Bueller? Bueller?

All you need to know about Ben Stein in two simple words.

 

I wasn't very familiar with Stein, but always saw him as sort of a cranky but reasonable fiscal conservative. I've caught him on the radio a few times recently (he must be plugging something) and he is a full-fledged zombie wingnut !

Ben Stein is also a former speech writer for my old pal, Tricky Dick Nixon, who now works as a shill for the Intelligent Design clowns.

You've probably heard him selling the ID movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed".

I've heard he's on the short list for this year's Nobel Prize for his work refuting Darwinism. But word is he's going down. The odds makers in Vegas have their money on Bill O'Reilly for his work in ending racial strife in the US.

You've probably heard him selling the ID movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed".

- WORRIERKING / Thursday June 12, 2008 6:46:10 PM EDT

Yeah, a big part of his thesis is that Darwin (and scientists generically speaking) are disproportionately responsible for the Holocaust.

Thanks, WK. That is exactly what he was plugging, the movie about the liberal school system that didn't want magic taught as science.

I've heard he's on the short list for this year's Nobel Prize for his work refuting Darwinism.

Is Mark Rotten Levin submitting bogus Nobel Prize nominations again?  Like he did last year with Jeff Christie? 

I'd like to nominate Levin for a frontal lobotomy - then he'd only have to worry about which side of his mouth he's gonna drool out of each day......

No need for a lobotomy... he'll end up having a stroke on the air.

He was really losing it last night... just going absolutely nuts over the Supreme Court decision. I thought 'Yep, he's almost there! Just a couple more decisions like that and BAM!'

They know their days are numbered. When Obama takes the oath they will all collectively self-destruct.

Or these three:

 Richard Nixon speechwriter

Memo to KO, Rachel, Thom et al -- I sure hope this one gets within your sensor range.  He's a smart dude, but Ben Stein is way off base here.  And he knows better.  I know he's no tax lawyer, but he IS a lawyer, yes?  WPITW?

He also said that people making $250,000 are not rich in cities like NYC or LA, but they are even there.  The cost of living is undeniably higher there, but they'd still be rich.

Stein tried to say that he's all for really soaking people who are really rich in his estimation. He suggested $5 million I believe, and Paul Krugman patiently explained several times that we cannot raise enough extra revenue simply soaking those people, and that we need to raise the taxes on those who can best afford it, and that would include people who make over $250,000 a year.

Sue,

When will you and your liberal icons, like nutty Paul Krugman, realize that we don't base tax policy on how much people need.  Rich people have enough money so they won't miss higher taxes, it's not only idiotic policy but incredibly naive.  

Taxes must be raised to balance the budget (failure to recognize that is naive).  Taxes can be raised on either the rich or the poor.  Those are the only two options.

Or they could be raised on both the rich and the poor, depending on the definition of each of those.

Sue,

When will you and your liberal icons, like nutty Paul Krugman, realize that we don't base tax policy on how much people need.  Rich people have enough money so they won't miss higher taxes, it's not only idiotic policy but incredibly naive.  

 

• - tommy / Friday June 13, 2008 12:39:19 PM EDT

When will nuts like you realize that I'm not Sue?

We have to raise taxes sometime. Either it's on our shoulders to pay our way, or it will be an even greater burden on our children's shoulders years from now. In any event, taxes have to be assessed, and it has been the policy of the USA, and will continue to be the policy of the USA, that we tax the most to the people who can afford it the most.

Because we know that some people live paycheck to paycheck, most states don't tax food products. Because we know that lower income people barely get by, we tax them at a lower rate, and sometimes even give them tax rebates. Because we know that people with disposable income spend that income, when it came time to hand out stimulus checks, people making over $100,000 or so didn't get those checks. Those people were already spending. The US Govt wanted to get those people with lower incomes spending because we knew they need all their regular incomes just to survive.

If we have to raise taxes, the fairest thing to do is to tax those who have the most the greatest percentages of their incomes. If everyone had enough plus some extra, then we could tax everyone equally. That's not reality, and likely never will be, so we will always tax those who can afford it better a larger share.

Rich people, making in the upper hundred thousands or above, do have plenty of money and although they undeniably might miss the extra taxes, they'll still have plenty and it's fairer to soak them then it is to hit everyone. That's Christianity in a nutshell. That's community. That's communion. Tommy's philosophy is to each according to the size of his wallet, to themselves according to their own desires, not just their needs.

And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. (Acts 2:44-45) ... Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, and laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need. (Acts 4:34-35)

I will predict that within three years of the onset of the Obama Administration (if there is one this time around), that the top 50% of taxpayers in this country will see their income tax bill rise due to adjustments in the tax rates.

I will predict that should your prediction come true that most Ameericans will be alright with that when they don't have to worry about getting sick or losing their job.

I predict that the benefits of investing in green energy, education and mass transit will more than offset the conservative scare tactics of, aaaaaaghghhgghhh higher taxes.

Now, how is the Government going to insure that I never lose my job?

Are you kidding me? The same way the government will keep you from getting sick. ;)

Why didn't you ask how the government will insure that you'll never get sick? It's because you already know the answer, don't you?

Now, how is the Government going to insure that I never lose my job?---OTG

Insure is a strong word, but one thing the government can do is ease up on the reckless deficit spending of the spendthrift Republicans to help prevent a calamity in the economy---resulting in the loss of potentially many millions of jobs.

 

Yeah, market regulations that balance the game for the little guy and disallows reckless Wall St behavior are imperative.

I was actually thinking of unemployment insurance when OTG was taking the time to post his disingenuous question. But regulation works too.

Unemployment insurance is already in place. 13 weeks minimum, 26 weeks in places and someone is talking about adding another 13 weeks in some selected areas of high unemployment (not sure how "high" was defined, maybe 7%?). I've lost three jobs in my long career and I have never to this date collected unemployment, maybe because I was willing to do almost anything that paid more than unemployment would have (not very much more in a couple of instances, and not the most glamous job, but it was work and let to much better opportunities).

Good for you and good for me. I've lost three jobs and never drawn unemployment either, then again my wife works too. I'm lucky that way, not everbody is.

Still, that doesn't explain your disingenuous question about how the government will insure that you never lose your job. Face it you being a jerk for jerk's sake. It's cool, I ain't mad about it. Just be honest.

"I will predict that should your prediction come true that most Ameericans will be alright with that when they don't have to worry about getting sick or losing their job." Your words from above.

If I misinterpreted what you said vs what you meant in using the word "insure", then I apologize. I interpreted your words to mean we would have health insurance and a guaranteed job.

That's alright. It was an honest mistake. I apologize for being a jerk to you.

Surely, you must understand that all this fixed economy, socialist stuff that the hardline righties toss out there is deflection, distraction. So when you talk about guaranteed jobs you gotta realize it rings of that lazy minded, avoidance of economic discussion known as the socialist accusation.

Please forgive my vehemence. In my mind I equated health insurance and unemployment insurance, if that wasn't clear, it was probably my fault in this case.

I will grant you that the current crop of Republicans are spending way too much money, but outside of the war (which is "off the books") what would you cut back on??

Saying “outside of the war” is like asking Mrs. Lincoln how she enjoyed the show outside of her husband’s assassination.

But to answer your question, I’d slash military spending generally---close bases all over the world where we are playing policeman for countries doing a lot better than us financially right now in order to be able to beat our chests that “we’re number one” and provide a lot of profits and graft to the ghoulish military industrial complex.

Cutting the military budget in half would be foolish and would not balance the federal budget. Nice try.  Next.

You can support your opinion with more than your opinion, right?

Why would it be foolish to cut the military budget?

I'm guessing you're in favor of slashing domestic spending. If so, could you explain why it is not foolish to do so?

So Oscar thinks it's much more important to prop up the military spending so they can work for the citizens of other nations and cut domestic funding that helps AMERICAN citizens? Got it.

But wait! Propping up that military spending so that our forces stay in Eye-rack ALSO helps out all those contractors over there whose companies and their CEOs stay filthy rich too! So THOSE are the AMERICAN citizens that are supposed to be helped by all that military spending. Not even the troops themselves can gain access to all that wealth, considering that they are paid diddly squat and the facilities, such as Walter Reed, that are waiting for them when they return are in deplorable conditions.

So much for supporting the troops, huh?

RH, first to get on the same page, I think there needs to be a common definition of "cut" and "slash".  Could the military budget be cut? Certainly, Should it be slashed? I don't think so, how would Walter Reed get fixed, how would we adequately provide for the wounded veterans? Cuts to me mean something in the 5 - 15% range. Slashes over 25%. Could domestic spending be cut? Certainly. Should it be slashed? Only in very rare instances (would take some study, probably starting with dusting off the Grace Commission Report). You and Eddie can define cut and slash as you wish, but I think there is some common ground in our thinking.

We probably do have some common ground but you, not me and not eddy, are the one who mentioned cutting the military in half. So forgive my thinking that you would be alright with cutting domestic spending in half.

Eddie said "slash" so I used hypebole to say 50% was too much, but if Eddie is looking to balance the budget on the back of the military, 50% would fall into the range necessary to even come close. If Eddie didn't equate slash to 50%, he needs to come up with more examples.

Greetings from Torrey Pines....wish you where here.

 I have no doubt that a BO administration will raise taxes, but nobody seems to care that his plans are to raise the marginal tax rate to anywhere from 50 to 62 percent. That's completely outrageous.

completely outrageous and completely FALSE.

Uh, Dave, let's stick to what Obama has actually SAID instead of your ill-informed 'opinion'...

Here is an except of an interview Obama had on CNBC this past March:

"BARTIROMO: So what about the top marginal rate for ordinary income? Who ought to pay more and who should pay less?

Sen. OBAMA: Well, you know, what I've said is that we should go back to probably a top marginal rate of 39 percent what it was before the Bush tax cuts. So I would roll back those Bush tax cuts, I would not increase taxes for middle class Americans and in fact I want to provide a tax cut for people who are making $75,000 a year or less. For those folks, I want an offset on the payroll tax that would be worth as much as $1,000 for a family. Senior citizens who are bringing in less than $50,000 a year in income, I don't want them to have to pay income tax on their Social Security. And as part of my overall approach to housing, I actually want to provide an additional 10 percent mortgage deduction, a credit, mortgage interest credit, for those who currently don't itemize. Because if you live in a house that's pretty expensive, like I do, and I itemize, I get a pretty big break from Uncle Sam. If you own a $100,000 house and you're making 65, $75,000 a year, you're not getting that same deduction. I think that they deserve a break as well. That will actually help relieve some of the pressure on homeowners."

Show me where you see 50% to 62% in that piece.

And who was it that introduced the payment of income tax on SS earnings?

It doesn't matter who it was for his point to be valid.

The Republican President in office in the early 1980's listened to the bi-partisan Greenspan SS Commission and signed into law the taxation of some Social Security benefits to those making significant incomes while collecting those benefits. That money collected helped reduce the anticipated shortfall in benefits for future retirees.

That President also raised the SS tax rate and the ceiling on earnings in order to try to help "save" the program.  A later President raised the tax rate on SS earnings (in the 90s). The program as set up by FDR (look at the original rates, earnings ceilings, etc) was completely unsustainable and it still is. Sure it will live beyond the lifetime of the current crop of politicans (and most of us older citizens), but for a long time program from my children and grandchildren, as it currently is, it is unsustainable. Now BHO seems to have a plan, with a big donut hole in it, but if he is going to raise the threshold on wages that SS taxes will be collected on, will he also create a ceiling on SS payments (or in other words, require those earning over $250 Thousand will contribute but will only be able to base their future SS payments on the ceiling below the donut hole.)  Lots of unknowns in this plan.  But we will have to wait until November to see if it even has a chance of being considered.

To conservatives like Stein, when higher taxes force you to sell your never-used spare yacht, that's exactly as tragic as not being able to feed your children.

Assuming that spare yacht is wind powered, you better hold on to it and get rid of the fossil-fueled primary yacht.

Gotta love Ben Stein and Voodoo Economics. With McCain we would get Satan economics.

In 1930, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, in an effort to alleviate the effects of the… Anyone? Anyone?… the Great Depression, passed the… Anyone? Anyone? The tariff bill? The Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act? Which, anyone? Raised or lowered?… raised tariffs, in an effort to collect more revenue for the federal government. Did it work? Anyone? Anyone know the effects? It did not work, and the United States sank deeper into the Great Depression. Today we have a similar debate over this. Anyone know what this is? Class? Anyone? Anyone? Anyone seen this before? The Laffer Curve. Anyone know what this says? It says that at this point on the revenue curve, you will get exactly the same amount of revenue as at this point. This is very controversial. Does anyone know what Vice President Bush called this in 1980? Anyone? Something-d-o-o economics. “Voodoo” economics.

The highly respected Tax Policy Center's understanding of each candidates tax proposals as taken from their websites and public statements:

http://taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/election_issues_matrix.cfm

BS is mad, mad I tells ya, about rich people having to pay any sort of tax. Isn't their very specialness as rich folk enough to exempt them!

Actually on this show he said that he was fine with people making in the range of $5 million a year getting soaked.

So, incredibly rich beyond any value you add to the economy? Okay.

Well off enough ($250,000 or more) that you could share your bounty with others? Nope.

You people don't get it most of the democrats have no idea what a capital gains tax is. They few that do and are subject to it make up a small percentage of the party. So when the republican work this issue it's so no where with the voters because it doesn't affect them. Heck most make under 60k  a year they barely pay income tax.

 So when the republican work this issue it's so no where with the voters because it doesn't affect them.

Y ahora, en Inglés......

Sorry, no results were found.

 

While I don't watch or listen to anything titled "Fox News" which is certainly anything but news. I do get email from people who have and believe the BS that is thrown at them. I try to find sources and reroute their thinking but I'm really thinking that they are waiting to pounce on anything from Obama's camp because of their racist attitude.

I say we quadruple the tax rate on Ben Stein until he learns to shut his piehole.

How can such a great cartoon voice actor be so creepy otherwise (although that trait helps him with his pixie character in "The Fairly Oddparents")?