tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post5805278272156612096..comments2024-03-27T18:24:19.683-07:00Comments on Steve Sailer: iSteve: Two predictions about Obama's budgetsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger51125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-24421459035028475502009-03-03T09:09:00.000-08:002009-03-03T09:09:00.000-08:00DK, if you believe that you should support a flat ...DK, if you believe that you should support a flat tax.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-52413863411884670542009-03-02T23:53:00.000-08:002009-03-02T23:53:00.000-08:00Well, it does make a certain amount of sense, does...<I>Well, it does make a certain amount of sense, doesn't it? Then again, I live in NYC.</I><BR/><BR/>Adjusting taxation for cost-of-living would amount to nothing more than a taxpayer subsidy for real estate owners in high cost locales. People don't have to live in high cost places, and businesses don't have to locate there.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-59029699336886449492009-03-02T14:20:00.000-08:002009-03-02T14:20:00.000-08:00So, I predict that eventually, Obama will be tempt...<I><BR/>So, I predict that eventually, Obama will be tempted to try to adjust the tax code for the local cost of living: impose higher tax rates on the Oklahoma family making $150k than on the New York family making the same income.</I><BR/><BR/>Well, it does make a certain amount of sense, doesn't it? <BR/><BR/>Then again, I live in NYC.DKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03266121991724292663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-21158595841248424422009-03-02T11:01:00.000-08:002009-03-02T11:01:00.000-08:00rightsaidfred said...Since they believe that the r...rightsaidfred said...<BR/><BR/><I>Since they believe that the rich (themselves) should pay more, they do (Ronduck)<BR/><BR/>Paging Timothy Geithner.</I><BR/><BR/>I see your point, but these blue states constantly harp that we need a progressive income tax, while bitching that they pay more than the red states. In former times I would guess that the residents of those states would have been more honest, that honesty seems to be disappearing. Now these same people advocate for higher taxes for others, while evading those taxes themselves.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-51138147369281411472009-03-02T09:18:00.000-08:002009-03-02T09:18:00.000-08:00In my experience the WASPY high income parasites i...<I>In my experience the WASPY high income parasites in California are just as big a problem</I><BR/><BR/>No, they're far worse, for they have the IQ to do real harm. They're criticized all the time here as others have mentioned.PRCalDudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04536108855155262530noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-54551638218660519882009-03-02T06:41:00.000-08:002009-03-02T06:41:00.000-08:00Some corroborating data?From http://www.nytimes.co...Some corroborating data?<BR/><BR/>From http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/28/your-money/28money.html?ref=your-money<BR/><BR/>"It turns out, however, that many of them were already subject to pretty high taxes because they were paying the alternative minimum tax. Even if the new tax increases go into effect, the amount of taxes they owe may not change much, according to Clint Stretch, the managing principal of tax policy at Deloitte L.L.C. in Washington. That’s because the amount they owe under the regular income tax system, while higher under Mr. Obama’s plan, may not push them out of A.M.T. territory, he said.<BR/><BR/>But higher-income people in states with lower income or property taxes are more likely to pay bigger sums under the president’s proposals, depending on their income and deductions."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-14165142991782729042009-03-02T05:38:00.000-08:002009-03-02T05:38:00.000-08:00OT - it bugs me to no end to see Obama's paternal ...OT - it bugs me to no end to see Obama's paternal family relations <A HREF="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1158473/From-Bracknell-Kenya-Washington-First-picture-Obama-British-stepmother-inside-White-House.html" REL="nofollow">misrepresented</A>.<BR/><BR/>Kezia Obama is NOT Barack's "stepmother" -- nor is Sarah Obama his "grandmother".<BR/><BR/>I know we don't have a word for "grandpa's third wife in his polygamous marriage" (what do the Mormons say?), but I wish the press would be more accurate about his father's family structure.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-38403997590369827072009-03-01T20:28:00.000-08:002009-03-01T20:28:00.000-08:00Since they believe that the rich (themselves) shou...<I>Since they believe that the rich (themselves) should pay more, they do</I> (Ronduck)<BR/><BR/>Paging Timothy Geithner.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-7748451536779177752009-03-01T17:29:00.000-08:002009-03-01T17:29:00.000-08:00The largest net tax contributors are NJ, NY, CT; m...<I>The largest net tax contributors are NJ, NY, CT; many more are on the plus side.</I><BR/><BR/>Yeah, and is it any coincidence that those three states all happen to cover the New York City area? I'd wager 10-to-1 that in these studies of "net tax conributors" that taxes paid by businesses are credited to their HQ state. New York alone is headquarters to <A HREF="http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2007/states/NY.html" REL="nofollow">94 Fortune 500 companies</A>. Connecticut has 26 and New Jersey has 40. But does anyone really think that every employee (not to mention stockholder) of these 160 companies lives or works in those 3 states? My mother is retired from a Fortune 100 corporation that had its headquarters in Connecticut but maybe 2% of its employees there.<BR/><BR/>Moreover, I'd like to see that study of net tax contributors <I>this year</I>. Is New York gunna get charged with all the bailout money going to New York-based companies like Citigroup and AIG? Moreover, did New York get charged for the $50 billion it got for the 9/11 bailout? And, for that matter, shouldn't New York get charged for the $4 billion or so that goes to Israel every year?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-30085911629878245812009-03-01T11:51:00.000-08:002009-03-01T11:51:00.000-08:00Gene Berman said...The largest net tax contributor...Gene Berman said...<BR/><BR/><I>The largest net tax contributors are NJ, NY, CT; many more are on the plus side.</I><BR/><BR/>These same Blue states believe in progressive taxation. Since they live in expensive areas their they must earn more in order to have the same standard of living. Since they believe that the rich (themselves) should pay more, they do. Their higher contribution to the federal treasury is a direct result of their progressivism.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-80262622127253745402009-03-01T07:51:00.000-08:002009-03-01T07:51:00.000-08:00He will over-reach eventually- all dictators do.He will over-reach eventually- all dictators do.A Conservative Teacherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14310613238755513162noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-19898685399960409612009-03-01T06:56:00.000-08:002009-03-01T06:56:00.000-08:001) military spending - a result of many military b...<I>1) military spending - a result of many military bases having been first established in the winter of 41/42, and therefore in warm climates where you could do so easily; and also having been built in the wide open spaces. Defense spending also benefits the entire country.<BR/><BR/>2) Land management. The feds own huge portions of the Western states - for example, something like 80% of Nevada (now a blue state). A lot of this land could spin off more revenue if it were allowed to.<BR/><BR/>3) Ag spending. As a conservative I'll gladly give most of that back.<BR/><BR/>4) Welfare. Remember that otherwise very red states (in the South) have larger than average blue-voting populations who receive tons of welfare. You can't just look at the state - you have to look at the individual.</I><BR/><BR/>Good points. I agree with #2 and #3 especially. Farm subsidies need to go the way of the dodo. It's outrageous that the federal government owns as much of the West as it does. The government should sell off at least half of it's holdings in the West. Owning 80% or 67% of a state outright is ridiculous.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-44209345670427555332009-03-01T06:12:00.000-08:002009-03-01T06:12:00.000-08:00Anonymous:Every one of the things you point out is...Anonymous:<BR/><BR/>Every one of the things you point out is true; those are the correct explanations for the phenomenon.<BR/><BR/>But it's a waste. I wasn't making an argument against red states or conservatives but merely showing that the suggestion that Obama was going to tax the two differently (see kudzu bob) was an impractical<BR/>one and that the desire to reward his supporters/punish opponents would need to be accomplished via other means.<BR/><BR/>The pertinent map and distribution data appeared within the past 6 months or so over at GNXP; I'm almost positive that, at around that time, I commented both there and here with explanatory points<BR/>nearly identical to your own.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-66524469036917623802009-03-01T05:30:00.000-08:002009-03-01T05:30:00.000-08:001) Military spending -- Don't forget that the Blue...1) Military spending -- Don't forget that the Blue States are a bit more unfriendly towards the military compared to the Red States. You go where you're wanted.<BR/><BR/>3) Ag spending -- I think we would do well to keep this program in mind as Obama tries to spool up a mortgage bailout plan. The Ag subsidies started as an effort to help struggling farmers, but soon the Big Time Operators swooped in and now it's easy money for them. Also, direct payments to farmers is not that much in this day and age, 20 billion or so.<BR/><BR/>5) Income side -- also keep in mind that many profits remitted to headquarters in the blue states were earned in the red states.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-8122645881095560392009-02-28T22:52:00.000-08:002009-02-28T22:52:00.000-08:00He won't do that. He'll just make sure that the bl...He won't do that. He'll just make sure that the blue states get the money.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-52130530614438511712009-02-28T22:48:00.000-08:002009-02-28T22:48:00.000-08:00At present (and for most of the past), red states ...<I>At present (and for most of the past), red states are the major consumers of federal spending and blue states the major sources</I><BR/><BR/>I'd wager that the advantages of red states re: federal spending fall under 4 categories:<BR/><BR/>1) military spending - a result of many military bases having been first established in the winter of 41/42, and therefore in warm climates where you could do so easily; and also having been built in the wide open spaces. Defense spending also benefits the entire country.<BR/><BR/>2) Land management. The feds own huge portions of the Western states - for example, something like 80% of Nevada (now a blue state). A lot of this land could spin off more revenue if it were allowed to.<BR/><BR/>3) Ag spending. As a conservative I'll gladly give most of that back.<BR/><BR/>4) Welfare. Remember that otherwise very red states (in the South) have larger than average blue-voting populations who receive tons of welfare. You can't just look at the state - you have to look at the individual.<BR/><BR/>5) On the income side, the fact that business taxes are probably accredited to a businesses headquarters (often NY or CA) while at least some of the workforce is in red states.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-19197060907097527312009-02-28T16:05:00.000-08:002009-02-28T16:05:00.000-08:00"but also middle income parasites like the prison ..."but also middle income parasites like the prison guards who are mostly white, who extract from the public purse wages and benefits far above market"<BR/><BR/>Are you implying we ought not have prison guards? Or that the existence of prison guards INCREASES the criminality of NAMs?<BR/><BR/>Bah.<BR/><BR/>A free and open, non-vigilante society, run by the rule of law, requires public safety officers of high moral caliber, who are willing to endanger their own safety to ensure the safety of the rest of us.<BR/><BR/>If we don't pay our cops and prison guards sufficient income to live decently in CA, then the formerly well-paid, moral ones will leave for greener pastures. And the only people left to do the job will be people of low morals who are willing to supplement their low incomes as guards or cops with accepting bribes, graft and corruption.<BR/><BR/>No. We must pay our "sheepdogs" well, commensurate with their moral resistance to bribes and willingness to die, if necessary, to save the rest of us.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-61439163649225232142009-02-28T15:56:00.000-08:002009-02-28T15:56:00.000-08:00"waspy high income parasites."Certainly we have wa..."waspy high income parasites."<BR/><BR/>Certainly we have waspy high income parasites. We also have Jewish high income parasites.<BR/><BR/>We also have foreign parasites (foreign aid. Israel + Egypt get 1/3 of all foreign aid dollars.)<BR/>http://www.vaughns-1-pagers.com/politics/us-foreign-aid.htm<BR/><BR/>Byzantine Empire did a fabulous job of controlling its parasites and lasted something like 1000 years.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-45859239893134380852009-02-28T13:54:00.000-08:002009-02-28T13:54:00.000-08:00For those expecting new taxes that will tax "red s...For those expecting new taxes that will tax "red state" folks differently (and more heavily) than those in "blue" states, I don't think so.<BR/><BR/>At present (and for most of the past), red states are the major consumers of federal spending and blue states the major sources. My memory may be faulty (but not much) but I think I remember Alaska as being the only red-state net contributor, Texas as virtual break-even, and the rest of 'em as net consumers. The largest net tax contributors are NJ, NY, CT; many more are on the plus side.<BR/><BR/>What we might see as a tactic to accomplish much the same goal would be an elimination of some programs that are especially characteristic of the red states (agricultural subsidies, for instance or a round of closing of certain military bases, etc.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-36085652046558528362009-02-28T12:48:00.000-08:002009-02-28T12:48:00.000-08:00Steve, I am a businessman and I have to say that m...<I>Steve, I am a businessman and I have to say that many of the people that post here on this blog are not race realists but racists. The people that post here like to talk about the low income NAM parasites, but don't like to talk about the waspy high income parasites. In my experience the WASPY high income parasites in California are just as big a problem. So you have waspy lobbyists in Sacramento making a million a year, waspy lawyers suing everyone and everything that moves in California.</I><BR/><BR/>Tad! Biff! Muffy! Lawn parties in the Hamptons! Polo matches! Cravats!<BR/><BR/>(BTW, WASPs would never deign to set foot in such a vulgar place as California.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-83396084009768917542009-02-28T09:52:00.000-08:002009-02-28T09:52:00.000-08:00Steve, I am a businessman and I have to say that m...<I>Steve, I am a businessman and I have to say that many of the people that post here on this blog are not race realists but racists. The people that post here like to talk about the low income NAM parasites, but don't like to talk about the waspy high income parasites. In my experience the WASPY high income parasites in California are just as big a problem. So you have waspy lobbyists in Sacramento making a million a year, waspy lawyers suing everyone and everything that moves in California. The point is that California has a vast parasite class that goes beyond the NAMs</I><BR/><BR/>Do you even bother reading here much? You will see plenty of criticism of SWPLs on these pages.