Support




Contact
Powered by
Movable Type





Majority of Fortune 500 CEOs Prefer Clinton over Trump

I've long pointed to the corporate class as a key weakness in the GOP. They have outsized influence due to their money. They're also extremely liberal, living in a very secular, urban, liberal-moderated culture and generally having liberal wives and even more liberal side-pieces.

Yet they get to bully the GOP around and demand we import more and more new Democrat voters every year, and sell out every single GOP agenda item for the Holy Grails of lower corporate tax rates and the Ex-Im Bank.

Fifty-eight percent of the CEOs said they would support Clinton, the front-runner for the Democratic nomination, while 42 percent would support Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, according to a survey conducted last month by Fortune and released on Wednesday.

"Big company CEOs tend to lean heavily Republican," the survey said.

I'm in a populist sort of mood and wouldn't mind this class getting exactly what they're voting for -- and then some.

Let's stop protecting them from the confiscatory personal tax rates they're voting for when they donate to Democrats. If they're fine with such rates, why shouldn't we be?

Posted by: Ace at 12:26 PM




Comments

(Jump to bottom of page)

1 Burn them all.

Posted by: VA GOP Sucks at June 01, 2016 12:27 PM (PFy0L)

2 I hate those bastards.

Posted by: chiefjaybob, who hates everyone at June 01, 2016 12:29 PM (bpMkq)

3 Let's stop protecting them from the confiscatory personal tax rates they're voting for when they donate to Democrats. If they're fine with such rates, why shouldn't we be?

-----------

Because good conservatives will get caught up in those rates too.

Posted by: SH at June 01, 2016 12:29 PM (gmeXX)

4 Wouldn't be prudent!

Posted by: Hrothgar at June 01, 2016 12:30 PM (40JWi)

5 Burn them all.

Posted by: VA GOP Sucks at June 01, 2016 12:27 PM (PFy0L)




I prefer mine medium well.

Posted by: Country Singer at June 01, 2016 12:30 PM (uiwCw)

6 We're fucked.

Posted by: holygoat at June 01, 2016 12:30 PM (DbBV5)

7 "Big company CEOs tend to lean heavily Republican," the survey said.
That's odd because I've seen polling data that shows that really, really rich people are overwhelmingly Dems.

Posted by: andycanuck at June 01, 2016 12:30 PM (PLnZs)

8 Let's stop protecting them from the confiscatory personal tax rates they're voting for when they donate to Democrats. If they're fine with such rates, why shouldn't we be?


Unless they "stop" them from off-shoring their wealth, they won't care...

Posted by: donna at June 01, 2016 12:30 PM (O2RFr)

9

/nod

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at June 01, 2016 12:30 PM (qCMvj)

10 It's not just the personal tax rates, it's the corporate, too. I haven't talked to a lefty yet that didn't want corporate rates shot through the roof. Which is nothing but overhead the consumer's going to pay, anyways.

Posted by: Chupacabra at June 01, 2016 12:30 PM (W2YA6)

11 ^ Yep.

I've been done with the corporate class bullshit for awhile. "Hey, we need unlimited immigration as border restrictions poll bad at 47% in favor."

Know what polls worse? Tax breaks for these assholes we keep fighting for.

Posted by: Jollyroger at June 01, 2016 12:31 PM (t06LC)

12 You misspelled "nood", artisanal'ette; and wrong thread!

Posted by: andycanuck at June 01, 2016 12:31 PM (PLnZs)

13 They see Dems as the best guv'mint money can buy.

Posted by: Diogenes at June 01, 2016 12:31 PM (08Znv)

14 I don't understand? Fifty-eight percent prefer Hillary but the lean heavily Republican?

Posted by: Ricardo Kill at June 01, 2016 12:31 PM (LA7Cm)

15 The Sociopathic Party.

Posted by: GasperGoo at June 01, 2016 12:31 PM (Si9ix)

16 Of course! Keep that gravy train running. If 'feel the Bern' were the nominee, they'd feel the same way for him.

The problem with a liberal or a socialist (I repeat myself) is that this country is already obligated for $200 trillion. Before the next president's term is up, servicing the debt alone (excluding the off book obligations) will be the single greatest outlay of the government.

Posted by: Mr Macca Bean at June 01, 2016 12:31 PM (4ng05)

17 I think this criticism is probably misguided. Big business hates change, needs stability, not disruption. Plus, without Democrats to blame for their poor performance, how do you expect them to keep their phony-baloney jobs?

Posted by: spongeworthy at June 01, 2016 12:32 PM (mrfTe)

18 I'm starting to get back on the "let it burn" train...

Posted by: donna at June 01, 2016 12:33 PM (O2RFr)

19 I lowered my cable bill to zero, years ago, using this one weird trick.

Posted by: scoville at June 01, 2016 12:34 PM (0adl+)

20 bingo

Posted by: Ben H at June 01, 2016 12:34 PM (gJEsZ)

21 The problem with a liberal or a socialist (I repeat myself) is that this country is already obligated for $200 trillion. Before the next president's term is up, servicing the debt alone (excluding the off book obligations) will be the single greatest outlay of the government.



$220 - $230 trillion PLUS $20 trillion in debt.

Posted by: rickb223 at June 01, 2016 12:34 PM (tu/2g)

22 The nearly $1 trillion bailout went somewhere. The $1 trillion stimulus went somewhere. Examining large corporate support for candidates would probably give a pretty clear indication of where that money went.

Posted by: Mr Macca Bean at June 01, 2016 12:34 PM (4ng05)

23 For Gope, there is no god but the Chamber of Commerce, and illegal mexicans are its profit.

Posted by: BurtTC at June 01, 2016 12:35 PM (TOk1P)

24
Flaming pineapple wrapped in barbed wire, stuck on end of equally flaming diseased clown boner, insert, 1 each, daily or as directed.

Posted by: In Vino Veritits at June 01, 2016 12:35 PM (E49J+)

25 18 I'm starting to get back on the "let it burn" train...
Posted by: donna at June 01, 2016 12:33 PM (O2RFr)



In all honesty, we ain't voting our way out of this.

Posted by: rickb223 at June 01, 2016 12:35 PM (tu/2g)

26 They have theirs.
Their kids were put into the right schools.
They don't feel any pain.

Why should they take a chance with changes?

Posted by: rd at June 01, 2016 12:35 PM (v0YLX)

27 David French, I like. But these large company CEO's? Hate 'em.

Posted by: MTF, Amity and Enmity at June 01, 2016 12:35 PM (/m8T6)

28 Welfare leeches and Fortune 500 CEOs loves them that sweet, sweet free government money.

Posted by: Anonosaurus Wrecks at June 01, 2016 12:35 PM (Nwg0u)

29 The problem with a liberal or a socialist (I repeat myself) is that this country is already obligated for $200 trillion.

---------

To be clear, we are only obligated on $20 trillion - a huge number on its own. The other unfunded liabilities are liabilities that do not have to be paid.

Posted by: SH at June 01, 2016 12:36 PM (gmeXX)

30 They want Hillary because they know she's for sale. They want the Democrats because they know that that's where the corporatist dollars are. They might prefer the Republicans ideologically but the Democrats will feed them from the public trough.

(I'm talking about corporations above a certain size; once you get that big you're more concerned with continuation than with innovation and so government is your ally.)

Posted by: joncelli, Bridge Troll and Crossbow Afficianado at June 01, 2016 12:36 PM (L7t0A)

31
New campaign ad:

6 out of 10 Fortune 500 CEOs prefer Hillary Clinton.
Who's in your wallet?

Posted by: @votermom at June 01, 2016 12:36 PM (7lVbc)

32 " I'm starting to get back on the "let it burn" train..."


As you said above, maybe we oughta just give 'em what they want. Vote for that? Fine. Here you go, real good and hard.

Posted by: Ricardo Kill at June 01, 2016 12:36 PM (LA7Cm)

33 The debt, we could get out of.

The obligations? Forget about it, nothing's fixing that without a full reset.

Posted by: Chupacabra at June 01, 2016 12:36 PM (W2YA6)

34 The debt, we could get out of.

The obligations? Forget about it, nothing's fixing that without a full reset.

-----------

Its the other way around.

Posted by: SH at June 01, 2016 12:37 PM (gmeXX)

35 So, Liberal, Socialist, Progressive, Republican...anyone want to point out the differences?

Posted by: scoville at June 01, 2016 12:37 PM (0adl+)

36 What we need are "knowledge transfers" to repair all of this.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/hm3fceg

Posted by: andycanuck at June 01, 2016 12:37 PM (PLnZs)

37 They don't know what Trump will do. Everyone knows Hillary can easily be bought. Bet on the sure thing.

Posted by: brak at June 01, 2016 12:38 PM (MJuTN)

38 Majority of Fortune 500 CEOs Prefer Clinton over Trump

so do the Saudi's from what I've seen so far

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at June 01, 2016 12:38 PM (qCMvj)

39 35 So, Liberal, Socialist, Progressive, Republican...anyone want to point out the differences?

Nah... they all suck...

Posted by: donna at June 01, 2016 12:38 PM (O2RFr)

40 Gee, why would so many CEOs prefer an amoral useless husk of a person like Cankles?

**
Clinton seemingly helped a major corporate donor secure a visa from the State Department during her first year in office.
She asked one of her aides in September 2009 to check on the "status" of a visa for an executive at Blackstone Group.
Clinton wrote to the aide that Steve Schwarzman, Blackstone's CEO, had "wanted help on a visa" and that her chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, had already been approached about securing it.
The Blackstone Group donated between $250,000 and $500,000 to the Clinton Foundation, donor records show.

Posted by: Azathoth at June 01, 2016 12:38 PM (kOpiy)

41 >>"Majority of Fortune 500 CEOs Prefer...


...the candidate with the proven, well-known method for buying influence.

They don't want some wild card who's gonna mess up what they've had going with Obama and the Clinton Global Initiative, thankyouverymuch!!

Posted by: Lizzy at June 01, 2016 12:38 PM (NOIQH)

42 Not practically, SH.

What happens when 50 million people get their pensions shut off?

Posted by: Chupacabra at June 01, 2016 12:38 PM (W2YA6)

43 The nearly $1 trillion bailout went somewhere. The
$1 trillion stimulus went somewhere. Examining large corporate support
for candidates would probably give a pretty clear indication of where
that money went.

Posted by: Mr Macca Bean at June 01, 2016 12:34 PM (4ng05)


And oddly enough SOMEBODY has been hinting at asking those very questions... I can't quite place his name, it's on the tip of my tongue. Starts with the letter T, I think.

Posted by: BurtTC at June 01, 2016 12:38 PM (TOk1P)

44 and the Ex-Im Bank.

Incidentally, what is Trump's position on the Ex-Im Bank?

Posted by: chemjeff at June 01, 2016 12:38 PM (uAvJJ)

45 But NORK's Dear Leader likes Trump, so there's that...

Posted by: scoville at June 01, 2016 12:39 PM (0adl+)

46 I'm a little sick of people who talk out of both sides of their asses and then try to make us the dupes.

I don't care what party they support.

Posted by: Marcus T at June 01, 2016 12:39 PM (O0lVq)

47 But NORK's Dear Leader likes Trump, so there's that...

That did make Me laugh...

Posted by: donna at June 01, 2016 12:39 PM (O2RFr)

48 Big business hates change, needs stability, not disruption.

Posted by: spongeworthy at June 01, 2016 12:32 PM (mrfTe)

Over the past six months what percentage of the average CEO's time would you guess has been spent talking about bathroom policies? I can guaranty it is not a trivial amount. The Left does not leave anything alone and CEOs have to react to it, too. The reason they support the Left is because they are Left, they just don't want to be the ones to pay for everything.

Posted by: Emmett Milbarge at June 01, 2016 12:39 PM (nFdGS)

49 Reality check. Large, mega-corporations, not politicians or "we the people", run this country now. It's one of the reasons we have the electoral chaos we're seeing now.

They don't care if the country is socialist or a Constitutional Republic, as long as their business is sustained.

Posted by: Soona at June 01, 2016 12:39 PM (Fmupd)

50 To be clear, we are only obligated on $20 trillion - a huge number on its own. The other unfunded liabilities are liabilities that do not have to be paid.
Posted by: SH at June 01, 2016 12:36 PM (gmeXX)

And I'm almost certain that "full faith and credit" would survive if it isn't. Unfunded liabilities are the IOU's written against Social Security and other so-called entitlement programs that people have paid into expecting the government to keep its word. The government spent that money on other things, but that does not absolve it of its obligation to the people who paid into those programs in good faith.

Posted by: Mr Macca Bean at June 01, 2016 12:40 PM (4ng05)

51 I believe that, in the case of these Fortune 500 companies (and businesses in general) they believe that if they gave the Democrats just enough money- some nebulous amount that they think they just haven't reached yet- then the Democrats would be nice to them and leave them alone. Hillary has already bilked $21 million from that crowd in the last couple of years alone. Kind of reminds me of the Vladimir Lenin quote "The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we hang them."

Posted by: DaveKinNC at June 01, 2016 12:40 PM (/NgNT)

52 Majority of Fortune 500 CEOs Prefer Clinton over Trump
***
Well of course, most of the companies they head are in the business of leveraging insider connections and Clinton is the ultimate insider.

For a relatively small bribe to Clinton they can keep the good time rolling.

On a related note, I'm of the mood that we get the few conservatives in congress to agitate for a $25/hr minimum wage and a 90% top tax bracket if Hillary wins...

Posted by: 18-1 at June 01, 2016 12:40 PM (X7E8f)

53 For some deluded reason, our betters think that importing a bunch of no skill workers and layabouts is a great long term plan.

Their lawns and pools will look nice. And they don't need to pay much.

Posted by: rd at June 01, 2016 12:40 PM (v0YLX)

54 Not practically, SH.

What happens when 50 million people get their pensions shut off?

---------------

Depends on who the 50 million are? We aren't going to shut off Boomer pensions, but will shut off (or at least shrink) millenial pensions.

Posted by: SH at June 01, 2016 12:40 PM (gmeXX)

55 Dinesh D'Souza's new movie (Megan Kelly was talking about it last night) is called "Hillary's America"" and it'll cover the sell-out of the country you can expect when she is elected.

Freedom goes first.

Posted by: MTF, Amity and Enmity at June 01, 2016 12:40 PM (/m8T6)

56 Let it burn....

**
In the same email from September 2009, Clinton asked her aide to help another corporate donor, Honeywell, with some export regulations that were hampering Honeywell's bottom line.
The former secretary of state said David Cote, the CEO of Honeywell, had personally requested assistance, but the exact favor he asked of Clinton's team was redacted by the State Department.
"He also complained about export control regs that interfere w sales," Clinton wrote of Cote. "He said the State Dept is the holdup."
Honeywell not only gave to the Clinton Foundation and officially lobbied the State Department, it contributed heavily to a political project dear to the secretary: the U.S. pavilion at the 2010 world's fair in Shanghai.

Posted by: Azathoth at June 01, 2016 12:40 PM (kOpiy)

57 In all honesty, we ain't voting our way out of this.
Posted by: rickb223 at June 01, 2016 12:35 PM (tu/2g)
__________________________________


I'm stealing this for T-shirts.. just so you know.

Posted by: IP at June 01, 2016 12:40 PM (aQQbl)

58 "Let's stop protecting them from confiscatory tax rates ..."

Because my fellow elites are subject to the law, just like you peons!

Posted by: Hillary Rodham at June 01, 2016 12:40 PM (XnRn2)

59 So, Liberal, Socialist, Progressive, Republican...anyone want to point out the differences?

-
It's like syphilis, gonorrhea, herpes, and HIV. Some are worse than others but they're all bad.

Posted by: Anonosaurus Wrecks at June 01, 2016 12:41 PM (Nwg0u)

60 The government spent that money on other things, but that does not absolve it of its obligation to the people who paid into those programs in good faith.

---------------

The government owes you no obligation to pay you social security or medicare. Even the Court has said that.

Posted by: SH at June 01, 2016 12:41 PM (gmeXX)

61 If they're fine with such rates, why shouldn't we be?

Because they aren't going to end up paying them, and we are.

Unless it's tied to a very simplified tax system that is guaranteed to stay simple, they have the lawyers and we don't.

Posted by: Stephen Price Blair at June 01, 2016 12:42 PM (2lndx)

62
Big Corpoate CEO's are Big Government Teat Suckers and Sycophants, you say?

Posted by: Misheard Lyrics Guy at June 01, 2016 12:42 PM (rCQo0)

63 The government owes you no obligation to pay you social security or medicare. Even the Court has said that.

Posted by: SH at June 01, 2016 12:41 PM (gmeXX)

BINGO

Posted by: chemjeff at June 01, 2016 12:42 PM (uAvJJ)

64 New campaign ad:

6 out of 10 Fortune 500 CEOs prefer Hillary Clinton.
Who's in your wallet?
Posted by: @votermom at June 01, 2016 12:36 PM (7lVbc)


nice

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at June 01, 2016 12:43 PM (qCMvj)

65 So, Liberal, Socialist, Progressive, Republican...anyone want to point out the differences?

Posted by: scoville at June 01, 2016 12:37 PM (0adl+)


Honest answer: Liberal doesn't really belong on that list. It was always misused by the left.

Posted by: BurtTC at June 01, 2016 12:43 PM (TOk1P)

66
Their lawns and pools will look nice. And they don't need to pay much.
***
They want to live in Brazil...and candidate Hillary will finish the transformation Obama started...

Posted by: 18-1 at June 01, 2016 12:43 PM (X7E8f)

67 I'm in a populist sort of mood and wouldn't mind this class getting exactly what they're voting for -- and then some.

Let's stop protecting them from the confiscatory personal tax rates they're voting for when they donate to Democrats. If they're fine with such rates, why shouldn't we be?
Posted by Ace at 12:26 PM Comments



Because it will never happen to them or their companies, and they fuckng know it!

The whole point of an ever larger Federal Government is that companies can focus their lobbying in one place; DC.

Carve-outs, exemptions, tax credits, etc.
By time the "Tax The Rich" bill becomes Law, the only people effected by it will be medium sized companies made less competitive, and middle class tax-payers (cuz the money has to come from somewhere)

Posted by: OneEyedJack at June 01, 2016 12:43 PM (kKHcp)

68 It's a bullshit poll. Only 55 out of 500 surveyed execs responded.

Posted by: Thomas Dinsmore at June 01, 2016 12:43 PM (wALtj)

69

A comment over at the linked The Hill piece mentions the fact that all the large corps are globalists. Good point he/she made.

Big money, big world international money.

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at June 01, 2016 12:43 PM (qCMvj)

70 Reality check. Large, mega-corporations, not politicians or "we the people", run this country now. It's one of the reasons we have the electoral chaos we're seeing now.

They don't care if the country is socialist or a Constitutional Republic, as long as their business is sustained.



That has worked out so well for Argentina and Brazil...

Posted by: rd at June 01, 2016 12:43 PM (v0YLX)

71
"Big company CEOs tend to lean heavily Republican," the survey said.

Not in my experience. gonna have to prove thar

Posted by: ThunderB at June 01, 2016 12:44 PM (zOTsN)

72 Most CEOs of F500 companies....wait for it....didn't build it themselves. These large, well capitalized companies and their execs exist because of extensive government partnerships, tax havens, insider trading, politician buying, lobbyist palm greasing, quid pro quo, and extensive benefits. Bestowed by mostly the political class, F500 CEOs receive most-favored-citizen status. Of course their ideology will be aligned the Democratic party, which with the mantra of "fighting for the middle class," robs that class blindly and repeatedly. That's where the money is and every large business and politician from dog catcher on up knows this.

Posted by: Russkilitlover at June 01, 2016 12:44 PM (Gzdw4)

73
Sam Walton was probably a conservative and a good man. Sam Walton is long dead. And all of Sam Walton's kids and grandkids are Leftist shits.

Posted by: Misheard Lyrics Guy at June 01, 2016 12:44 PM (rCQo0)

74
ack

prove that

Posted by: ThunderB at June 01, 2016 12:44 PM (zOTsN)

75
I believe that, in the case of these Fortune 500 companies (and businesses in general) they believe that if they gave the Democrats just enough money- some nebulous amount that they think they just haven't reached yet- then the Democrats would be nice to them and leave them alone.
---------------------

The alligator will eat them last.

Posted by: iforgot at June 01, 2016 12:44 PM (pC96u)

76 1%ers prefer Liberal Democrat Clinton.

One million pot-soaked Occupy brains blown.

Posted by: Mr. Peebles at June 01, 2016 12:45 PM (nIGPZ)

77
In reality, most corporate CEO's and Celebrities are VERY soft targets... IYKWIM...

Posted by: Just Thinking Out Loud Guy at June 01, 2016 12:45 PM (wUxCw)

78


also CEOs and markets like predictability, even if its corrupt. They want to know the rules of the game

Posted by: ThunderB at June 01, 2016 12:45 PM (zOTsN)

79 The government owes you no obligation to pay you social security or medicare. Even the Court has said that.
Posted by: SH at June 01, 2016 12:41 PM (gmeXX)

Nothing good ever happens to countries that don't pay their debts.

Posted by: Mr Macca Bean at June 01, 2016 12:45 PM (4ng05)

80 It's not just the cheap labor the "Republican" and Chamber of Commerce folks demand we support--they will always, always, ALWAYS, support more and more government spending.

They get a cut, we get to bleed--they don't fucking care.

Posted by: RoyalOil at June 01, 2016 12:45 PM (77emZ)

81 >>>The $1 trillion stimulus went somewhere.


to government employees and the baseline, making it annually renewing, evergreen.

Posted by: x at June 01, 2016 12:46 PM (nFwvY)

82 They don't know what Trump will do. Everyone knows Hillary can easily be bought. Bet on the sure thing.
Posted by: brak at June 01, 2016 12:38 PM (MJuTN)

There is a lot of truth in that

Posted by: Nevergiveup at June 01, 2016 12:46 PM (zp+j1)

83 And all of Sam Walton's kids and grandkids are Leftist shits.
***
It is pretty clear that getting a large unearned windfall makes people lean left politically - look at most of the schmucks in Hollywood that draw big paychecks because of how they look instead of their actually abilities...

Posted by: 18-1 at June 01, 2016 12:46 PM (X7E8f)

84 These guys do not care about their tax rates. They have plenty of ways to avoid them. They support Big Government Dems and Nig Government Republicans because the more power government has, the more power is for sale. That's why so many of them give to both parties.

The idea that the GOP is the part of the rich has always been kind of a sick joke. Whoever wants more power in the hands of the few, that is the party of the rich.

Posted by: Tommy V at June 01, 2016 12:46 PM (Z0wOE)

85 The nearly $1 trillion bailout went somewhere. The
$1 trillion stimulus went somewhere.

-----

Question:

Did those continuing resolutions include repeat spending for the above?

Posted by: Bigbys Cellphone at June 01, 2016 12:46 PM (LorSp)

86 The GOP's slavery to big business has gained them what exactly?

I wouldn't mind seeing some populist reforms aimed at big business like say going after excessive CEO pay.

Just to make these Leftists CEO's squeal a bit.

Something like make CEO compensation packages have to be votes on by all shareholders.

So to get a $100 million dollar payday, you would need 51% of shareholders to vote on that.

Posted by: Maritime at June 01, 2016 12:46 PM (H8A77)

87 Classical Fascism: Support the State and you can do quite well.

The last thing most of the Fortune 500 companies want is a level playing field and the attendant competition.

Posted by: Mr. Peebles at June 01, 2016 12:46 PM (nIGPZ)

88 Off topic? You betcha, but perhaps significant:

Ladbrokes is reporting a big swing toward Brexit.

Posted by: MNW at June 01, 2016 12:46 PM (mgqr3)

89 Related. See Drudge Bezos is getting ready to exploit the Martians.

Posted by: Anonosaurus Wrecks at June 01, 2016 12:47 PM (Nwg0u)

90 67 I'm in a populist sort of mood and wouldn't mind this class getting exactly what they're voting for -- and then some.

Let's stop protecting them from the confiscatory personal tax rates they're voting for when they donate to Democrats. If they're fine with such rates, why shouldn't we be?
Posted by Ace at 12:26 PM Comments



Because it will never happen to them or their companies, and they fuckng know it!

The whole point of an ever larger Federal Government is that companies can focus their lobbying in one place; DC.

Carve-outs, exemptions, tax credits, etc.
By time the "Tax The Rich" bill becomes Law, the only people effected by it will be medium sized companies made less competitive, and middle class tax-payers (cuz the money has to come from somewhere)

Posted by: OneEyedJack at June 01, 2016 12:43 PM (kKHcp)


That is why a flat tax like Cruz proposed is popular with people that look at our system realistically. There is no eason the IRS code should be more than 10 pages long.

Posted by: rd at June 01, 2016 12:47 PM (v0YLX)

91 Pillage. Loot. Burn.

Posted by: Insomniac at June 01, 2016 12:47 PM (0mRoj)

92 Because the same people demanding "confiscatory personal tax rates" will put in loopholes for their donors and print money instead. Why does no one care about lawlessness within the government?

Posted by: Cindy Munford at June 01, 2016 12:47 PM (7Lm22)

93 And oddly enough SOMEBODY has been hinting at asking those very questions... I can't quite place his name, it's on the tip of my tongue. Starts with the letter T, I think.


Posted by: BurtTC at June 01, 2016 12:38 PM

Tonald?

Posted by: Russkilitlover at June 01, 2016 12:47 PM (Gzdw4)

94 I know! Increase congressional salaries to $10 million/year and entice those CEOs into Congress where they can fuck us directly instead of through middlemen.

Posted by: VA GOP Sucks at June 01, 2016 12:48 PM (PFy0L)

95 It's a bullshit poll. Only 55 out of 500 surveyed execs responded.

Only a meanie like Trump would point out the article is garbage.

Posted by: Ed Anger at June 01, 2016 12:48 PM (RcpcZ)

96 Nothing good ever happens to countries that don't pay their debts.
Posted by: Mr Macca Bean at June 01, 2016 12:45 PM (4ng05)
__________________________________________


It's just like what they say about socialism... It doesn't work but only because we've never tried it, we can do it the right way..

Posted by: IP at June 01, 2016 12:48 PM (aQQbl)

97
Change the tax code so that state delegations voting for new spending getting to pay the tax for it...and then do 0 baseline budgeting.

CA House Reps/Senators vote for HUD? They get to pay for HUD. SC votes against HUD? No tax for SC (at least for that line item).


Posted by: 18-1 at June 01, 2016 12:48 PM (X7E8f)

98 Did those continuing resolutions include repeat spending for the above?

-
I could tell you but then Hillary would have to kill you.

Posted by: Anonosaurus Wrecks at June 01, 2016 12:48 PM (Nwg0u)

99
hat's odd because I've seen polling data that shows that really, really rich people are overwhelmingly Dems.

Shhhhh, the whole purpose of the poll is to convince people Trump is drivng all the Republicans towards Hillary Clinton.

Posted by: Misheard Lyrics Guy at June 01, 2016 12:48 PM (rCQo0)

100 Bernie and Hill are the good cop - bad cop for CEOs. GOP think that all dems are bad cop, but it's not working out.

The donor thinks "I don't want you to be nice. I want you to be nice to me."

Posted by: BourbonChicken at June 01, 2016 12:49 PM (VdICR)

101 . Why does no one care about lawlessness within the government?

Because we're a Nation of sheep.. Slaves to what's"popular" now..... We want to be in, cool....

Posted by: donna at June 01, 2016 12:49 PM (O2RFr)

102 Nothing good ever happens to countries that don't pay their debts.

Posted by: Mr Macca Bean at June 01, 2016 12:45 PM (4ng05)

SS is not a "debt" in the same way that a bond or a loan is a debt.
SS is nothing more than a promise, a promise that the government can break at any time. Citizens have no legal standing to sue the government if it does not pay SS benefits.

Posted by: chemjeff at June 01, 2016 12:49 PM (uAvJJ)

103 Posted by: Bigbys Cellphone at June 01, 2016 12:46 PM (LorSp)

I think they did. More $$$$ for the crony class. The GOP went along, so they could pay off their donors.

Posted by: rd at June 01, 2016 12:49 PM (v0YLX)

104 The Hahvahd and Whahton Business SJWs love me!

Posted by: Ready For Hillary!!11!! at June 01, 2016 12:49 PM (vtcmf)

105 I find it funny when people say the GOP should be "Socially Liberal, fiscally conservative". That's basically what the donor class is. They're fine with legalized abortion, open borders, and other "socially liberal" policies, combined with low taxes.

Posted by: Colorado Alex at June 01, 2016 12:49 PM (LUG6K)

106 From pro-Trump hotbed, NRO:

Ex-Im: [Trump] called it "feather bedding," something that benefits just politicians and a "few companies" that could "do well without it," and "really not free enterprise." This is all quite correct -- and those who worry Trump's close ties to big business and fluency with obtaining favors from government (hello, eminent domain) can be a little more confident that he'll be pro-market, not pro-business.

Posted by: andycanuck at June 01, 2016 12:49 PM (PLnZs)

107 Ladbrokes is reporting a big swing toward Brexit.
Posted by: MNW at June 01, 2016 12:46 PM (mgqr3)


ain't going to help at this point
but, so interesting to see what happens there
in most times, it wouldn't past, but these are times like no other

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at June 01, 2016 12:49 PM (qCMvj)

108 I believe that, in the case of these Fortune 500 companies (and businesses in general) they believe that if they gave the Democrats just enough money- some nebulous amount that they think they just haven't reached yet- then the Democrats would be nice to them and leave them alone.

________

I used to believe that, but I think by in large, modern CEOs that live in urban, costal states are usually just very liberal. It's not payoff money.

Also, the type of industry that has exploded (tech) just seems to lend itself to more liberal outlooks than traditional "smokestack" type businesses that have far more regulation and interference.

Posted by: Maritime at June 01, 2016 12:50 PM (H8A77)

109 That is why a flat tax like Cruz proposed is popular with people that look at our system realistically. There is no eason the IRS code should be more than 10 pages long.

Posted by: rd at June 01, 2016 12:47 PM (v0YLX)


Sure there is. Its a jobs program for accountants, lawyers, and govt employees as well as a way for politicians to get unlimited donations for providing loopholes and carveouts.

Posted by: Jollyroger at June 01, 2016 12:50 PM (t06LC)

110 Dems take the outliers. Very rich, very poor, very educated, and uneducated.

Posted by: BourbonChicken at June 01, 2016 12:50 PM (VdICR)

111 Nothing good ever happens to countries that don't pay their debts.
Posted by: Mr Macca Bean at June 01, 2016 12:45 PM (4ng05)

---

Amen.

BTW, look at all this artwork!

Posted by: Veterans Administration at June 01, 2016 12:50 PM (rlfds)

112 It's just like what they say about socialism... It doesn't work but only because we've never tried it, we can do it the right way..
Posted by: IP at June 01, 2016 12:48 PM (aQQbl)

Right. New socialists are always the smart socialists. A couple hundred million people murdered to make that a reality attest to that.

Posted by: Mr Macca Bean at June 01, 2016 12:50 PM (4ng05)

113 83 And all of Sam Walton's kids and grandkids are Leftist shits.
***
It is pretty clear that getting a large unearned windfall makes people lean left politically - look at most of the schmucks in Hollywood that draw big paychecks because of how they look instead of their actually abilities...

***
Over time, I've come to believe this is rather accurate. From lottery winners to Trustafarians.

"Only the man who does not need it, is fit to inherit wealth, the man who would make his fortune no matter where he started."
-Ayn Rand

Posted by: Azathoth at June 01, 2016 12:50 PM (kOpiy)

114 SS is nothing more than a promise, a promise that the government can break at any time.

Yeah, no.

Legally, maybe. But the political reality trumps the legal argument. And the political reality is even talking about allowing citizens to manage a small percentage of their FICA in an individual account is enough to bring out the torches and pitchforks.

Posted by: VA GOP Sucks at June 01, 2016 12:51 PM (PFy0L)

115 The Democratic Party is, in fact, the party of the Fat Cats and the Klan.

It must be nice to own the State Media.

Posted by: Grump928(C) says Free Soothie!, with purchase of commenter of equal or greater value at June 01, 2016 12:51 PM (rwI+c)

116 ace your punitive instincts are sound, but surely you know (as pointed out by others again today) that they won't suffer from "what they're voting for".


As noted above, unless a very simple tax code is substituted for the disastrous national shame we now have, people of great means will always find little trouble in escaping the consequences of their voting.


It's not that you're wrong - it's just that this is a true dilemma with no direct solution. The tipping point was long ago reached where de facto collaboration with Big Govt. was the rational choice for many corporations. Direct consequence of huge govt. involvement in the economy.


The death of citizenship (mindset) is another factor. Compare/contrast the actions of insurance companies in 1993 with the same in 2009. No better more stark illustration of the calamitous sea-change.

Posted by: rhomboid at June 01, 2016 12:51 PM (QDnY+)

117

Imagine Trump appointing a "Lois Lerner" who goes after Soros and friends.

Follow the money trail.

The well-oiled corporate-political machine would get some poking from Trump, that's for sure.

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at June 01, 2016 12:51 PM (qCMvj)

118 That is why a flat tax like Cruz proposed is popular with people that look at our system realistically. There is no eason the IRS code should be more than 10 pages long.
Posted by: rd at June 01, 2016 12:47 PM (v0YLX)

And that right there is why those proposals have ZERO chance of ever being Law.

Too much money at risk for the monied class to risk.

Posted by: OneEyedJack at June 01, 2016 12:51 PM (kKHcp)

119 Don't you conservatives dare raise me! That would be against your principals! No-No-No! Trump-BAD! Romney-GOOD!

Posted by: Corporate Tax Rate at June 01, 2016 12:51 PM (10hEu)

120
Dems take the outliers. Very rich, very poor, very educated, and uneducated.
Posted by: BourbonChicken at June 01, 2016 12:50 PM (VdICR)
--------------------

[fuck-the-chumps smirk at the middle class]: Plenty more where they came from.

Posted by: iforgot at June 01, 2016 12:52 PM (pC96u)

121 88 Off topic? You betcha, but perhaps significant:

Ladbrokes is reporting a big swing toward Brexit.
Posted by: MNW at June 01, 2016 12:46 PM (mgqr3)

Somebody on Twitter pointed out that the same thing happened with Scottish independence and yet it failed.

Posted by: joncelli, Bridge Troll and Crossbow Afficianado at June 01, 2016 12:52 PM (L7t0A)

122 Because we're a Nation of sheep.. Slaves to what's"popular" now..... We want to be in, cool....
***
Most men don't want to be free, they merely want a fair master. And the media is very good at making the case as to just how fair any particular master would be...

Posted by: 18-1 at June 01, 2016 12:52 PM (X7E8f)

123 Let's stop protecting them from the confiscatory personal tax rates they're voting for when they donate to Democrats. If they're fine with such rates, why shouldn't we be?
Posted by Ace at 12:26 PM Comments


yeah but

1) It will not make that big a difference in the deficit
2) They will just learn to hide the money and more loopholes or move much like many did in france

Posted by: Nevergiveup at June 01, 2016 12:52 PM (zp+j1)

124 It's just like what they say about socialism... It doesn't work but only because we've never tried it, we can do it the right way..
Posted by: IP at June 01, 2016 12:48 PM (aQQbl)

Right. New socialists are always the smart socialists. A couple hundred million people murdered to make that a reality attest to that.

------------

Now I'm confused, are those of us who say SS will not be paid in full as promised now being compared to socialist for making the obvious point that a socialist program like SS cannot continue on in its current format?

Posted by: SH at June 01, 2016 12:52 PM (gmeXX)

125 My issue with Trump and the economy is the same I had with Obama. Uncertainty . Trump has shown he can and will change his positions at anytime. Businesses despise uncertainty .

i think a lot of CEOs look at that and Trump's comments on free trade and tariffs and are hesitant to support him.

Posted by: Joe Hallenbeck at June 01, 2016 12:53 PM (cJswI)

126 And I'm almost certain that "full faith and credit" would survive if it isn't. Unfunded liabilities are the IOU's written against Social Security and other so-called entitlement programs that people have paid into expecting the government to keep its word. The government spent that money on other things, but that does not absolve it of its obligation to the people who paid into those programs in good faith.


Unfunded liabilities = fed, state, county, & local pensions.

Don't pay people their retirement and watch a reset. You will be able to see the burn from the ISS.

Posted by: rickb223 at June 01, 2016 12:54 PM (tu/2g)

127 107

WHY "it ain't gonna help at this point"?

The polling was already close, & the election is a few weeks off.

I think it will help a lot.

Posted by: MNW at June 01, 2016 12:54 PM (mgqr3)

128 It's remarkable to me that the Trumpkins, almost to a man, blame National Review and the conservative press for being ineffective RINOs, when it's really the Boehner/McConnell wing of the GOP that has been pandering to the donor class and screwing conservatives for years.

Posted by: Hurricane LaFawnduh at June 01, 2016 12:54 PM (laMCB)

129 I find it funny when people say the GOP should be "Socially Liberal, fiscally conservative". That's basically what the donor class is. They're fine with legalized abortion, open borders, and other "socially liberal" policies, combined with low taxes.
Posted by: Colorado Alex at June 01, 2016 12:49 PM (LUG6K)

And low wages,
and laws for the little people.
And lots of regulations to strangle any up and coming competition.

Posted by: rd at June 01, 2016 12:55 PM (v0YLX)

130 SS is not a "debt" in the same way that a bond or a loan is a debt.
SS is nothing more than a promise, a promise that the government can break at any time. Citizens have no legal standing to sue the government if it does not pay SS benefits.
Posted by: chemjeff at June 01, 2016 12:49 PM (uAvJJ)

You know, this shit about the virtues of your government being able to shaft you our of money you paid in with the expectation that the government was safeguarding that money so it wouldn't have to foist the bill for your support in retirement on to the next generation, is probably not going to be that popular of an argument for most people.

But go ahead. Flow with it.

Posted by: Mr Macca Bean at June 01, 2016 12:55 PM (4ng05)

131 Inherited wealth is the greatest gift ever given to the productive, for it is the gift of time. To not have to start from scratch, indeed to start decades ahead of the self-made man is a bonus that few can appreciate and use.

Posted by: Grump928(C) says Free Soothie!, with purchase of commenter of equal or greater value at June 01, 2016 12:55 PM (rwI+c)

132 Don't pay people their retirement and watch a reset. You will be able to see the burn from the ISS.

--------------

I guess we are truly screwed. Can't repay it because don't have the money. And if we don't - complete revolt.

Posted by: SH at June 01, 2016 12:55 PM (gmeXX)

133 New socialists are always the smart socialists.

"I tremble for humanity when I reflect that the author of Animal Farm and 1984 remained socialist."--Stuff Lincoln Said, Vol. XIV

Posted by: Stephen Price Blair at June 01, 2016 12:55 PM (2lndx)

134 And the political reality is even talking about allowing citizens to
manage a small percentage of their FICA in an individual account is
enough to bring out the torches and pitchforks.
***
Well, if you presume the government will make sure a change in a straight forward manner.

For example, let's suppose the government pursues policies that cause 20% inflation year over year, and every year raises SS payout by 5%.

Would their be a political price to be paid? Especially if the State Media decided to help the government "hide the decline"?

Posted by: 18-1 at June 01, 2016 12:55 PM (X7E8f)

135 SS is not a "debt" in the same way that a bond or a loan is a debt.
SS is nothing more than a promise, a promise that the government can break at any time. Citizens have no legal standing to sue the government if it does not pay SS benefits.
Posted by: chemjeff at June 01, 2016 12:49 PM (uAvJJ)

You're confusing legal reasoning with reality. They may tweak it. They may debase the currency and not give inflation increases. But they are going to pay it. The only way they don't is if the gov't collapses. Not to pay it is a political impossibility. Not to pay it would be the collapse of the gov't.

Posted by: WOPR - Nationalist at June 01, 2016 12:56 PM (PfMGQ)

136 VA GOP, your words (re pitchforks) make sense on paper - er, on the screen.


But recall that just in the last two years, for the first time ever, a massive - massive - raid was made on Medicare (to "fund" the O-care catastrophe).


Just looked out the window. Nope, still no mobs with pitchforks.


And recall this raid was enacted by none other than the Dem Party, a party that, in some respects, would be a limited regional party except for the evergreen impact of its staple, outrageous, demagogic lies at election time: "Medi-scare".


It's dead, Jim.

Posted by: rhomboid at June 01, 2016 12:56 PM (QDnY+)

137 David French may well be a very good man, but he's being pushed as front man for a very bad idea.

It's time this would-be new nobility got the leash yanked really. Damn. Hard. And no, we're not voting our way out of this. Even the least nasty ways out will hurt a lot, and a lot of good, innocent people will get hurt as well, but the time to avoid that was long ago.

Posted by: Brother Cavil at June 01, 2016 12:57 PM (9krrF)

138 fucked with the barbed cock of satan, they should be

Posted by: Rick in SK at June 01, 2016 12:57 PM (/CIN4)

139 If they're fine with such rates, why shouldn't we be?

that's because they get Special Exceptions for themselves when they lobby.

we don't.

Posted by: WaldoTJ at June 01, 2016 12:57 PM (M1MpJ)

140 Don't pay people their retirement and watch a reset. You will be able to see the burn from the ISS.

--------------

I guess we are truly screwed. Can't repay it because don't have the money. And if we don't - complete revolt.
Posted by: SH



As I said, we ain't voting our way out of this.

THAT'S why that $220 -$230 trillion number is so important.
Don't pay and see what happens.

Posted by: rickb223 at June 01, 2016 12:57 PM (tu/2g)

141 Trump has shown he can and will change his positions at anytime.

Yeah I don't think we have a good read on that really....what he said before he was a candidate is really not relevant and he is still learning to be a politician, which is not necessarily a good thing. I mean you may be right, but right now that is mostly just supposition and guessing

Posted by: Nevergiveup at June 01, 2016 12:57 PM (zp+j1)

142 You know, this shit about the virtues of your government being able to shaft you our of money you paid in with the expectation that the government was safeguarding that money so it wouldn't have to foist the bill for your support in retirement on to the next generation, is probably not going to be that popular of an argument for most people.

But go ahead. Flow with it.

--------------

I don't think we said it was. But that doesn't make it true. The government is going to shaft everyone all at once. It will shaft people differently and at different stages. In fact, I'm all in favor of means testing. Once a big enough group realizes it is getting the shaft, that group will be less likely to support SS, and it will become less popular. For now, so long as everyone is getting SS, it remains a very popular program that we all know cannot sustain itself on its current trajectory.

Posted by: SH at June 01, 2016 12:57 PM (gmeXX)

143 Let's stop protecting them from the confiscatory personal tax rates they're voting for when they donate to Democrats. If they're fine with such rates, why shouldn't we be?
Posted by Ace at 12:26 PM Comments


yeah but

1) It will not make that big a difference in the deficit
2) They will just learn to hide the money and more loopholes or move much like many did in france
Posted by: Nevergiveup




No, not really.

You can easily find ways to jack up their taxes, like say after $5 million you have to pay a regular income tax instead of the lower capital gains rate.

I don't "believe" in higher taxes on the ultra wealthy, but it's clear this is an issue that conservatives get pumelled on every year and keeps us from achieving broader tax reform for most Americans.

So I have no issue with say a really high "billionaire" tax on the Soros, Zuckerbergs, and Buffetts of the world.

The Wall Street loophole also needs to go where hedge fund managers just pay the capital gains tax rate. Soros shouldn't be paying a lower tax rate than a welder.

Posted by: Maritime at June 01, 2016 12:57 PM (H8A77)

144
I lowered my cable bill to zero, years ago, using this one weird trick.
Posted by: scoville


Are you the guy who judges peppers?

Posted by: Bertram Cabot Jr. at June 01, 2016 12:57 PM (k4M/B)

145 And yet for ages people have wondered why during a revolution the first people to go are from the industrious gentry class...

Posted by: Marcus T at June 01, 2016 12:57 PM (O0lVq)

146 Something like make CEO compensation packages have to be votes on by all shareholders.

So to get a $100 million dollar payday, you would need 51% of shareholders to vote on that.

Posted by: Maritime at June 01, 2016 12:46 PM (H8A77)


Would not make a difference. Shares in these companies are mostly owned by pension and investment funds, which regularly rubber-stamp outsized compensation packages for their golfing and drinking buddies. The percentage of shares owned by small investors is nil.

Posted by: HTL at June 01, 2016 12:58 PM (hhBXE)

147 I'm in a populist sort of mood and wouldn't mind this class getting exactly what they're voting for -- and then some.


Yup.

Here's the thing. I get why CEOs would support Big Government. Their companies get the contracts. Competition is the enemy to them. Of course they don't want deregulation and the destruction of barriers to market entry. In fact, supporting the same would be a breach of the fiduciary duty to the shareholders to maximize profits.

Take Austin and the ban on Uber and Lyft. Well, now there's some noise about oh well we'll deregulate and all that stuff. Needless to say, I'm all for that. Here's the but. But. Taxi medallions are damn expensive. Depending on city, you're talking hundreds of thousands of dollars, not including the graft. It's simple human nature that if I paid for my place at the table, I'll slit your throat when you try to slide in for free.

My solution? Give the taxi drivers their money back.

Everyone protects their own turn. See re: human nature.

I cannot believe that I have to point out human nature to the GOP. THIS IS HOW STUPID YOU ARE, STUPID PARTY!


Posted by: alexthechick - All The Whatever Hands at June 01, 2016 12:58 PM (mf5HN)

148 How dare you Republican primary voters pick Trump! You have betrayed us! You unwashed masses are suppose to stand united behind us CEOs and our liberal social issues plus not taxing us!

Why yes, we did donate to Hillary, Obama, Kerry, Gore, and Clinton! And yes we would like to donate even more the the #Ready4Hillary SuperPAC! How did you know?

Posted by: CEOs at June 01, 2016 12:58 PM (10hEu)

149 I only harbor ill will toward the mega-corporations like Comcast, Google, etc. They are the ones that are trying to change the constitutional landscape. Oh, and the CoC. They need their clock cleaned too.

Posted by: Soona at June 01, 2016 12:58 PM (Fmupd)

150
You know, this shit about the virtues of your
government being able to shaft you our of money you paid in with the
expectation that the government was safeguarding that money so it
wouldn't have to foist the bill for your support in retirement on to the
next generation, is probably not going to be that popular of an
argument for most people.



But go ahead. Flow with it.

Posted by: Mr Macca Bean at June 01, 2016 12:55 PM (4ng05)

I don't WANT government in charge of retirement. And THIS is why. I don't consider it a virtuous thing that government can revoke people's SS checks on a whim.

I would rather see SS privatized. Wouldn't you?

Posted by: chemjeff at June 01, 2016 12:58 PM (uAvJJ)

151 when it's really the Boehner/McConnell wing of the GOP that has been
pandering to the donor class and screwing conservatives for years.
***
If NRO was a conservative outfit, they would have led the effort to get rid of the Boehner/McConnell/Hastert/etc cohort - remember they were one of the biggest voices in the conservative media until the last few years.

They didn't. In fact they generally led the effort to keep conservatives voting for the current leadership because they were getting fat and lazy working with it.

Posted by: 18-1 at June 01, 2016 12:58 PM (X7E8f)

152 A Canadian accused of torturing, disfiguring and ultimately killing his girlfriend in their West Hollywood apartment last week could be put to death by the state of California if convicted because of the gruesome nature of his alleged crime.

Blake Leibel, a graphic novelist, screenwriter and son of a prominent Toronto developer, pleaded not guilty to charges of premeditated murder, mayhem, aggravated mayhem and torture Tuesday. The alleged victim: Iana Kasian, his live-in girlfriend and mother of his newborn child.

http://goo.gl/W2ZQ4l

===========
Yikes! Didnt hear about this in the local news. At least he didnt torture and kill the infant.

Posted by: Bruce With a Wang! at June 01, 2016 12:58 PM (iQIUe)

153 Don't pay and see what happens.

------------

I doubt we will default on all of it. But we will not pay a lot of it for one reason or another.

Posted by: SH at June 01, 2016 12:58 PM (gmeXX)

154 You know, this shit about the virtues of your government being able to shaft you our of money you paid in



Via threat of gun and jail......

Posted by: rickb223 at June 01, 2016 12:59 PM (tu/2g)

155 It's remarkable to me that the Trumpkins, almost to a man, blame National Review and the conservative press for being ineffective RINOs, when it's really the Boehner/McConnell wing of the GOP that has been pandering to the donor class and screwing conservatives for years.
Posted by: Hurricane LaFawnduh at June 01, 2016 12:54 PM (laMCB)


I don't see any difference in the two. They both want the status quo.

The NRO crew would have been very happy with Establishmentarian JEB! Bush getting the nomination.

Can you see The Weakly Standard or NRO going #NEVER!JEB! ???

Posted by: rd at June 01, 2016 12:59 PM (v0YLX)

156 While I agree with Ace, the survey itself doesn't seem too meaningful.

So, of 500 companies, 71 CEO's foolishly responded. Sixteen, slightly wiser, of those declined to answer the question.

Thus we are left (a pun!) with 55 CEO's who were assertively supporting Hillary. Or, 11%.

Posted by: Mike Hammer, etc., etc. at June 01, 2016 12:59 PM (9mTYi)

157 Blake Leibel, a graphic novelist, screenwriter and son of a prominent Toronto developer, pleaded not guilty to charges of premeditated murder, mayhem, aggravated mayhem and torture Tuesday. The alleged victim: Iana Kasian, his live-in girlfriend and mother of his newborn child.

I thought it was an "unborn" Child... Hope I'm wrong..

Posted by: donna at June 01, 2016 12:59 PM (O2RFr)

158 In the end, Trump is driven by ego. He's going to want to be popular and live up to his promises so he can blab some more about how great he is.

Besides, I love the way he's kicking Bezos in the nads and how he was beating down the press yesterday. People on the floor were cheering when they played that press conference. And this is NY.

Posted by: Marcus T at June 01, 2016 01:00 PM (O0lVq)

159 I don't think we said it was. But that doesn't make it true. The government is going to shaft everyone all at once. It will shaft people differently and at different stages. In fact, I'm all in favor of means testing. Once a big enough group realizes it is getting the shaft, that group will be less likely to support SS, and it will become less popular. For now, so long as everyone is getting SS, it remains a very popular program that we all know cannot sustain itself on its current trajectory.
Posted by: SH at June 01, 2016 12:57 PM (gmeXX)

Talk about your non sequitur.

Posted by: Mr Macca Bean at June 01, 2016 01:00 PM (4ng05)

160 SS is not a "debt" in the same way that a bond or a loan is a debt.
SS is nothing more than a promise, a promise that the government can break at any time. Citizens have no legal standing to sue the government if it does not pay SS benefits.
Posted by: chemjeff at June 01, 2016 12:49 PM (uAvJJ)

Prommisory estoppel doesn't apply to the government?

I have approximately zero actual legal experience. Seems to me like you should be able to make the argument.

Posted by: joe, living dangerously at June 01, 2016 01:00 PM (KUaJL)

161 The best argument for Trump is that he media and probably half the Congress will be against him, so at least he will be held accountable. In fact, Congress might actually start asserting itself again.

Whereas Hillary HistoricFirst will get a free ride, same as Obama did.

Posted by: Hurricane LaFawnduh at June 01, 2016 01:00 PM (laMCB)

162 Talk about your non sequitur.

----------

What? How so?

Posted by: SH at June 01, 2016 01:01 PM (gmeXX)

163 Can we cross match the list of CEO's with donors to the Clinton Money Laundering Operation, er, Foundation?

Posted by: Marcus T at June 01, 2016 01:02 PM (O0lVq)

164
You can easily find ways to jack up their taxes

Like raising the Maximum Taxable Earnings cap for Social Security from 118,500 to infinity.

Posted by: Bertram Cabot Jr. at June 01, 2016 01:02 PM (k4M/B)

165 Let's stop protecting them from the confiscatory personal tax rates they're voting for when they donate to Democrats. If they're fine with such rates, why shouldn't we be?

And not just rich guys. I've come around to the view that *everybody* should pay taxes. Nobody gets a free ride. For the last 30 years, the conservative cure-all has been the mantra tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts. All that that has produced is millions of whiny, entitled freeloaders.

Posted by: OregonMuse at June 01, 2016 01:02 PM (UHKOQ)

166 Well, when the brain-sucking alien overlords arrive it will all be moot anyway. So there's that to look forward to.

Posted by: joncelli, Bridge Troll and Crossbow Afficianado at June 01, 2016 01:02 PM (L7t0A)

167 You're confusing legal reasoning with reality. They
may tweak it. They may debase the currency and not give inflation
increases. But they are going to pay it. The only way they don't is if
the gov't collapses. Not to pay it is a political impossibility. Not
to pay it would be the collapse of the gov't.

Posted by: WOPR - Nationalist at June 01, 2016 12:56 PM (PfMGQ)

Why? Because SS *right now* is considered the "third rail" of politics?
Just wait until we have fully nationalized and socialized health care. Then when the budget gets tight, and it's time for someone to get the shaft, who do you think it will be - the middle class depending on the government for health care, or the old folks depending on the government for retirement?
The old folks will get the shaft in favor of the middle class getting their health care bennies

Posted by: chemjeff at June 01, 2016 01:03 PM (uAvJJ)

168 What? How so?
Posted by: SH at June 01, 2016 01:01 PM (gmeXX)

It's not that hard, for chrissake! Nobody was talking about a plan to save social security!

Posted by: Mr Macca Bean at June 01, 2016 01:03 PM (4ng05)

169 It's not that hard, for chrissake! Nobody was talking about a plan to save social security!

------------

No people were saying that if it isn't paid people will revolt. And I was saying that some of it will be paid, but much of it won't.

Posted by: SH at June 01, 2016 01:03 PM (gmeXX)

170 At least he didn't torture and kill the infant.
------
We're softies that way.

Posted by: andycanuck at June 01, 2016 01:04 PM (PLnZs)

171 "And oddly enough SOMEBODY has been hinting at asking those very questions... I can't quite place his name, it's on the tip of my tongue. Starts with the letter T, I think."

But let's keep flirting with the Anti-Trump flavor of the week. This week: French Vanilla with a swirl.

I've been ranting that the pillars of what we once thought held up Conservatism are gone, including Big Business Chamber of Commerce / Fiscal Conservatism, which want Free Trade / Open Borders, and are now aligned with elements of Big Gov and increasingly with the Cultural Left.

Big Business doesn't give a rat's ass about your typical American.

Let GE and Apple defend their own outsourced trade routes. Let Disney haggle with Peking to get paid a nickel out of China for its copyrights.

The big tax break for public company executives is in capital gains treatment for stock options. Let's end it.


Posted by: Ignoramus at June 01, 2016 01:04 PM (r1fLd)

172 Blake Leibel, a graphic novelist, screenwriter and son of a prominent Toronto developer, pleaded not guilty to charges of premeditated murder, mayhem, aggravated mayhem and torture Tuesday. The alleged victim: Iana Kasian, his live-in girlfriend and mother of his newborn child.

http://goo.gl/W2ZQ4l

===========
Yikes! Didnt hear about this in the local news. At least he didnt torture and kill the infant.
Posted by: Bruce With a Wang! at June 01, 2016 12:58 PM (iQIUe)

Good Lord, he drained her body of its blood & she was mutilated before being killed.

And the "graphic novel" he wrote was about a psycho torture killer.

Posted by: josephistan at June 01, 2016 01:04 PM (7HtZB)

173 Citizens have no legal standing to sue the government if it does not pay SS benefits.
---
I've gotten a very important amicus brief from the individual who knows the real story of how I adopted my kids so I'm going to have to go with no, or yes, wait let me double check what he wanted here and then I'll get back to you.

Posted by: John Roberts at June 01, 2016 01:04 PM (X7E8f)

174 I would love to see Trump walk down to Congress and start breaking shit. Like throwing tables and hurling the gavel at someone.

Then, at night he can go visit Hillary in prison. Bring her some of those quesadillas from Trump Tower or something.

Posted by: Marcus T at June 01, 2016 01:04 PM (O0lVq)

175 "http://goo.gl/W2ZQ4l "



What a sick bastard.

Posted by: Ricardo Kill at June 01, 2016 01:04 PM (LA7Cm)

176 So, of 500 companies, 71 CEO's foolishly responded..
.Posted by: Mike Hammer, etc., etc. at June 01, 2016 12:59 PM (9mTYi)


It's only foolish if you out yourself as being from the "wrong tribe"

there's no risk of retribution if you claim to like the party of "the little people".

Posted by: OneEyedJack at June 01, 2016 01:04 PM (kKHcp)

177 Well, when the brain-sucking alien overlords arrive it will all be moot anyway.

They will starve.

Posted by: Grump928(C) says Free Soothie!, with purchase of commenter of equal or greater value at June 01, 2016 01:04 PM (rwI+c)

178
I thought it was an "unborn" Child... Hope I'm wrong..
Posted by: donna at June 01, 2016 12:59 PM (O2RFr)
-------------------

Baby was born May 3.

Posted by: iforgot at June 01, 2016 01:04 PM (pC96u)

179
Posted by: joe, living dangerously at June 01, 2016 01:00 PM (KUaJL)

No. SS is a tax, just like every other tax. That is what SCOTUS has ruled. If the government raises your income tax and promises to build a road, but doesn't build the road, you don't get to sue the government for not building the road. It is the exact same deal here with SS.

Posted by: chemjeff at June 01, 2016 01:04 PM (uAvJJ)

180 So I have no issue with say a really high "billionaire" tax on the Soros, Zuckerbergs, and Buffetts of the world.

The Wall Street loophole also needs to go where hedge fund managers just pay the capital gains tax rate. Soros shouldn't be paying a lower tax rate than a welder.


It is an INCOME TAX. Buffett pays himself a nominal yearly income. His big payoff is his increasing capital gains that are NOT TAXED until he cashes in.

Posted by: rd at June 01, 2016 01:04 PM (v0YLX)

181 I thought it was an "unborn" Child... Hope I'm wrong..
Posted by: donna at June 01, 2016 12:59 PM (O2RFr)
-------------------

Baby was born May 3.



Good......

Posted by: donna at June 01, 2016 01:05 PM (O2RFr)

182 While I agree with Ace, the survey itself doesn't seem too meaningful.

So, of 500 companies, 71 CEO's foolishly responded. Sixteen, slightly wiser, of those declined to answer the question.

Thus we are left (a pun!) with 55 CEO's who were assertively supporting Hillary. Or, 11%.

Posted by: Mike Hammer
---------------

STOP THE PRESSES!

Ooops. I made a BIG error.

It was 58% of the 55 that responded who are pro-Hillary.

That means 58% of 55 = 32. So, 32/500 = 6%

As I said..., doesn't seem to mean much.

Posted by: Mike Hammer, etc., etc. at June 01, 2016 01:05 PM (9mTYi)

183 No people were saying that if it isn't paid people will revolt. And I was saying that some of it will be paid, but much of it won't.
Posted by: SH at June 01, 2016 01:03 PM (gmeXX)

Oh, I see, because I was certain there for a minute you were talking about some hypothetical future where all of this shit worked.

Posted by: Mr Macca Bean at June 01, 2016 01:05 PM (4ng05)

184
The Department of Justice declines to prosecute two Minneapolis police officers in the killing of #JamarClark:

https://goo.gl/YycBzL

Posted by: Bruce With a Wang! at June 01, 2016 01:05 PM (iQIUe)

185 Agreed Ace. I'm tired of them shitting down my throat. I'm to the point where if they don't like what's coming, make it so they can't sell their shit here and then see what happens. Total market blackout.

I never thought I'd think that, but there it is. They have become that intolerable.

Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at June 01, 2016 01:06 PM (4ErVI)

186 The Department of Justice declines to prosecute two Minneapolis police officers in the killing of #JamarClark:

They'll be some looting going on...

Posted by: donna at June 01, 2016 01:06 PM (O2RFr)

187
It's only foolish if you out yourself as being from the "wrong tribe"
there's no risk of retribution if you claim to like the party of "the little people".
Posted by: OneEyedJack


They know the Repubs will suck up to them no matter what they say. The Dems will bash them if they say the "wrong" thing.

Posted by: Bertram Cabot Jr. at June 01, 2016 01:06 PM (k4M/B)

188 Citizens have no legal standing to sue the government if it does not pay SS benefits.



True. But like the IRS and the Cessna guy, take everything that a man has, be ready for "game time".

Posted by: rickb223 at June 01, 2016 01:06 PM (tu/2g)

189 Can we just kick some asses? You know, instead of taxing them.

That always worked in high school. I figure, most of those people aren't much smarter than they were at that point in their lives anyway.

Posted by: Marcus T at June 01, 2016 01:06 PM (O0lVq)

190
I've come around to the view that *everybody* should pay taxes. Nobody gets a free ride. For the last 30 years, the conservative cure-all has been the mantra tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts. All that that has produced is millions of whiny, entitled freeloaders.
Posted by: OregonMuse at June 01, 2016 01:02 PM (UHKOQ)
--------------------

One thing I agreed with Ben Carson about big time.

Everyone should have a stake in the system. EVERYONE should say "They did *WHAT* with my tax dollars?"

Posted by: iforgot at June 01, 2016 01:07 PM (pC96u)

191 For heaven's sake the WHOLE IDEA of the modern welfare state is to get everyone to become a dependent client of the state rather than a free citizen ruling over the state. Once that point is here, and you could argue we've already arrived, then there is no turning back and everyone's dependency is subject to the popular will. The larger tribe gets to cut off the benefits of the smaller tribe so that they will get more benefits for themselves.

Posted by: chemjeff at June 01, 2016 01:07 PM (uAvJJ)

192 This is further proof that we need amnesty RIGHT NOW in order to get these CEOs back on our side!!!

Posted by: GOPe at June 01, 2016 01:08 PM (10hEu)

193 No. SS is a tax, just like every other tax. That is what SCOTUS has ruled. If the government raises your income tax and promises to build a road, but doesn't build the road, you don't get to sue the government for not building the road. It is the exact same deal here with SS.
Posted by: chemjeff at June 01, 2016 01:04 PM (uAvJJ)

NO big difference...Social Security is an Entitlement. It is NOT the same as building a road..but nice try

Posted by: Nevergiveup at June 01, 2016 01:08 PM (zp+j1)

194 One flat tax rate. Doesn't matter how much you make, doesn't matter how you make it, doesn't matter if you're a person or a corporation. One flat tax rate. No deductions except for charities.

Posted by: josephistan at June 01, 2016 01:08 PM (7HtZB)

195 Maybe we can tax them more and then apply for a grant, funded by those taxes, and finally get this site of the 80's blog technology?

Posted by: Marcus T at June 01, 2016 01:08 PM (O0lVq)

196 Posted by: chemjeff at June 01, 2016 01:03 PM


Kill off the old people this year, and you have more money for next years budget and bureaucrats wages.

Just look at the British NHS.

Posted by: rd at June 01, 2016 01:08 PM (v0YLX)

197 Thing is, the poll hurts Hilary with the Bernbros and helps Trump.

If the majority of CEOs liked Trump we'd be all Whoa waitasec and reconsidering our support.

Posted by: Bigbys Cellphone at June 01, 2016 01:08 PM (LorSp)

198 Then when the budget gets tight, and it's time for someone to get the shaft, who do you think it will be - the middle class depending on the government for health care, or the old folks depending on the government for retirement?
The old folks will get the shaft in favor of the middle class getting their health care bennies
Posted by: chemjeff at June 01, 2016 01:03 PM (uAvJJ)

That's what it looks like when you force government dependency on everyone.
So in fact, we're already not free people, but birds with our mouths open, all hoping to be fed last.

Posted by: OneEyedJack at June 01, 2016 01:09 PM (kKHcp)

199 Wait a tic,
We're still not done with "leans republican"?

Cause I'm still chuckling over that one...

Posted by: Anon a mouse... at June 01, 2016 01:10 PM (C9pBZ)

200 This is classic MSM Jedi mind-trickery:

"Fifty-eight percent of the CEOs said they would support Clinton, the front-runner for the Democratic nomination, while 42 percent would support Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, according to a survey conducted last month by Fortune and released on Wednesday.

"Big company CEOs tend to lean heavily Republican," the survey said."

By definition, if 58% are supporting Clinton then CEOs DON'T lean heavily Republican. They don't even lean lightly Republican. Instead, they lean heavily Democrat.

But the media can just say the opposite, because it somehow serves their purpose to create the impression of a preference cascade against Trump.

99% of everything is bullshit.

Posted by: zombie at June 01, 2016 01:10 PM (jBuUi)

201 For heaven's sake the WHOLE IDEA of the modern welfare state is to get everyone to become a dependent client of the state rather than a free citizen ruling over the state. Once that point is here, and you could argue we've already arrived, then there is no turning back and everyone's dependency is subject to the popular will. The larger tribe gets to cut off the benefits of the smaller tribe so that they will get more benefits for themselves.



Lotta people gonna die. Life is not like a board game.

Cut off the smaller tribe's bennies, watch what happens when a man has nothing left to lose.

Posted by: rickb223 at June 01, 2016 01:10 PM (tu/2g)

202 One flat tax rate. Doesn't matter how much you make, doesn't matter how
you make it, doesn't matter if you're a person or a corporation. One
flat tax rate. No deductions except for charities.>>>

One of the reasons we will never get a flat tax is the "no deductions except for"...

All I need is this lamp, oh this lamp and this bottle of scotch....

Posted by: Buzzsaw at June 01, 2016 01:11 PM (tf9Ne)

203 NO big difference...Social Security is an Entitlement. It is NOT the same as building a road..but nice try

Posted by: Nevergiveup at June 01, 2016 01:08 PM (zp+j1)

From the legal point of view, there is no difference. Look up Flemming v. Nestor

Posted by: chemjeff at June 01, 2016 01:12 PM (uAvJJ)

204 Only the candidacy of David French will win these CEOs back and save our Republic from the horrors of a President Trump appointing supreme court judges instead of Hillary Clinton.

#NRO4CEOs
#WeaklyStandardCEO

Posted by: Bill Kristol at June 01, 2016 01:12 PM (10hEu)

205 Its not hard to figure out why. They know they can buy what they want from the Clintons. They view Trump as a rival, who they might not be able to crony up with.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at June 01, 2016 01:12 PM (39g3+)

206 >>But the media can just say the opposite, because it somehow serves their
purpose to create the impression of a preference cascade against Trump.



Because it supports the long-held MSM/Lefty narrartive that the GOP is the party of greedy, rich white men. When in fact the Dems have the new breed of rich white men - Zuckerberg, Bezos, etc. - in their pocket.

Posted by: Lizzy at June 01, 2016 01:12 PM (NOIQH)

207 99% of everything is bullshit.
Posted by: zombie
----------

Okay, now, I'm gonna need some documentation on this.

Posted by: Mike Hammer, etc., etc. at June 01, 2016 01:13 PM (9mTYi)

208
Kill off the old people this year, and you have more money for next years budget and bureaucrats wages.



Just look at the British NHS.

Posted by: rd at June 01, 2016 01:08 PM (v0YLX)

You got it. The same sort of thing already happens in Britain. And yet ppl here seem to think that if SS is changed in some drastic way, that there will be "revolts". No there won't be.

Posted by: chemjeff at June 01, 2016 01:13 PM (uAvJJ)

209 Posted by: rickb223 at June 01, 2016 01:10 PM (tu/2g)

We're using that word Tribe the same way.
I think we see the same future.
Nuff said.

Posted by: OneEyedJack at June 01, 2016 01:14 PM (kKHcp)

210 From the legal point of view, there is no difference. Look up Flemming v. Nestor
Posted by: chemjeff at June 01, 2016 01:12 PM (uAvJJ)


Entitlement spending is distinct from discretionary spending. Congress does not pass an annual appropriation; instead, expenditure on the program automatically increases or decreases with the number of claims against eligibility criteria. The government must provide the benefits even if it is insolvent, has reached the debt ceiling, or has not passed a budget.

Entitlement programs with dedicated funding sources, such as the payroll tax for Social Security, maintain a "trust fund." If the trust fund is exhausted, this means benefits must be paid from discretionary sources such as Income Tax revenue;

Posted by: Nevergiveup at June 01, 2016 01:14 PM (zp+j1)

211 >>Kill off the old people this year, and you have more money for next years budget and bureaucrats wages.

Oh, yeah, just look at the way that 'bends the healthcare cost curve down' and how it speeds up receipt of inheritance taxes! Also frees up some housing for Juan or Mohammed and family....

Posted by: Lizzy at June 01, 2016 01:15 PM (NOIQH)

212 One flat tax rate. Doesn't matter how much you make, doesn't matter how
you make it, doesn't matter if you're a person or a corporation. One
flat tax rate. No deductions except for charities.>>>

One of the reasons we will never get a flat tax is the "no deductions except for"...

All I need is this lamp, oh this lamp and this bottle of scotch....



How about people become TRUE constitutional conservatives?
No income tax? The Country ran 120 years without an income tax. How many wars were prosecuted without an income tax?

Posted by: rickb223 at June 01, 2016 01:16 PM (tu/2g)

213 You got it. The same sort of thing already happens in Britain. And yet ppl here seem to think that if SS is changed in some drastic way, that there will be "revolts". No there won't be.

Well then. It's settled. We'll just take your word for it. If it can't happen in Britain, it can't happen anywhere. Things always go well when you take away people's sustenance.

Posted by: Mr Macca Bean at June 01, 2016 01:16 PM (4ng05)

214 From the legal point of view, there is no difference. Look up Flemming v. Nestor
Posted by: chemjeff at June 01, 2016 01:12 PM (uAvJJ)


And that is not what Flemming v Nestor says anyway

Posted by: Nevergiveup at June 01, 2016 01:17 PM (zp+j1)

215 That's what it looks like when you force government dependency on everyone.
So in fact, we're already not free people, but birds with our mouths open, all hoping to be fed last.
Posted by: OneEyedJack at June 01, 2016 01:09 PM (kKHcp)


---------------

It's why I'll never retire. Hopefully I can work right up to the last. I don't want to depend on the government.

Retirement is a socialist construct anyway.

Posted by: Soona at June 01, 2016 01:17 PM (Fmupd)

216 There's a new executive admin working here - hawt, but strangely annoying.

Posted by: Weasel at June 01, 2016 01:17 PM (6xtq3)

217 "3
Let's stop protecting them from the confiscatory personal tax rates
they're voting for when they donate to Democrats. If they're fine with
such rates, why shouldn't we be?



-----------



Because good conservatives will get caught up in those rates too.

Posted by: SH at June 01, 2016 12:29 PM (gmeXX)"


Tax them all. Let God sort them out.

Posted by: Obnoxious A-Hole at June 01, 2016 01:18 PM (QHgTq)

218 STOP THE PRESSES!

Ooops. I made a BIG error.

It was 58% of the 55 that responded who are pro-Hillary.

That means 58% of 55 = 32. So, 32/500 = 6%

As I said..., doesn't seem to mean much.
---------------------------------------------------

Apparently the whole "Pointing out the garbage article" approach isn't catching on...


Posted by: BuyMoreBrawndo at June 01, 2016 01:18 PM (vaFpc)

219 This wouldn't happen under a French/Kristol administration.

Posted by: Dirks Strewn at June 01, 2016 01:18 PM (kfcYC)

220 "I tremble for humanity when I reflect that the author of Animal Farm and 1984 remained socialist."--Stuff Lincoln Said, Vol. XIV


The faith in central planning is always unshakable, they just think they finesse away the bad effects of totalitarianism.

Posted by: Mr. Peebles at June 01, 2016 01:19 PM (nIGPZ)

221 Tax them all. Let God sort them out.
Posted by: Obnoxious A-Hole at June 01, 2016 01:18 PM (QHgTq)

You may have a future in politics.

Posted by: Mr Macca Bean at June 01, 2016 01:19 PM (4ng05)

222 The core of the problem is that government is the problem, more specifically the insane reach of the government to alter markets at a drop of a hat - or an election.

If you come to believe it's better hire a couple of lobbyists rather than improving your capital or hiring more workers, then you become invested in the Federal monster.

The problem with playing with tax rates out of pique is that you are only reinforcing the power of government and the increasing the incentives to become more invested in DC and less invested in the productivity of companies.

A strong argument can be made that the core problem can't be corrected now. It may be too late to reduce government, but you won't deter CEOs and investors from being clients of powerful state by changing taxes. You'll likely accelerate it.

Posted by: weft cut-loop at June 01, 2016 01:19 PM (p2X2f)

223 We're using that word Tribe the same way.
I think we see the same future.
Nuff said.
Posted by: OneEyedJack


Yeah. Just wait until the white or brown tribe cuts off the black tribes' (12%) welfare for their own benefit.
Larger tribe rules per the argument.

Posted by: rickb223 at June 01, 2016 01:19 PM (tu/2g)

224 "99% of everything is bullshit. "


Zombie Johnson is right!

Posted by: Ricardo Johnson at June 01, 2016 01:20 PM (LA7Cm)

225 10 It's not just the personal tax rates, it's the corporate, too. I haven't talked to a lefty yet that didn't want corporate rates shot through the roof. Which is nothing but overhead the consumer's going to pay, anyways.


Posted by: Chupacabra

False, unless the company is too stupid to figure out a way to produce outside the US.

Posted by: Dirks Strewn at June 01, 2016 01:20 PM (kfcYC)

226 And the "graphic novel" he wrote was about a psycho torture killer.
That doesn't mean anything.

Posted by: brad thor & glenn beck at June 01, 2016 01:20 PM (PLnZs)

227 False, unless the company is too stupid to figure out a way to produce outside the US.
Posted by: Dirks Strewn at June 01, 2016 01:20 PM (kfcYC)


Oh that would be great for the economy? LMAO

Posted by: Nevergiveup at June 01, 2016 01:21 PM (zp+j1)

228 Possible shooting at UCLA campus.

SWAT teams in full garb moving in.

Tough shit, guys. It's over now.

The remnants of no-gun zones.

Posted by: Soona at June 01, 2016 01:22 PM (Fmupd)

229 No income tax? The Country ran 120 years without an income tax. How many wars were prosecuted without an income tax?

Yeah, they used tariffs and fees. When a war started, they ramped up those taxes massively. Real conservative.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at June 01, 2016 01:23 PM (39g3+)

230 "Fifty-eight percent of the CEOs said they would support Clinton..."

I suppose they do, having already bribed her through speech money or the foundation.

Posted by: Dirks Strewn at June 01, 2016 01:23 PM (kfcYC)

231 Kill off the old people this year, and you have more money for next years budget and bureaucrats wages.

Just look at the British NHS.
Posted by: rd at June 01, 2016 01:08 PM (v0YLX)

---

Works for us.

Posted by: Veterans Administration at June 01, 2016 01:23 PM (rlfds)

232
228 Possible shooting at UCLA campus.

SWAT teams in full garb moving in.

Tough shit, guys. It's over now.


Campus is code four, people. Move out to the dog pound! Weapons locked and loaded!

Posted by: SWAT team at June 01, 2016 01:23 PM (0mRoj)

233
Expect to see a lot of polls showing Trump driving all. kinds of Republicans to Hillary. All kinds.

Posted by: Misheard Lyrics Guy at June 01, 2016 01:24 PM (rCQo0)

234 Progressivism is the belief that society would be better run by an elite. A Progressive is someone who imagines themselves in that elite.

Posted by: Grump928(C) says Free Soothie!, with purchase of commenter of equal or greater value at June 01, 2016 01:24 PM (rwI+c)

235 Kill off the old people this year, and you have more money for next years budget and bureaucrats wages.

We've found that very effective. A dead old person is a good old person.

Posted by: Scandanavia at June 01, 2016 01:25 PM (39g3+)

236 "68
It's a bullshit poll. Only 55 out of 500 surveyed execs responded.

Posted by: Thomas Dinsmore at June 01, 2016 12:43 PM (wALtj)"


So what? Run commercials in California with that message to put Bernie over the top in that state. Then watch yet another state cast a majority of votes for Hillary and send a majority of delegates for Clinton.

Who is that likely to benefit in November?

Posted by: Obnoxious A-Hole at June 01, 2016 01:26 PM (QHgTq)

237 A dead old person is a good old person.

And a dependable Democratic voter to boot.

Posted by: Grump928(C) says Free Soothie!, with purchase of commenter of equal or greater value at June 01, 2016 01:26 PM (rwI+c)

238
BREAKING: Law enforcement sources tell NBC at least two dead at UCLA. #UCLAShooting.

Posted by: Bruce With a Wang! at June 01, 2016 01:26 PM (iQIUe)

239
227 False, unless the company is too stupid to figure out a way to produce outside the US.
Posted by: Dirks Strewn at June 01, 2016 01:20 PM (kfcYC)


Oh that would be great for the economy? LMAO

Posted by: Nevergiveup

I didn't mean to suggest it would be good for the economy, it is quite the opposite as far as I'm concerned. I'm just saying that that it is the rational response to high corporate taxes. LMAO

Posted by: Dirks Strewn at June 01, 2016 01:28 PM (kfcYC)

240 BREAKING: Law enforcement sources tell NBC at least two dead at UCLA. #UCLAShooting.
Posted by: Bruce With a Wang! at June 01, 2016 01:26 PM (iQIUe)

Just goes to show what happens in a state with no firearms restrictions.

Posted by: Mr Macca Bean at June 01, 2016 01:29 PM (4ng05)

241
239
227 False, unless the company is too stupid to figure out a way to produce outside the US.
Posted by: Dirks Strewn at June 01, 2016 01:20 PM (kfcYC)


Oh that would be great for the economy? LMAO

Posted by: Nevergiveup

I didn't mean to suggest it would be good for the economy, it is quite the opposite as far as I'm concerned. I'm just saying that that it is the rational response to high corporate taxes. LMAO


Posted by: Dirks Strewn

and the consumer won't have to pay for the higher taxes.

Posted by: Dirks Strewn at June 01, 2016 01:29 PM (kfcYC)

242 Aren't these the same people Moo Moo and Jwest want to pay millions and bonuses to to run the Country?

And the Ironic thing is that not long ago, Trump would have been a CEO that would have been for Hillary over a facsimile Trump.

Posted by: Joe Hallenbeck at June 01, 2016 01:32 PM (cJswI)

243
More calm and reasoned critique from UCLA's feminist contingent.

https://goo.gl/QhYiSG

LOL

Posted by: Bruce With a Wang! at June 01, 2016 01:33 PM (iQIUe)

244 "What's good for BIG BUSINESS is good for America!"

... said nobody since at least 1958.

Amazing the progress of the last 2-centuries that was opened-up by "democratizing" the basic functions of life and allowing people the freedom and mobility to, within reasonable bounds, pursue their enlightened self-interests. Unfortunate that modern "liberals" (really, there's nothing liberal about them) want to bring back a form of monarchy all while shaking their fists and yelling Freedom(tm) at the top of their lungs.

Government by Star Chamber is really what they promise. Seems that the masses of all classes are lapping it up, too.

Posted by: DocJ at June 01, 2016 01:35 PM (zrsn3)

245 and water is wet

Posted by: Myshiba at June 01, 2016 01:43 PM (4qOWG)

246 What makes you think the donor classes will pay higher taxes? They will continue to pay the Clinton$ for loopholes. Those of us in the upper middle class will shoulder the burden, as usual.

Posted by: PJ at June 01, 2016 01:49 PM (wocN9)

247 "that would have been for Hillary "

They are for themselves. In their opinion Hillary has the most transparent price.

Orrin Hatch enforces pay-for-play. Openly. He isn't hiding it.

"Hatch's son Scott Hatch is a partner and registered lobbyist"

"If you want to get involved in business," Sen. Orrin Hatch warned technology companies at a conference in 2000, "you should get involved in politics."

"a concerted campaign by the target of an investigation to generate pre-crafted protest statements." Hatch, with that thinly veiled threat, reduced the First Amendment to rubble as he put Gates on notice that the exercise of his constitutional right "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" could prove costly.

Posted by: huh? at June 01, 2016 01:58 PM (jN+3o)

248 When a business is taxed, that tax is passed on to the businesses customers. Or the business goes bankrupt.

Obamacare is a tax. It is bankrupting plenty of businesses. Unlike Medicare, which is an income tax, it is a wealth tax like Medicaid. A small family business stills has to pay Obamacare tax even if it is driven out of business.


Posted by: huh? at June 01, 2016 02:03 PM (jN+3o)

249 227 False, unless the company is too stupid to figure out a way to produce outside the US.

Posted by: Dirks Strewn at June 01, 2016 01:20 PM (kfcYC)





Oh that would be great for the economy? LMAO



Posted by: Nevergiveup


That's not the real problem. The real problem is that whether they produce outside, or inside the country doesn't really matter anymore. It's not like their factory, that is mostly automated, produces many jobs, and the ones it does produce are being given to illegal aliens, or people here on a work visa.

Posted by: DFCtomm at June 01, 2016 02:05 PM (6nDIK)

250 Really rich people are super progressive in the sense that they feel superior to non rich and believe in the tenants of progressivism that thinks they can socially engineer regular Americans into better employees. It's the same people that pushed Prohibition 100 years ago (a progressive movement) to "fix" mankind and get more productive workers in the bargain. F' them all.

Posted by: Jack's Smirking Revenge at June 01, 2016 02:10 PM (/S6j/)

251 They KNOW she can be bought....and she mostly stays bought.

Posted by: jpintx at June 01, 2016 03:12 PM (eY2fu)

252 In a poll only 71 of the 500 CEOs responded to. And 16 of those didn't answer the presidential preference.

So a slight majority of 55 Fortune 500 CEOs prefer Hillary to Trump. The "poll" is utterly meaningless.

Though frankly, even if the poll was accurate I couldn't blame even Republican leaning CEOs for backing Hillary. CEOs of major companies understand economics. They know how devastating Trump's war on trade will be.

Posted by: JT at June 01, 2016 03:16 PM (CZaQB)

253 Though frankly, even if the poll was accurate I
couldn't blame even Republican leaning CEOs for backing Hillary. CEOs of
major companies understand economics. They know how devastating Trump's
war on trade will be.


Posted by: JT at June 01, 2016 03:16 PM (CZaQB)
Cause things have been going so fucking well since the CEOs took over.

Posted by: DFCtomm at June 01, 2016 03:25 PM (bOPU/)

254 Ace: "If they're fine with such rates, why shouldn't we be?"

Because those rates are also applied to S corps and jacking rates up on small companies (which almost all companies incorporated under subchapter S are) would devastate small business and the economy as a whole.

But burn it down and scatter the stones and all that shit. And those rich fat cats aren't like us. Probably talk like fags too. Timeless principles like property rights and the notion that a man has the right to keep the fruits of his own labor? Fag talk right there.

Posted by: Pastafarian at June 01, 2016 03:26 PM (LqrRo)

255 Say, remind me again why are so many people voting for Trump again?

Oh yeah.

Posted by: Agent Cooper at June 01, 2016 03:27 PM (ureJ1)

256 Searching on this page of over 250 comments, where we're commenting about jacking up rates on high earners, I find one result for "S corp". My comment.

Posted by: Pastafarian at June 01, 2016 03:29 PM (LqrRo)

257 256
Searching on this page of over 250 comments, where we're commenting
about jacking up rates on high earners, I find one result for "S corp".
My comment.


Posted by: Pastafarian at June 01, 2016 03:29 PM (LqrRo)

I hate to bust your bubble but we get it. We all know, or should know, that the small business is getting screwed. They don't get the special unique tax deals of large corporations like Tesla, and they generally aren't even big enough to access the standard tax exemptions. I'll even go so far as to add an extra dimension. College debt is a huge drain on small businesses, since they aren't being started because of high debt. When a guy finally gets his college debt paid for he's already heavy invested in a home and family, and will no longer risk a start up.

Posted by: DFCtomm at June 01, 2016 03:37 PM (bOPU/)

258 Party loyalty only goes so far. While many CEOs may favor a generic Republican over a generic Democrat that is hardly the case this year. Trump' war on trade is something no CEO of a major businesses can support if he or she wants to keep their own job. Then there is Trump's tendency to opine first and think not at all, which could also constantly destabilize the financial markets that multinational businesses rely on. Imagine the effect on the markets if a President Trump offered some of the "suggestions" about the US debt that candidate Trump has made?

Posted by: NC Mountainl Girl at June 01, 2016 03:46 PM (mzZhj)

259 That's not the point I'm making. I'm not pissing and moaning about getting the short end of the stick.

Most small companies are S corps. They elect S status instead of C, to avoid the potentially crippling tax on retained earnings (a relic left from the FDR administration, meant to prevent businessmen from "hording" wealth.)

S corps pay individual tax rates, not corporate tax rates. So suppose you have a small business that employees 50 people and makes a net income of, say, $750,000. That income is taxed at the same rate as those hated fat-cats who make that much as a personal income. So when Ace suggests bumping that top marginal rate up to 50% or 60%, to get back at those often-liberal fat-cats, he's also sticking a dagger between the ribs of every slightly-successful small business in the country.

And no, $750,000 is not much net income for a small business that employs 50 people. That's probably a modest margin of 15%. And if that business has to pay more than half of that to the government, there's not much point to remaining in business, and it's going to be damned hard to continue to reinvest in equipment to remain competitive and to continue to employ those 50 people.

Posted by: Pastafarian at June 01, 2016 03:50 PM (LqrRo)

260 Don't forget that 42% of even Fortune 500 firms, they employ a lot of people, or all the successful businessmen who you will need the more principled of them to make a go of this new Main Street anti financier Republican Party. Not to to mention all the small to midsize private business people and professionals who know we need a strong country of free citizens to provide for their children's opportunity.

The productive employing side of my family has been Republican since Rutherford B Hayes at least and the extended family are still solid Republicans across the Northern tier and High Plains, they contribute to their local party, they fund meetings, pay for coffee and employ people whether it is in a small city plumbing supply firm, a midsize city fabricator, etc... They make their contributions coordinate local campaigns and while few to none of them backed Trump in the Primary they aren't going to Hillary who in her slothful incompetent so close to treason it is barely worth arguing over corruption is not as bad as every Democrat who will follow her.

Be careful you don't just turn Obama's screws harder. He and his corrupt ilk wants everyone to work for a big corporation so progressives can turn the screws and destroy any independence leaving just serfs, rich serfs, functionaries, and the ranked courtiers of the Imperial household. If you eliminate the class of the provincial bourgeois that is what will end up happen, and then all we can do is pray that God occasionally sends us a good tsar.

This doesn't have to be a crude class war, those always end in tyranny, but you are right it is a class war. Think about what sort of new society you want very hard and think it through. Bolshevism failed, but that doesn't mean plutocracy must triumph. Andrew Jackson was the richest man West of the Appalachians yet he knew where Republican virtue lay. Van Buren was a New Yorker yet he knew that all men crave support for their right to be heard and to be respected and treated as equals.

Posted by: Roy LC at June 01, 2016 04:07 PM (wdHQo)

261 ' "Big company CEOs tend to lean heavily Republican," the survey said. '


Actually, from what I've seen and heard that sounds like an outright lie, aside from perhaps a bunch of faux-Republicans.

Being a liberal is about one of two things: Either being an elitist, or being a parasite. Big company CEOs are as elitist as they come. Come to think of it, they have a bit of a parasitic element, as well (with corporate cronyism and paying themselves generously out of the company till).

Posted by: Optimizer at June 01, 2016 04:41 PM (jPHi7)

262 BTW, did anyone notice the point during the campaign where these guys were attacking Trump's businesses - in a sort of "you didn't build that" sense? The masks have come off this year in so MANY ways...

Posted by: Optimizer at June 01, 2016 04:44 PM (jPHi7)

263 The GOP platform should be:

1. Lower corporate tax rates
2. Bring the off shore money home now or face fines
3. Raise tariffs on certain imports (mostly on products that are produced by progressive companies oversees, I am all for selective punishment - help friends, punish enemies).

Trump is closer to making this happen than any other candidate. The problem with the always lower tax / free trade forever crowd is their economic utopia is meeting with reality. It may produce cheaper goods, but it is destroying the national sovereignty of the country in the process. Hence why everyone is unhappy.

Money is important, but not everything. The founding fathers could have taken the silver and played nice with the empire. They instead found nationhood more important.

Posted by: William Eaton at June 01, 2016 04:55 PM (KhJh8)

264 Go figure, those whose success tends to rely upon crony political deals are afraid of Trump because he may not play crony with them?

Isn't the the point of much of what makes Trump popular?

Posted by: Seipherd at June 01, 2016 04:57 PM (EKi+v)

265 It is not the rates, it is the regulations.

Dems have made protective regulations into an art form.

I say make em compete!!

Posted by: gern blanstein at June 01, 2016 06:35 PM (pJQif)

266 Posted by: rd at June 01, 2016 12:59 PM (v0YLX)]

This is not correct. NR pushed Cruz, Jindal, Fiorina. Yeah, they were for Romney in 2012 but look at the clown show that was running against him.

Posted by: Hurricane LaFawnduh at June 01, 2016 08:40 PM (laMCB)

267 "Let's stop protecting them from the confiscatory personal tax rates they're voting for when they donate to Democrats. If they're fine with such rates, why shouldn't we be?"

If they're not fine with such rates, why should we be? Like Warren Buffett's secretary. Look up "carried interest" and check which candidates are on what side of the issue.

Posted by: Daniel Freeman at June 02, 2016 10:04 AM (i+BEu)

268 If they're fine with such rates, why shouldn't we be?

That's an easy answer - because if you give the government more money, that sets a new baseline of spending, none of which could ever be cut, ever, because every penny is sacrosanct and holy, and they'll just start demanding more and borrowing more from there.

It's allowing the incremental ratchet of government spending to take another tooth, and as conservatives/libertarians/small government advocates/morons, we should all do everything we can to oppose that at every opportunity.

Posted by: Goober at June 02, 2016 11:37 AM (MmA5q)

269 "The GOP platform should be:

1. Lower corporate tax rates
2. Bring the off shore money home now or face fines
3. Raise tariffs on certain imports (mostly on products that are produced by progressive companies oversees, I am all for selective punishment - help friends, punish enemies). "

Fine, fine, sure. How about a radical idea? Stay with me here...

...how about instead of lowering corporate tax rates, we just eliminate them altogether?

Corporate taxation is just a stealth tax on the people, anyway, because the corps just pass it along to the consumer in the end. Why not show the people how much they're actually paying in taxes by getting rid of corporate taxes and making all taxes direct to the individual?

Because if people really knew how much they were actually paying in taxes, and the government wasn't actually able to hide it in "stealth" taxes like corporate taxes running up the cost of goods, they'd shit. You would have a drastic reduction in leftists calling for higher taxes, I think, and you'd have a nation-wide understanding of that which we all here already know - the federal government takes in a gigantic goddamn amount of money every year, and produces a pathetic amount of goods/services in return.

It's a gigantic goddamned black hole of money-suck, and I don't really think the nation has a good understanding of that because the gov folks do a good job of hiding it via things like corporate taxation.

Posted by: Goober at June 02, 2016 11:43 AM (MmA5q)

(Jump to top of page)






Processing 0.04, elapsed 0.0406 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0136 seconds, 278 records returned.
Page size 162 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.



MuNuvians
MeeNuvians
Polls! Polls! Polls!
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Top Top Tens
Greatest Hitjobs

The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
News/Chat