Michelle Malkin draws parallels between seizure of property in Zimbabwe and Sen. Obama’s fiscal policy. Cause, you know, they’re all black and we blacks all share the same thought process.
Kristy Sanchez-Trujillo
T-Mobile Outage
T-Mobile
Megan Gale
Sylvie Van Der Vaart
Clash Of The Titans
Ashley Neufeld
Afton Williamson
Kyrstin Gemar
Tesla Coil
Xperia X10
Cany Vossough
Reza Vossough
Ninel Conde
Julia Louis Dreyfus
Guardians of Childhood
Botox
Chase Utley
Prince Of Persia Sands Of Time
Cherokee
Christopher Lee
Prince Charles
Prince William
Prince Harry
Cleveland Browns
Ernie Accorsi
Reina Flynn
Reid Gray
Cole Hamels
Brett Myers
Quinn Gray
SEPTA
Burlington Northern
Star Wars The Old Republic
Nightmare On Elm Street
Gerard Butler
Amrit Dhaliwal
Louise Linton
Gwen Stefani
Curtis Lavelle Vance
Anne Pressly
H1N1 Vaccine
Melody Ross
Oasis Of The Seas
Disney Cruise
Selita Ebanks
Anthony Sowell
JJ Redick
Axe Body Spray
Christopher Walken
Dragon Age Origins
And did you read through some of the comments? WTF.
Hal Turnerettes Syndrome on the march
Mugabe and Bush II are both fans of nationalizing the banks. I doubt Michelle had anything to say about this.
Meh.
Spastic Cheerleader isn’t really making any concrete parallels between Obama’s fiscal policy and Zimbabwe by citing the Raleigh News article.
Still, it dosent stop her mouthbreather contingent from making the connection.
And before any right wing trolls here complain about accusations of racism, the Republican Party is the party of the Southern Strategy. Which has been going on for 40 years, and it is still going on today.
Well, if anyone can cite an example of someone taking the “spread the wealth around” that’s as current as Zimbabwe, where those “who can afford it” have their property confiscated by the government to help “the less fortunate,” with the predictably disastrous results, feel free to bring it up.
And as far as racism goes… yeah, Zimbabwe is a case of a black majority screwing over a white minority, but the real victims here are the whole people of Zimbabwe (who, as noted in that comment thread, “need to pull a Mussolini”). A few whites have been killed, a few blacks have profited grossly, and the vast majority of Zimbabweans (mostly black) are getting screwed over, and screwed over royally.
Real racists would simply dismiss it as “that’s how they treat each other; who cares?” Instead, they’re saying how horrific it is, and how the people of Zimbabwe need help getting out from under this psycho dictator.
…whose economic policies bear a passing resemblance to those espoused by the Democratic nominee.
J.
“Stay Classy”
Pot meet kettle.
“…whose economic policies bear a passing resemblance to those espoused by the Democratic nominee.
Like I said…
“whose economic policies bear a passing resemblance to those espoused by the Democratic nominee.”
Could you explain why Obama’s tax plan, which has no higher a top marginal federal income tax rate than we had under Clinton (39.6%), is an economic policy similar to Mugabe’s, yet this comparison never was made with regard to Clinton? Could you explain why McCain could vote against the Bush tax cuts — thereby indicating that McCain felt the Clinton tax levels to be appropriate — yet this comparison never was made with regard to McCain?
Could you explain why Eisenhower, Kennedy, LBJ, Nixon, Ford and Carter all had a higher top marginal federal income tax rate than the one Obama proposes, but this comparison is never made with regard to the guys who look like the presidents you see on the currency?
Yes, clearly singling out Obama for comparison to Mugabe couldn’t possibly have any racial content at all and is based solely on his proposal to increase the tax rate to a level much lower than it was for most of post-16th Amendment American history:
1917-1924: went from 67% to 46%
1932-1986: ranged from 63% up to 94% and down to 50%
My God, we were socialists almost as soon as the 16th Amendment passed, and didn’t get out of socialism until the 1986 tax reform. So much for the Greatest Generation, those damn Fascist-fighting commies.
“It’s not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody that is behind you, that they have a chance for success too. I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”
I think that when the government gets in the business of “spread(ing) the wealth around,” we all get screwed.
It is happening in Zimbabwe. It happened in Cuba. It happened in China. It happened in Russia.
But hey, that’s only killed about a hundred million or so people so far. I’m sure if we keep trying it, eventually it’ll work.
J.
I think that when the government gets in the business of “spread(ing) the wealth around,” we all get screwed.
