«   |   »

A Moderate In The Repubican Party? Not so much.

by Ben Hoffman

While Senatorial candidate Scott Brown is pro-choice and believes same-sex marriage should be a decision left up to the states, he hasn’t a clue when it comes to economic policy. His only “solution” to the deep recession is more tax cuts. With the latest deficit at over $1.7 trillion dollars, cutting taxes more is a radical idea. But like the old saying goes, “when your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.”

Republicans fit the definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Reagan’s tax cuts didn’t help the economy, but they did triple the federal debt. Bush’s tax cuts didn’t help the economy, but they did double the federal debt. Here we are with the federal debt at over $12 trillion and Republicans want to cut taxes even more. It’s bad for our country.

To the people of Massachusetts: vote for America. Vote Democrat.

Posted on January 13, 2010 at 5:40 PM in Education, Politics   |  RSS feed |   Reply   |   Trackback URL

Tags:

23 Comments to “A Moderate In The Repubican Party? Not so much.”

    
  1. Moe
    January 13, 2010 at 8:39 PM

    I’ll tell you Ben, I don’t want to hear another friggin’ word about taxes from Republicans until they face up to the fact that seven years of wars were waged on borrowed money. You PAY for your wars. That’s the way it’s done – or was done until George W thought “eh?, why bother.”

    Reply
    • Ben Hoffman
      January 13, 2010 at 10:22 PM

      They whine about the stimulus, which actually did some good for the country, yet you never hear a peep out of them about the wars, which has cost more American lives than the 9/11 attack. And the cost of these wars for one year is about the same as the five year stimulus package.

      It’s all about emotion. Right-wingers are scared and somehow, the wars make them feel safer.

      Reply
  2. Alan Scott
    January 14, 2010 at 11:08 AM

    Mr. Hoffman, Ms. Holland,

    “I’ll tell you Ben, I don’t want to hear another friggin’ word about taxes from Republicans until they face up to the fact that seven years of wars were waged on borrowed money. You PAY for your wars.”

    “They whine about the stimulus, which actually did some good for the country, yet you never hear a peep out of them about the wars, which has cost more American lives than the 9/11 attack”

    You know,,, if us right wingers only let you two talk amongst yourselves you might never hear any truth at all. Someone has to let little rays of reality break through the fog.

    It will take years for the Iraq war to be seen in it’s true light. However, the war is great for you Socialists in one way. All of your over spending can be excused away because of Bush’s wars. It’s great, isn’t it?

    You Mr. Hoffman run a business, right? What if the government singled you out and doubled your taxes? Would it hurt your business? If you raised your fees to reflect these taxes, wouldn’t your competitors steal your customers? Do you still believe raising taxes has no effect on the Private Sector?

    Reply
    • Ben Hoffman
      January 14, 2010 at 11:39 AM

      There you go making stuff up again, Alan. Sure, if taxes on my business were doubled, it would hurt my business. But the biggest tax cuts were for income taxes on the wealthy — not on business taxes. Increasing income taxes on the wealthy would have very little effect on the economy.

      [It will take years for the Iraq war to be seen in it’s true light.]

      No matter what happens in Iraq, it still cost us over a trillion dollars, the lives of over 4,000 troops, and 10s of thousands of injuries. There’s no way it was good for the U.S.

      Reply
    • Moe
      January 14, 2010 at 4:29 PM

      And in any case Alan, my point had to do with fighting wars on borrowed money. Have you any comment on that? On why we weren’t asked to share in the sacrifice?

      Reply
  3. Alan Scott
    January 14, 2010 at 6:23 PM

    Mr. Hoffman,

    “But the biggest tax cuts were for income taxes on the wealthy — not on business taxes. Increasing income taxes on the wealthy would have very little effect on the economy.”

    From a moral view, why should someone pay a higher rate than another person? If you make $100,000 per year and pay $ 25,000 in taxes, and I make $100,000,000 and pay $25,000,000 in taxes, I am still paying a thousand times as much taxes as you. I don’t cost Obama a thousand times as much as you do. In fact I cost a lot less than you because I don’t need all of the freebies from the government that you do.

    Why should Obama steal money from me to give to you? You will only spend it on imported junk from China. Now me being rich, my toys would be made in America by US workers because they have shifted to more high value products like yachts and Boeing jets. Even the millions I used to lose in Las Vegas kept thousands of workers employed, until your hero shamed me and my banker friends from flying there.

    That was the moral view, here is the historical view. Every time, every time that a government has done what you say, has done what you say, it’s economy has gone backwards. Look at Great Britain in the 1960s. It’s manufacturing went down the toilet. It’s motorcycles turned to crap in quality.

    Look at the States today who did what you say. California and New York keep raising taxes on the rich, and they are closer to bankruptcy than the other States. How can that be?????? Redistribution of wealth is Socialism. Socialism kills wealth. Ask anyone in Venezuela.

    Ms. Holland,

    “And in any case Alan, my point had to do with fighting wars on borrowed money. Have you any comment on that? On why we weren’t asked to share in the sacrifice?”

    You were asked. If, if, if you really cared about paying for the war in real time with real money you would have written to Senator Barak Obama, Senator Ted Kennedy, and Rep. Barney Frank and told them to stop the wasteful social program spending which they use to buy votes, and use that money to pay for Bush’s two wars. The money that your worthless hero Uncle Teddy spent on his subway under Boston, probably would have bought body armor for most of our troops. The money that his ineffective educational programs for 40 years sent to the teachers unions could have put armor plating on a lot of Humvees.

    Reply
    • Ben Hoffman
      January 14, 2010 at 6:28 PM

      [Every time, every time that a government has done what you say, has done what you say, it’s economy has gone backwards.]

      Nope, you just made that up. Just look at what happened in the 90s. Clinton raised taxes and we had a huge economic boom.

      Reply
    • Moe
      January 14, 2010 at 6:38 PM

      [It’s motorcycles turned to crap in quality.]

      And that my friends is why we can’t afford to give all the babies vaccines. Cuz our motorcycles will turn to crap.

      Reply
    • Moe
      January 14, 2010 at 6:40 PM

      So if I have this straight, I could have stopped the President of the US from fighting two wars on borrowed money if I’d only written some letters asking the minority in the Congress. Okay, I’ll remember that next time.

      Reply
    • Ben Hoffman
      January 14, 2010 at 7:12 PM

      I got called away to dinner and didn’t respond to this little gem of a question.

      [From a moral view, why should someone pay a higher rate than another person?]

      That’s a big part of the problem with right-wingers; they think taxes are immoral. It’s really just the simple-minded right-wing ideology. It has nothing to do with morals. On the contrary, it shows a moral bankruptcy and concern only for self-interest. It shows a complete lack of love for our country.

      It could be said that low taxes are immoral, since they create huge deficits. The real “moral” question is: what’s the best policy for our country?

      Reply
  4. volkgeist
    January 14, 2010 at 6:24 PM

    Tax cuts provide the least bang for buck of any possible government spending to stimulate the economy.

    If the Democrats want to win in 2010, they need to push through jobs legislation that will spend on alternative energy (not just subsidies, but direct spending on installation of solar and wind power) infrastructure, public transportation, and education in the form of aid money to states so they can hire more teachers and initiate construction and renovation projects on schools.

    Those would be tangible, job creating things to do, and Republicans would have to stand in front of their inevitable opposition come election time.

    Reply
    • Moe
      January 14, 2010 at 6:44 PM

      Right you are. The fastest way to get money into the economy is to put it in people’s hands – especially the ones who need to spend it immediately. And volk, not only are tax cuts the least bang, whatever bang they bring, they bring it very very slowly. Not much help.

      I wish we would launch a green technology revolution here – like we did with NASA. We could invent it, use it, and sell it to the rest of the world. That would be terrific.

      I wish I were more hopeful.

      Reply
  5. Alan Scott
    January 14, 2010 at 6:44 PM

    Mr. Hoffman,

    “Nope, you just made that up. Just look at what happened in the 90s. Clinton raised taxes and we had a huge economic boom.”

    I don’t have all of the answers in front of me just now about the Clinton era, but I did not make up anything about Britain in the 60s, and I double dog dare you to show me where I got California and New York wrong.

    But don’t worry about New York and California. I have all the faith there is in the Politicians from those States. If they can’t make better deals to get an Obama bailout vote bribe, than a hay seed from Nebraska then they should be ashamed to call themselves Democrats.

    Reply
  6. Alan Scott
    January 15, 2010 at 8:49 PM

    Mr. Hoffman,

    ” It could be said that low taxes are immoral, since they create huge deficits.”

    That’s like your wife saying that all of your financial problems are because you don’t give her enough money to spend. Being a man, I do hope you get the irony.

    ” We’re talking about federal taxes here, Einstein. ”

    High Democrat taxes are still taxes, no matter if it is your local, State, or Federal Democrat do gooder who imposes them.

    Reply
    • Ben Hoffman
      January 15, 2010 at 11:42 PM

      [That’s like your wife saying that all of your financial problems are because you don’t give her enough money to spend.]

      Okay, let’s expand on your simple-minded analogy.

      Say I count on my wife to pay the utilities, put away money for our retirement, pay for security, and to keep up the property. Then I decide I’m not going to give her as much money as it costs to do all that, but I still want all those services. Her only option is to borrow money and run up our debt, which is exactly what has happened in the U.S. People want all the services the government provides, but the people who don’t care about the country don’t want to help pay for them.

      Reagan was a firm believer in starving the beast. It didn’t work then and it will never work.

      Reply
  7. The Arbourist
    January 16, 2010 at 12:19 AM

    Alan Scott sagely intoned:

    “You know,,, if us right wingers only let you two talk amongst yourselves you might never hear any truth at all. Someone has to let little rays of reality break through the fog.”

    Alan, you are my sunshine.

    Reply
  8. Alan Scott
    January 16, 2010 at 4:10 PM

    The Arbourist,

    ” Alan, you are my sunshine. ” I don’t know how to take that remark, so I will assume it as a compliment even though it may make an ass of me after you.

    Mr. Hoffman,

    ” Say I count on my wife to pay the utilities, put away money for our retirement, pay for security, and to keep up the property. Then I decide I’m not going to give her as much money as it costs to do all that, but I still want all those services. Her only option is to borrow money and run up our debt, ”

    The real way to look at that is to assume that you are already giving her far more than it costs for those necessities. She keeps the surplus as mad money. She uses this slush fund to buy friends and influence enemies. Since you never get a true accounting from her, you don’t know. Now she comes to you and says costs have gone up and I need more, but you don’t have more. Being the thrifty wife, she starts using the charge cards. Pretty soon you are bankrupt, but you are still called a cheapskate.

    “Just look at what happened in the 90s. Clinton raised taxes and we had a huge economic boom.”

    Ah, grasshopper that is one of those urban legends. Let us examine the historical record, shall we? In 1993 President Clinton enacted his tax increases. You do know about natural economic cycles, right?,,,

    Coming out of the 90, 91 recession there was a natural upswing in the economy. This continued despite the Clinton tax increases. The upswing was helped along by abnormally low oil prices, which were also part of the boom and bust energy cycle, left over from the 80s. If I’m going too fast let me know.

    Now as we get in to 96, 97 this natural expansion was getting long in the tooth. What you neglected to mention was that thanks to Gingrich and the boys, a modest Tax Cut was enacted. Clinton was not happy but, signed it anyway.

    In 1998, the first full year of a reduction in the capital gains tax, Venture Capital more than tripled in the economy versus 1995. It doubled again in 1999.

    So in conclusion, you take the natural cycle of economics, add in low energy prices, a Republican Congress, a small tax cut, and voila you have the real reason for Clinton’s economic miracle.

    Reply
  9. Alan Scott
    January 16, 2010 at 6:41 PM

    ” Breathtaking.”

    Sometimes I’m so smart, I even scare myself. 🙂

    Reply
  10. The Arbourist
    January 17, 2010 at 10:03 AM

    The Arbourist,

    ” Alan, you are my sunshine. ” I don’t know how to take that remark, so I will assume it as a compliment even though it may make an ass of me after you.

    You play a lovely Iago to my Othello Mr.Scott. I rather enjoy arguing with you. 🙂

    Reply
  11. Alan Scott
    January 17, 2010 at 4:56 PM

    Arbourist,

    ” You play a lovely Iago to my Othello Mr.Scott. I rather enjoy arguing with you. 🙂 ”

    I don’t see myself as Iago. I don’t see you as Othello either. At any rate I much prefer Dante to Shakespeare. If you are going to make me an Italian, I’ll take being a Florentine to a Venetian.

    As you journey to the nether regions you find very appropriate places for all the folks you know ain’t going to make it to the pearly gates.

    I believe I saw you in the 6th circle ( the heretics ). Or was it the 3rd ring of the 7th circle ( the blasphemers )?

    I’m pretty sure the 8th circle was dreamed up specially for certain members of the Democratic Party. Dante had to create 10 sub levels or pouches just to avoid over crowding. Panderers, seducers, sellers of pardons and offices, acceptors of bribes, and hypocrites, etc.

    I almost got stuck in the 3rd circle myself ( the gluttons ) cause I do like my food. Especially Italian food.

    Reply
    

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Gravatar
WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Cancel

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: