Carpe Diem

Quotation of the day

“The very catchwords and phrases used by the Obama administration betray how phony this all is. For example, “We are just asking the rich to pay a little more.”

This is an insult to our intelligence. The government doesn’t “ask” anybody to pay anything. It orders you to pay the taxes they impose and you can go to prison if you don’t.”

~Thomas Sowell in his column today “Fiscal Cliff Notes

146 thoughts on “Quotation of the day

    • Yes, I’m certain Sowell also reads your comments here to gain insight for his weekly columns.

      I know he agrees with me on most issues also.

      :)

  1. True. But, government can’t stop people from working less and seeking tax-advantaged arrangements. If on a risk and tax adjusted basis a thing isn’t worth doing, it won’t be done. The higher the tax, the fewer taxable activities will be worthwhile.

    • That’s not really the point of what Sowell said, is it?

      The rhetoric is phony. Governments do not “ask.” Governments command. The President is not asking the rich to pay more. He is telling them they will pay more.

      There is no judgement on whether or not the tax is good or bad. Rather, there is just the reconigization that government is force. This is not a controversial point.

  2. Let’s look at the latest IRS data: In 2010, it took $370K adjusted gross income to make it into the top 1% of income earners, and they paid almost 40% of all federal income taxes. The 5% of income earners made at least $162K and paid almost 60% of all federal income taxes. The top 10% paid made at least $17K and paid a little over 70%. The top 25% included all those making $69K or more, and they paid over 87% of all federal income taxes. Meanwhile, the bottom 50% of income earners (those making $34K or less) paid only 2.4% of all federal income taxes, and the vast majority of them either paid no income tax or received money on net from the IRS.

    One other important thing to note is that the share of total income taxes paid by the top 10% of income earners today has risen by 40% since the early 1980s, despite the fact that the top income tax rate has been cut in half. This is powerful evidence that the tax code remains highly progressive despite big cuts to top tax rates.

    With almost half of all working income generators paying NO taxes, anybody who sights tax hikes on the big earners along with FAIRNESS is financially ILLITERATE.

    • I think your statement about half of working income generators paying NO taxes is completely innaccurate. When Social Security/Medicare taxes, state and local income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, gasoline taxes, telephone taxes, utility and cable fee taxes, license plate and registrations fees/taxes, and etc. are counted, many lower income people pay a higher percentage of their take-home pay than higher income people pay in taxes.

      Whether some people should pay more in federal taxes can be debated, but whether very many people actually pay NO tax can’t.

      • Oh, gimme a break. Everybody pays all those other taxes and everybody knows that. Half the nation pays NO federal income tax and that’s what everyone is talking about, regardless of how much you pretend it isn’t.

        many lower income people pay a higher percentage of their take-home pay than higher income people pay in taxes.

        Yeah. And they also get a plenty of transfer payments. How much do these people pay as a percentage of their total income (including transfers)? And how much do the toil and risk to obtain that income? Not much. Especially, not union thugs.

      • CALM DOWN WALTER…you and all the other libs know damn well that I meant INCOME TAXES.

        How could you have missed that? In my first sentence, I did say IRS data….and all the data involved INCOME TAX DATA.

        IRS, Walter, does INCOME and the IRS ring a bell?

        • MacDaddyWatch, I quit reading anything when I get to “right,” “left”, “libs” . . . . Very few people fit in the box other people try to put them into.

          • “Very few people fit in the box other people try to put them into.”

            Or so it goes according to the talking points of pretty much every liberal. Like Obama, Walt and the other liberals are all about “what works,” “science” and “pragmatism” and all that.

      • many lower income people pay a higher percentage of their take-home pay than higher income people pay in taxes“…

        Really walt?

        What do you have to back that statement up with?

        • “When all federal, state, and local taxes are taken into account, the bottom fifth of households pays about 16 percent of their incomes in taxes, on average. The second-poorest fifth pays about 21 percent.[8]”

          juandos, Pay Taxes.

          • larry g says: “eh… those other country’s numbers (like France and Sweden) don’t look right“…

            LOL!

            How to heck would you know?

          • And they receive net transfers of somebody else’s cash:

            “Because transfer payments are, in effect, the opposite of taxes, it makes sense to look not just at taxes paid, but at taxes paid minus transfers received. For 2009, the most recent year available, here are taxes less transfers as a percentage of market income (income that households earned from their work and savings):

            Bottom quintile: -301 percent
            Second quintile: -42 percent
            Middle quintile: -5 percent
            Fourth quintile: 10 percent
            Highest quintile: 22 percent

            Top one percent: 28 percent

            The negative 301 percent means that a typical family in the bottom quintile receives about $3 in transfer payments for every dollar earned.”

            http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2012/07/progressivity-of-taxes-and-transfers.html

          • Paul,

            But as Professor Perry has noted here numerous times, the people in those quintiles move around. I’ll move down a couple of notches myself next year :) A lot of those people in the lower income quantile are high wealth people who pay a lot of taxes on their toys and property.

          • I just noticed the term “market income,” and I am not familiar with that term and/or who determines it and how. I’ll have to look into that later. It’s time to go teach.

          • I just noticed the term “market income,” and I am not familiar with that term and/or who determines it and how“…

            Yeah walt that term had me wondering also…

            According to the Census Bureau: Market Income Consists of the following 15 income components

            1. Earnings (wages, salaries, and self-employment income)
            2. Interest income
            3. Dividend income
            4. Rents, royalties, estate, and trust income
            5. Non-government retirement pensions and annuities
            6. Non-government survivor pensions and annuities
            7. Non-government disability pensions and annuities
            8. Realized capital gains (losses)
            25. Non-government educational assistance
            31. Child Support
            32. Alimony
            33. Regular contributions from persons not living in the household
            34. Money income not elsewhere classified
            35. Imputed return to home equity on owner-occupied housing
            40(a). Work-related expenses excluding child care (deducted from income)

          • 16%. Cry me a river.

            That’s just idiotic, Walt. It’s fun that these monkeys left the top quintile out of their graphs because not only does the top two quintiles pay more as a percentage of income in federal income taxes (31% is the effective tax rate for the top 20%), but that’s before you even layer on all the other taxes you listed. Top earners likely pay about triple that 16%.

            if your argument is that people move in and out of quintiles, then your whole welfare argument – as well as your progressive tax argument – falls apart. You’d love to have it both ways, but only idiots like Larry fall for this shit.

          • And here’s the thing: it doesn’t matter.

            You’re not going to extract more tax revenue from that group by raising taxes. It just ain’t gonna happen. So the whole world can moan about “fairness” and who pays what and when. The fact is, if you provide disincentive to produce, you’ll get less production and less to tax. That’s the only important point in the whole discussion. Everything else is just whiny crap.

            on average, regardless of the top marginal and investment tax rate, tax revenue has remained at an average 18% of GDP. When the top marginal tax rate was 91%, the government collected an even smaller percentage of the median household’s income. The only thing that raised tax revenue has been lower tax rates on producers – both in absolute terms and as a percentage of median household income.

            So, whatever it is the Demonrats are trying to pay for, they ain’t doing with higher taxes.

          • And the vast majority of Democrats believe we can all live at everyone else’s expense. In other words, they believe in magic – which is orders of magnitude worse than whatever you’ve got in that link. WTF has that got to do with anything we’re talking about here?

        • re: Keynesian

          has anyone heard the GOP squeal like a pig when there is talk of cutting DOD?

          re: state/local taxes

          maybe state since many states work off of AGI but at the local level, sales, gasoline, personal property, real estate, etc…

          who said: ” The Earned Income Tax Credit is the best anti-poverty, the best pro-family, the best job creation measure to come out of Congress.” ?

          • Who? The jackass who wanted to be re-elected by the people getting the free candy. Does EVERYTHING have to be spelled out for you (I ask rhetorically – at the same time understanding you haven’t the brain power to understand anything spelled out for you either)?

          • wow Methinks… diahrettic again?

            just to be clear – you think the GOP is just as bad as the DEms but just in a different way, right?

            tell that to Juandos.

    • “But as Professor Perry has noted here numerous times, the people in those quintiles move around. I’ll move down a couple of notches myself next year ”

      So what? Exit polls show those bottom quintiles, mobile or not, love themselves some free stuff from the government. So let them start paying for these goodies like they do in Europe.

  3. Yes, phony rhetoric such as “asking” someone to pay more taxes or to “contribute” more to the public treasury is irritating and insulting, to say the least. Words such as “confiscate,” “steal,” or even “redistribute” would be far more accurate.

  4. That Professor Sowell limits the current prevalence of talking points and buzz words in the Internet age to the Obama administration show his bias and limits his credibility about a discussion of the facts. I could pull dozens of the same type of comments from any political party or individual on any given day.

    Sound bites, catch words, and “I gotchas” is what is passed off as intelligent discussion nowadays. Is this because that is all we will spend the time to read, or is it the best people who are making important decisions about our lives can do?

    We get it: Professor Sowell does not like President Obama or any labor union, and we will never read a balanced discussion of any current event about either of them in any of his columns. Could that be considered phony?

    • If I may, Walt, I think Prof. Sowell would agree with you (except for the last paragraph, but not many people would call themselves phony :-P ).

      What Sowell is saying is that the rhetoric prevents us from having a serious discussion on the fiscal question. Both sides are guilty of this. The Democrats are framing the question as “We are asking the rich to be nice, but they aren’t!” The Republicans are framing it is “We are asking the Administration to be nice, but they aren’t!” Neither one is telling the truth and neither one will get us past this problem.

      Walt, I am convinced you and I could sit down and after a few hours and a few beers, we could have a plan in place. You and I would approach the table as equals, and have a serious talk. We’d hem and haw over a few points, but we’d eventually be able to walk away as victors.

      But our jobs are not on the line. We don’t live and die by the whim of the voters. We wouldn’t need to sell this plan to our constituaints. We know there isn’t some cabal of rich people secretly destroying the economy, or a class of people who just sit all day and collect unemployment checks.

      A politician’s job is to stay elected. To stay elected, he needs to stay popular. The lazy man’s way of doing this is to create a scapegoat and attack it: The Rich, The Poor, The Unemployed, The Chinese, The 1%, The Terrorists, etc. So, he comes up with a plan, and rather than discuss it rationally with others, he creates this boogeyman and whips the pubic up into a frenzy. And all sense of proportion is lost.

      Sowell’s point is to just bring us back to reality: governments do not ask. They order. When a government passes a law, it is not optional. What kind of society would we be in if “Thou Shall Not Steal” was optional?

      I think of Sowell was here right now, he’d say “Yes, the rhetoric is out of control. Let’s reel it in and talk to each other, not through each other.”

    • Actually, the article is a lot more accurate and informative than either the quotation in the post or my reply. I should have read it before replying. That’s both my bad and Professor Perry’s bad :)

    • “That Professor Sowell limits the current prevalence of talking points and buzz words in the Internet age to the Obama administration show his bias and limits his credibility about a discussion of the facts..”

      Walt likes to have a reasonable, fact based discussion devoid of talking points and buzzwords and bias…

      ….and then as he has admitted here previously, he promptly votes for a liberal politician to go and seize somebody’s assets on his and fellow union thugs’ behalf.

      • Ever notice that people who cry that they want “reasonable, fact based discussion devoid of talking points and buzzwords and bias” are the ones completely incapable of such a discussion?

  5. Jim Sinegal (founding partner Costco) is cashing in at the expense of the U.S. Treasury. Costco is borrowing $3.5 billion to pay a special dividend to avoid the likely increase in dividend taxation.

    Mr. Sinegal (Obama supporter) will receive $12 million at the current tax rate of 15%, rather than the expected tax rate beginning next year of 43.4%.

    The Wall Street Journal states Sinegal will avoid $4 million in taxes via the special dividend.

    Would Jim Senegal still risk his personal investment funds to start a new enterprise beginning in 2013?

      • Heh,

        We both have a pretty good idea why he supports Oblamebush. He makes more money as a crony of The Won than he gave. He can also rest easy that the dominant liberal media will ignore his muirpocrisy.

        We can also be pretty sure that Larry will ignore this rather dramatic illustration of your argument from an earlier thread that “incentives matter”.

          • re: ” “incentives matter”

            well no.. I did catch that..but I was thinking about how that idea did not work so well under Reagan and Clinton when tax rates were higher and loopholes harder….

            why do “incentives matter” now but not so much back then?

          • If the current tax rates expire, then ALL income tax rates return to their Clinton-era rates. Why are Dimocrats whining about the government going over a fiscal cliff if tax rates aren’t raised on the “rich” if all they have to do is let the current rates expire? After all, these same Democrats have spent ten years describing these current rates as “tax cuts for the rich”.

            Muirpocrites.

          • I’m not sure the Dems are whining about going over the cliff … for one thing you can’t hear them for the cries and moans of the GOP.

            Going over the cliff – balances the budget and pays down the debt.

            isn’t that exactly what the GOP has been blathering about for 4 years?

            People ALSO forget that part of the fiscal cliff is an increase of 2% in the payroll taxes and not one GOP has whimpered about that….

          • BTW, incentives have always mattered. People with Sinegal’s means will always avoid onerous taxes. We are seeing a demonstration that Sinegal thinks Clinton-era tax rates are onerous.

          • Oblamebush has stated repeatedly that he will accept no deal that doesn’t include tax increases on “the rich”. If Bush’s tax rate cut was merely a tax cut for the rich as he has demagogued for his entire reign, then why is he negotiating for a tax hike on the rich when he already has it?

          • Yes, “negotiate”. If the current tax rates were a ‘tax cut for the rich’, as the Dims have claimed since they were enacted, then The Won wouldn’t be negotiating. He’d already have His beloved tax hike on the rich. He is negotiating because the Bush tax rate cuts were across-the-board. If they expire then a lot of people who were completely excused from income tax liability will be paying income taxes again, and the lie “Bush’s tax cuts for the rich” will be exposed in all its muirpocritical glory.

          • HORRORS! the taxes would be just like under Clinton!

            Oh the agony and the outrage!

            guess how come the Bush tax cuts were not permanent to start with.

            is making them permanent now part of the “negotiation”?

          • Apparently Oblamebush supporter, Jim Sinegal, thinks so. He’s the one paying a dividend this year, just to avoid those just-like-under-Clinton tax rates.

            Until our Dear Leader is able to set tax rates based on party affiliation, I guess we will continue to see blatant muirpocrisy from the likes of Sinegal and Buffet.

  6. Zerohedge isn’t always a great source for reasonable discussion, but this piece on taxes is pretty good. It definitely confirms Political calculations’s analysis showing that the revenue collected per household to median household income (and that’s REPORTED income, mind. That’s important) is stable – whether the to marginal rate is 91% or 28%. Raising taxes is political theatre.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-12-04/guest-post-have-tax-revenues-topped-out

      • Yes, but I didn’t read it. Some of those posts are so dumb they could have been written by Larry.

        Keynesianism will never go away because politicians love it and simpletons find it easy to understand. Not until there is total collapse will anyone even attempt to think differently and I am certain that whatever happens, it happened because the government didn’t spend enough. Krugnuts will be bleating that until the day he croaks.

  7. IN THE SPIRIT OF PAYING ONE’S FAIR SHARE, BIG OBAMA FUND RAISER…

    Jim Sinegal, Costco co-founder and owner of 2 million shares, borrowed billions from financial institutions at a very favorable rate of less than 1.7% (can you borrow at that rate?) in order to pay a $7 “special” dividend to himself and other Costco big shareholders.

    You bet “special.” When was the last time you heard of a highly profitable and cash rich company borrow money in order to pay a “special” dividend? Borrow money to pay a dividend?

    The money was borrowed on the basis of Costco’s very favorable credit rating. Meanwhile, all the small business (who do most of the new hiring in the USA) are still screaming that that they can’t get a loan or borrow money. Costco crowded-out these smaller smaller companies for whom the money was intended.

    And how many of those lending institutions received taxpayer bailout money? This looks like a big money laundering scheme to me.

    Fair share? Looks like some big Obama money bundlers robbed the poor house and hijacked small business money. And you can bet that a ton of that “special” dividends gets funneled right back into Democrat/union pockets–Obama’s preferred beneficiaries of fairness.

    How’s that for FAIR?

    • Costco crowded-out these smaller smaller companies for whom the money was intended.

      Now, you don’t really believe that the money was intended for anyone but political cronies, do you? Like Costco? And the banks?

      It’s laundering theft through government. That’s exactly what it is.

  8. re: what keeps us from a reasonable discussion..

    people like Sowell…

    he’s basically a bomb-thrower not a “let us reason” guy

  9. “he’s basically a bomb-thrower not a “let us reason” guy”

    This is coming from a guy who loves to call the GOP racists. How many of Sowell’s books did you read before you came to that “bomb thrower” assessment, Larry?

    • re: bomb thrower

      you don’t need “books” to know this.. all you need to do is read a paragraph or two.. and you know without a doubt.

      the man is a whacko who has zero interest in contributing to any kind of a meaningful dialogue.

      • “you don’t need “books” to know this..

        So, that would be a big fat zero “books” (love you italicize books) read.

        “all you need to do is read a paragraph or two.. and you know without a doubt.”

        That’s a decent philosophy for moronic blog commentators like you, not so much for a distinguished economist like Thomas Sowell. Your only real beef is he exposes the freeloaders and corruption on the left.

        • You don’t read Professor Sowell’s articles to educate yourself or learn about any topic. Your read him to say “Amen.”

          Professor Sowell plays to his audience and gives them what they want to hear while he feeds their confirmation biases with juicy small pieces of a much bigger puzzle.

          • Why would you read his books when the offal sound bites that come out of his mouth have nothing to do with economics and everything to do with hate and blame?

          • No, I have not read any of Professor Sowell’s books. Ron, can you suggest one that takes a balanced perspective about current events? I like to form my own opinions.

          • Walt

            No, I have not read any of Professor Sowell’s books. Ron, can you suggest one that takes a balanced perspective about current events? I like to form my own opinions.”

            That’s always a good idea.

            His comments on current events aren’t his most important contribution.

            He is a prolific writer.

            I own #6 and #11 on that list and have read #s 3, 10, 14, 18, 21, and 32 from my local library.

            I plan to read #5, #4, and #1.

            You can look inside some of those at amazon and read what reviewers have to say about them. You can likely find some of them at your local library if you are actually inclined to read some Sowell.

            My recommendation would be #6, #10, and #11 in that order. Although *I haven’t read #4, it looks pretty interesting.

            There is also plenty of Sowell on YouTube.

          • Thanks Ron. I have a Kindle, and some free time between my last class tonight and the next one on Jan 7, 2013. I might grab a couple of Professor Sowell’s books off that list. I really, really like my e-reader.

            I spent too many years with the union blaming management and management blaming the union over anything and everything when both were at fault to read one-sided Internet snippets. Real progress does not happen until the blame games end.

          • Thanks, Larry, that’s an excellent list. Other than your blanket condemnation of Sowell, are there any of those quotes in particular you wish to disagree with using intelligent, logical, and insightful arguments?

          • any/all that blame others without laying out a positive vision to rectify the problems and unite people.

          • any/all that blame others without laying out a positive vision to rectify the problems and unite people.

            Jeez, Larry, can you be any more specific?

            What exactly ARE the problems, and what, exactly does “uniting people” mean?

            Is uniting people something important, or is respecting each other’s rights enough? Surely you don’t mean that everyone must agree on something in particular. Please explain your position.

            And please explain your objection to one or more of the Sowell quotes.

          • To me Sowell comes across as arrogant, condescending and looks down his nose at those he considers to be “takers” – RATHER than make an argument – a positive argument that recognizes that many people actually do want to work and others with proper incentives WOULD.

            Sowell basically rails against what he dislikes rather than focus on how to change/fix, etc.

            He’s not, for instance, someone you’d read to hear a “better idea” about Medicare… because basically he’s opposed to the CONCEPT of it so he just blathers a basic anti-govt message that is red meat to the like-minded but goes absolutely no where in society and elections.

            He’s to the RIGHT of Ron Paul…

          • Thaty’s still not specific. How about picking any one of those 25 quotes, and then present a meaningful counterargument?

            He’s not, for instance, someone you’d read to hear a “better idea” about Medicare… because basically he’s opposed to the CONCEPT of it

            So am I, Larry, so are a lot of people. Sowell explains in great detail what the problems are with such programs. If you disagree you really should present an opposing argument – one that makes sense, of course. Such an argument would have to justify taking from one group of people people against their will to give to another. Good luck.

          • If Sowell were king or POTUS- he could “inform” us of his philosophy and attempt to govern that way.

            When you are in a minority – a tiny minority – even if you have the truth from on high – your choice is to shout at thd darkness or try to convince others of the rightness of your arguments.

            Sowell does none of that. He throws bombs to please his red meat affectionatoes.

            he’s not a builder… he’s a destroyer….

            he’s unfit to even lead a discussion much less anything else.

            He’s a “voice”. He does have credentials but his views are 3rd world … there is not an industrialized country in the world that operates according to his philosophy whereas with Mr. Krugman who is universally hated by Sowell types – the world actually operates according to much of what Krugman speaks of.

            Every time Prof Perry posts a Sowell quote you can pretty much count on the worth of it – to society at large (verses the red meat eaters).

          • re: ” Such an argument would have to justify taking from one group of people people against their will to give to another. Good luck.”

            It’s actually in our Constitution – as well as every other OCED country’s governance – on the planet.

            yet you and Sowell say it’s wrong.. eh?

            I keep asking what countries agree with you?

          • He’s to the RIGHT of Ron Paul…

            Yes, if you find a scale of left to right helpful, he could be considered to be Right of Ron Paul, because he is a “conservative”, if that label is helpful, while Ron Paul is a “libertarian”. I know you don’t understand the distinction, so it’s not probably a useful explanation.

          • the distinction between Liberarian and Conservative.

            Ron Paul supports Social Security and Medicare.

            What does Sowell support?

          • Now Sowell claims to be an economist , right?

            so what is this?

            Sowell is, and has always claimed to be, an economist – which you would know full well if you read his bio or looked beyond the body of his Townhall columns.

            Surely you aren’t suggesting a person must limit their writing to subjects they studied in school.

            Where is your weighty argument rebutting Sowells article? he points out major disconnects between your boyfriend’s promises when he hoped to be elected and his later actions. We usually call this type of behavior “lying” as Sowell has done. What is your counterargument? You can’t just say “I don’t like it.” or “I disagree.” without giving us a little bit more substance.

            If Sowell is incorrect about Obama’s lies, point out the errors, by all means.

          • It’s pretty clear that Sowell hates the POTUS and attacks him – not on economics but things like Bengazi.

            that’s pretty far afield from his credentials.

            His ideas and proposals are so off the wall that he has no real role in real issues.

            he’s your basic bomb-throwing hack..these days.

          • he supports them for the current retirees but does advocate phase out.

            In his budget proposal – both are funded.

            the point here is that Paul recognizes that the real world requires evolution towards what he believes in and he further recognizes that he can’t get what he wants but rather tried to get some of it over time.

            unlike Sowell who does not bother himself with such practicalities.

          • Paul runs for election and wins. Sowell could not win dogcatcher with his rhetoric unless he ran in Allen West’s district !

            Sowell would not govern… he would bring wrecking tools.

            He only brings bomb throwing 101 to the table.

          • It’s pretty clear that Sowell hates the POTUS and attacks him – not on economics but things like Bengazi.

            It’s pretty clear that Obama has lied about Benghazi and even thrown Clinton under the bus to distance himself from any accountability. His actions in that matter have been disgusting. It’s not clear what credentials one needs to point that out. What’s your counterargument, Larry? Let’s see your defense of the Liar-In-Chief on this matter, and in fact on the entire subject of his illegal involvement with Libya.

            that’s pretty far afield from his credentials.

            You probably don’t want to pursue that argument, Larry. If no one could write on any subject in which they weren’t credentialed, we wouldn’t even know you existed.

          • ” It’s pretty clear that Obama has lied about Benghazi and even thrown Clinton under the bus to distance himself from any accountability. His actions in that matter have been disgusting.”

            in your view, not mine or many others. It basically was a CF like the dozen or so similar incidents under Bush and Clinton.

            Bad stuff happens overseas… no matter what you do. Reagan was “out of the loop” on Iran-Contra. Where was Bush on abu ghraib and WMD?

            you fools have a double standard..no two ways about it.

            ” It’s not clear what credentials one needs to point that out. What’s your counterargument, Larry? Let’s see your defense of the Liar-In-Chief on this matter, and in fact on the entire subject of his illegal involvement with Libya.”

            what a bunch of horse-manure… now we know your politics Ron..thanks.

            “that’s pretty far afield from his credentials.”

            You probably don’t want to pursue that argument, Larry. If no one could write on any subject in which they weren’t credentialed, we wouldn’t even know you existed.

            HA HA HA.. Mr. Sowell CLAIMS to be “qualified” …. I only claim to offer opinions…

          • It’s actually in our Constitution…

            Great! Point us to the pertinent article and section and perhaps give us a quote. The Constitution is a very small document, it shouldn’t be hard to find.

            – as well as every other OCED country’s governance – on the planet.

            That’s not an argument, Larry, it’s a logical fallacy.

            Still waiting for specific refutation of ANYTHING Sowell has written.

          • in your view, not mine or many others. It basically was a CF like the dozen or so similar incidents under Bush and Clinton.

            Hey, it’s not a view, it’s clearly documented fact. The State Dept. was getting information on the attacks “in real time”, as they say, and if you don’t believe the State Dept. would trouble the President with news that a US embassy was overrun and the ambassador killed, you really have your head further up Obama’s ass then I thought.

            In fact, Obama and his entire national security team monitored the events as they happened.

            No one has defended similar actions of other Presidents, and it’s NOT OK because others have done it. That’s not an argument you can use either.

            what a bunch of horse-manure… now we know your politics Ron..thanks.

            That’s not an answer, Larry, why can’t or won’t you make substantive rebuttals?

            It’s pretty obviously you have nothing to of substance to contribute to a discussion of these subjects, but instead will defend the Liar-In-Chief with blind devotion no matter how ridiculous it becomes. Pathetic.

          • what a dumb ass you are boy. Bengazi was a disaster for the GOP and the anti-Obama folks.

            “real-time”, really? and what exactly was supposed to be done about it?

            why was he there in the first place?

            was he killed by hostile fire? Nope, inhalation… from the fire….

            you guys are whackos.

            “defending prior POTUS”?

            WTF? it HAPPENS you fool! It happened under Reagan in Beruit. It happened in Iraq under Bush. It happened in Sudan and Somalia under Clinton.

            What is your point? this stuff HAPPENS and there are not perfect responses..

            The Bengazi incident just shows how whacked out you boys are about this POTUS.. it reflects on YOU not him.

            Even FAUX News has abandoned this really dumb line of attack.

          • HA HA HA.. Mr. Sowell CLAIMS to be “qualified” …. I only claim to offer opinions…

            HA HA HA. You only claim to know the *truth* and have a pragmatic view of the *real world* as opposed to those who have *theories* that don’t match practice, and you must be correct because every developed country in the world does it that way, and we’ve always done it that way..

            That’s a good way beyond opinion, Larry. When have you ever started a comment with “In my opinion.”?

            You are a really sad clown, Larry.

          • HA HA HA. You only claim to know the *truth* and have a pragmatic view of the *real world* as opposed to those who have *theories* that don’t match practice, and you must be correct because every developed country in the world does it that way, and we’ve always done it that way..

            SEEK THE TRUTH – Nimrod… and deal with REALITIES

            That’s a good way beyond opinion, Larry. When have you ever started a comment with “In my opinion.”?

            all of them are – dufus

            You are a really sad clown, Larry.

            really.. and you? not exactly rich in scruples….are you?

          • The Bengazi incident just shows how whacked out you boys are about this POTUS.. it reflects on YOU not him.

            OOH! We have struck a nerve! Larry’s master is under attack, and Larry will come scrambling out yipping at full volume & nipping at ankles. Down, little doggie.

          • no master under attack.. just oh so obvious double standards from partisan whackos…

            you’re joined that crowd fella.. we got you calibrated now.

            you lack basic decency… and proud of it, eh?

          • re: Bengazi

            what you’ve done is joined the ranks of the partisan whackos who ignore ample history of other POTUS and jump into a double standard for this one – like you buddy Sowell.

            this is particularly despicable behavior because this kind of incident occurs on a fairly regular basis over time and has happened to every POTUS back to Reagan when asymmetric terrorism began in earnest.

            the fact that you engage in this puts you in the category with other zealots and just plain idiots who have no scruples, no real moral fiber, just hate and venom which you try to mask but it burns through.

          • re: Bengazi

            blah blah…ranks…blah blah…partisan whackos…blah blah blah blah…POTUS…blah blah blah…double…blah blah blah – blah…Sowell.

            Blah blah blah…despicable…blah blah blah blah blah…behavior…blah blah blah…incident…fairly…blah blah blah blah…basis…blah blah blah…happened…blah blah blah…asymmetric…blah blah…earnest.

            Come on, Larry – where are your substantive rebuttals to Sowell’s comments? If he’s wrong, point out the true facts.

            Man up. Don’t hide behind these nonsense comments and absurd accusations.

          • re: rebuttals to Sowell..

            the man is not interested in contributing to dialog about how to reform/change/improve our system.

            He is not only ideological, he’s partisan and he basically a bomb-thrower.

            His focus and your focus on Bengazi in the CONTEXT of your high and mighty claim that it’s economics makes both of you clowns.

            neither of you are focused on economics at all. you’re focused on partisan ideology, hate and venom against others you “blame”.

            That’s not about being right or wrong or disagreeing with someone one’s position – it’s about what YOUR intent and motivation is in discussing – and it’s CLEAR in your case and Sowells what your real motivation is and it’s not at all about economics. That’s just the excuse you use to peddle your vitriol.

          • “Come on, Larry – where are your substantive rebuttals to Sowell’s comments? If he’s wrong, point out the true facts.”

            It’s not so much Professor Sowell is wrong in his Town Hall articles, Ron, it’s he not as right as he can be. Let me explain that. I give multiple-choice tests where there is more than one correct answer; however, there is only one MOST correct answer. You must choose the most correct answer to receive credit for the answer (it is most often “D”, which is “all of the above”).

            Professor Sowell, just like many of my students who do not care to read all of the answers, chooses answer “A” which may or may not be correct because it is juicy, quick, and what they want to find, but those students pass up the most correct answer “D” where the rest of the story is told. If you want entertainment, Professor Sowell’s Town Hall articles are fine, but if you want information to make your own decision about anything important, they are not. I will give Professor Sowell the benefit of the doubt and read one of his books where he has more room to expound on his ideas than a 600- or 700-word blog-type article.

          • Walt – it’s not a matter of right or wrong on his views, some of which I agree with but it’s the way he goes about dialogue and participating in issues.

            He really has little interest in further a perspective of what we should be doing instead of what we are.

            his style is basically slash and burn…

            and he is dishonest about some of the issues

            and he uses his notoriety to function as an anti-Obama partisan hack on things for which he has not credentials – such as Bengazi.

            Think about Friedman making a credible case on some economic point, but instead of offering an alternative way forward, he throws bombs and then takes partisan shots at the current POTUS on issues not in his wheelhouse.

            he’s not a serious person IMHO.

            He does not further/advance/inform issues going forward.

          • Walt – this is the kind of thing Sowell writes:

            ” “No society ever thrived because it had a large and growing class of parasites living off those who produce.”

            what purpose does this serve?

            how many folks will he convince?

            how many folks will react negatively to what he said?

            how does this “quote” further dialogue on society and those who produce verses those who receive benefits?

            you can’t go anywhere form this quote. It’s just a bomb meant to divide people rather than find a path forward.

          • “how many folks will he convince?”

            Larry, he will convince all of the people who believed that way anyhow and just want to be spoon-fed that drivel so they can tell themselves and others “I told you so.” Again, that 600- or 700-word medium is tailor-made for “gotchas” and quick sound bites:” it’s simple sensationalism and hype. Let’s hold off judgment on Professor Sowell’s entire body of work until he has enough room to go into more depth.

          • Walt – I’ve heard enough. Don’t get me wrong – I’ve made up my mind about Krugman also.. both have veered quite a bit and have revealed “too much info” about their personal feelings in their writings.

            I disagree strongly with Friedman on some things also but I have significant respect for him.

            I have respect for Krugman WHEN he stays ON TOPIC and makes his case without throwing bombs and attacking others.

            I’d give Sowell the same opportunity but everytime I turn around, he’s once again off into LA LA Land.

          • Larry, well they are op-ed articles meant to get the attention of their targeted audience. Many people are looking for information that reinforces what they already believe. I would recommend we not pay too much attention to the articles. In fact, by commenting on them, we are giving them more attention than they deserve.

          • Walt

            It’s not so much Professor Sowell is wrong in his Town Hall articles, Ron, it’s he not as right as he can be. Let me explain that.”

            If that’s true, I expect Larry to point out those other correct answers and explain why Sowell’s answer is inadequate. That’s what I’ve repeatedly asked him to do, and he can’t or won’t do it. Calling Sowell a “hater” or “bomb thrower” just isn’t good enough. I’ve asked him to pick any one comment, quote, or statement by Sowell that he feels is wrong, and explain why that is so. All I get is bullshit.

            I give multiple-choice tests…etc.

            Professor Sowell, just like many of my students who do not care to read all of the answers, chooses answer “A” which may or may not be correct because it is juicy, quick, and what they want to find, but those students pass up the most correct answer “D” where the rest of the story is told.

            I assume your students are adults who have spent many years in some type of school system. If they don’t know how to take multiple choice tests by now, there may be little hope for them. The very presence of “all of the above” as a choice makes it almost certain that’s the correct answer.

            If they are in a hurry to select answer “A” they either don’t know the material as well as they should, or they don’t know how to take tests. In either case, they are not succeeding in absorbing the learning that is supposedly flowing from you to them.

            That said, I think you will find, if you do read any of Sowell’s books, is that he does a remarkably thorough job of analyzing questions. As you point out, a 6-700 word article is not enough to provide a lot of discussion.

            If you want entertainment, Professor Sowell’s Town Hall articles are fine, but if you want information to make your own decision about anything important, they are not. I will give Professor Sowell the benefit of the doubt and read one of his books where he has more room to expound on his ideas than a 600- or 700-word blog-type article.

            I hope you will really do that. I think you will find that the man has incredible insight and does a much better job than his short columns might indicate.

            While Sowell is a conservative, and you will see that bias in his columns and to a lesser extent in some of his books, It’s not really clear that there’s any one most correct answer on the subject of international politics and events. It’s very much a matter of who you are, and everyone’s view is necessarily limited. I’m reminded of the five blind men describing an elephant.

          • I do not have a problem with a principled individual – conservative or liberal who makes an honest attempt at advocating a position but I have a big problem wit bomb-throwing types who basically are nasty and condescending and really are not interested in advancing an issue or contributing to further dialogue that may lead to evolutionary changes.

            It don’t matter how much intellect and insight you have if your favorite leisure activity is pulling legs off an insect or the virtual equivalent of it.

            Ron doesn’t understand apparently because he is likely that kid who did that activity also.

            I have little use for folks like that.

          • By the way, I AGREE with Sowell on some issues but the man is nasty, arrogant, condescending and just downright evil. He has no real interest in anything other than himself.

          • Walt – this is the kind of thing Sowell writes:

            ” “No society ever thrived because it had a large and growing class of parasites living off those who produce.”

            what purpose does this serve?

            At Last! A specific quote. Very good, Larry.

            Now, let’s examine what you object to here. Is it the word “parasite”? Is it the term “living off”?

            Let me paraphrase that and see if it makes any difference.

            ” No society ever thrived because it had a large and growing number of dependents supported by those who produce.”

            Is that any better? The meaning is pretty much the same.

            The purpose I suppose, of such a comment, is to point out the obvious. There are obvious limits to how many can be supported by those who produce before everyone suffers.

            The unspoken but obvious recommendation would be to reverse that trend.

          • re: ” Is that any better? The meaning is pretty much the same.”

            it goes to motivation and purpose and expectations.

            when you throw bombs, it’s pretty clear what your motivations are.

            Even “takers” – don’t like to be “takers”. Many would rather have a 50K a year job… rather than sucking 10-20K of govt teat.

            but what exactly do you really accomplish when you label everyone who receives benefits – even those who pre-paid taxes into them – as “parasites”?

            it might please you Ron – but I can assure you that Sowell helped the GOP lose the election.

            People pay attention to those kinds of messages.

          • re: ” Is that any better? The meaning is pretty much the same.”

            it goes to motivation and purpose and expectations.

            Gee, that didn’t exactly answer the question, did it?

            when you throw bombs, it’s pretty clear what your motivations are.

            What are they, Larry?

            Even “takers” – don’t like to be “takers”. Many would rather have a 50K a year job… rather than sucking 10-20K of govt teat.

            You have no idea.

            but what exactly do you really accomplish when you label everyone who receives benefits – even those who pre-paid taxes into them – as “parasites”?

            You don’t know who Sowell is including in that group “parasites”, but the meaning of the word is pretty clear. Sowell might not be including the people you mention, as they may not be parasites. Only parasites are condemned by Sowell – those who wish to live of the production of others.

            it might please you Ron – but I can assure you that Sowell helped the GOP lose the election.

            LOL

            The GOP pretty much guaranteed themselves a loss by putting forward a totally inadequate candidate. I doubt that Sowell had much influence on that. Are you now crediting him with a large audience, after previously asserting just the opposite?

          • The GOP lost in no small part because of words like Sowell uses.

            re: parasites

            if you want to call people parasites, you better be damn clear about who you are talking about.

            but even then.. what do you really accomplish?

            I don’t want to hear any more from him because he’s clearly whacked out and has nothing of any real substance to offer other than verbal vandalism.

            re: answering questions and “meaning”

            when you bomb throw – no one listens to the rest of your “message”. got that?

          • larry g never missing a chance to say something inordinantly inane and untethered to reality says: “The GOP lost in no small part because of words like Sowell uses“…

            You really have no idea what you’re talking about do you larry g?

            You’re just tossing out words you’ve seen in other people’s comments and seeing if they might stick…

            They don’t…

            You want to know what the problem is with the GOP larry g?

            Try this blog posting on for size: The GOP Is Dying Because The Liberty Movement Is Thriving

          • ” The GOP is dying because it no longer supports or nurtures the progress of true and traditional conservative values or the people who hold them. The GOP is fading into the bowels of political history because real conservatives are LEAVING it behind, and searching for other more legitimate avenues. ”

            right…..

            ;-)

            angry white guys are starting to die in droves.

            lights out for the GOP.

            The trouble with the “conservative” message is that many fear it and consider it threatening to them as a minority or a women or a gay or a teacher, etc…

            you can’t win with DeMint as your “values” leader.

            when you shout “parasite” people do listen.

            if you were smarter than the average GOPer you’d realize that this is a bad strategy… but….

          • so you’re dissing an entire generation including minorities?

            and you want to govern?

            or what exactly do you aspire to do?

            Ann Coulter in drag?

            ;-)

          • Larry g clueless as ever says: “so you’re dissing an entire generation including minorities?“…

            Yeah, what’s the problem? Know the truth and the truth will set you free…

            Ann Coulter in drag?“…

            I guess I shouldn’t be suprised that who can’t carry his end of the log would come up with something like that…

            Still, its pretty sad none the less…

          • And it’s pretty obvious that there are definite limits to how many parasites can live off those who produce, so his statement would seem to be correct, don’t you think?

          • re: the correctness of the statement.

            who would know? who would actually want to know?

            People like you suck it up like nectar but who else?

            he’s the internet equivalent of some dirty long-hair on a soap box in a city park.

            who cares except those who are like him?

          • re: parasites

            if you want to call people parasites, you better be damn clear about who you are talking about.

            They know who they are.

            re: the correctness of the statement.

            who would know? who would actually want to know?

            It’s just simple math, Larry, there is a limit to how many people can live off one income. If enough people don’t produce, there is no prosperity and everyone suffers. I would think anyone concerned about the future of this country would want to know that a bad thing is happening and getting worse.

            he’s the internet equivalent of some dirty long-hair on a soap box in a city park.

            who cares except those who are like him?

            Good old Larry – never a logical or substantial response, just more meaningless drivel.

          • Ron – Even if it WERE TRUE – but you needed votes, you’d find a way to reconcile the message, right?

            when you blare out “parasites”.. what exactly are you trying to achieve?

            what’s your purpose?

            isn’t this just verbal vandalism?

          • Ron – Even if it WERE TRUE – but you needed votes, you’d find a way to reconcile the message, right?

            I assume “it” is the mathematical certainty I described.

            Are you now claiming that politicians must lie and misdirect to get elected? That is similar to announcing that the Sun will come up in the East tomorrow. We have all always known that politicians are lying whenever we see their lips moving.

            It may have escaped your attention that Sowell is neither running for office nor promoting a candidate, so he is free to call a parasite a parasite when the term is called for.

          • re: lying and mis-directing

            well GEEZE .. if you ALREADY ARE – why not do it to your advantage?

            Sowells not running for office but his narrative is used by those who do….

            so Sowell really is the online equivalent of some dirty long-hair on a soapbox did earn a PHD?

            that’s sad.

          • Hey ron h, give larry the loser a pass for a minute…

            Have you been over to Demon – Ocracy lately?

            They’ve redone their debt video (HD too) and refurbished a bunch of their infographics…

            You might might find it entertaining and or educational….

          • re: lying and mis-directing

            well GEEZE .. if you ALREADY ARE – why not do it to your advantage?

            That’s the motto of your boyfriend in the White House, you know.

  10. “He’s a “voice”. He does have credentials but his views are 3rd world … there is not an industrialized country in the world that operates according to his philosophy whereas with Mr. Krugman who is universally hated by Sowell types – the world actually operates according to much of what Krugman speaks of.”

    And that right there tells you all you need to know about Larry the Liberal’s demand for reasoned discourse. Krugman, for chrissakes. No, he’s not a bomb thrower.
    This kind of hypocritical crap is why Larry deserves nothing but scorn and mockery.

    “any/all that blame others without laying out a positive vision to rectify the problems and unite people.”

    ~Larry G, the same douche who calls the GOP racists at the drop of a hat.

    • Krugman represents a legitimate world view held by many nations.

      Sowell, OTOH, sounds like a Neanderthal holed up in a cave in a 3rd world country.

      Krugman is clearly over the top but most folks don’t see his views as bomb-throwing – more to a strong opinion that is connected to real world issues.

      Sowell is in LA LA Land advocating stuff that has zero chance of happening even if he could or would say it in a persuasive way rather than in a bomb-throwing manner.

      If you want to govern – as oppose to tear down – you have to connect with people. Sowell makes enemies on purpose.

      • “Krugman represents a legitimate world view held by many nations.”

        Yes, Greece and Spain have certainly taken his views to heart. Krugman also actually believes an economic boom is just a fake space alien invasion away. Only morons like you and Obama believe that stuff, Larry.

        “If you want to govern – as oppose to tear down – you have to connect with people. Sowell makes enemies on purpose.”

        Right, now call me a racist or piss your pants over the Koch brothers, Mr Reasoned Discourse.

      • Krugman represents a legitimate world view held by many nations.

        There’s that logical fallacy again! You don’t even realize you are doing it, do you?

      • If you want to govern – as oppose to tear down – you have to connect with people.

        I don’t want to govern, Larry, and I don’t want to be governed. We are citizens not subjects.

  11. “It’s actually in our Constitution – as well as every other OCED country’s governance – on the planet.”

    Oh, Medicare is in our Constitution? Obviously, Sowells’s books aren’t the only thing Larry hasn’t read. In truth, Larry hasn’t read much of anything that wasn’t carved into the wall at a truck stop men’s room.

    “I keep asking what countries agree with you?”

    This is Larry’s fall back argument whenever he can’t defend(which is most of the time) some bloated government program or attack on our freedom.

    • taxes – “stealing from other people” IS in our Constitution but not things like the Nuclear Regulatory Commission or Interstate highways or Gitmo – what your dim-witted point pencil head?

      re: fall back

      it’s the real world that most folks live in as opposed to the world that Sowell and his acolytes live in.

      • “taxes – “stealing from other people” IS in our Constitution but not things like the Nuclear Regulatory Commission or Interstate highways or Gitmo – what your dim-witted point pencil head?”

        Was that supposed to be a coherent sentence? All 3 of those examples have some constitutional issues, but at least they exist for society as a whole. Your Medicare is just a transfer of wealth, and a bankrupting one at that, definitely not what the founders intended anywhere in the Constitution.

        “it’s the real world that most folks live in as opposed to the world that Sowell and his acolytes live in.”

        Yes, the real world where greedy geezers like you are bankrupting the country with your entitlements while demanding higher taxes on people like me. Makes me actually want to retreat to a fantasy world where freeloaders don’t exist.

        • re: the Constitutionality of Medicare…

          say what?

          your opinion trumps laws and SCOTUS ?

          see that’s the problem with youse guys. You live in LA LA Land on this stuff.

          Medicare was found to be Constitutional guy.

          re” greedy geezers

          I totally support the individual mandate. I do not want to pay for what you chose not to or vice versa.

          I’d support Singapore’s approach to Health Care where everyone has to pay into it because we all know that we’ll all be needing it. It’s dumb to pretend otherwise.

          We need to get rid of EMTALA and MedicAid and require everyone to contribute to their own inevitable needs.

          AND that’s Constitutional Dude.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Act_for_the_relief_of_sick_and_disabled_seamen

          passed by the very same folks who wrote the Constitution.

          got more anti-govt blather?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>