Election 2012

Mitt Romney Is Out of Sync With the Small Government Movement

He's also out of touch with everyday Americans.

|

Mitt Romney isn't just out of touch; he's also out of sync with the movement to shrink government. In an interview clarifying his now-infamous speech to donors, captured on clandestine video, Romney said, "I think people would like to be paying taxes."

Come again? He also said, "The good news is if you are doing well enough financially that you can pay a tax."

That's good news?

Romney apparently had low-income people in mind. But if he'd rather see them working than collecting government benefits, the last thing he should want is to reduce the returns to labor — which is what income taxation does. Workers should be free to keep the full fruits of their labor.

I have an idea for the GOP presidential candidate: Test your belief that people like to pay taxes by proposing to end all penalties for nonpayment. Abolish the IRS. Make taxes voluntary. Then we'll see who would like to pay and who wouldn't. He says he's for less government. Okay, Mr. Romney, prove it.

How many people does he suppose would choose to pay for the occupation of Afghanistan, or the drone attacks on Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia, or the war on certain drug makers, sellers, and consumers? How many would be willing to pay for all the corporate welfare that riddles our so-called free-enterprise system?

Speaking of corporate welfare, in his speech Romney had much to say about dependence. "There are 47 percent who are … dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it." He figures those folks won't be voting for him and his allegedly small-government message.

Yet the New York Times reports, "The states with the highest percentage of federal filers who do not owe income taxes tend to vote Republican in presidential elections," attributing the information to the Tax Foundation. "Research by Dean Lacy, a professor of government at Dartmouth College, has found that states that receive more in federal spending than they pay in taxes have become increasingly Republican in presidential elections."

So Romney has the 47 percent wrong. But more important, he overlooks the fact that many low-income people work hard at two or three jobs and are the victims of anticompetitive corporatist policies that build barriers to advancement.

But that inconvenient fact aside, low-income people aren't the only ones dependent on government. Another group is even more dependent: the people of the corporate world who expect government to provide bailouts, guarantees, and contracts. In the wake of the financial meltdown of 2008, it's slightly cruel to stigmatize working-class and poor people who get government benefits, while letting big business and big banks off the hook. Romney supported the financial bailout and, aside from talking vaguely about tax loopholes, does not question the pervasive system of government privilege for big business.

The military-industrial complex is a case in point. As author Nick Turse documents, many thousands of American businesses are under contract to the military establishment, making everything from clothing to weapons. Many more invest resources looking for contracts. Private consumers are the losers. If you were to suggest to the corporate executives that they wean their companies from the government, they'd laugh. It's much easier to make your money off the taxpayers rather than take your chances with fickle consumers free to take their business elsewhere.

No one has a right to other people's money. That's a simple moral precept summed up in the words "Thou shalt not steal." It's no less stealing if the government does it for you. Invoking democracy is no help here, because if an individual has no right to steal, it is logically impossible for any group of individuals to have such a right. No matter how many zeros you add together, the sum will be zero.

Let's end all dependence on government. Doing it in one fell swoop would be ideal, but short of that, here's a workable strategy: Cut taxes from the bottom up and welfare from the top down. This will move us toward a free society and win popular support along the way.

NEXT: Obama Says He Won't Write Off Half the Country

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Oneth!

    Happy 92nd birthday Mickey Rooney! Or, if you’re not a fan of Mickey Rooney, happy 69th birthday Julio Iglesias!

    1. In case some of you don’t have time to read all the comments: HitnRunpublicans say there are two parties and we should support Mittens because Obama sucks worse. They also pile on Reason writers because they are all over Romney for being an idiot, not noting the fact that they also pan Obama regularly.

      Oh, and Mitt’s doing as well as anybody else would do against Obama because he’s just such a good campaigner and the media is in his pocket, including this outlet.

      1. This was very thoughtful of you. Thanks!

        COLLECTIVIST!!!11!

        1. Romney *is* screwing the pooch here. obama is not winning; mitt is LOSING. big time. what a fucking train wreck his campaign is becoming.

          reason does pan both sides regularly. anybody who can’t see that has their partisan blinders on.

          now back when obama was running for prez, i think reason was too willing to believe the hopey changey hype. god knows, they aren’t the only ones.

          personally, i support romney because he DOES suck less, but that doesn’t mean i fault reason for finding fault with romney. romney sucks big time.

          granted, i live in wa. which means i can vote for the libertarian party candidate without any hesitation because here, a vote for romney truly is a wasted vote. i readily admit if i was in a state where romney had a chance, i would vote for him, though

          1. It’s like Bush-Kerry II: Whoever Somehow Sucks the Least Shall Prevail.

      2. It’s like they read only the articles that make them angry and then say, “Reason only writes articles that make me angry!”

        Like Tulpa donwthread claiming that Reason wrote no articles about Obama’s “you didn’t build that” gaffe. Really, dude?

        If these fucks so yearn for a ride on the Romney Big Government Boner Express, maybe they should find another website to frequent, especially since it seems to cause them such exasperation. Hell, go and volunteer for his campaign instead of bitching around here.

    2. Happy birthday Bruce Springsteen.

      1. Fuck that no talent loser

        Happy Birthday Joan Jett

  2. Cut taxes from the bottom up and welfare from the top down. This will move us toward a free society and win popular support along the way.

    That is exactly what we have been doing for 25 years. And we have created a system where a huge number of people get a bunch of goodies that other people have to pay for. Giving welfare to people without expecting them to pay taxes to pay for it. What could possibly go wrong?

    This 47% remark has caused Reason to go full retard. They would never write something this stupid normally.

    1. Hit that palooka doll again Reason! Hit it harder! Harder! Harder!!

    2. Cut taxes from the bottom up

      Did happen in the Bush years, the problem is that he also increased welfare from the top down. And Obama has ramped both up.

      1. John’s reading comprehension stopped at the first half of the sentence when his TEAM blinders kicked in…he conveniently ignored the second half.

    3. Imagine that, candidate B makes a dumb comment on tape that can be dissected and used as a launching pad for political conversation in many ways and TEAM B guy gets mad when they spend time talking about it.

      Reminds me of the whining a while back from TEAM A guys when they spent several weeks taking apart and commenting on the “You didn’t build that” comment from Candidate A.

      Hint to John, there are about a dozen different writers on this site and each one likes to get their word in on news. Stop reading all the articles if there are too many that offend your sensibilities.

      Also, they don’t like either major party candidate and will use the candidate’s idiotic words as launching points for discussion.

      1. Reminds me of the whining a while back from TEAM A guys when they spent several weeks taking apart and commenting on the “You didn’t build that” comment from Candidate A.

        Except (a) they didn’t, and (b) if they had it would have been quite justifiable since that quote strikes at the heart of a very fundamental libertarian question.

        Compare that to this article, which slices and dices some Romney quotes to remove the context and then goes on to uncritically quote the NYT article as gospel, without giving the details which make their conclusions about Republican welfare queen states clearly flawed.

        Criticize Romney all you want. Hell, I criticize him too! Just be honest about it.

        1. The fact that you just said they didn’t write any articles about obama’s stupid line makes you a complete and total fucking moron.

          Jesus Christ Tulpa.

        2. bit.ly/RX1K5P

        3. You’re so right, Tulpa. They didn’t say anything about that, except for all these articles: https://reason.com/search?q=you+didn‘t+build+that

          Idiot.

      2. Also, BO’s quote was made publicly. That was his message to the world…can you imagine what he says in private to his donors?

    4. John:

      Show me how taxes for the top .01% have increased in the past 30 years, as a percentage of the wealth they control. Show me how corporate welfare (including the vast exercise in corporate welfare that was the Iraq war) has been reduced in the past 30 years.

  3. But that inconvenient fact aside, low-income people aren’t the only ones dependent on government. Another group is even more dependent: the people of the corporate world who expect government to provide bailouts, guarantees, and contracts.

    This would have been a better focus for the article. But at least someone at reason finally had the courage to take on Romney’s forty-seven percent superultramegagaffe.

    1. Everyone but Reason has moved on from this. We are almost two weeks removed from it and Reason still can’t stop posting increasingly stupid things about it.

      What has gotten into them?

      1. I don’t know… maybe the same thing that gets into them when Lance Armstrong is in the news. It becomes all visceral reaction and no reason. Drink!

      2. Maybe some of them are trying to follow in Weigal’s footsteps?

        1. Maybe they actually look at it as an important thing…and since Romney’s not said anything of substance since the gaffe, they have fuck all else to report on out of Team Red’s camp. Ever think of that?

          1. They dropped BO’s “you didn’t build that” comment after like three days. And that was a much more significant comment.

            I didn’t know they had a quota for anti-Romney articles, so no, I didn’t think of that.

            1. They dropped BO’s “you didn’t build that” comment after like three days. And that was a much more significant comment.

              Did they stop covering Obama altogether after three days? No? Well then, they did their job.

              With Romney, they’re covering what the man says and does, and he hasn’t gotten off the subject for the past week. What are they supposed to do, cover shit he’s thinking? Edward Nigma isn’t on staff you know.

              I didn’t know they had a quota for anti-Romney articles, so no, I didn’t think of that.

              Whatever. We’re less than 6 weeks away from the presidential election. Are they supposed to not cover a candidate of a major party that persistently sticks his foot in his mouth in a year where a mongoloid with tourettes could beat Obama in a walk by keeping his mouth shut.

              1. in a year where a mongoloid with tourettes could beat Obama in a walk by keeping his mouth shut.

                Everybody keeps saying this but it’s not believable. The BO machine and their press lackeys are a tough customer to deal with, particularly when they’ve got a billion dollar plus war chest.

                Who specifically would do better against BO, do you think? Certainly not Santorum or Gingrich. Ron Paul would have been pasted. They could just release a steady trickle of his newsletter’s racist excerpts and his statements on drug legalization that would make Romney’s supposed gaffes look silver-tongued.

                So, tell me sloopy, who do you have in mind who would have done so much better?

                1. I think Gingrich would have done a better job because the way to beat Obama and the media is by being pugilistic, not trying to take the awe shucks I’m a good guy approach.

                  Both Obama and his media sycophants are pussies that can’t take a punch. They’re great at snark and innuendo but collapse when directly called on their bullshit.

                  Look at the success of Christie in NJ and even Sununu in interviews.

                  The problem with Mitt is that he doen’t have any core beliefs to defend and he’s not a high level professional politician that can think on his feat and improvise an effective response on the spot.

                2. Romney himself could have done better. All he had to do was trot out a bunch of unemployed people in fields Obama has destroyed and take every Obama ad and dissect it in his own and expose the lies.

                  Ex: There was an Obama ad running nonstop on ESPN, BTN, CBS and ABC yesterday saying Romney will stop the economic successes Obama has created and that we’ve had 42 month of positive job growth. Where is Romney’s ad countering that distortion of the truth? Where are his ads lamenting the coal industry being systematically destroyed? Or pics of Obama tweeting at the funeral of the diplomat killed in Libya? Or him walking around a golf course while you run an economic chart with all arrows pointing downward? Those are so simple even a child could do them, but NO, Romney is too stupid to do that.

                  Romney is a political novice. Any seasoned pol would have been mopping the floor with Obama by now to the point that people like Hillary are leaving so they’re not collateral damage and their chance to run in 2016 is intact.

                  1. sloopy, you realize you’re not exactly in a swing state, right? So the commercials you’re seeing do not represent the nature of the campaign.

                3. And Ron Paul would be mopping the floor with Obama by now. He’d get every Team Red voter anyway and would have siphoned off a lot of anti-war and/or pro-pot leftists in the process.

                  1. siphoned off a lot of anti-war and/or pro-pot leftists

                    roflmao!

                    1. I’ve gotta second SIV’s take on that.

                  2. Not to mention, the Obama pot raids are extremely unpopular. Romney can’t capitalize because he shares Obama’s extreme position.

                    Same thing with bailouts, stimulus, etc.

                  3. He’d get every Team Red voter anyway

                    Bull. The neocons would dart for BO immediately, and the social conservatives would stay home rather that vote for a drug legalizer.

                    1. Romney was the best choice, but his lack of personality and poor choice in picking Ryan over Rubio has sunk him. Republicans need someone with actual charm and a legitimate smile. Someone who isn’t a constant pessimist, and can make people believe his policies are going to help the nation with anticipation, rather than focusing on “OMG ARE JERBS! and a shaking fist. It wont get you elected.

                      2016 wont really matter, as Texas will statistically be a blue state by then, but in case it isn’t, they really need to weed out the lunatic fringe who are so power hungry they are keep the boat sunk. Newt, Santorum, Cain, all of them. Keep them away, very far away.

      3. What has gotten into them?

        Their inner progressives are coming out.

        The best thing about Palin in 08 09 was the way she motivated political frauds and retards to out themselves.

        Maybe Romney’s having the same effect

        1. Hey, I just wanted to say I enjoyed our immigration discussion last night. I think we believe there are differing root causes for California’s demise, but I enjoyed the back and forth nonetheless.

          1. Thanx, I did too.

            And just for the record, I don’t think illegal immigrants are the root problem of the economy and I’m not anti-immigrant. I just see it as having mixed results given the current welfare and regulatory systems.

            Also, I vacillate between hoping that CA will get it’s act together on the one hand and feeling like it’s in an irreversible downward spiral on the other.

            1. I vacillate between hoping that CA will get it’s act together on the one hand and feeling like it’s in an irreversible downward spiral on the other.

              not flaming here but as someone outside CA, what it is leads you to believe getting its act together is possible? Everything that happens there screams of pursuing the latter.

              1. Dude, who the fuck runs the ball on a 3rd and 16 with 5 minutes left in the 4th quarter of a game you’re trailing by 2? Somebody ought to have Gene Chizik’s head on a pike today because they should have won that fucking game.

              2. My hope comes from the fact that most people in CA aren’t politically inclined at all, culturally they’re libertarians that want to be left alone and tax increases have been voted down repeatedly, losing in even super blue areas like SF.

                A vast majority of people here are completely unaware of the growth of government regulations and the abuses of public employee pay. And express outrage whenever they hear specifics in those areas.

                The problem here is that a socialist political class operates with very little public scrutiny. The news media is completely worthless in covering the state and local governments. Actually, they act like official propaganda arms of the same.

                So the basis of my hope is that people will become aware of how fucked up the governing class is at some point and throw their asses out.

                Yeah, I know, it’s probably just wishful thinking.

        2. The funniest part is that Romney and Palin are miles apart culturally. I imagine that Romney probably doesn’t want to be seen within 100 feet of Palin.

          Really, the fact that so much phony outrage has to be ginned up over this inartfully stated, but truthful comment he made is proof of just how even-keeled and moderate the guy is.

          1. the BS meter should be ticked at the opening when Sheldon strives to make ideological hay of Mitt’s people “would like to pay taxes” remark. In context, what would more people prefer: being part of the productive class and dealing with taxes, or taking in govt checks?

            Most people would prefer to work but when the agenda is something other than talking about what a candidate meant, the result is self-evident.

            1. Pretty much agree here. Romney is obviously trying to say “ok, not all 47% are hopeless dependent welfare cases”. But yeah, the agenda is something other than talking about what a candidate meant.

              However, I would like it if Mitt would revisit those who ARE hopeless dependent welfare cases, and talk about the role of government, and whether we should be an entitlement society.

      4. John Stewart hadn’t moved on from this by Thursday.

  4. The last line in your articule should be a campaign slogan. What both parties say they differ on they do the same. Taxes! Democrats lie about it and republicans brag about it.

    1. But the last line is exactly what we have. Republicans cut taxes on the middle class and lower class as a compromise with the Democrats. Meanwhile both parties pass out goodies to all of their supporters. So we end up with this huge government that nearly half of the country doesn’t have to pay for.

      1. Republicans cut taxes on the middle class and lower class as a compromise with the Democrats.

        I actually believe this. It’s a shame they don’t do it out of principle because they want lower taxes period. It might get me to vote for them.*

        *If they stopped bombing the fuck out of everyone, waging an aggressive war on lifestyles they find scary or immoral and generally acting like the world’s policeman.

        1. why is it war to hold opinions counter to yours on certain issues? Every referendum on gay marriage has had the same result, so it’s not like their opinion on that is an outlier. And to a degree, the US cannot divorce itself from the world. I’m not for bombing folks as the first resort, but we’re not just a larger version of Denmark.

          1. Every referendum on gay marriage has had the same result, so it’s not like their opinion on that is an outlier.

            Good thing the civil rights of blacks wasn’t put to a vote, otherwise we’d still see two sets of water fountains everywhere.

            And to a degree, the US cannot divorce itself from the world. I’m not for bombing folks as the first resort, but we’re not just a larger version of Denmark.

            Why not? Seriously, wy the fuck do we have to be the arbiter of how people should run their own national or regional affairs? If we don’t like them, refuse to trade with them. It sure beats bombing people we don’t like and making enemies out of them for the next 2 generations.

  5. The purposeful obtuseness of this piece is pretty substantial.

    I get that no one likes paying taxes. I wouldn’t like paying taxes on my new jet, but I’d like being in the position of having a new jet on which to pay taxes. It takes no small amount of disingenuousness not to acknowledge that is the point Romney is making about income tax.

    People who believe “perfect” socialism or communism can work are, I think, grievously mistaken, given human nature. I think people who believe a no taxation society would work, no matter how ideologically or philosophically pure the argument, are mistaken for the same reason.

    1. No one likes paying taxes. But that doesn’t mean a lot of people wouldn’t agree to pay more if they felt it was necessary to save the country from bankruptcy.

      1. True, but when the government spends $1.40, or whatever, for each $1.00 taken in, it takes a special kind of stupid to think that taking in more $1.00’s is going to save the country from bankruptcy.

        1. But it takes a special kind of stupid to think taking in $0.80 by itself is going to save the country.

          1. I think if you look at the per capita spending by the federal government you’ll see that revenue isn’t the problem.

            I don’t feel like looking it up at the moment, but if spending were reduced to the Thunderdome/Somalia level of less than a decade ago, the budget would be balanced.

            1. That claim is a little disingenuous because of inflation as well as the automatic spending increases that happened as a result of recession and the boomers retiring. Even if we had 2000’s policies in place, we’d be spending way more now than we did in 2000.

              1. Inflation? I’ve been told there hasn’t been any inflation for some time now.

                Are more boomers retiring than new “workers” are coming on board?

              2. That claim is a little disingenuous because of inflation as well as the automatic spending increases that happened as a result of recession and the boomers retiring.

                The numbers that NEM are talking about are per capita in constant dollars, so no it’s not inflation.

                And the baby boomers begin retiring in mass next year.(1948+65=2013) So that hasn’t been much of a factor to date, and it will get much, much worse over the next twenty years.

              3. That claim is a little disingenuous because of inflation as well as the automatic spending increases that happened as a result of recession and the boomers retiring.

                The numbers that NEM are talking about are per capita in constant dollars, so no it’s not inflation.

                And the baby boomers begin retiring in mass next year.(1948+65=2013) So that hasn’t been much of a factor to date, and it will get much, much worse over the next twenty years.

                1. And the baby boomers begin retiring in mass next year.(1948+65=2013) So that hasn’t been much of a factor to date, and it will get much, much worse over the next twenty years.

                  The good news is that the start of boomer retirement may help the unemployment problem. Of course, we’re about to see entitlement spending and debt skyrocket at the same time.

      2. Anyone who believes that higher taxes will save the government from bankruptcy deserves to be bilked out of their money.

        1. Or beaten to death with a claw hammer.

      3. John said:
        “No one likes paying taxes. But that doesn’t mean a lot of people wouldn’t agree to pay more if they felt it was necessary to save the country from bankruptcy.”

        I do not think it is valid to tax one generation because the previous generation left it bankrupt.

        We should try to leave something to our children. Not stick them with a bill for all the goodies we gave ourselves at their expense.

    2. WTF? So Romney says he thinks that people would rather make money and pay taxes than continue to suck on the government teat, and he gets criticized for that, on Reason of all places? (Yeah, I know it’s early. Too bad. Start drinking.)

      1. Fatty,

        And how many times has Reason rightly talked about the progressive tax structure and how it causes people to get government without having to pay for it? Like a 100? But now said tax structure where most people pay little or nothing and a few top earners fund the whole government is how we move to a free society? WTF?

        1. And you continue to wrongly believe that one writer = “Reason.”

      2. Several of the writers seem to be heavily invested in being seen as anti-Romney, regardless of what strange (for a libertarian) arguments they have to make. Suderman is the worst, but Richman is giving him a run for his money.

        I don’t claim to know the motivations for this, though some of the possibilities are certainly not flattering.

        1. I think we all know why Suderman is anti-Romney. I bet he and the missus have the Obama on a unicorn print hanging unironically in their DeeCee home

          1. Being anti-Romney isn’t the same thing as being pro-Obama. It’s a pity we don’t know what Suderman’s opinion on, say, ObamaCare is.

            1. Nobody said it was.

              Of course, opinion writers for small govt magazines being anti-Romney is helpful to Obama.

              1. So it’ll be Suderman’s fault when Obama wins in November?

                1. If that happens, he and others like him will have contributed to the tragedy, yes.

                  1. If that happens, he and others like him will have contributed to the tragedy, yes.

                    Drugs are bad, m’kay.

                    1. when allegedly small govt publications support the demonstrably bigger govt candidate, kinda hard to take them seriously when they subsequently whine about the results that were entirely foreseeable. How many Reasonoids voted FOR Obama, then expressed surprise at who anyone with research ability knew him to be?

                    2. reason is supporting Obama by panning Romney when he says/does something stupid?

                      Oh, that’s right. A lot of people still don’t realize there are more than two political parties because they’re more concerned with getting rid of the other team’s guy than with finding one they more fully support.

                    3. reason is supporting Obama by panning Romney when he says/does something stupid?

                      I agree with you that it’s not Reason’s job to make Romney look good just because Obama might be worse.

                      On the other hand, piling on with the leftist media when somebody has the gall to say something libertarian-ish seems idiotic to me.

                    4. +1 reasondrink

                    5. +1reasondrink

                    6. There are two relevant political parties.

                      Tell you what…go pound the pavement and increase the LP’s reputation for the next four years — a good start would be telling the presidential candidate not to say stupid things like that we should close all our embassies — and in 2016 if 30% or more of the population is seriously considering voting LP we’ll talk. Until then, there are two parties for practical purposes.

                    7. He never said we should close all our embassies.

                      Stupid and dishonest is no way to go through life.

                  2. Because so many Reason readers were considering Romney…

                    1. I would imagine they are. If you’re pro-liberty you’re anti-Obama. The question is what you do with that opposition to Obama.

                    2. If you’re pro liberty you’re anti both of them.

              2. Or maybe opinion writers for small govt magazines believe, correctly, that a Romney election with a Republican House and Senate would be a disaster for the burgeoning small government movement in the GOP, which flourishes only when the GOP is out of power? Ron Paul was powerless during the Bush years, and if Romney is elected, it’s highly likely that Rand will become a persona non grata and will never have a chance to be the nominee, unlike if we have four more years of anti-government angst pushing Republicans even further down the libertarian path. If Romney loses, Rand Paul could very well be the 2016 nominee and President. The chance isn’t huge, but far better than having all the big government policies of Romney blamed on complicit libertarians.

        2. There are at least two, and possibly as many as three or four, Reason contributors who will vote for Obama in November but won’t cop to it.

          1. Um, Reason publishes its staff’s votes in every Presidential election. Are you calling some of them liars before they even say whom they voted for?

          2. Do you mean “contributors” or “staff members”? Contributors would include people like Bayed Linnekin and Steve Chapman who are not really affiliated with libertarianism at all but occasionally write articles that Reason’s readership supposedly would enjoy.

            I don’t think anyone on the staff is likely to vote for BO. The ones who voted for him last time were Cavanaugh and Bailey and it seems both have soured on him big time. I just suspect they want to appear cool by ripping Romney unfairly.

            I’d bet Gary Johnson wins the staff member vote handily.

        3. Not only that, but 2007-8 was the time of bashing Ron Paul. Now that they’ve flattened the top of his head, they’re using him as the battering ram against Mitt Romney. Look for 2016 to be the time here of Reason’s using a malletted flat Mitt Romney as a bat to whack somebody else with.

          1. How did they bash Ron Paul? By failing to whitewash the newsletter scandal?

            It’s not Reason’s fault that Paul made big money by lending his name out to racists (assuming his current version of the story is correct).

            1. It’s not Reason’s fault that Paul made big money.

              Riiiight.

              1. $99 a subscription…. yeah, he was making pretty good money off those things.

                1. Right, because there was no operating expenses or staff overhead.

                  Hey, if GM would just operate like the Paul newsletters, they would have made like billions this year!

                  Derpity-derp.

                  1. Have you seen the quality of those newsletters? I was like 10 years old at that time and I was making more professional-looking documents screwing around with a typewriter and a copy machine at the library.

                2. $8 a month to produce, print and mail a newsletter like that isn’t big money.

                  1. He had more than 1 subscriber, buddy.

                    1. How many?

                      Do you have inside info on how much the newsletters netted to RP per year?

                      If so, let us know.

        4. I don’t claim to know the motivations for this, though some of the possibilities are certainly not flattering.

          The motivation is that they want to keep future employment prospects open.

          Being retardedly anti-Romney does that.

          Being rationally even handed doesn’t

          1. I don’t pretend to be able to see into the deepest recesses of their souls.

          2. Wow, I guess I dreamed the last 4 years of coverage that was highly critical of the Obama administration or even the second article on the front of the main page which seems to not be Obama friendly, and if you look at the hit and run page, there are at least as many stories deriding the administration (and Obama) as deriding Romney.

            Some people around here need to get over the butt-hurt that the staff here doesn’t want to push Romney, neither he nor Obama are libertarian candidates by any stretch of the imagination.

            bah…I need to make sure my reasonable name filters are the same across all my PCs…easier to ignore the TEAM cheerleaders this time of year.

            1. There are plenty of libertarian critiques of Romney that can be written.

              This isn’t one of them. That’s the issue.

            2. no Team credentials are necessary to call bullshit when you see it, and it starts with the ridiculous jumping off point of the “want to pay taxes” line. Not understanding and/or putting into context what Romney said is intellectually dishonest.

  6. I’d like to hear more about how incompetent the incumbent administration has been with the whole, well, everything, and how libertarian values can help fix things. We know Mitt’s shortcomings. I’m not voting for him. Nor will I vote for Obama.

    More reporting on the positive impact libertarianism would have vs. engaging in the same stupid B.S. TEAM press releases I can skim from Google News.

    1. This article does address libertarian points such as the moral bankruptcy of taxation and redistribution. My point above was that we need to see more of the type of article that shows how libertarian government (or at least a move toward it) would repair damage that has been done by statists.

      1. So, you want to see more fantasy literature? Maybe an article on which part of Neptune would be most strategic to build a Navy base in.

  7. From the actual NYT article which Richman links to and snips a few unsourced paraphrasings from:

    “Between 1960 and 2010, the growth of entitlement spending was exponential,” he wrote in a recent excerpt published by The Wall Street Journal, “but in any given year, it was on the whole roughly 8 percent higher if the president happened to be a Republican rather than a Democrat.”

    So Nixon, Reagan, Bush I, Bush II vs. JFK, LBJ, Carter, Clinton, 2 years of BO. Nixon, Bush II, and LBJ were horrible and Clinton was (reluctantly) spectacular on limiting entitlement growth. This proves what exactly?

    “Since 1984,” [Professor Lacy] said in an interview Tuesday, “the states that get the most money in federal spending per tax dollar paid have become increasingly Republican.”

    What a fucking joke. 1984 is his cutoff of choice for a reason…that’s when the South really started to go red. A region full of military bases, retirees, and high poverty, which might just explain the high federal spending per tax dollar more than the political leanings.

    1. Adding JFK in there is completely disingenuous too. The War on Poverty and entitlement spending was kicked off by LBJ. Admittedly Nixon was by far the worst of all of them so far. Although Obama will top him if he gets another term.

      1. Actually Bush II had the highest rate of domestic spending increase since LBJ.

    2. There’s some kind of fucked up reverse psychology thing at work.

      Whenever Republicans are in office, the media has hysterical conniption fits about the poor getting the shaft and “big business” or “the rich” getting tax cuts. That forces Republicans to give a lot of sops to entitlement beneficiaries like the elderly, farmers, etc.

      When Democrats are in office, the media forgets all this and concentrates on how wonderful the President is, no matter what fuckups they actually are. That allows them to get away with all sort of shit, in terms of entitlement reform and spending cuts that Republicans could never in a million years get away with. Thus, Clinton could do welfare reform, telecom deregulation, etc. While Bush instituted the Medicare prescription drug benefit. They threw a lot of money at public schools (No child left behind) and old people (doc fix) and farmers to keep them quiet.

      My one hope is that Obama will suddenly turn around and adopt the Ryan plan for Medicare reform after he gets relected, because anyone with half a brain realizes it’s the only sensible thing to do, and something has to be done.
      Of course they will modify it, probably make them buy through the “exchanges” or whatever, but Republicans will suddenly decide their against it, and the Democrats will then run on “but this was your idea in the first place”. And everyone vwill assume their traditional poses.

    3. I think that looking at entitlement spending as a function of which president is in office is a totally ridiculous way to look at this.

      Typically, entitlement spending is dictated by legislation, and goes up and down with the terms.

      For example, Obamacare was passed during Obama’s first term, with a full Democrat legislature. The big spending isn’t scheduled for a few more years. If a Republican got elected, the entitlement spending that Obama gave him would be kicking in during his term.

      It’s fairly easy to examine presidents, look at their actions, and assess what they contribute to entitlement spending (for example, what legislature did they veto, and what did they allow to pass?) This kind of statistical analysis correlating years and spending and presidents is just stupid.

  8. But now said tax structure where most people pay little or nothing and a few top earners fund the whole government is how we move to a free society?

    Well, it has the merit of being true.

    A. Society where everyone pays 35% of their income to fund government activities.

    B. Society where 95% of the people pay nothing, and 5% of the top earners pay 35% of their marginal income to fund government activities.

    Society B is closer to libertarianism than Society A, assuming the government activities being funded remain substantially the same.

    Obviously neither may be very libertarian societies over all, because either one could have vast regulatory states. But on a pure taxation basis, Society B is more libertarian than Society A.

    Assuming we move towards libertarianism incrementally, and not in a glorious revolution where I stride across the landscape waving a flaming sword, you inevitably will go through an extensive period of time where some people have been freed from obnoxious tax and regulatory burdens and some have not. Yet.

    The income tax system started with most people paying nothing, and grew from there. It stands to Reason that as we roll it back, we’ll have a period of time where different groups pay nothing while others still do.

    1. That’s an inapplicable comparison. Revenue from scenario A is going to be significantly higher than scenario B. To make it a legit comparison you have to lower the rate in scenario A so that the revenues would roughly match… of course then scenario B doesn’t look so good, unless you’re an MNG style act utilitarian.

      1. It’s a hypothetical comparison.

        You have to hold the spending constant if we’re going to isolate on taxation and decide if eliminating the tax burden for one category of taxpayers at a time moves us in a more, or less, libertarian direction.

        1. You’re not holding the revenue constant in your example. (you’re assuming a balanced budget so spending and revenue would be equal)

    2. Yeah and the 95% who pay no taxes and thus have incentive to care how much the government costs are going to be frugal and not demand more benefits why?

      That is the dumbest thing you have ever posted here. Society B will go bankrupt. And further what makes you think the 95%wont raise taxes on the five percent to pay for more and more. Are you nuts or just high.

      1. We had society B immediately following WWI.

        While the seeds of later difficulty were there, it’s still a more libertarian society than Society A.

        A society where some people are free is more libertarian than a society where no one is free. It’s less egalitarian, and equality before the law is a critical issue too, but let’s not pretend it’s not more libertarian.

        1. There are degrees of freedom. (not statistical ones)

          By the standards you’re putting out there, the antebellum South was more free than we are today. Which is bonkers.

          1. The antebellum south was more free than the Soviet Union.

            1. That’s very debatable. The USSR had a tiny percentage of the population in slavery.

              And in any case, you’re moving the goalposts as your original comparison was to the US of today.

        2. Nothing says libertarian like enslaving a few high earners to pay for a huge government that bebifits everyone else. Why didn’t you join OWS?

          1. Guys, this is absolutely noncontroversial.

            If you made me a one man HoR and I could write all the tax and spending bills, and I immediately cut spending to a rate where the budget was balanced, and in subsequent years I cut spending 10%, and cut taxes in tandem by removing from the tax rolls a sufficient number of taxpayers to cut revenue 10%, in year 6 we’d have a more libertarian state than in year 1.

            But we’d also have a government where “a few high earners paid for a government that benefited everyone else”.

            If your response is, “Yeah but that government’s also cutting spending, Fluffy!” then I agree. But that means our current government has a spending problem, not a tax base problem.

            1. The problem is, the comparison you’re making is a strawman. No one is advocating that everyone in America be taxed at the rate the high earners are taxed at now. Yeah, no shit if everyone were taxed at 35% it would be less libertarian. So?

              The question is, should our tax system be flat or progressive. As the one man HoR you could instead reduce everyone’s rates by a tenth every year to produce the same revenue as in your scenario, and the tax rates would become flatter. In fact, you’d probably get more revenue by flattening the tax rate rather than simply removing low-earners from the rolls.

          2. John, you keep smacking on this point and I can appreciate some of your angles but how in the world are high-earners enslaved when in fact many of their businesses or corporate workplaces benefit tremendously from government protection, subsidy, and largess?

            There is no question that too-big-to-fail or bailout welfare is becoming standard operating procedure for large-scale businesses. This IS welfare for high-earners. I would argue that the safety net for these high-earners is the exact OPPOSITE of enslavement.

            1. Most high-earners aren’t getting welfare so dump that canard.

              The vast, vast majority of govt expenditures have nothing to do with roads, sewers, power lines, court systems, or national defense. (even the “defense” budget is mostly unrelated to actual national defense.) So don’t jump on BO/Warren’s bandwagon of claiming that business is govt’s slave because the govt built a flerking road.

        3. So you equate freedom with paying ZERO taxes? And slavery with paying ANY taxes?

          If that’s what you believe, I can understand your point of view, but there is a proper role for government and to accomplish that role requires revenue. Having some pay for those services while others do not is hardly libertarian.

          1. No, what I’m saying is that if we had a government that provided national defense, the police and the courts and nothing else, and it was paid for by a tax on millionaires and no one else paid any tax, you know what we’d have?

            A libertarian government.

            Removing taxpayers from the tax rolls is a good thing. It’s also a libertarian thing. What the government actually spends its money on is much more important than how the money is raised, sure. But although “taxing fewer people” moves us less in a libertarian direction than “spend money on less egregious shit”, it still moves us a non-zero amount.

            1. Gotcha. Yes, in that scenario WHAT the government spends money on is more libertarian.

              But, I would argue enslaving the wealthy taxpayers offsets a gain in libertarianism to the overall system. Unless you are arguing the wealthy are already carrying the entire burden and are therefor already slaves, in which case, I’d agree.

            2. As John points out, that’s a very unstable system as the people paying no taxes have no disincentives for voting for more spending.

              Plus a flat tax (at a lower rate than your millionaires tax) would produce more revenue as it would not penalize earning extra income like yours does.

              1. If we’re talking income taxes, flat taxes are horrible ideas and will make government grow MORE, not less. If the poorest are spending, say 10% of their income on taxes and can no longer afford food and housing, they will demand the government provide them more in return for their costly “investment.”

                Flat and regressive taxes exacerbate poverty and thus enable the political case for expanding the welfare state, especially when the poor are forced to pay for it.

                Income taxes are bad ideas anyway – land value taxes are much more logical and are naturally progressive.

          2. Having some pay for those services while others do not is hardly libertarian.

            If your income is at the poverty level how is it possible to have enough to pay taxes while raising kids and keeping shingles above the head? I just don’t see that banter as anything relating to hardcore reality.

            1. By, quite simply, keeping taxes low enough for the poor to afford them.

              The only proper role of government is to protect the rights of the individual. If our government did ONLY those things it would cost 10% of what it costs now (I’m guesstimating). In which case, everyone could afford to pull their own weight. And the great part is, government size is automatically regulated based upon what the poor can afford.

              BTW, if your income is below the poverty level, why in god’s name would you have kids?

            2. The poor already pay property taxes, gas taxes, sales taxes, etc.

              1. So do the rich.

                1. Yeah, I was responding to the Cyborg.

          3. So you equate freedom with paying ZERO taxes? And slavery with paying ANY taxes?

            Yes.

            Having some pay for those services while others do not is hardly libertarian.

            That would be the most libertarian of all if it were voluntary. Want some service? Pay for it? Can do without it? Then don’t pay. Very simple

            1. That would be the most libertarian of all if it were voluntary. Want some service? Pay for it? Can do without it? Then don’t pay. Very simple

              Yes, that will work well when the Russians/Chinese/Canadians (pick a nation) start dropping bombs on us.

              General: Let’s see. Francisco paid his monthly military bill, we’ll protect him. np didn’t want to purchase that so we’ll let him and his family die.

    3. Assuming we move towards libertarianism incrementally, and not in a glorious revolution where I stride across the landscape waving a flaming sword, you inevitably will go through an extensive period of time where some people have been freed from obnoxious tax and regulatory burdens and some have not. Yet.

      Nope.

      An incremental move toward libertarianism would start with everyone’s burden becoming more and more equal (less theft), that number decreasing as more and more government is eliminated.

      I don’t see how you can call a few supporting the many a libertarian move.

      1. Personally it would seem that the system would become more “libertarian” as it moved closer to a fee-for-service model rather than an income tax model. Which is why the gas tax and property tax (for fire and police protection) are the most libertarian taxes IMHO.

        1. Renters benefit from the existence of the police and fire departments too.

          1. Yes, and the property owner includes that fact in determining the rent.

            I also think we should have a fixed-dollar tax for personal protection (as opposed to property protection) that every adult has to pay.

            1. I agree that the fee-for-service model is definitely the most libertarian out of others, but I don’t see you have to compel people to pay.

              Someone might feel safe enough and/or confident enough to handle their own defense. If they regret it, security and subsequent criminal investigations can be refused, or charged a very high starting fee/premium. I foresee the model becoming intertwined with insurance

          2. …believe it or not Renters pay property taxes that are embedded into the rents they are charged by their landlords.

            They do not escape without paying any taxes…much like gas taxes are paid for by people without a vehicle. The costs are embedded into every product they have purchased that was transported via a gasoline powered vehicle.

            Not being directly taxed != not paying taxes

      2. An incremental move toward libertarianism would start with everyone’s burden becoming more and more equal (less theft), that number decreasing as more and more government is eliminated.

        If you did that, mathematically you’d end up with a situation where the top earners end up paying for most of what the state does.

        Because with a “decreasing flat tax” eventually you’d have a situation where low earners were paying with change they scrounged out of the couch, while high earners would still be writing checks.

        1. It seems to me that this would be an unstable system. Whether or not it is more libertarian is beside the point. It won’t be more libertarian for long.

        2. If you did that, mathematically you’d end up with a situation where the top earners end up paying for most of what the state does.

          No, you wouldn’t. The proportions that each segment pays would remain the same as long as there was a positive tax burden.

          As for the change scrounged out of the couch argument…huh? That change comes from somewhere, it doesn’t just magically appear. Change scrounged out of the couch to pay taxes is change that’s not available for personal use.

    4. So would a society be more libertarian if 95% of the people paid nothing and the 5% were slaves?

      1. More libertarian than a society where roughly half are slaves and roughly half are not…more libertarian != perfectly libertarian…

    5. I think the problem is that in Society B, the 95% have every incentive to get the government to spend more and more. Cause why wouldn’t they? They’re getting free shit out of it. and it costs them nothing.

  9. So, the Pirates have to go 8-3 in their last 11 games to have a winning season and break the streak. I don’t see that happening. Hello 20 years of futility.

    How the hell did they go from leading the WC race in August to this?

    1. Seems like a lot of teams kind of imploded in September. Hurdle did a good job with some limited resources this season, tough.

  10. No, I think Romney’s correct. People look at their tax bill as a barometer of how well they’re doing. I know when it’s come to figuring my income taxes, that’s when I’ve seen in hard figures how badly I’d done the previous year. I wouldn’t quite go as far as my father, who said, phrasing it so as to invert cause y effect, “The more [tax] I pay, the more I make.” However, I do think people in general who do not owe income tax wish they did. Of course they’d like it even better if someone else paid for them or they had some other way of avoiding paying after they figured their tax bill, but that doesn’t invalidate what Romney said.

  11. What an idiotic essay.

    “I like to pay taxes.”

    “I think people would like to be paying taxes.”

    See the difference? It is pretty obvious. If the author wants to talk about shrinking government, he should not misquote Romney and write a stupid essay about the straw man. How about looking at the Ryan plan and engaging in serious debate.

  12. I hate paying taxes.

    I see us buying and maintaining 20 B-2 stealth bombers at a cost of $2 billion each.

    I see old farts using their social security checks to pay their greens fees.

    I see Obama adding to the palace by constructing some extension on the White House underground lair.

    And I’m paying for that stuff.

    I hate paying taxes.

  13. #

    Hugh Akston| 9.23.12 @ 9:23AM |#

    Anyone who believes that higher taxes will save the government from bankruptcy deserves to be bilked out of their money.
    reply to this

    log in or register to reply
    #

    sloopyinca| 9.23.12 @ 10:47AM |#

    Or beaten to death with a claw hammer.
    reply to this

    log in or register to reply

    Period; the end.

  14. I’m sort of listening to the Sunday jibberjabber shows (now that the Singapore GP is over).

    Poor Joe Scarborough, nobody loves him. It’s almost as if his MSNBC “bipartisanship” makes people think he’s a twofaced lying sack of shit.

    Also, AFSCME is running a bunch of anti-Rehberg ads on the Billings teevee stations. This makes me think (contrary to what I have been told by nearly everyone I know) Rehberg can’t be all bad.

    1. I still don’t like Rehberg.He bragged about voting against seemingly-libertarian bills, like one that would cut Medicare.

  15. First part of this article was jarring because it was clear that Richman was raging against something that Mitt didn’t claim.

    The middle and end parts were excellent, however. I especially like that the term ‘corporatist’ is becoming established in the lexicon of economic conservatives and furthering the distinction between Capitalism and Corporatism that the economic right needs to get straight in their heads before trying to spread the message of Markets to the left.

  16. +1reasondrink

    1. Fucking squirrels!

  17. Ad on the right side: Bill Clinton wants me to help make a better world.

    Any ideas, people?

    1. Kill Bill Clinton?

  18. Any ideas, people?

    If you were Shreeek, I’d say, “Kill yourself.”

    But you’re not, so you’re on your own.

  19. The left again is trying to block international energy trade, except this time they don’t even have the fig leaf of concerns about environmental impact on US teritory

    Coal fight looms, Keystone-like, over U.S. Northwest

    Instead of blocking an import, however, this fight is over whether to allow a growing surplus of coal to be exported to Asia, a decision that would throw miners a lifeline by effectively offshoring carbon emissions and potentially give China access to cheaper coal.

    Having long ago lost their bid to prevent the extraction of fossil fuels, environmental groups aim to close transport routes that bring those carbon fuels to market, pulling local and state politicians into the fight alongside regulators.

    The United States holds the world’s largest coal reserves, but China, with the world’s third-largest share, is tapping more of its own reserves and boosting imports from Australia, Indonesia and even Colombia as its economy continues to grow. India, too, is hungry for coal.

    Analysts say Powder River Basin coal must cheaply reach Asia in the coming years to catch the strong demand in China, the world’s No. 2 economy, and the rest of the region.

    “The United States has no unique advantage in meeting the Asia coal hunger, and that demand will not exist forever,” said Ailun Yang, a researcher with the World Resources Institute.

    1. Coal is piling up in China right now. I recently spent two months trying to import samples of coal into China. No one over there wants to be the one who has to import one more ounce of the stuff, since coal mined in China is piling up, and whole shiploads of the stuff have been rejected by Chinese companies that would rather default on the purchase loans than import the stuff and not be able to sell it.

      Maybe in the long term it will make more sense, but right now, Chinese mines are producing more than is being used.

      1. Makes sense to me. They’ve got the stuff in the ground there and it’s easy to extract. I cannot imagine Chinese coal being more expensive than imported US coal.

        Plus their economy is slowing down too and they don’t need as much of it.

      2. The US coal industry seems to think otherwise as they’re trying to build this port in the northwest. Or maybe they have other countries in Asia primarily in mind.

        1. There was a time two or three years ago that it made very good sense to import coal into China. The Chinese mines hadn’t been developed to the capacities for steam coal that would be needed, so it was a good idea to import to China from the US. Now it makes sense to export from the US to China given the horrible market for steam coal over here. The problem is that China has been pouring monet not only into high speex rail and empty high rise apartment complexes, but into lots of kew mines and railways and highways to move that coal from where it is to where it’s needed. The coal mining in the mountains west and north of Yinchuan is amazing now. But, having blown all that money on their domestic production, China is less likely to purchase coal from the US, except for types that are best found in the US. Coal is not coal is not coal, and there are big differences in metallurgical, chemical, and steam grade coals.

  20. The problem is not that Reason criticizes Romney. The problem is that Reason is willing to drop its principles and change positions to attack Romney. The Libertarian and Reason position as I have always understood it has been that a just society has a flat tax where everyone pays a set percentage according to their ability to fund a small government. Indeed, Reason spends a lot of time talking about the number of people who get goodies from the government but don’t pay anything for it. But now the position according to this post is that the way to get a Libertarian society is to get 5% of the people paying for the entire government. And that is not all. It is the road a libertarian society is not just a few well off people paying for everything, but making sure we have a bottom up welfare state meaning the 5% get to pay for anything but don’t get any benefits from it.

    1. First, it is absurdly unrealistic. Since when do rich people not influence government? There is no way you could ever have a “bottom up” welfare state. The rich are always going to have influence and get the government to do them favors. Before it went insane during this election season, Reason makes that argument all of the time to liberals about why big government will never benefit the poor no matter how hard liberals try. But now Reason somehow thinks that having 5% of taxpayers pay for everything is a road to a libertarian society and more laughable still to a bottom up welfare state? Maybe so. But claiming so contradicts pretty much everything that Reason has ever said on the subject.

      Second, it is wildly unjust. Why should the 5% have to pay for the government? Is Reason in the business of peddling leftist social justice theory now?

      And that is the point. Reason often criticizes Obama. But when they do it is always from a Libertarian perspective. Reason didn’t decide that gay marriage was a bad thing after Obama came out in favor of it. But with Romney Reason will think nothing of totally changing its position on something just for the sake of criticizing Romney.

      1. What position has “Reason” changed, especially since each individual author is obviously reflecting Reason’s uniform, dogmatic viewpoint according to your arguments?

        Libertarians believe a hell of a lot of different things. Old Mexican might believe there’s only one coherent version of libertarianism, but that’s simply not accurate. There are a lot of ways to transition to a more libertarian society. On taxes, for example, some believe rolling back taxes from the bottom up is better, some believe in trickle-down economics where the taxes should be cut from the top, some believe in flat taxes for everyone, some believe in replacing income taxes with a different system (FairTax, Single Land Tax, etc), and some believe in zero taxes, immediately. And some believe we should keep the current tax code until we cut enough spending to pay off all the debt and then reform taxes.

        All of these are coherent with moving in a libertarian direction but still rife for vigorous internal disagreement about pace and method.

    2. Why is everyone paying an equal rate considered libertarian?

      The only “fair” tax is where everyone pays and equal dollar amount for equal services. No one would argue that it’s fair for a rich person to be forced to pay more for a gallon of milk than a poor person. Why make that argument for government services?

      An income tax is immoral.

      1. By that standard so is a consumption tax since rich people consume more.

        But beyond that, that is a different debate. Last I looked Reason had no objection to a flat tax and objected to a progressive income tax. Now they are endorsing it? And not just endorsing it but claiming it is the way to a free society? That is nonsense.

