Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 14 of 14
  1. #11  
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    In the belly of the Beast.
    Posts
    32
    Can we go back to the old stand by of tar and feathers?
    RINO=>Neo-Con=>FDR Dem=>Old Leftist=>Progressive<=New Leftist
    Liberals are not stupid, they are deluded. Liberals must've had done something intelligent to get themselve ingrained into our society.
    I do not hate Liberals, I pitty them.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #12  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by ComplexConservative View Post
    Can we go back to the old stand by of tar and feathers?
    Maher is a Hollywood leftist. Tar and feathers are just another kink for him.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #13  
    Power CUer
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    10,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    I lived in California for eight years, and I know a number of people who vote that way, but let's be honest here. Bill Maher might have voted against the tax hikes, but he sure voted for the tax hikers, including Gerry Brown, and he's on the record as demanding that rich people who complain about taxes be vilified. In fact, he wrote a whole column about it for HuffPo (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-m...mm_ref=false):

    So, by Maher's own definition, he's a "ruthless" "greedy @$$hole" who was "lucky enough to be born in a country where a useless schmuck who contributes absolutely nothing to society can somehow manage to find himself in the top marginal tax bracket." Those are his hypocritcal words, and we should all make him eat them.

    Not only does he own it, he demanded it, and he also demanded that anyone who felt bad about it ought to be held up to public censure and ridicule. Let's start with him.

    Once again, Ody, he was talking about Federal taxes and was arguing for a repeal of the Bush tax cuts. The state of California is a different thing altogether. One's philosophy about Federal taxes, and paying a few percent more for national stability (he seems to see it that way), can be entirely different from one's philosophy about paying excessive state taxes (more than anyone else in the country) for the programs of a state legislature that is out of control.

    You are seeing "Taxes" as a general topic on which a person must have a consistent philosophy down the line, regardless of where these taxes are going. This is generally true of conservatives and liberals, but people like Maher (an "independent" who has never been a down the line liberal) are often selective in their beliefs on taxes.

    Even liberals who generally support taxation are becoming fed up with California, not only because of the excessive 10% overall income tax rate, and the 10% overall sales tax (give or take), but because of where that money is going. Maher has repeatedly complained about LA streets and freeways, which are in awful condition in many parts of the city. The rise in taxes is not going to fix the 101 freeway; it's not even going into education like the governor promised. It's going into overbloated pensions that will not benefit those paying the taxes in the least. Maher strikes me as someone who is ok with taxes as long as they are going back into the community for the good of everyone. My guess is that, even he can't stand the thought of paying more taxes for over-inflated prison guard pensions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #14  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
    Once again, Ody, he was talking about Federal taxes and was arguing for a repeal of the Bush tax cuts. The state of California is a different thing altogether. One's philosophy about Federal taxes, and paying a few percent more for national stability (he seems to see it that way), can be entirely different from one's philosophy about paying excessive state taxes (more than anyone else in the country) for the programs of a state legislature that is out of control.
    That is not what Maher said:

    Pointing at Virginia’s former Republican Congressman Tom Davis, Maher said, “You know what? Rich people – I’m sure you’d agree with this – actually do pay the freight in this country.”

    “I just saw these statistics,” he continued, “I mean, something like 70 percent. And here in California, I just want to say liberals – you could actually lose me. It’s outrageous what we’re paying – over 50 percent. I’m willing to pay my share, but yeah, it’s ridiculous.”

    Note that he said "country", not state. He's clearly talking about the combined federal and state bite (unless California has a 50% bracket that I'm not aware of). And, he talks about how the rich "actually do pay the freight in this country", citing the fact that the top 10% pay 70% of all taxes, which directly contradicts what he said two years ago:

    "Even 39% isn't high by historical standards. Under Eisenhower, the top tax rate was 91%. Under Nixon, it was 70%. Obama just wants to kick it back to 39 -- just three more points for the very rich. Not back to 91, or 70. Three points. And they go insane. Steve Forbes said that Obama, quote "believes from his inner core that people... above a certain income have more than they should have and that many probably have gotten it from ill-gotten ways." Which they have."

    If you go back and read his rant, Maher attacked Meg Whitman, the Republican candidate for governor of California. Do you doubt for a moment that he supported Brown? He voted for this, and he has made a career of throwing venom at anyone who didn't. And he's clearly not just talking about state taxes, but the total tax bite. It's his turn to be held up as a hypocrite.

    Quote Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
    You are seeing "Taxes" as a general topic on which a person must have a consistent philosophy down the line, regardless of where these taxes are going. This is generally true of conservatives and liberals, but people like Maher (an "independent" who has never been a down the line liberal) are often selective in their beliefs on taxes.
    Please don't tell me what I'm seeing. I know the difference between state and federal taxes, and I understand that there are things best done at the local, state or federal level, or that should not be done by government at all. Maher's complaint is that he's paying too much, not just to the state, but across the board, which directly contradicts his statements in his column.

    Maher is about as independent as the DNC. He calls himself an independent and libertarian, but he's about as independent as the DNC. He's always favored high progressive taxation, income redistribution, racial preferences, government funding of abortion, absolute gun control, bans on home schooling, animal rights activist (he is a board member of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) and the most radical environmentalism. He's not an independent. However, he is a hypocrite. He favors high progressive taxes and income redistribution until it's his income that's being redistributed. He's a global warming crank who lives in a mansion, drives around in limos and lives a lifestyle whose carbon footprint is up there with Al Gore's and he's a feminist who flagrantly insults women in the most vulgar possible terms. The guy has no moral compass, just a bunch of positions that make him feel good about himself at our expense.

    Quote Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
    Even liberals who generally support taxation are becoming fed up with California, not only because of the excessive 10% overall income tax rate, and the 10% overall sales tax (give or take), but because of where that money is going. Maher has repeatedly complained about LA streets and freeways, which are in awful condition in many parts of the city. The rise in taxes is not going to fix the 101 freeway; it's not even going into education like the governor promised. It's going into overbloated pensions that will not benefit those paying the taxes in the least. Maher strikes me as someone who is ok with taxes as long as they are going back into the community for the good of everyone. My guess is that, even he can't stand the thought of paying more taxes for over-inflated prison guard pensions.
    How does he strike you that way, when his actual words directly contradict that? Maher isn't upset about California's wastrel spending, he's upset because he's suddenly having to pay more, much more, under the Democrats at every level that he spent millions of dollars of his own money to put into office and keep there. He's a hypocritical windbag and I really don't understand your defense of him.
    Last edited by Odysseus; 03-19-2013 at 11:14 AM.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •