” so to speak if necessary to make ends meet. I don’t think I am alone in this regard. I am not going to work for the govt. Screw the government.
My taxes don’t approach 50%. Why don’t you set up a small sideline business of some kind (“A Friend of the Law Is a Friend of Mine Enterprises” is catchy), then deduct all your business expenses. It works pretty well until the alternative minimum tax catches you. I’m with you on the alternative minimum situation. It got me last year.
As to the screw the government comment, the government comes in handy for bailing out Milton Friedman and Alan Greenspan’s vaunted free market. All my free market friends are having to think up new reasons why I’m too naive to understand how wonderful the free market is. I’m pretty OK about the government now that we have Obama running it.
Roger, my “screw the govt.” comment was mainly just one of internal spirit, not to be taken literally in all aspects. I love that line delivered by the aging father (played by Anthony Hopkins) in the movie “Legends of the Fall”. Quite often though, my sentiments exactly. LOL.
Just for the record, I was not in favor of the bailout package —not in the form that it was delivered. There were other, less drastic, less socialistic, measures that could have been taken to help fix the problems.
I always think back to JFK’s famous quote: “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country”. I think we need a lot more of that type of thinking these days. But, I’ve always wanted to add one more line to it: ” Ask your country to stay out of your life as much as possible”, or perhaps as Charlie Daniels would say: ” I ain’t asking nobody for nothing, that I can’t get on my own, if you don’t like the way I’m living, just leave this long haired country boy alone”.
Going back into business myself is indeed my next plan “B” if things go the way that I think they could on the tax issues within the next few years. Plan “C” is going “off the grid”, selling all possessions, cashing in all accounts, and moving to the back forty, living in a primitive cabin, living off the land, raising my own veggies, killing and processing wild game, raising domestic livestock, and entering the cash only society. Actually, plan “C” sounds pretty good to me right now, but I doubt my wife would go along with it — times aren’t that hard to convince her….yet. LOL.
Those of us who have been awake have seen income redistribution going on for the last thirty years. Unless you’re among the richest in this country, it’s not going very well. (Just click on that chart to see what I’m talking about. The rest of the article is perhaps interesting, but largely unrelated to this discussion.) In a long professional career, I’ve only had one year where I actually didn’t have to pay FICA. I think that lasted about a month. Anyone who is rich enough to be excused from paying FICA is rich enough to toss in a few bucks to help others.
Obama’s tax plan is designed to roll back the changes that have given the rich all the tax breaks in the last few years. While I don’t believe much of what he says, I do think he’ll try to do that. It’s pretty much a Democratic orthodoxy by now. We’ll see what that plan is like once Congress gets through with it, of course.
I’m sick of the whiny euphemisms for the feelings of entitlement that the rich have in this country. “Death tax”, “income redistribution”, and “punishing the rich” among them. I’ve been poor and I’ve been well off, and I can tell you without a moment’s hesitation that I’d rather pay more taxes than be poor, or to live in a country that’s rapidly starting to look like it’s poor.
“In a long professional career, I’ve only had one year where I actually didn’t have to pay FICA. I think that lasted about a month. Anyone who is rich enough to be excused from paying FICA is rich enough to toss in a few bucks to help others.”
Considering the fact that not too long ago the cutoff point for paying FICA was approx. $75,000, this statement is absurd. Folks who make more than $75,000 are not necessarily “rich”. Folks who make well over $300,000 per year might be in that category.
IF this is truly the way most Dems feel —that anyone making this modest amount of money is “rich” and should be soaked with more taxes, then why not just be honest and say this during the election — if the threshold for tax increases is not going to be the campaigned $250k, then why pretend? To get elected? By lying to people? I think people are going to figure this out pretty quickly if they have been duped. The financial crisis was already well underway at the time Obama repeated these campaign promises during the debates — seemingly on behalf of the entire Democratic Party. So, that is not going to be an acceptable excuse.
Interesting times are ahead. Things could change very quickly depending upon how some things shake down over the next 1-2 years. April 15, 2010 will tell the tale. Your bottom line is either going to be better or worse than it was in 2001-2008. Depending upon the answer, the elections in Nov. 2010 could be very interesting.
Confounded @ # 7
Land Man ??
“Considering the fact that not too long ago the cutoff point for paying FICA was approx. $75,000, this statement is absurd.”
Considering the fact that the median income in this country at the time was approximately half that, your statement is absurd. I said “rich enough”, not rich. That means that they’re much better off, generally, than the average. No one who is earning that kind of money is having to choose between dog food and heating oil.
This is what I mean by whining.