        Lastly, if a flat tax is immoral, the 5% pay for everything tax advocated here is even more immoral. But Reason’s brain dead followers seem willing to sign on.

        1. Wasn’t disagreeing with you about the 5%. Just pointing out that the “fair” tax isn’t really fair. Some are still paying moar for the same services. Not really sure why libertarians are in favor of it, other than it’s better than what we’ve got.

          But then, so is Romney, and many here consider that selling out their principles.

          1. I suppose a fee for service or a land tax would be the most fair.

            1. Why not take the federal budget and divide it by 310M people, and that’s your share?

              I figure you could run this nation on about $1T/year. If my math is right, that’s about $3225 per person.

              1. That would work

                1. Fine by me. I’m sick of paying for the freeloaders.

                  1. You realize you’d have to pay that for every kid in your family, sloop? It’s not 310M adults.

                    1. Yes, I realize that. I could use a tax break.

                2. $3225 per person [per year]

                  Continuing this fantasy about a gallon of milk and government services:

                  Why not make it like membership in (some) professional societies? Say $3225 a year for a “normal” membership; $500 for a full-time student; $50,000 for a life membership.

              2. I don’t think $1T would do it in current dollars, but even if you could… that means a poor two-parent family with four kids has to pay $19,350 in taxes regardless of their income. That’s unconscionable.

                It also doesn’t include state and local taxes.

                1. that means a poor two-parent family with four kids has to pay $19,350 in taxes regardless of their income.

                  Goddamned right it does. If you can’t afford the little bastards, keep that thing holstered.

                  They have rights from conception? Good, they can pay their way. I’m about sick and tired of paying for everyone else’s screaming poop machines. I don’t have any, but I get to pay to educate everyone else’s and then I get to pick up the slack for their tax deductions.

                  1. You’re not asking them to “afford” kids, you’re asking them to pay over and above what it costs to support each kid. That’s crap.

                    1. Not crap.

                      Do the kids benefit from the services the government provides?

                      When you take them to a movie, do they get in free?

                    2. The point is that kids don’t receive the same level of services. They certainly have no property rights to protect.

                    3. No, but they receive protection from the military, police, justice system…

                      And isn’t property rights protection relatively cheap? You pay for a judge, jury right and some overhead for courthouses? Gotta be cheaper than military protection.

                    4. I suppose there are no police in your world? Police have to deal with preventing and responding to property crimes. (you also need jails, unless you favor going back to mutilation and capital punishment for property crimes)

                      If we had a sane foreign policy, military defense would be dirt cheap.

                    5. Okay, perhaps we are not defining our terms the same way.

                      If the police are involved, it is most likely a criminal action. In a criminal action, how much property you own is irrelevant. The perpetrator broke the law. You can expect the same outcome regardless of whether you are rich or poor.

                      Property rights, by and large, pertain to civil matters. Contract enforcement, lawsuits… In these matters the police are rarely involved and judgments usually result in fines and reimbursements rather than jail time and are therefor less expensive.

                      Owning more property makes you more likely to be involved in civil matters rather than criminal matters. Therefore, your kids are protected from the most expensive “criminal” stuff and and should therefor pay for said protection.

          2. Libertarians are probably interested in getting rid of all the social engineering that’s done with the income tax.

            The fact that it would be even easier to monkey with a consumption tax is apparently lost on them. Apparently they expect to have libertarian angels in charge of the government in the future?

  21. Let’s take a break from partisan politics, the 47%, and all this other bullshit. Enjoy this hilarious photo from the UCLA/Oregon State game yesterday.

    1. Dick

    2. Haha. I posted that link on an ESPN thread for the Yankees/A’s game yesterday because some dipshit Yankees fan wanted to watch online. I had 7 people report me to the ESPN admins for trolling.

      Yankees fans are the biggest fags.

      1. Sweet Jeezus the Ohio State game was brutal. I don’t like our prospects in the B1G this season. The defense gave up 403 yards? We’re toast.

        1. The pass defense is abysmal. Fortunately the rest of the conference sucks balls. They’ll go 9-3 at worst.

          1. We’re the best of the worst!

  22. But now the position according to this post is that the way to get a Libertarian society is to get 5% of the people paying for the entire government. And that is not all. It is the road a libertarian society is not just a few well off people paying for everything, but making sure we have a bottom up welfare state meaning the 5% get to pay for anything but don’t get any benefits from it.

    wow

    1. Isn’t that what he is saying Brooks. What does this

      Cut taxes from the bottom up and welfare from the top down. This will move us toward a free society and win popular support along the way.

      mean if not that? If you cut taxes for the bottom and cut welfare at the top, you end up with 5% of the people paying for goodies the other 95% enjoy but don’t have to pay for.

      1. Maybe, just maybe, he meant the welfare they get like bailouts and subsidies?

  23. Who’s with me??

    Private city in Honduras will have minimal taxes, government

    Small government and free-market capitalism are about to get put to the test in Honduras, where the government has agreed to let an investment group build an experimental city with no taxes on income, capital gains or sales.

    Proponents say the tiny, as-yet unnamed town will become a Central American beacon of job creation and investment, by combining secure property rights with minimal government interference.

    1. It seems like an interesting experiment. My only concern is that if the towns start to prosper, the Honduran government will reneg and start to extract taxes, government fees, etc.

      I propose that libertarians start quietly emigrating to the Faroe Islands (pop. 44,000). Start to buy land and other assets, infiltrate the government, and then BOOM! Libertopia!

    2. There are three towns being created as special economic zones for this purpose. Lots of good stuff — judges from various developed jurisdictions (they’re trying to get Canada to sign up) to avoid corruption, legislation requiring a super-majority to revoke the city charters, autonomy over city borders. It’s essentially an attempt to recreate Hong Kong in Latin America — and damn if I’m not excited about it.

  24. Two football sort of related topics:

    A replacement ref throws his hat and trips a player in the endzone.

    During the broadcast just saw a new Obama ad blasting Romney for only paying 14%. What a bunch of dicks.

  25. An income tax is immoral.

    Is a consumption tax immoral? Why is a tax on income anything but a consumption tax on knowledge and/or labor? Are you making a distinction between “services” and “production”? Why should there be no tax on what I make answering a question, if there is a tax on what I build? Just as a sales tax is incorporated into the sales price, the income tax may easily be seen to be incorporated in the worker’s compensation, and remitted by him to the almighty government.

    Taxes which go into a general slush fund are immoral, in my estimation; What if I don’t WANT my money to be spent on flying killer robots?

    1. For a country that claims equal protection under the law, any tax where one individual subsidizes another is immoral.

      The only purpose of government is to protect the rights of the individual. In doing so, government provides a service. Protection. That service is available equally to all citizens. Requiring one individual to pay more for that service than another person, is immoral. The mechanism of payment is immaterial.

      1. Some people have more to protect than others. It would be immoral for a homeless dude sleeping in a cardboard box to have to pay the same for the protection of his “property” as a billionaire with 36 houses, hundreds of cars, and his own private jet fleet.

      2. Which is why I would support a nominal personal protection tax that was equal for everyone, and then property taxes to take care of property protection. That’s where the progressiveness would enter in.

        1. Okay, at first blush that seems fair.

          1. Of course, I’m not sure the premise that having more to protect equates to a higher cost for that protection. What your being protected from is people violating your rights. Do people violate your rights based on how much you have? Do car thieves choose their victims by first asking who has the most cars…I’ll go take theirs? Or do they pick the easiest target of opportunity? Do the wealthy really require more protection than the non-wealthy?

            1. If you have more property you have more property rights.

              1. How so? The rights are the same. They only require protecting when infringed upon, no? I could own half the world, and if no one wrongs me, I don’t require legal services and therefore shouldn’t be required to purchase any legal services.

                1. OMG this is frustrating, like nailing Jello to a wall. Are you now disavowing your idea of forcing each person to pay 1/310M of the federal govt’s expenditure? Cause you pretty much have to if you’re going to make that argument, as the homeless guy with the cardboard box probably isn’t getting any tangible police protection either (even if we discount the “area effect” that proactive policing tends to have).

                  1. Okay, you lost me.

                    Not disavowing.

                    I’m saying that protection from criminal actions and foreign invasion is a lot more expensive than civil matters, which is what you are talking about when you speak of “protecting private property”. (Correct me if I’m wrong.)

                    Protecting private property is cheap, by comparison and therefore paying 1/310Mth is closer to equitable.

  26. Romney’s rhetoric is confused because he is trying to dig himself out from the hole he created with his earlier statement equating the “takers” with the 47% of who don’t pay federal income taxes. It seems clear to me that he’s trying to argue that not all of the 47% are necessarily moochers who are dependent on government.
    Most would prefer to be making enough money to be in the 53% who do, which would tangentially mean being in a higher tax bracket.

    I wish we could have a real debate about dependency on the government. Unfortunately, the debate has turned into an argument about the 47% who don’t pay taxes, rather than the (unknown) percentage who live, directly or indirectly, off of federal money.

    Let’s talk about how many people are collecting social security disability for “disabilities” like borderline personality disorder or drug addiction. Lets talk about exhorbitant public sector pensions, and union workers who continue to get paid even when they aren’t working. Lets talk about government contractors, and people who work for programs that don’t need to exist.

    It seems as if EVERYONE knows someone who is gaming the system in one way or another.

    That is what the whole “takers” vs. “makers” debate is about. It’s not about how much you pay in federal income tax, it’s about whether the work you do is genuinely productive, or whether you are contributing anything at all to society, or just exploiting the system for your personal benefit.

    1. I can’t speak to what Mittens was thinking when he made his comments, but here is where the 47% number is pertinent.

      This administration’s platform has been about raising taxes on the wealthy because, in their words, the wealthy haven’t been paying their “fair share”. Pointing out that the wealthy pay nearly ALL the income tax and the poor pay NONE is perfectly legitimate and in fact, the right thing to do.

  27. Nice edit, John.

    Let’s end all dependence on government. Doing it in one fell swoop would be ideal, but short of that, here’s a workable strategy: If you cut taxes for the bottom and cut welfare at the top, you end up with 5% of the people paying for goodies the other 95% enjoy but don’t have to pay for.

    How workable it really is depends on what you cut and where you cut it, but stop trying to pretend reason is calling for some sort of Khmer Rouge purge of the upper class.

    1. Brooks. That is so stupid there is no way Reason can be serious. Do you really think that cutting taxes for lower income is going to encourage them to do anything but demand more welfare? They are not paying for it, so why should they care?

      That goes against everything Reason has ever argued for and completely against any concept of personal responsibility.

      1. Well, IMO, the “starve the beast” method has actually worked. The beast is starved. Problem is that the Republicans now do not have the will to finally cut the beast’s throat. You have to ultimately MAKE THE CUTS. But the Republicans are still playing the tax cut game, even though we’re already debt hell, because they’re too chicken to make serious spending cuts.

        See the entire debt ceiling fiasco.One would have to think that the Republican fucked themselves in the ass on purpose. What did they think would happen when they set the next debt ceiling deadline for AFTER THE ELECTION? If they were fucking serious about having a debate over the national debt in this country, they would have made sure that the ceiling would have to be raised, oh, around right now. But by pushing it back to after the election, they MADE SURE that the lame duck congress could get away with repealing all of it.
        Which is exactly what everyone expects to happen.
        They aren’t serious about cutting spending. If they were, they wouldn’t have arranged to ensure that it wouldn’t be a big issue in the election.

        1. The beast isn’t starved as long as it can shit out dollars that are worth something.

          1. I suppose when it starts getting dysentery that’s when it’s really starved, right? It can’t keep shitting out dollars without eventually polluting it’s own water supply.

            1. Yep. But right now the other beasts’ poop stinks worse than ours.

              1. What does that mean? That we can make other countries eat our shit?

                1. If we’re lucky.

                  1. God, I hope so. Seems like that will be the only way to avoid lapping it up ourselves.

  28. Is it immoral for a doctor in private practice to charge on a sliding scale based on his patients’ ability to pay?

    Should Mitt Romney be able to sue his dentist for a refund because the dentist filled some poor kid’s cavity for free?

    I say no, but the whole thing turns to shit when the government gets involved.

    1. So it is your opinion that we should have a progressive tax system such that the more someone makes and the more productive they are, the more of their wages the government takes?

      Why does Romney make Libertarians say stupid things/

    2. In the private sector you may choose to discriminate in any way you see fit. No one is forcing me to frequent your office at the end of a gun. That’s the difference between the two. One is voluntary the other is coerced.

    3. No, but in a free market that doctor will lose his highest paying clients to those that do not.

  29. Lets talk about exhorbitant public sector pensions, and union workers who continue to get paid even when they aren’t working. Lets talk about government contractors, and people who work for programs that don’t need to exist.

    When I first heard the “entitled victim” part of Romney’s statement, I did not think of Ronnie Raygunz” welfare queen; I thought of pretty much every fucking public school teacher I have ever known.

    Let’s talk about how we devise and institute effective feedback mechanisms to allow us to accurately assess the “value” of government programs.

    1. Let’s talk about how we devise and institute effective feedback mechanisms to allow us to accurately assess the “value” of government programs.

      ABsolutely. But making sure that the vast majority of the country does nothing to pay for them isn’t going to ever let that happen.

      1. So, are you saying you’re in favor of raising taxes on the 47% ?

        Cause that will be a winner, I’m sure.

  30. So it is your opinion that we should have a progressive tax system such that the more someone makes and the more productive they are, the more of their wages the government takes?

    I’m not sure. Do you believe you should pay one flat fee for potato chips, no matter how many you eat?

    1. People who eat a lot of potato chips would vote for the flat fee.

      1. Especially if they outnumber people who pay for their own potato chips.

    2. Brooks, you do understand that under a flat tax regime the rich would still pay more in taxes? It’s the percentage that’s flat, not the tax payment.

  31. I’m not sure. Do you believe you should pay one flat fee for potato chips, no matter how many you eat?

    That is the best argument yet.

    I put it to you that the value of many government functions is impossible to estimate. What is your share of the protection provided by the military? Certainly it would be more if they shoot down the plane on its way to bomb your house than a person miles away from the front. Not sure how you could make that work any other way than to have everyone pay the flat fee for the service. Your argument is valid though. But at some point it becomes a matter of practicality.

    1. So because it’s difficult to estimate you assume it’s equal for everyone? That’s silly. It’s obviously not equal or even close to being equal for everyone.

      A homeless person actually consumes very little in the way of protection services, certainly compared to a wealthy person. No one’s trying to steal his cardboard box.

      1. Yes, but the protections are equally available should he need them. You can’t buy a half a hammer and you can’t rent the military.

        1. Total non sequitur. You can’t rent the internet either, but people pay different prices depending on the level of service they need.

          1. How would you pay for selected portions of the military?

            I’ll take one portion of F-22s, two helpings of Patriot missiles, one Seal Team and a fast attack sub…to go.

            Neither can you rent it. It needs to be on standby because when it’s needed, it’s needed immediately. By and large, everyone gets equal benefit (when used correctly).

            When a bum on the streets gets beat up, he has just as much access to the legal system as you or I (at least he is supposed to). Just because he doesn’t own property, doesn’t mean he’s not entitled to use the legal system. Agreed, he may not have as many reasons to use it and I kinda like your idea of a property tax to account for those differences.

            1. You’re really overcomplicating things. Athletic clubs, shooting ranges, etc, all handle these issues perfectly fine, having different levels of membership, with the gross revenues used to pay for everything. You don’t have to worry about how much chlorine your membership dues paid for when you go swimming. It all goes into a common pot.

              1. Okay, but how do you get different levels of military protection?

                1. It should go by how much you have to lose in case of an invasion. The guy in the cardboard box probably doesn’t care one way or the other, while the guy with the jet fleet is going to lose everything and have his head on a pike.

                  1. What you have to lose is your life. No one’s life is more important than another. I really don’t care about my fleet of jets if I’m dead. Cardboard boxes and castles have equal value when you are dead.

                    The military isn’t protecting your property, it’s protecting your life.

  32. the value of many government functions is impossible to estimate.

    Exactly. And many government functions (drug war, anyone?) have a net value which is negative, so we’re right back to looking for useful feedback mechanisms and incentives. Since those are in short supply, we need to just put the Spending Power in a sleeper hold. Maybe we could even start by chopping spending in places where the recipients can already support themselves.

    1. Maybe we could even start by chopping spending in places where the recipients can already support themselves.

      Maybe, if you can convince folks that their forced payments into non-recovered Social Security are a “sunk cost”.

  33. No one likes paying taxes. But that doesn’t mean a lot of people wouldn’t agree to pay more if they felt it was necessary to save the country from bankruptcy.

    A lot of people are in favor of OTHER people, generally people who make more than them, paying more. The revealed preference of people is that no one pays more voluntarily.

  34. I’m not sure. Do you believe you should pay one flat fee for potato chips, no matter how many you eat?

    I believe that if I want to eat potato chips, I should have to go to the store and pay the market price for however many I want to eat. And if I don’t want to eat potato chips, then I believe I shouldn’t have to pay anything for other peoples’ potato chips, and in particular that people wearing funny hats and badges shouldn’t be able to throw me in a cage for refusing to pay for those potato chips.

  35. The Libertarian and Reason position as I have always understood it has been that a just society has a flat tax where everyone pays a set percentage according to their ability to fund a small government.

    There is no such thing as “just” theft, even if you use a euphemism like “tax” to obscure that you’re really talking about theft.

    1. Not all libertarians consider all taxation to be theft. At some point you have to let people vote with their feet if they don’t want to pay (the bare minimum of) taxes.

      I know there’s some very contrived ideas about how you could run an an-cap society without taxes, but none of them are believable. Sorry, I’m not converting my house over to cardboard plumbing just because it’s never been tried before.

  36. if I don’t want to eat potato chips, then I believe I shouldn’t have to pay anything for other peoples’ potato chips, and in particular that people wearing funny hats and badges shouldn’t be able to throw me in a cage for refusing to pay for those potato chips.

    THIS IS WHY NOBODY TAKES LIBERTARIANS SERIOUSLY.

    1. Why, because we’re capable of discussing theoretical principles in the abstract?

      You do realize that “potato chips” are just an analogy for any public good, right?

  37. I’ve just watched the greatest 1/2 hour of NFL games I’ve ever seen. Red Zone is like tantric sex.

    1. then what are the replacement refs?

      1. Honestly, the replacement refs are doing fine as far as I’m concerned. The rate of overturned calls is better than i was last year and they’re doing fine in the face of players bitching like crazy all the time for calls.

        Fuck the refs. They should can them all and hire the replacements.

    2. And the Chefs tie it up as well. This is awesome. Two overtimes going on and the Dolphins may force a third.

      1. Dolphins tie it up. Three OT games at the same time. Has that ever happened before?

    3. Further to my comment on the other thread, Red Zone would be perfected if they replaced Scott Hanson with Gus Johnson.

      1. You mean replace Andrew Siciliano? I used to like him on the Tony Bruno show, but he’s not good here. And he also has a face for radio.

        1. I think there are 2 versions, because mine has Scott Hanson.

          1. You have the Canadian version. Is it full of “aboot’s” and “eh’s”?

            1. I’m watching it on NFL.com

              1. I’ve got it on DirecTV.

  38. Saints about to go to 0-3. What the fuck is that all aboot?

    1. They lost to the Chiefs!

      1. Hahahahahahahahaha.

        Fuck, the Dolphins missed their FG.

  39. I’m about to go outside and kill a chicken. (No Serrano jokes, please) Anybody else ever slaughtered one?

    1. Pretty sure you want to cut the head off.

      1. Gee, thanks.

        Actually, I may wring the neck and cut the jugular and leave the head on. Kinda go for a Chinese look.

        1. Don’t you have people to do this for you?

          Polish your damn monocle.

          1. My servants will be the ones to pluck the feathers.

            1. Isn’t this is something the housekeeper should be delegating?

              1. Um, the killing is the good part. The servants can Rochambeau to see who has to clean it.

                But seriously, I just got finished processing it. Not too bad. Boy, there’s a lot more innards than I initially expected. Next time, I plan on keeping the one I’m gonna kill away from food for most of the day. This one had a bunch of food still in its food-tube.

                I don’t know which organs to keep except for the liver, which was HUGE. That’ll be a nice snack as I cook dinner tonight. I went ahead and boned it, kept the breasts, thighs and drumsticks. The wings I just chucked…too much work to pluck or skin.

                I cannot wait to eat this motherfucker tonight.

                1. Did you kill one of ’em ducks, too?

                  I hate ducks.

                  1. What the fuck is wrong with you? Do you have Pekins or something? My ducks are all Muscovies, Mallards, Indian Runner chicks and Khaki Campbells and they are as nice as could be.

                    I will be killing one of them for Thanksgiving, however. Fuck a turkey (mainly because I didn’t buy one to raise this year).

                    1. All the ducks that I have encountered have been unrepentant assholes. I don’t know their names, and I don’t wanna know. Asshole birds, but at least they’re not geese.

                    2. Muscovies are the Norwegian Rat of the anatidae family.

    2. Many many many times.
      Simply hold it by the feet , lay its head on a block and chop it off an inch or so below the head.
      Or…
      Pick it up by the neck, just below the head, and sling it around in twisting circles. I dont really have the stomach for any of that anymore so I shoot them in the head with a 22 now.

      1. Actually, I think I’m gonna cut its head off. I gotta drain it anyway. May as well let it pump some of its own blood out.

      2. Oh, and sloopy, make yourself a chicken plucker.
        Get the drum for a drum sander that fits on a drill, the kind with a rubber lining.
        Cut a bicycle innertube into eight 6 inch pieces. Use short large headed sheet metal screws to screw them onto the drum head. Use large washers also. Make sure they paired and spaced evenly around the drum for balance.

        Put that in a drill and run it so that the flaps hit the chicken with the feathers, not against them. You will have a clean bird in about 2 minutes and no down and no sore fingers.

        1. I’ll do that for the next time. OK, headed outside.

    3. Probably too late, but grab it by the neck (thumb down)and swing the body around using your wrist breaking the neck.

      If you cut it you risk a blood bath. Did that to a wild turkey once. The reflexive action is for it to beat its wings. I had blood from head to toe.

  40. When I was a kid, I watched my grandfather kill chickens for dinner many times. He used the chopping block method.

    Whack! The little chicken head lies on the tree stump, blinking confusedly; he drops the remainder, which zooms crazily around with blood pumping out of its neck until it falls down. Off to grandma for plucking.

  41. Now I want some fried chicken and mashed potatoes.

    1. I want to watch Strait-Jacket for the chicken-killing scene again. Well, that, and Joan Crawford wildly overacting. 🙂

      1. You Sir, have good taste.

  42. You do realize that “potato chips” are just an analogy for any public good, right?

    Recalibrate your sarcasmometer.

    The potato chip analogy was mine to begin with.

  43. ok, i guess i can go sports-OT because there be plenty of football posts today. (meh)…

    ILIN!!!!!!!!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…..creenNR=1

    and of course the explosiveness carries over. sick running plate jump…

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…..ature=plcp

  44. Give Mitt a break. All he means is lots of people would like to make enough income to pay federal income taxes. And his retread of supply-side fairy dust will make that happen.

    1. Hey, I was just thinking of you as I cut a chicken’s head off.

      1. Did you get bloody? See my post above.

        1. There was a fair bit of blood, but not too much. It started getting freaked out as I carried it, so I wrung its neck as I was on my way to the chopping block I had set up.

          I’ve got to get a feather-plucker, because I like skin and I’d like to keep more of it. I went ahead and boned it (/no chicken-fucker) so i could have the boneless breasts tonight and see how they come out compared to storebought birds.

          Lots and lots of innards, as I said upthread, which was surprising. I don’t know why I was expecting less, but I was. And I’ll say it again: I need to starve the one I plan on slaughtering for at least most of a day. It’s not only a waste of feed, but creates a mess.

          I threw the carcass and bones out so the scavengers can come and eat them. Hopefully a coyote that’s been lurking around will show up tonight and I can shoot his dumb ass. That would cap a great day.

          1. Banjos is gone for a couple of days and you start killing animals. Wow.

    2. Re: Tony,

      Give Mitt a break. All he means is lots of people would like to make enough income to pay federal income taxes.

      Which would tell you that taxes are too high already, if people cannot afford them.

      Zing!

      And his retread of supply-side fairy dust will make that happen.

      As the fairy dust of stimulating consumption (as if giving people free money conjures up goods and services at the same price they were a moment ago) has proven to be fallacious.

      1. Ever heard the term “overcapacity”?

  45. Man that dude jsut looks corrupt as the day is long lol.

    http://www.AnonFolks.tk

  46. Re: Tulpa Doom,

    Not all libertarians consider all taxation to be theft.

    Yes, that is true – we libertarians call those “faux libertarians”

    At some point you have to let people vote with their feet if they don’t want to pay (the bare minimum of) taxes.

    Just like Germany gave the opportunity to all those Jews to vote with their feet if they didn’t want to get a minimum of window panes broken.

    Same immorality, different times.

    I know there’s some very contrived ideas about how you could run an an-cap society without taxes, but none of them are believable.

    ROAAADZ!

    Sorry, I’m not converting my house over to cardboard plumbing just because it’s never been tried before.

    And if it is tried?

  47. The red states still outnumber the blue states, but have smaller population. I suppose they don’t benefit from the glitzy tech industry in places like California, which expands their operation in other states or abroad. California could be carved into smaller red or blue sections that aren’t wealthy at all.

    No politician would be “in touch” with the folks Romney had in mind by pointing out that “big corporations and Republicans are dependent too, and not all low income workers are slobs” if their agenda is ultimately limiting government.

    Romney didn’t say those dependent on government are welfare queens. Ask a hard working Obama fan with a full time job about government dependency, and they’ll absolutely believe healthcare is a right, medicare is sacred, and the wealthy should be taxed to infinity to fund unemployment checks and other welfare.

    Romney didn’t acknowledge that Republicans are dependent also, but come on, this is a lot of churlish attempt at playing “we hate parties” equivalency game. Romney didn’t say anything that you couldn’t find here.

    1. Ask a hard working Obama fan with a full time job about government dependency, and they’ll absolutely believe healthcare is a right, medicare is sacred, and the wealthy should be taxed to infinity to fund unemployment checks and other welfare.

      Yeah, the upper-middle-class white people who mostly work for government, or government subcontractors, or in academia. People in white collar jobs that benefit directly or indirectly from regulatory bullshit or federal spending. People who at some level know that their jobs aren’t really productive. But they’re middle-class white folks so they’re entitled to a single-family home in the suburbs with a three-car garage, so government should be there with a program or a contract for them.

    2. I kind think that’s as much of a problem as welfare. There’s a whole class of middle-class or upper-middle class white collar types who are dependent on government via contracts, regulations, and spending programs that wouldn’t exist in a free market. Few of these people are going to vote for smaller government either. They know that without all the red tape there’d be no work for them. Their jobs wouldn’t exist. They’re just as dependent as a person on disability, except they’re probably in the $100,000 – $250,000 income range that Obama doesn’t want to raise taxes on.

  48. This is a truly pathetic article. It should be obvious that Romney was trying to say that people would rather be in a position where they have to pay a tax (i.e. making money) that be in one where they pay no tax (not making money). No doubt, he can be extremely ham-fisted with his words and there are many other reasons to criticize him as well.

    But Richman took Romney’s clumsy words and suggested he meant something different than he intended. This sort of deceit is below anyone who purports to be a journalist.

  49. The speed with which your company grows depends on your ability to sell. If you can not sell, you will have fewer sales and limited growth. “Selling is our http://www.cheapfootballcleatstrade.org/ number one job ever. Escape from selling a lot of merchandise in person. More you sell, the more you learn.” – James Cash Penny3.

  50. energy to sustain by themselves in type for example they need to.That is why they may possibly be looking at physique shapers. Monster beats kopfh rer is http://www.drdrebeatsbydreaustralia.org/ altering as well as enhancing to satisfy the particular developing demand.Body shapers will be also recognised as Beats merely by dreand slimming bodysuits..

  51. Was there a point when Romney WAS in touch with the small government movement? I guess I missed it.

  52. Good luck getting an honest statement out of Romney concerning welfare. He got rich off welfare courtesy of the federal reserve. He’s all for welfare for the rich and bankers, but wants to demonize blue collar welfare. Talk about a hypocrite.

  53. If there’s gonna be a federal income tax (and this applies to state income taxes as well) then I want everyone earning income to pay it.

    I can live with progressivity – a minimum of 1%… 2%… 3%… – but everyone has to have skin in the game.

    What’s a reasonable floor? What’s a reasonable ceiling? Once it’s agreed on that an income tax is gonna exist these are the important questions.

  54. And what exactly is the “everyday American”? Those on the dole? Or the 47% that take handouts from the rest of us? Come on, tell me who they are. Are they the 33% wishy-washy useless “Independents” that vote based on CNN’s latest headlines? Who are these people?

  55. ld want is to reduce the returns to labor ? which is what i

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.