Mitch and the Judge Dance

A political cartoon from Butte’s Paul Seccomb:


Share

101 Comments on "Mitch and the Judge Dance"

  1. Where is the cartoon with Schumer, Pelosi, and Tester voting against the tax cut? How is the jury doing on the Kate Steinle Trial. Paul do you like paying higher taxes? Stifling the economy and jobs for poor and middle class? What has the alternative proposed to help? I am all ears?

    • Pres Bush implemented tax cuts during his presidency, and we know how that turned out, THE GREAT RECESSION. Talk about stifling!!

      • Sure. It had nothing to do with the bursting of the Housing Bubble, which had nothing to do with the Dems “Housing Loans for Deadbeats” Program, right?

        Nice try, but if anything those tax cuts were FAR too timid to create the economic boost required to overcome THAT foolishness. The reason that they were timid is because W, the Compassionate Cuckservative, was worried that the Left would vilify him if he did the right thing by making the cuts big as they should have been- that is, Reagan sized cuts, which worked perfectly under Reagan’s conservative leadership.

  2. Are you fucking kidding me? Damn right the Democrats are voting against what you call a tax cut. Within 5 years what little the middle class gets turns into a pumpkin, meanwhile the wealth and the large corporations get to keep their cuts in perpetuity.

    I thought conservatives were against ballooning the debt? This “Tax Cut” isn’t paid for and any thought that somehow Art Laffer will save is is a sad joke.

    Maybe if the Right and the left got together and created something that 60% of both sides could accept we might have something. This is all about getting a “Win” at an cost for the GOP before 2018 and the elections.

    • What are you smoking “The Bobs”?

      Tax cuts are NOT paid for. If they are “Paid for” it’s just shifting taxes around, and not a cut at all.

      • Eric, you have long ago shown you have no grasp of reality. If you want to sit at the adult table at least bring something along.

        • Bob, here’s reality: debt comes from spending too much, period. Raising taxes to cover irresponsible spending only makes it worse. For Federal spending, funds should be directed at Constitutionally mandated functions. If there’s money left over, it should be returned to the taxpayers.

          • Bwhahahahahahahahahahaha!

            You simple minded twit, you have no ideas, just empty rhetoric.

            So typical of many on the right these days.

          • You’re Projecting again, Bobs.

            • Lemme ask you something Margie-if you have 4 people living in a house and it costs you $200 to run the home every month. If 2 more people move in does it cost the same to live? Or less? Seems to me we have a growing population and ot not only have we been letting some of us not pay their faitr share of rent, the roof is leaking, the sewer line is clogged and the electricity keeps going off because of old wires. The GOP has decided this is a great time to let SOME OF US pay even less. How does this work?

              • Really? It seems to me that if 2 more people move in to a home, and if that drives the cost to live in that home higher, then those 2 should pay for the increased cost.

                Accordingly, as the population grows, the revenues from taxes (at any rate) will grow too- unless you try to give the majority a free ride on the backs of the more successful minority.

                Why is it that “Fair Share” means the rich pay a higher percentage of their income? It seems to me that even if they paid the same percentage, they would still be paying far more than others. Why is it “fair” for a rich man to pay more to drive down the same highway than someone with less money has to pay for the same trip?

                I could just as easily define “fair” as a rule applying to all that defines the maximum dollar amount that each citizen must contribute, beyond which they could keep the rest.

                Why do we expect all of these comforts to come from government, anyway? The government provides very little- the private sector creates the wealth that the government uses, often very inefficiently and frequently on projects of zero value (except that they buy votes).

  3. I guess we shall see if the voters are buying the same stuff you are or not. Getting together is a good idea but the only thing the right only knows resist.

  4. sry….left….

  5. Unfortunately the voters have little say in this one until Nov. 2018.

    Whether people are “Buying” or not depends on how informed they are. This Tax bill is a fucking sham. By the time the uninformed realize they got screwed it will be long past too late.

    Please, tell me how this benefits the average American?

  6. Stimulate the economy, create jobs. What the heck has your team every done? I am waiting your the Dems suggestion. I have been waiting for eight years now.

    Seven individual tax brackets would be reduced to four brackets — 12 percent, 25 percent, 35 percent, and the current top rate of 39.6 percent remaining in place for the very wealthy.
    Corporate taxes would drop from 35 percent to 20 percent permanently.
    Standard deduction would increase from $6,350 to $12,000 for individuals and from $12,700 to $24,000 for married couples.
    Child tax credit would expand from $1,000 to $1,600.
    Federal deductions for state and local income and sales taxes would be eliminated, but local property taxes would be deductible up to $10,000.
    No changes to limits on 401(k) pretax contributions.
    Alternative minimum tax would be repealed.
    Estate tax would kick in at $11.2 million, up from $5.49 million, but it would be fully repealed as of 2024.
    Corporate profits from overseas would no longer be taxed, but there would be a minimum 10 percent tax on foreign subsidiaries.

    • By your own reckoning, this is all about tax cuts for the rich. AMT is gone, estate tax will be gone, and don’t forget the carried interest loophole still remains for the hedge fund managers. This is nothing but redistribution of wealth from the middle class to the rich.

      This is exactly the wrong time for a tax cut, with the economy growing and unemployment at 4%, there is no slack in the labor market. In fact, taxes on the wealthy should be raised to generate more income. We should be running a budget surplus, not a bigger deficit. In any event, this will do nothing to stimulate the economy as any rational economist will tell you but it will increase the debt by $1.5 trillion. The republicans will then say we have to cut spending, further squeezing the middle class and poor.

      • It’s always a wrong time for a tax cut, from the Leftist perspective. Why do you think it’s okay to take your neighbors’ money and spend it on what YOU want to? That’s theft. Having the government do it for you merely makes it legal theft.

    • Sorry, I don’t have a “Team”. I do own a small business and like most people care how this affects me. I will end up paying a bit more and more importantly, the deficit and Debt will increase.

      Nice cutNpaste. Is that right from the 45 website?

      Again, all those goodies expire in 5 years.

      No mention that the elimination of the personal exemption offsets the increase in the Standard deduction.

      I favor Tax reform. This isn’t it.

      And why the rush? Unemployment is low, the stock market is at all time highs, the economy is moving quite well. Again, this is all about some type of GOP win to help with the 2018 mid terms.

      • For Leftists, “Tax Reform” always means higher taxes on the people they envy most.

        • Ah yes the simplistic styling of Margie.

          Tax reform means that, Reform. Not cutting taxes, not raising taxes and reform should have the same affect on all people, not just the poor, not just the wealthy and not just the middle class. You cannot defend this GOP plan so you attack those who are questioning it.

          You are a sad little troll who has no ideas, just empty comments.

          • Firstly, you meant “effect”, not “affect”. Next, you’re not sincere about wanting it to affect everyone fairly, else you would support a flat tax, which the Left despises, even though by definition it is perfectly fair.

      • Bob, now you are concerned about the debt? It doubled in Obama’s term and you were not to concerned then? Where did you get this expires in 5 years? From Chuckles Schumer? More lies and you wonder why you have no credibility.

        • We are not talking about Barak Obama or what happened. We are discussing the GOP Tax Plan. nice attempt at deflection. Whay do you try and change the subject?

      • Bobs, you own a small business so you are now paying between 35 to 45 percent in taxes. Right? So under the tax cut you will be paying 20 percent. How can you not support this? I am really trying to avoid saying are you stupid or what? I also want to see you succeed and grow your business for your benefit and Montana’s.

  7. Reform of the tax plan presently is effect is terminology that most can agree with. How that reform takes place is where disagreement seems to take place. Here are some reform things to consider:
    – Increasing the deficit is not conservative and certainly not responsible. Cuts in spending must be considered as well enough revenue must be raised to balance the budget.
    – You can not increase military spending and hope to balance the budget. All entities must tighten their belts.
    – If any tax cuts take place they should go to the middle class. Tax cuts to the middle class will result in increased spending which should stimulate the economy. Not so true for cuts to the rich.
    – Our nation must cooperate with other nations and form a plan that will prevent large corporations and the rich from the present practice of hiding significant funds and income from taxation by anyone.
    – A tax plan should be a relatively simple plan. People and small businesses should not have to spend large amounts of funds for tax help.

    • Cuts in entitlement spending, yes. The “peace dividend” from cutting the military has only produced one thing- a weak military that invites attack. The military is the True Social Security.

      Reagan increased defense spending, cut taxes, and the economy boomed for 15 years. We’re still coasting on his insight.

      If tax cuts are good for one group, they’re good for all. It’s their money, not the government’s.

      Our nation should make it possible for our corporations to dominate the worlds economy. Cooperation is for the weak.

      As the capital “P” President might say, “Think Big League. So Simple.”

  8. The conversations about from r.wing trolls shows the exact problem – the right buys malarkey like it’s was bread during a blizzard. The right’s been sold the MAGIC BEANS for years like this – and they still don’t have buyer’s remorse.

    The same old lies and stilted dance around the issue of pretending that cutting taxes on the rich helps anyone when all it does it help the rich. They’ll tell you that the only way to build jobs is to give huge tax cuts to the already ultra rich and, in this case, huge benefits and gifts to corporate America. Yet when has that EVER WORKED OUT wingers? The right has been chanting this mythical sea shanty of huge jobs creation since 1980 when the top tax rate was 70%. Has it worked? Ever?

    Of course not…during the Reagan era it created much of our modern deficit/debt cycle, created some of the government largess the right still moans about, tried to win a war through outspending the soviets…so much so that voodoo economics and noted ass grabber, Bush Senior, had to RAISE TAXES (and every tax-like fee under the sun). Mr. Clinton came in and raised top end taxes 8.6 percent to 39.6 (and despite the same wingers here probably crying apocalypse) 23 millions jobs were created and we enjoyed 32 quarters of economic growth (a record). Bush 2 started with a surplus, promptly cut taxes percentile down to 35% (and lowering cap gains, estate tax burdens and dividends). Wingers and think tank promised they’d turbo charge growth and pay off all of our debt in 2 years (this fat lie is being recirculated by the Trumpians – you’d think they’d have learned). Any wingers wanna recount how that REALLY worked out? Care to remember the actual economic depression in 2007…and the huge job and economic losses the ensued?

    Even Obama ruins your point. The Bush Tax cuts were in place until 2012 and while Corporate profits and the dow showed soaring growth the fact remained that job were not being created. Once Obama raised top rates back to 39.6 percent (and cap gains, et al) in 2012, the economy took off again (again, exactly against the winger wisdom Margerie, wwalker and every Fox talking head would shout all day)…impressive job growth and recovery from an economic disaster just 4-8 years ago continue to this day.

    WHO SOLD YOU THIS LIE WINGERS? That giving the rich even more money would make them want to work harder than ever to expand or create jobs? Is it the same people that told you that it unfair that the ultra rich pay higher taxes to fun the country and it’s systems that helped them get rich…ie the Ultra rich? There’s the common meme that the winger right thinks they’re all just temporarily lagging soon to be millionaires to explain their willingness to essentially take from their own pockets to make the richest richer and buy this baloney.

    Why don’t the ultra rich ever think of this simple and novel concept for helping the middle and working classes? Giving real money through tax breaks and wage reform to the actual working/middle classes instead of pretending that the huge amounts of cash to the rich might mean they one decide to “TRICKLE” on you. We’ve been trickled on by this idiocy for too long. The 90 percent drive this economic engine…and always have. It can be seen during the trends from our salad days of greatest growth and prosperity…when money is in the hands of the working and middle classes as they’ve climbed the ladder of the American dream their spending grows this economy, and they pay more taxes and keep that cycle flowing to create jobs and pull the next rung up the ladder (and so on and so on). The ultra rich seem to have convinced wingers erroneously that once they’ve become officially rich they shouldn’t have to help keep that cycle flowing. That they’re relationship to the country becomes one of just collecting their just desserts and not putting back in.

    Please wingers…read a little and do some research. These things are easier to see than you think….and at their root the lies you swallow don’t even make sense when applied to real life. I hate to see you guys lied to so easily and often, and even worse that you don’t seem to be able to see through those cruddy red lens to avoid being conned and voting for guys that continually stick it to all of us to give the guys that feed their campaigns another round of endless tax cuts and austerity for us to boot.

    • It’s their money, not yours. Why shouldn’t the rich get a tax cut along with everyone else?

      • Spoken like a true banana republic dictator. I mean really – are you one step away from calling rich people Liege? Or letting the closet living rich guy sleep with your daughter because why shouldn’t he get to enjoy the ancient rights of being the local serfs like rich guys used to?

        One might imagine your filthy rich given your propensity to value rich guys and what they deserve over your own welfare, our economy and relative financial stability of the rest of us. Are you selfless – or delusional?

        The fact that your ilk bemoaned the little guy getting forgotten as justification for the national orange nightmare bring it all home. SIDE NOTE: when has a president needed to make a fake Time magazine cover and put it in his golf course, or trolled the magazine for not choosing him person of the year – my god, you elected a baby!?!? You used it for cause and justification for electing that large huckster baby hybrid…yet, you’re sitting by and watching them give tax cuts to the rich, with almost 80% of the benefit going to 10% of the country. Sure that’s helping those little guys wingers!

        They’ve gotten almost all of the tax cuts then and now, Wingnut…chances are 50/50 you’ll be paying taxes to pay for their cut, and you’ll certainly be living with less services…and your neighbors may even be living with less which will mean they’re making less and spending less and the economy suffers more. really people you know may lose jobs and need services which will certainly sap our local, state and national economies….but at least the rich will have a few hundred million more right!! OH HAPPY DAYS! There’s a reason that the middle class is shrinking, and that all economic gains in this country have gone almost exclusively to the top ten percent, and the middle classes wages and earnings have long stagnated over the last 2 decades.

        It’s even the simple things that show republican idiocy: if you earn income in almost all respects you’ll most certainly have to pay a tax on that income whether by straight tax or capital gains at some point in the arc of that gain. Not so if the rich get their latest xmas wish…they’ll be able to dodge most income through complicated pass through shell companies and by fulfilling the ultimate billionaire’s wet dream, eliminating the estate tax, they’ll NEVER have to pay any tax for that income FOREVER. Sure…sounds about right in republican math. You pay so they don’t have to…

        The kinds of tax holiday fat gifts are exactly endless stupid commercials with a fancy in the driveway with big red bow…but they’re rich guys looking at mansions, luxury yachts, and new private jets with red bows and a card signed by the serfs and deluded wingers. You elect guys that screw you at every turn and then you thank them for the privilege.

        • Yeah, as if Billary would have had your back. Well Christ, she carries hot sauce- she’s all about the common man!

        • Rant all you want, but you have yet to explain why the rich aren’t equal in rights to the poor. You imply that the Rich are thieves- that they somehow stole their wealth, and so do not have as much of a right to keep the same percentage of their money as the poor do. Why?

          In reality, they earned every dime that they’ve made through hard work and prudent choices. They do not hold guns to the heads of consumers to make them buy their products or services. They already pay the overwhelming share of taxes; The Republican tax cut will give them a cut that is actually a smaller percentage than the middle class will get. Meanwhile people who pay no taxes at all will still be getting a cash transfer from the rich to their pockets, courtesy of the thieves in DC. This is just another example of the blatant unfairness of the so-called “progressive” tax structure.

          Why do you think you have the right to take their money (even if by third party) and spend it as you wish?

          It’s a particularly silly argument since we now have 5 decades of evidence that shows that all of that wealth redistribution has made no dent in the number of poor- rather, it has made that number grow by making it easier to not work.

          One more time-

          It.. Is.. Not.. Your.. Money.

          PS: Since the rich can more easily afford to bathe, it really should be “The Clean Rich” and the “Filthy Poor”, don’t you think?

  9. lol, I would it be great if Gianforte could run against Tester. I wonder how it would come out with Tester voting against Tax Cuts.

  10. More importantly, upward mobility is very bit as available for the poor and middles class as it was for those who became rich. It is a simple process, but it takes time. Here it is: look at what the rich do- pay attention in school, get an education that the market values, work hard, spend little, invest regularly. Presto, you’re rich. Of course, not many follow these steps because it’s more fun not to.
    The poor are not poor because the rich are rich. It’s a childish lie; there’s no need to unjustly redistribute wealth of others when, with the exception of the crippled, everyone can create his own wealth via the above process. Cutting taxes aids everyone in every part of that process.

    • If you really believe that, then the estate tax should be 100% so that we all start out the same.

      • We don’t all start out the same. Some are smart, others less so. Some have good parents who teach them how to be successful, many do not. When Jefferson wrote “All men are created equal” it was with respect to their rights as Englishmen, which does not include any mention of equality of wealth, health, or wisdom. There is no equality except with respect to those rights; the Leftist’s notion of equality is an illusion used to sway the lazy and the envious. Attempts to create some false equality are simply tyrannies that divide nations and destroy wealth for all. Regardless, all people can still improve their conditions. There is no reason that a parent who takes the time to properly rear a child should not also be allowed to equip that child with resources which, when combined with the upbringing, can enable that family to move even higher up the ladder of achievement. After all (and this is the part that you refuse to understand) it is their money, not yours. This is especially true of an “Estate Tax”, which is the money that was left over after all of the other onerous taxes were paid. The Estate Tax is merely another form of theft in which the government takes money from others because it can, not because it should. That theft tax should be zero; it is a parent’s legacy to his family, just as his teachings are.

  11. It is your money!

    Tester Launches Portal to Hear from Montanans on Tax Reform, Debt
    Senator: This Process Needs to Be Bipartisan, Transparent & Open

    https://www.tester.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=5611

    • So you agree that this is a rush job and should be approached with input from both parties and with a vote of more than 50 with Pence as the tiebreaker?

      That is all that I am asking for. Slow down and get this right.

  12. No, I do not agree this is a rush job. It is time. Yes, voters from both parties need to provide their input Jon Tester. This will be Tester’s call soon and voters call next November.

  13. ” This Process Needs to Be Bipartisan, Transparent & Open”

    This process is anything but. The GOP has made it abundantly clear they do not wish for any input from anyone outside their party.

    But, you knew that.

  14. Bobs, the bill is posted on Testers website.

  15. Do you often pretend to be this obtuse?

  16. Here is your democratic party: The Democracy Alliance. You are being lied to and misled to benefit the George Soros, Democracy Alliance, the media and Media Matters for America and on and on and on. Are you sure who is making the cool aid you are drinking? Are you getting marched to the cliff?

    http://freebeacon.com/politics/resistance-royalty-pelosi-soros-headline-lefts-biggest-dark-money-conference/

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Alliance

  17. So the discussion has devolved to this, conspiracy theories?

    Back to the Tax Reform bill if you please.

    From our discussion above it is amply clear that few have any idea of what is contained in the House bill and the Senate bill will be different. If it passes (Big If) then both bills must go in for reconciliation and another vote.

    I favor simplification of the tax code. I support a lower corporate tax rate, hell they already pay a lower rate than individuals anyway.

    Donald Trump campaigned on getting rid of the carried interest rate loophole and it remains as a part of the tax code.

    If the GOP is really serious about Tax Reform they need to stop the charade, scrap this piece of shit and go back to the drawing board, including involving the Democratic Party.

    You seem to have run out of arguments and talking points and are now throwing pasta at the wall. Come back when you have an idea.

    • Bobs-
      If working with the other party is so important for something as simple as a tax cut, why did the Leftists opt not to work with the Republicans on something as huge as Obamacare? That decision to exclude the Republicans is the very reason that only Cuckservatives like McCain, McConnell, Corker, and Flake (all soon to be history in one way or another) still flirt with the Left. You’ve burned your bridge- now you must swim over to our side.

      • In the Senate there were 100 hearings and 161 GOP amendments.

        In the House there were 79 hearings, 121 amendments.

        The Democrats bent over backwards to include Republicans in the ACA process.

        • Margie doesn’t want to hear facts, just her echo.

        • Except that the GOP didn’t want socialist health care at all. Not one GOP member voted for it.

          • Yeah, the same dopes who claimed we have the finest system of Health Care in the world. They left off, “if you can afford it”.

            • Show me something that’s free and I’ll show you a taxpayer forced to pay for it.

              • As opposed to letting the insurance companies operate unburdened by pesky regulation and health care will be almost free, right? And nobody will be dying in the streets from hypothermia? Or untreated cancer? Or…

                • Simple question: where is it written that A. other people should be required to pay for my healthcare cost, and B. that it is the Federal government’s role to force them to do so? Families, neighbors, charities- those exist to care for those who are either permanently disabled or temporarily in financial straits. No one is, or should be forced to be, obligated to pay for those who are in extremis due to their own choices. This goes double for those who are in the country illegally, or who are here thanks to our suicidal immigration policies that have added an additional 100 million to our population over the last 50 years.

  18. Margie, that was an error on the part of the Democratic party and they paid for it in the mid-terms.

    This country is neatly divided about 40/40 with the middle 20% up for grabs and out of those numbers still less than 50% vote.

    A house divided shall not stand. Who said that and what does it mean?

    Good governance means compromise and comes with the understanding that to quote one Mick Jagger, “You can’t always get what you want”.

    You have a fabulous Sunday.

    • Correction: Voter turnout in 2016 was 60%.

      Love ya Marg.

    • Parties come and go. So do ideologies. Nationalism is ascendant, socialism is descendant. That’s the real reason that the Dems have been losing big since 2010. The Obamacare stiff-arm simply sealed the deal.

      More and more people want America to be America, not the Inclusive Diversity Prison that the Globalists believe in (for no good reason). Nations are people, not ideas. Cultures derive from people with much more in common than sharing the same dirt.

      The House will not remain divided. Your side is declining because it misses the fundamental point: mass immigration of foreigners who do not, and will not, share our American culture is a threat to national survival; this will be the most important issue going forward.

      A good deal of taxation goes to subsidize those legal immigrants and the illegal invaders. People would rather have more of their money back so that they can take care of their American selves and their American children instead.

      If the Dems want to survive, they had better start mixing mortar for the Big Beautiful Wall.

      • Nazism + racism = Nationalism. Nationalism is unAmerican.

        • That’s patently ridiculous- the Constitution was written by Americans for Americans, not for everyone in the world.
          “..to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..”

          Posterity: the race that proceeds from a progenitor offspring to the furthest generation the aggregate number of persons who are descended from an ancestor of a generation descendants. (i.e., descendants of American settlers.)

          The word nation stems from the Latin natio, meaning “people, tribe, kin, genus, class, flock.”
          Black’s Law Dictionary defines a nation as:
          A people, or aggregation of men, existing in the form of an organized jural society, usually inhabiting a distinct portion of the earth, speaking the same language, using the same customs, possessing historic continuity, and distinguished from other like groups by their racial origin and characteristics, and generally, but not necessarily, living under the same government and sovereignty.

          1250-1300; Middle English < Latin nātiōn- (stem of nātiō) birth, tribe, equivalent to nāt(us) (past participle of nāscī to be born) + -iōn- -ion

          • It is Globalism that is not only un-American, but anti-American; sending jobs and wealth overseas while inviting hordes of foreigners to enter the country to take even more American jobs and to dilute American culture to the point that the country becomes Not-America.

      • You really do sound like the reincarnation of Adolf Hitler.

        • Golf Clap. Not Darth Vader? Poor Mussolini doesn’t get used for Leftist slurs either. Weird.

          • Use whoever floats your boat, Mussolini was a clown and not nearly as dangerous as You or Adolf.

            I happen to agree with you that shipping jobs overseas is not in America’s interest, yet it is Corporations aided by the Right who do most of that. Weird.

            And when you start using dilution of American culture it is just one step away from meaning dilution of racial purity which is exactly what you mean. If you are going to be a racist or an American Nationalist why don’t you just come right out and say so?

            Or are you afraid of the revulsion that Americans would feel?

            • That’s an awfully big step, jumping from “culture” to “racial purity”, don’t you think? I understand that you’re conditioned to make that leap, but preservation of American culture by excluding or minimizing the influence of foreign cultures is not an aggressive act; rounding up Jews for extermination and invading other countries is not equivalent to American patriotism, except to simpletons.

              Try this on for size: let’s say you move to a country in the Orient, such as Japan. Do you really think that even if you live there for 50 years that they will consider you to be Japanese? You’d still be a foreigner, even if you were a welcome and valued one.

              We’re the only country that pretends that someone merely standing on our soil becomes one of us. Before you say that they “assimilate,” by what mechanism do they? Do we monitor their behavior, choices, expressions, etc. to advise them when they are not behaving like Americans? Hell, we don’t even insist that they learn English. They don’t assimilate, they coexist, period.

              Try this one as well- if Americans began to move to Japan in huge numbers, and began to have 8 children per family, eventually they would eclipse the natives in Japan. Let’s say also that they continued to speak English, and kept their American customs. Would that country still be Japan? That’s precisely why the Japanese wouldn’t allow that to happen- they have a sense of national identity that they value highly.

              • Incidentally, the Cuckservative wing of the GOP is indeed guilty of Globalism and it’s resulting, attendant evils. Why do you think the McCains, McConnells, etc. oppose Trump? They bought into the false promise of Ricardo’s horribly erroneous theory of “comparative advantage”; they learned it as gospel in their youth and never questioned its glaring omissions. That’s why they’re next to go.

                I note that you side-stepped the Left’s most favored fetish, immigration. That’s their national suicide pact in action.

                • PS: Do you really equate the term “American Nationalism” with Nazi? You do realize that Nazis were Leftist Socialists, right?

                  • PPS: There’s a really long line of very dead Turks, Libyans, and Ethiopians who might disagree with your assessment that Mussolini was not very dangerous.

                    • Blah blah blah. I have gotten all I can stand from you you Nazi cow. The United States has withstood your type of America First politics in the past and will again. Head back over to Reddit where you and the rest of the White Supremacists live

                  • “Yeah, the Nazis called themselves the ‘National Socialists’, and they even nicked some (incredibly benign) socialist policies. It is, however, a total misnomer, it’s like the World Series, or Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, or ‘ethics in gaming journalism’. The Nazis were fascists. Indisputably. They drew their ideology from Italy’s fascists, who arose in reaction to the Left.”

                    Read the rest here:
                    https://www.indy100.com/article/nazi-socialist-right-wing-white-supremacists-history-twitter-mikestuchbery-7900001

                    • Nice try, but they knew exactly what they were and they chose their name very carefully (Germans, after all)Their economics were thoroughly Socialist. Not surprising, because Socialism always leads to totalitarianism. It has to, because it is intrinsically contrary to human freedom.

                    • PS: Stuchbery is a flaming Socialist who tries unsuccessfully to conflate German treatment of Jews and their militarism with their economic policies. Purely, embarrassingly emotional and ridiculous.

                    • Rather than rely on a few sloppy Tweets from a committed Leftist, consider these comments from Voxdayblogspot.com, 16 Aug 2017:

                      “A number of historically ignorant fools have tried to claim that National Socialism was not a Left-Wing socialist ideology. This is utterly and absolutely false, and can be easily and conclusively proven to be false in a number of ways, including by reading a number of direct quotes from Mr. Hitler himself, given below. Note, in particular, that the ultimate goal is “international socialism”.”

                      •It is not Germany that will turn Bolshevist but Bolshevism that will become a sort of National Socialism. Besides, there is more that binds us to Bolshevism than separates us from it…. I have always made allowance for this circumstance, and given orders that former Communists are to be admitted to the party at once. The petit bourgeois Social-Democrat and the trade union boss will never make a National Socialist, but the Communist always will.

                      •We National Socialists wish precisely to attract all socialists, even the Communists; we wish to win them over from their international camp to the national one.

                      •I have learned a great deal from Marxism as I do not hesitate to admit… The difference between them and myself is that I have really put into practice what these peddlers and pen pushers have timidly begun. The whole of National Socialism is based on it… National Socialism is what Marxism might have been if it could have broken its absurd and artificial ties with a democratic order.

                      •After all, that’s exactly why we call ourselves National Socialists! We want to start by implementing socialism in our nation among our Volk! It is not until the individual nations are socialist that they can address themselves to international socialism.

                      •The Revolution we have made is not a national revolution, but a National-Socialist Revolution. We would even underline this last word, “Socialist.”

                      •There is a difference between the theoretical knowledge of socialism and the practical life of socialism. People are not born socialists, but must first be taught how to become them.

                      •I, on the other hand, have tried for two decades to build a new socialist order in Germany, with a minimum of interference and without harming our productive capacity.

  19. Sorry, Bobs- wouldn’t I need to be white in order to be a White Supremacist?

  20. Why were there no issues of racist, sexist, homophobic, or transphobic until into Hillary’s campaign and now even more since she has lost? Who are the dividers? Who is pushing this agenda? Who started Black Lives Matter? Who are the leaders of “Resist”? How does move us forward? How does this or will help the Dems? In two years will this all be gone out of the news and just be viewed as ugly history? What part are you playing?

    • Have you been asleep for the past 35 years?

      I am 60 years old and this kind of identity politics has been afoot since George Wallace ran for President in the 60s and well before that.

      I did not and could not vote for Hillary or Donald. I have voted for Republicans and Democrats all of my life but this was some of the worst garbage I have ever seen. Tell me, who started the whole, “Obama was not born in this country” shtick?”
      Or, “Obama is a Muslim” shit?

      I am a voting citizen, what part are YOU playing?

      • Hmmm… a “voting citizen” who does not vote in Presidential elections. Novel approach. At least you don’t share Doug’s belief that prizing your citizenship is somehow un-American.

  21. Eat shit Marge, I said I didn’t vote for those candidates, I did not say I did not vote. You are so fucking stupid you must risk drowning every-time it rains because like the turkey you are you must look up at the sky wondering where that water is coming from.

  22. I think that I got it right the first time. You didn’t vote, yet you claim to be fulfilling your duty as a citizen. Were you unable to get off the couch because there wasn’t a sufficiently devout commie on the ballot?

    • You forgot about George Soros Clinton Cartel elitist oligarch Hillary was there…hehe

      • Good point, although I suspect that Bobs was pulling for an even more pronounced commie such as Bernie Sanders. Let’s hope that next time around the Dems pick him, or an even more extreme Leftist who will seek to forcibly redistribute wealth to “equalize” everyone- that will ensure a Trumpslide in 2020.

  23. Three Things That Children Need to Hear Every Day:

    1. I Love You.

    2. You Have What It Takes.

    3. Socialism Has Failed Miserably Every Time It Has Been Tried, Killing Millions And Impoverishing The Rest.

  24. I agree with Margerie on one thing-I’d like America to be just for Americans. Real Americans, like the ones who were here before terrorists like Margerie showed up. She can lead the exodus back to her Fatherland with my blessing any time now. She is a great example of the selfish babies that are the GOP these days. Pedophile or prosecuted? Man who upheld Law & Order vs. Chester Molester who has been removed from the bench twice for refusing to obey Superior Courts, the definition of anti-Law & Order. “Conservatives” like this silly nazi elected a self-confessed pedophile to the Presidency and now Roy Moore has made it glaringly obvious they overlooked it last November and the shame is eating them up. King Con has decided the best idea is to claim the video we saw and heard was fake news, never happened. Trump isn’t the one that is really ill, America is infected with a virus called Fascism and Marg and Doll-hands Donnie are just symptoms. The best treatment for the symptoms is to do your best to soothe than-the rash that’s Margerie is smoothed by a few pats on the back, “Gee Marg, nobody ever thought about that” and then go back to rational discussion. But enough about her-or it, or whatever-cool-aid? Who doesn’t know how to spell kool-aid? Bot me. Anyway I have been calling ALL of Pee-Wee and Giantfart’s offices, writing them letters etc demanding to know a fair estimate of how much they would benefit from the new Tax Reform, themselves and their families/businesses. I have a pretty good idea what it’s going to cost me but I think we all deserve to know how much they will benefit. I’ve been pressing the TV/Newspaper to ask the same question-maybe if they heard this from a few hundred of us?

    • Wow, Bob! That’s more than the usual Leftist’s trifecta of irrational socialist hatred. Let it flow, and soon you’ll be a full-fledged commie useful idiot. I’d point out that your diatribe is devoid of facts, but I don’t think that would matter- you feel good just saying it.

      • By the way, I’ve detected a pattern with you Leftists; when faced with a tough question that you really don’t want to answer, you simply go off on a hate-filled rant laced with all of the usual popular socialist buzzwords. Sad, really.

  25. Damn I hate typing on these tiny pop up keyboards and spill-chick. I are rilly a good riter!

  26. “Reagan was certainly a tax cutter legislatively, emotionally and ideologically. But for a variety of political reasons, it was hard for him to ignore the cost of his tax cuts,” said tax historian Joseph Thorndike.

    Two bills passed in 1982 and 1984 together “constituted the biggest tax increase ever enacted during peacetime,” Thorndike said.

    The bills didn’t raise more revenue by hiking individual income tax rates though. Instead they did it largely through making it tougher to evade taxes, and through “base broadening” — that is, reducing various federal tax breaks and closing tax loopholes.

    For instance, more asset sales became taxable and tax-advantaged contributions and benefits under pension plans were further limited.

    “What people forget about Ronald Reagan was that he very much converted to base broadening as a means of reducing deficits and as a means of tax reform,” said Eugene Steuerle, an Institute Fellow at the Urban Institute who had helped lay the groundwork for tax reform in 1986 and served as a deputy assistant Treasury secretary during Reagan’s second term.

    There were other notable tax increases under Reagan.

    In 1983, for example, he signed off on Social Security reform legislation that, among other things, accelerated an increase in the payroll tax rate, required that higher-income beneficiaries pay income tax on part of their benefits, and required the self-employed to pay the full payroll tax rate, rather than just the portion normally paid by employees.

    The tax reform of 1986, meanwhile, wasn’t designed to increase federal tax revenue. But that didn’t mean that no one’s taxes went up. Because the reform bill eliminated or reduced many tax breaks and shelters, high-income tax filers who previously paid little ended up with bigger tax bills.

    “Some of these taxpayers were substantial contributors to the Republican Party and to the president’s re-election campaign, and had direct access to the White House. Reagan rebuffed their pleas,” wrote J. Roger Mentz, the Treasury assistant secretary for tax policy in 1986, in a Tax Notes commentary last year.

  27. And so, not-Marge, what’s wrong with broadening the tax base? Or should only successful people pay their share?

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*