<BR/><BR/><I>the coalition includes the NAM welfare recipients that the people on this board love to hate, but also middle income parasites like the prison guards who are mostly white, who extract from the public purse wages and benefits far above market</I><BR/><BR/>Far enough above market to keep them out of the barrio? Because that's what matters. Public service unions (how's that for an oxymoron?) are parasites for sure, but one can understand their desire to stay out of the lousier neighborhoods. If they couldn't do so they, too, would flee CA.<BR/><BR/>Allow me to make my own predictions about the next 4 years under Dear Leader:<BR/><BR/>1) Unemployment will still be north of 8% come 2012.<BR/><BR/>2) The deficit will still be hovering around $1 trillion in 2012.<BR/><BR/>The faster Obama moves to get his socialist paradise, the more quickly things will fall apart. People today are used to short recessions. They'll blame Obama when it's still bad come 2012. Obama doesn't have the patience to boil the frog slowly.<BR/><BR/>Obama will effectively lose his governing majority in 2010. Republicans seem to be slowly getting their act together, with copious help from Obama.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-50678653271319159762009-02-28T09:15:00.000-08:002009-02-28T09:15:00.000-08:00who hate NAMs who happen to be insecure about thei...<I><BR/>who hate NAMs who happen to be insecure about their sexual inadequacies.<BR/></I><BR/><BR/>I didn't know NAMs were insecure about their sexual inadequacies.<BR/><BR/>Could be, I guess.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-49001237040689229892009-02-28T08:23:00.000-08:002009-02-28T08:23:00.000-08:00kudzu bob Good God, you're probably right that the...<B>kudzu bob</B> <I>Good God, you're probably right that the Obamazoids will try to tax Red states and Blue states differently. If that numbskull idea is ever implemented, then go long on canned goods and shotguns, because the breakup of America will be at hand.</I><BR/><BR/>KB, as I have been trying to tell people: This IS the breakup of America.<BR/><BR/>America is dead.<BR/><BR/>The USA couldn't have sustained the spending which a John McCain would have engaged in [we don't have the money to finance the retirements of the (largely childless) Caucasian Baby Boomers, much less the profligacy of the burgeoning armies of sub-literate third world peasants in this country], and the Zimbabwean fictions which Obama and Pelosi and Reid are pushing on us are simply surrealistic.<BR/><BR/>None of this will work - the house of cards will collapse, and collapse soon.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-28166720741535441982009-02-28T08:15:00.000-08:002009-02-28T08:15:00.000-08:00Mark: In America the welfare gap between whites o...<B>Mark:</B> <I> In America the welfare gap between whites on the one hand and blacks and hispanics on the other will be so huge that Americans won't be able to miss it. That's when the racial voting gap returns with a vengeance.</I><BR/><BR/><B>travis:</B> <I>Obama's base constituency, black folks, don't gain much if Obama wants to play that game. Southern governors can slash state budgets in areas like social services in retaliation. Mark Sanford is already doing that and refusing federal stimulus money on top of cutting the budget. Of course the Obama administration is attempting to bypass the state of South Carolina and give money directly to majority black counties.</I><BR/><BR/>I was perusing the Corner before I came over to iSteve this morning [I like to save the best for last], and I saw this Jonah Goldberg post, from yesterday afternoon [are we allowed to say "Jonah Goldberg" at iSteve? or is that grounds for censorship?]:<BR/><BR/><B>I Don't Want To Pay For It</B><BR/>by Jonah Goldberg<BR/>Friday, February 27, 2009<BR/>Posted at 9:11 AM<BR/><A HREF="http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZjBiYTZhMWQxMTY5NDc2MjE3YjNiMmEzOGVjYjkyYTA=" REL="nofollow">corner.nationalreview.com</A><BR/><BR/><B>I Don't Want To Pay For It Cont'd</B><BR/>by Jonah Goldberg<BR/>Friday, February 27, 2009<BR/>Posted at 5:58 PM<BR/><A HREF="http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTliNDM0NzE5YzM3ZmYxODBmYjI4ZTAwMmRkM2UyZTY=" REL="nofollow">corner.nationalreview.com</A><BR/><BR/><I>Oh, as for the email: <B>You stupid F*** I always knew you conservatives loved money and hated your country. Oh, and don't think we can't tell you don't want your money spent on black people.</B></I><BR/><BR/>And in addition to thinking how remarkably honest the leftists can be when they get all sarcastic and projectionist and hissy, I was also thinking to myself: Gosh, wouldn't it be kinda neat if Jonah Goldberg had the gonads to go on record and say, "You're God-damned right I don't want any of my money spent on black people!"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-76006275937703504112009-02-28T08:02:00.000-08:002009-02-28T08:02:00.000-08:00Moses: His 4 year debt will exceed Bush's 8 year d...<B>Moses:</B> <I>His 4 year debt will exceed Bush's 8 year debt.</I><BR/><BR/>At the rate he's going, Obama's one MONTH debt will exceed Bush's 8 year debt.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com