It is happening in Zimbabwe. It happened in Cuba. It happened in China. It happened in Russia.
Indeed. Remember what happened in 1993 after the Deficit Reduction Act? Everything immediately went Tierra del Fuego South. The United States in the 90s made what’s happening in Zimbabwe look like an Ayn Rand Objectivist Utopia. Thank goodness we had a Dear Leader with the wisdom to restore order with massive regressive tax cuts.* Look how awesome things are now! We can’t let the MaoistLeninistMarxistIslamoFascist Barack Hussein Obama anywhere the White House. Or we’ll undoubtedly have to suffer through another stretch like the dystopian 1990s. And nobody wants that.
*The Iraq Invasion is also awesome. Also the Constitutional Amendment to outlaw queers from getting married.
“…whose economic policies bear a passing resemblance to those espoused by the Democratic nominee.”
I remember reading on Obama’s website where he proposed forcibly evicting hard working whites from their homes for the benefit of shiftless blacks. When I checked this morning I saw that the page had been scrubbed. Clearly, Obama can’t stand having his policies exposed for what they are by the right-wing blogosphere!
Jesus. Jay Tea, get some help.
“Well, if anyone can cite an example of someone taking the “spread the wealth around” that’s as current as Zimbabwe …”
Well, if anyone can find a fresher orange to compare to this apple …
It is happening in Zimbabwe. It happened in Cuba. It happened in China. It happened in Russia.
Try breathing into a paper bag, Mr. Tea. You seem to be a bit overwrought.
Refresh our memories–when these calamities befell Zimbabwe, Cuba, China, and Russia, was it an incremental increase in marginal tax rates that pushed them over the edge?
No?
Then go collect yourself and get back to us when you have found your sense of proportion once again.
Thenk yew!
Then go collect yourself and get back to us when you have found your sense of proportion once again.
Really. Don’t worry, we’ll keep an eye out for it. As puny as it is, it couldn’t have gotten far.
“Refresh our memories–when these calamities befell Zimbabwe, Cuba, China, and Russia …”
Clearly, Quaker, in 3 out of 4 situations the slow slide to despotism begins when countries put people of color in power …
…whose economic policies bear a passing resemblance to those espoused by the Democratic nominee.
Clearly, in that they both have letters that spell the words “economic policies”, that makes them almost identical.
Seriously, Jay, come off the ledge.
heh… “Black (not equal) Borg”
no shared-consciousness there.
heck–no ‘there’ there…just typical Rethug fear&loathing
…whose economic policies bear a passing resemblance to those espoused by the Democratic nominee.
Kim Jong-Il likes to torture prisoners. John McCain voted against outlawing waterboarding.
Doesn’t John McCain bear a passing resemblance to Kim Jong-Il?
Isn’t ridiculous hyperbole FUN?
I see that instead of debating the history of “socialism” in America, as represented by a longstanding tradition of top marginal federal income tax rates much higher than Obama’s proposal that we return to Clinton’s 39.6% rate, Jay Tea is going to stick to invocations of Teh Evildoers. Why bother thinking through the difference between a redistributivist tax policy (Obama’s tax plan) and government control of economy (socialism) — a difference I have been at pains to explain to him over the last week — when it’s so much easier to open your mouth and let the bile out?
He has learned well from his leaders.
At this rate, economics departments will have to go Democrat in sheer despair at the inability of today’s Republicans to discuss economic policy in a rational matter rather than engaging in a new spin on Godwin.
Why bother thinking through the difference between a redistributivist tax policy (Obama’s tax plan)
You know, I’d make the case that it’s not redistributionist.
During the last 20 years, income tax rates have been kept artificially low through the Reagan-era increases on payroll taxes. By design, this surplus was dumped into the general fund in exchange for treasury debt.
Now as the payroll tax surplus dwindles, it’s time to redeem that debt. The increased cost of Social Security, and to a much lesser degree Medicare, has already been paid by the very same people who are now due to receive the benefits.
A decrease in payroll taxes offset by higher income taxes is not a redistribution, it’s recognition of the debt owed to the majority of workers at the bottom of the income scale.
RepugliKKKans are just absurd — they equate a few percentage point tax increase to the sort of screwup in Zimbabwe? Yet they want us all to happily hand over our tax dollars so they can bomb brown people the world over “in our name!”
Quaker,
So far as I know, Obama isn’t offering to decrease payroll taxes. In fact, he’s supposed to increase them for people making over $250k. Also, the money from taxing people with higher incomes isn’t just going to fund Social Security; it also will be used on tax credits to some folks whose federal income tax liability is smaller than their total federal tax burden (credit > payments to SS and Medicare federal income tax liability). Those taxpayers get a check from the government. Income is being redistributed from the wealthy to the middle and working class. That’s a redistributivist tax policy.
So far as I know, Obama isn’t offering to decrease payroll taxes.
The whole “income redistribution” argument rests on the notion that some of the people who will receive tax credits “don’t pay taxes,” according to right wingers. Of course, what they mean is, “they don’t pay income taxes.”
Now follow me again.
For the last 20-25 years, folks have been paying more in payroll taxes than Social Security and Medicare have been paying out. The surplus, as conservatives love to point out, isn’t sitting in a bank. It was handed over to the federal general fund and spent. In return, the Social Security and Medicare trust funds got IOU’s.
The borrowed payroll tax money was used to supplement the general fund. For that reason, income taxes for the last 20-25 years have been lower than they would have been if there had been no payroll tax surplus.
With me so far?
Now the IOUs have come due. The surplus in payroll taxes was loaned by the Social Security and Medicare trust funds to the general fund. The debt has to be repaid from the general fund to the trust funds. Given the size of the current budget, there’s only two ways to accomplish that: raise income taxes or borrow the money somewhere else. )”Cut government waste” is a popular campaign slogan, but it’s not going to happen to any meaningful degree.)
We’re already borrowing at very high rates, so the most likely avenue is to raise income taxes. For the last 20-25 years, payroll taxes have been capped. Anyone in the very highest income brackets has been excused from paying payroll taxes on income over the tax limit.
Now if you raise income taxes on people who have spent the last 20-25 years paying out a surplus of payroll taxes, you’re essentially asking those folks to repay themselves–in other words, to forgive the debt.
The income group that has benefitted from the payroll tax surplus has been the top income earners. Without the payroll tax surplus, their tax bill would have been correspondingly higher. If there’s an increase in income tax to be paid, it has to be the people with higher incomes who pay it.
It’s not “redistribution” to ask people to repay the money they have borrowed.
Here, I can make my point simpler:
We’ve been redistributing income upward for the last 20-25 years. We’ve been overpaying our payroll taxes and underpaying our income taxes. The prime beneficiaries of this have been high income earners who would have paid more income tax if the payroll tax surplus didn’t exist.
Now it’s time to repay the debt. That’s not redistribution.
“I think that when the government gets in the business of “spread(ing) the wealth around,” we all get screwed.”
And once again, the brain-damaged ignorance and collective amnesia of the wingnuts regarding the past 8 years rears it’s disgustingly ugly head.
First, what do you think taxes are? They are a redistribution of wealth. So unless you favor the total elimination of taxes altogether, and along with it, any sense of a functioning American government, then you’re a socialist.
Second, it is Bush and the Republicans who’ve nationalized or want to nationalize virtually the entire banking system. Hell, what would be left for Obama to nationalize? Bush has already expanded Medicare, created the largest government expansion since FDR, suspended habeas corpus, thrown American citizens in prison with no access to lawyers or the courts, authorized wiretapping with no oversight.
And you’re going to pretend that your panties are in a wad because someone making over $250K a year will have to pay 3% more in taxes?
Folks, this is just the beginning. Can you imagine what Timothy McVeigh would have blown up if his gang were feeling oppressed by a black man? Jay Tea and these other mouthbreathers haven’t read any serious books about history, or economics, or political science. Hell, they haven’t even read the conservative canon (Burke, von Hayek, etc.) If they read the first and second edition of “The Road to Serfdom” they would have to choke on their Cheetos– van Hayek, the ideological inspiration for Ronald Reagan, ENDORSES a welfare state. And let’s not even get into Schumpeter.
Everything Obama does will be magnified 1000X, without any regard for actual historical accuracy. Bush is going to nationalize some bank assets and they just sit there, blankly, shrugging.
So Jay thinks that comparing Obama to Mugabe is APPROPRIATE? AODS (Anti-Obama Derangement Syndrome) claims another victim!
[...] same! Don’t they know that God is dead, French symbolist poetry is boss, the Universe is an amoral and meaningless vacuum, and nothing matters except being racist and getting subsidized gay orgies from the [...]
“Cause, you know, they’re all black and we blacks all share the same thought process.”
Man, it has nothing to do with color. Why drop the race card? The parallel is socialism -> the redistribution of wealth. The happenstance of melanin is completely incidental here.
Please don’t cheapen your OWN opinion by linking things to race. Ignorance, by friend, is completely color-blind.