AShotAndaBeer's Blog

Politics, Firearms, and things that amuse me

Claire The Populist Pitchfork

with 14 comments

Looks like our favorite Senator from Missouri is dusting off the old populist class-warfare tactic, hoping to secure her reelection next cycle.

Via Gateway Pundit:

She seems so righteously outraged, doesn’t she?

Listen, you little Twit: It is not your job to ‘punish’ the rich people, and attempt to buy your own popularity by giving it to us. YOUR job is to protect, defend, and uphold the constitution, not to wheel and deal your way to more and more power at our expense.

I know, you’ve never taken an ‘earmark,’ and for that I give credit. Now if the rest of you Washington Nitwits would do the same, we might have a chance at changing things. But supporting things like Health Control and Crap&Betrayed are worse than earmarks in my opinion.

And just so you know, Claire, you do not “give” the rich, or anyone else, for that matter, one thin dime by cutting taxes, (or in this case keeping tax rates where they are currently) it simply means you are stealing less from them.

As for ‘not getting it’ with the Tea Parties and anger at the town hall meetings, it’s obvious you dont’ get it either. We are sick of you and your colleagues power brokering games, the class warfare, and wealth redistribution. We are sick of you all trying to pit one group of us against the other.

As for the masses with the pitchforks, the so-called ‘rich’ you rail so mightily against would not be the target of those tines: It would be those who continue to defy the will of the American people to have a smaller, more efficient, and honest government. People like you.

To answer the question you posed at one of the “angry” town hall meetings last year: No, we don’t trust you! 2012 is closer than you think.

UPDATE: Ed has more on this at Hot Air.

Advertisements

Written by James Lee

December 4, 2010 at 10:50

Posted in Uncategorized

14 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. “a tax cut … completely unpaid for”
    “if we don’t give more money to millionaires”

    That tells you all you need to know.

    You PAY FOR things that you SPEND on. A person who is working a second job to make more money, who decides to give it up to have more time with his family, doesn’t talk about how he’s going to PAY FOR the loss of that second job.

    NOT TAKING money from people isn’t GIVING money to them. As I told Claire’s buddy Steve Glorioso years ago when he co-hosted KMBZ’s “Friendly Fire” with Jack Cashill, if I thought about stealing Claire’s TV, but decided not to, by her terminology I GAVE her a TV. Merry Christmas, Claire! Enjoy that TV I GAVE you!

    The Monster

    December 4, 2010 at 11:04

  2. Absolutely, Monster. Actually, I WAS thinking of your analogy while I was writing that.

    James Lee

    December 4, 2010 at 11:06

  3. And just so you know, Claire, you do not “give” the rich, or anyone else, for that matter, one thin dime by cutting taxes, (or in this case keeping tax rates where they are currently) it simply means you are stealing less from them.

    That is incorrect. If the government is running a deficit, then a tax cut is the government borrowing money and deferring payment until later. At some point, it will have to be repaid.

    Zachriel

    December 4, 2010 at 21:53

    • Seriously? It doesn’t matter how much deficit or surplus a government is running, the “tax” is how they attempt to fund that spending. If taxes are reduced, perhaps the government must borrow to cover the differnce, but the fact remains that it does not give anyone anything extra.

      And the point is that that spending should not be so much in the first place.

      James Lee

      December 5, 2010 at 01:55

  4. James Lee: If taxes are reduced, perhaps the government must borrow to cover the differnce, but the fact remains that it does not give anyone anything extra.

    The government is borrowing to fund tax cuts. For a short term stimulus that may make sense, but that just defers payment until later.

    Zachriel

    December 5, 2010 at 08:34

    • The notion that tax cuts have to be “paid for” is part of the problem. That is the sort of leftist thinking that has people believing that wealth and money start and end in Washington. The government does too much for too many, spending way too much on things that hurt rather than help (ethanol subsidies, for example). That is the point.

      James Lee

      December 5, 2010 at 11:38

    • “The government is borrowing to fund tax cuts.”

      They aren’t “tax cuts”. They are an extension of tax RATE cuts. There is a point above which increasing tax rates actually generates LESS revenue.

      As I pointed out before, no one talks about “funding” a reduction in revenue in their own life. In fact, no one in the private sector speaks of “funding” at all; that’s something that governments and non-profits worry about. The rest of us “budget”.

      Non-profits “fund” expenditures by finding sources of revenue for them. They can “fund” those expenditures by spending down earlier savings or by incurring new debt.

      The borrowing is to finance (“fund”) excessive spending.

      The Monster

      December 5, 2010 at 16:51

  5. James Lee: The notion that tax cuts have to be “paid for” is part of the problem.

    It’s doesn’t matter how many words you throw at it, if the government is running a deficit and cuts taxes, then the government is borrowing to provide that benefit to the taxpayer. If the government were running a surplus after having cut spending, then it would be different.

    The Monster: They aren’t “tax cuts”. They are an extension of tax RATE cuts.

    Those tax cuts were engineered to expire as part of an effort to hide the true cost. It requires new legislation to extend them.

    The Monster: The borrowing is to finance (“fund”) excessive spending.

    If the U.S. government cut spending sufficient to create a surplus, then it wouldn’t have to borrow to cut taxes.

    Zachriel

    December 5, 2010 at 17:47

    • Have you ever noticed how a business will CUT the RATE it charges per unit of something it’s selling, and thereby INCREASE its REVENUES? Out here in the real world, we call it a “sale”.

      “Those tax cuts were engineered to expire as part of an effort to hide the true cost”

      No, they were engineered to expire because that’s what it took to get 60 votes for cloture in the Senate.

      The Monster

      December 5, 2010 at 19:37

  6. The Monster: No, they were engineered to expire because that’s what it took to get 60 votes for cloture in the Senate.

    No. It was devised to avoid PAYGO restrictions.

    The Monster: Have you ever noticed how a business will CUT the RATE it charges per unit of something it’s selling, and thereby INCREASE its REVENUES? Out here in the real world, we call it a “sale”.

    That’s why everything is free, and governments run on zero taxes.

    Zachriel

    December 5, 2010 at 21:33

    • “That’s why everything is free, and governments run on zero taxes”

      That’s what makes you a troll, instead of someone interested in serious discussion. You put words in people’s mouths.

      A business that cuts prices to zero, or a government that cuts taxes to zero, will have zero revenue. But so will a business that sets its prices too high, or a government that puts its tax rate too high.

      The Monster

      December 6, 2010 at 10:05

  7. The Monster: That’s what makes you a troll, instead of someone interested in serious discussion. You put words in people’s mouths.

    Actually, you made a one-sided argument.

    The Monster: But so will a business that sets its prices too high, or a government that puts its tax rate too high.

    That’s right. So pointing out one side of the equation while ignoring the other means your statement was incomplete. Hence, we correctly pointed to the other side of the equation.

    Since the Reagan era, the U.S. has struggled with structural deficits. The Clinton Administration showed how it was possible to cut that deficit, pay down the debt, all the while growing the economy; but the U.S. has abandoned that reasonable policy. The U.S. can cut spending, or raise taxes, but the belief that they can continue to cut taxes and run endless deficits is not based on any valid economic theory.

    Zachriel

    December 7, 2010 at 07:35

    • That is a LOT of the point! Debt is too high, and can not be sustained. The government has taken more and more intrusive control of everything they can, and IT COSTS TOO MUCH.

      That, generally, is what those of us on the Right want to happen. We want programs cut or cut out completely. And we want this staggering debt brought under control

      James Lee

      December 7, 2010 at 08:57

  8. James Lee: That is a LOT of the point! Debt is too high, and can not be sustained.

    That’s right. Structural deficits have been a problem for the U.S. since Reagan. However, it is quite possible to rectify the situation. Clinton ended up with surpluses, and there’s no reason to think it can’t be done now.

    James Lee: That, generally, is what those of us on the Right want to happen. We want programs cut or cut out completely.

    Of course, cutting in the middle of a recession would be harmful; but long run, how would you suggest to bring the budget back into balance?

    Zachriel

    December 7, 2010 at 17:26


Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: