Hollywood Elitist Maher: Americans Not Bright Enough to Understand the Issues (Video)
Posted by Jim Hoft on Thursday, February 18, 2010, 4:44 AM
Hollywood elitist Bill Maher told CNN’s Larry King that Americans weren’t bright enough to understand the issues in his interview this week.
Via BreitbartTV:
“But what the Democrats never understand is that Americans don’t really care what position you take, just stick with one. Just be strong. They’re not bright enough to really understand the issues. But like an animal, they can sort of sense strength or weakness. They can smell it on you.”
ADVERTISEMENT
-
Featured Story:
Horrible… Obama Tells Foolish Supporters: I’m Not Over-Spending… “I’m Running to Pay Down Our Debt”
Published May 23, 2012 at 11:51 pm - 69 Comments
lyle commented:
Maher seems to be under the impression that he has an IQ of 200. But for years he called himself a libertarian just because it sounded cooler than what he really is – a blandly conventional leftist.
Joel commented:
Everywhere you turn another liberal is destroying themselves…Obama, Biden, Reid, Nancy P., Kennedy and now Maher….the list goes on and on.
pagar commented:
Where do these descriptions come from
“Hollywood Elitist”? Why not call him what he is:
Idiot?
Tom63010 commented:
Psalm 53:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.
Bill Maher is an atheist.
You figure it out
ron commented:
Oh, for God’s sake.
Keep it up Maher, et al..
plainslow commented:
So the Electoral College does work, and Bush’s election as president was proper. So going after him as illegitimate from day one was wrong?
hudson duster commented:
It makes me angry, but it’s all good. This era of frustrated idiot dems will bear fruit for decades.
JPL17 commented:
Hey Bill, there’s something else average Americans can smell. Arrogance. And you’re stinking up the whole country with it.
DavidD commented:
Bill Maher is a Fascist.
shanecomeback commented:
He is right in one respect; many Americans are dumb enough to watch his show, some advertisers dumb enough to support it and pay him a salary he is not qualified to receive. Maher is the poster child for the Peter Principle.
nadadhimmi commented:
Well, it appears people are smart enough to not watch Maher’s show.
Andreas K. commented:
I remember days, when such morons were tarred and feathered and then thrown out of town.
But in the days of political correctness, gender-mainstreaming, tolerance, sophistication, intellectual superiority and moral high ground such practises aren’t really “in” anymore.
Sad.
RedBeard commented:
So-called “progressives” depend upon ignorant and.or stupid people in order to retain power. It’s only logical for a clod like this to reveal his inner thoughts about the left’s desperate need for mindless drones.
Way to go there, Bill. You keep on telegraphing your punches, okay?
Opus #6 commented:
Typical liberal meme. Conservatives are stupid. And as most Americans are Conservative, Americans must be stupid.
Ahhh, Maher is winning friends and influencing people again….
non_dhimmie commented:
What are Maher’s credentials to spout policy?
He and Arianna Huffington are in a relationship now….
Why doesn’t the right go after these people the way the left goes after any conservative, even people like PreJean, Joe the Plumber…etc.
These people should feel the sting of their enemies.
I am sick of the Bush policy of turn the other cheek.
It should be easy to check Maher’s college records for IQ etc.
eaglewingz08 commented:
I guess Maher means Americans were really stupid when they elected Barack Obama President in 2008?
Canthisbe commented:
Maher is a disgusting weasel, but you have to admit that he is frequently correct. Just not in the way he intended it.
“[Americans are]not bright enough to really understand the issues” is a true statement. Obama got elected. While Maher thought he was talking about the conservative, gun toting, working Americans, he is actually describing the highly educated liberal “intellects” and racists (if you vote for (or against) someone based solely on their skin color you’re racist) who elected Obama.
Tim commented:
Aside from being a pompous ass…wasn’t he one of the people saying, “Bush is a moron because he doesn’t listent tothe will of the people? He just picks something and sticks with it.”
Must be nice to drive to the poverty protest in your Mercedes…
Lynn commented:
This from the man who made an ass of himself over the flu vaccine and blamed childhood vaccinations for autism?
Yeah, that’s real bright.
Redwine commented:
Someone actually watches Larry King?? Please tell that someone to get a life.
Rich Horton commented:
“But what the Democrats never understand is that Americans don’t really care what position you take, just stick with one. Just be strong. They’re not bright enough to really understand the issues. But like an animal, they can sort of sense strength or weakness. They can smell it on you.”
Mussolini couldn’t have said it better himself.
Oh, and Mussolini did say it.
xiphos commented:
Bill Maher….hmm…..b.m.
Sounds like a good description.
kate commented:
Coming from a guy who dates prostitutes.
John commented:
Just because all the girls at the Playboy mansion tell you you’re a towering intellectual just to make Hef happy doesn’t mean you actually are one.
jomojava commented:
Can you only imagine how many heads will explode after the November mid-term elections?
myna commented:
Who watches CNN? Bill Maher synonymous to
I-D-I-O-T.
Chris Vehr commented:
And he is an expert why?
jorgen commented:
“They can smell it on you”
Well, we wouldn’t have had O’barmy if they had been able to smell bullsh*t.
Corporal Vere commented:
It’s been verified 10 out of 10 idiots support Obama. And, 8 out of 10 US college professors are Obama-worshipping idiots. There is correlation which validates the statistics.
Maher is saying Americans are so dense they can’t unnerstan’ that Obamazero’s destructive extreme left-wing agenda, cap-and-trade generated economic depression, government-takeover-of-health-care, and the unlimited financial favors $$$$ to unions, especially government employee and teachers unions are good for them!
In related news, US states need to raise $1 trillion to pay public employee pensions by 2015(Pension Protection Act of 2006). Worst one (who’d a thunk!): Illinois – thanks IL state Senator Obama!!! See today’s Wall Street Journal.
Militant Conservative commented:
it just keeps getting better. Keep the pot boiling till November and watch the magic. WE WILL TALK VERY LOUDLY and YOU WILL LISTEN.
HarryPrimate commented:
Isn’t it fun to watch the left self destruct? I know I’m enjoying it. They will get a taste of how “stupid” we are come November.
Daniel commented:
I smell Maher. It’s everywhere.
Hey, BM, I’m smart enough to change the channel when I see you on one.
Cretin.
Flavia commented:
That is exactly what Obama and his image control people think too. He’s baffled as to why we’re not falling for everything he says, because he truly believes that if he just says something with conviction, then we’ll follow like sheep.
Aitch748 commented:
I’m just waiting now for some leftist to ask, if people in general are just too stupid to understand the issues, why do we let people vote? Oh wait, that idea will start being bandied about in mid-November of this year.
Is it November yet? commented:
Mahr: Boo hoo, Scott Brown ruined our super majority, so now I’m going to lash out at those knuckle-dragging folks who voted for him. That will show them!
What a complete liberal idiot!
Warren Bonesteel commented:
Well, to some extent, Maher has a point. (Not that I like or approve of his commentary.)
Both major political ideologies talk about The Constitution, yet both sides practice political realism, which is philosophically opposite of Constitutional ideals.
Both sides conflate policy with Constitutional ideals of freedom and enact laws (policies) which are indicative of positive freedoms, which are just the opposite of the negative freedoms embodied in The Constitution.
I wouldn’t say that Americans are necessarily stupid, however. Schizophrenic would be a better fit.
TiminPhx commented:
Hey, ole Bill was feeling jazzed and on a roll.
He most likely had just beaten up some African-American hooker girlfriend (which he as done in the past) and was in a good mood.
That CNN, HBO (Time Warner) and the others give him airtime, shows they love this guy and want to get his views out.
You should see how much they prompt this guy up even on ITUNES.
But that’s really OK. The 4 decent Americans out of the total Larry King audience of 7 or 8 can be reminded what the Left is all about.
Militant Conservative commented:
Warren Bonesteel
February 18th, 2010 | 8:36 am | #40
Our leadership does this, the average joe does not believe in this. this is because the average person is not politically engaged. (ignorant)
ingnorance is a luxury that none can afford now.
Politicians are smelling the revolt coming and are jumping ship quick. All it took was a socialist to take the WH. powder is dry.
Rob De Witt commented:
Well, that’s just perfect. Maher and his pals are so smart they don’t notice that their pants are being pulled down in Macy’s window, exposing the seat of their brilliance to the world.
It’s almost as if the blogosphere doesn’t exist for these benighted souls, and they’re convinced that their megaphone is the only noise in town. The explosion of bloggers over the last few years may be attributed directly to their grandiosity.
http://washingtonrebel.typepad.com/washington_rebel/2010/02/hambone.html
jdflorida commented:
Not intellectual, he says … intellectual like a comedian?
daryl commented:
non_dhimmie
February 18th, 2010 | 7:09 am | #16
“He and Arianna Huffington are in a relationship now….”
Can she pick ‘em, or what??
Mmmmm,mmmmm,mmmmmm
jim commented:
In the wacky world of television, things are never what they appear to be. How many hardcore drunks have played caring doctors or hardworking police sergeants? Here, regrettably, we have an utter moron pretending to be both a comedian and an intellectual, and he fails miserably on both counts.
USMC Thomas commented:
Hence forth, a bowel movement will be called a BILL MAHER.
Andrew X commented:
Hey, can I go ahead and go to bat for Bill Maher here?
Tip ‘o the hat to you, Mr. Maher. Gotta give you props.
Namely, because most people on the left act as though they think they are smarter than everyone else, they hold their noses in the air like they think that, they drip with condescension when they deign to speak to us, their lessers…. they convey that message every bloody day about how brilliant they are and how lucky we unwashed proles are to be blessed with their wisdom, nay, their very presence.
But virtually none of them have the balls to look the American people in the eye and actually say the words “I am soooooo much more brilliant than you will ever be, and you are all pathetically stupid and criminal in comaprison to my own towering genius and moral uprightness. You are idiots, I am brilliant.”
Hey…. props. It takes some measure of guts, I suppose, to lay it all out there as crystal clear as that, no?
And we all will be happy to take Mr. Maher’s oh-so-humble and eleoquent analysis to heart in the future when we hear from, not only him, but from his ideological bretheren as well.
We’ll see how it works out there for ya in the long run, Billy, but y’know, points for guts. You’re not mincing any words. I kinda wish more of your friends had that kind of courage.
Chris commented:
Maher’s condescension aside, there is accuracy to what he’s saying although he misses the point.
In a democracy, we get the leadership, or lack thereof, that we deserve. If we get poor leadership, that’s not totally our elected leaders’ fault–we (the collective “we,” of course) put them there, after all. Mediocre leadership in a democracy is the product of a mediocre citizenry.
The point that Maher misses isn’t that leaders should just take any stand at all out of stubbornness. People respect a person of principle, and will be more open to following someone who has the balls to stand up for those principles regardless of the potential hit to their political or popular standing.
Obama is a person of principle only in maintaining his Lightworker image; when it comes to policy, he doesn’t have the stones to stick with any sort of principles at all.
For example, if he had told Pelosi and Reid, “These are the provisions I want in the health care bill, based on these principles. If they do not exist, I will veto the bill and you can start over from scratch,” he might have actually kept quite bit of public support for this particular issue because voters would have seen him taking a verifiable stand and acting as a leader.
Instead, he punted the issue to Congress to work out, merely expecting a bill, ANY bill, to cross his desk. He ceded control of the policy, lost control of the messaging, and has now lost control of the public’s support. All because he cared more about maintaining his High School Class President and Homecoming King image than in being a leader.
Patriot Act commented:
Bill Maher, like Janeane Garofalo and so many other loud-mouthed celebrities, is a poster child for the Downing Effect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downing_effect
cal rifkin commented:
Good one on the Downing effect – something has to explain why some libs are adamant about telling everyone how smart they are and how dumb everyone else ( esp. the right ) is. I really don’t recall conservatives doing that much…I am now convinced that some of these libtards just weren’t raised up right.
sandy commented:
Bill Maher is calling Americans stupid. Well I am smart enough to tune him out.
Why are Liberals so angry all the time? They own Washington and all 3 branches of Government and yet they are still bent on destruction. My favorite meany is Michael Moore who calls Capitalism dead while he rakes in all that money from his movies. Hypocrisy thy name art Liberal.
sandy commented:
Maher calling out Americans for being stupid is like being called ugly by a frog.
sandy commented:
I think it says somewhere in the bible and the little Comedian shall lead us.
Tom commented:
Militant Conservative #42
“ingnorance is a luxury that none can afford now.”
Hmmm. Aren’t you the guy who was ignorant of the tax cuts in the stimulus package? Practice what you preach.
Elly commented:
Like a fly, Bill Maher is annoying and most of of the views he gravitates towards are crap.
Elly commented:
Tom #55 – re; your comments directed at Militant Conservative:
Let me help you out with this…He didn’t say “none of you” lol, he said “none” which most people would read as inclusive of everyone, including himself.
Auntie Em commented:
I feel sorry for him. He should be on suicide watch.
Gordon Savage commented:
Bill Maher is a niche entertainer throwing red meat to his core audience. They’re “modestly” educated young men who can’t score a position higher than barista at Starbucks. They need to feel important and bright. His insults to the “majority” are meant to make his viewers feel superior. And, of course, the approval of this sad little cadre is the final glory of his descending career.
Tom commented:
I understood that, Elly. In another thread, Militant Conservative denied that the stimulus package contained any tax cuts, and insulted me for believing that it did. When I pointed out his error, he suddenly got quiet. So now I’m just ribbing him. I think he’s tough enough to take the joke!
avery commented:
Their was no Tax cut in the Stimulus,they reduce the with holding you will pay it back about now.
Tom commented:
Of course there was a tax cut in the stimulus package, avery. Dozens of them. But let’s not sidetrack this thread! Read about it on the Wall Street Journal site if you’re interested:
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/STIMULUS_FINAL_0217.html
LytnUp commented:
(Yawn.)
I was going to watch Bill Maher once but couldn’t pass the entrance exam.
Chris commented:
“Of course there was a tax cut in the stimulus package, avery. Dozens of them. But let’s not sidetrack this thread!”
The funny thing is that if you actually click on the link, what the WSJ listed as “tax cuts” is actually a boatload of tax credits, deferments, bonds and incentives. These are not the same thing. At all.
But this is coming from Tom, he of the hypocritical “selective data” argument, so this is hardly surprising.
Tom commented:
A tax credit reduces your taxes, Chris. For example, the payroll tax credit reduced the amount individuals will pay to the government in taxes by $116 billion dollars.
Oh, I notice you didn’t respond to my last post to you in that thread either. I guess you’d rather start again here and try to have better luck with an audience that wasn’t following the exchange over there.
Betty commented:
Why do we need political advice from an alleged comedian? Where does he get off calling anyone stupid? I mean, isn’t that what he’s supposed to be? He’s a TV foof. A blockhead. If Larry King wants to interview him, ask him about his pool…or the latest “charity” ad for Haiti he’s done…or his latest project (assuming he has one). I’m so tired of these rich, pampered idiots – who probably have more tax shelters than they can count – trying to foist their political views on average Americans.
Chris commented:
“A tax credit reduces your taxes, Chris. For example, the payroll tax credit reduced the amount individuals will pay to the government in taxes by $116 billion dollars.”
No, a “tax credit” does not reduce my taxes. It allocates money that would be spent in one source and uses it to cover the costs of another source. From wikipedia:
The term tax credit describes two different concepts:
–A recognition of partial payment already made towards taxes due.
–A state benefit paid to workers through the tax system, which has the effect of increasing (rather than reducing) net income. (This is what the stimulus credit is)
Note that nowhere in those definitions is the term “less money taken in by the government.” That is why calling tax credits “tax cuts” is wrong. A tax credit, by definition, is money ALREADY SPENT, not money REFUNDED.
A actual tax cut would not have been included in the “cost” of the stimulus because it wouldn’t be counted against the government’s balance sheet, which all $787 billion of the stimulus (plus interest) will. If this was an actual tax cut, there would have been an actual reduction in my personal income tax rate, and the government wouldn’t be “paying” for this in any way, shape, or form. This money is simply the result of debt being taken out by the government to cover the cost, nothing more.
A tax cut is not something that a government has to “pay for,” no matter what your left-wing buddies tell you. It’s less money that the government is skimming from your wallet. A tax credit is not the same thing.
And to top it off, the “credit” is laughably pathetic. Not only are some people going to end up owing payments this year when they do their tax returns because of this, but the equally silly Bush “stimulus” actually paid more, and in one lump sum.
“Oh, I notice you didn’t respond to my last post to you in that thread either. I guess you’d rather start again here and try to have better luck with an audience that wasn’t following the exchange over there.”
I know it might seem odd to you, Tom, but I have better things to do than go digging through threads that have gone way off the front page. Particularly when the other person involved clearly has little interest in promoting an intellectually honest discussion.
Robert commented:
This Bozo isn’t even good at his so-called “profession” (comedian), so what makes him think he is qualified to dispense advice to anyone? Like that Idiot Savant over at the NYT, Maher truly believes himself to be smarter than everyone else. In truth, the joke is on him. He is becoming more irrelevant by the minute.
Tom commented:
Chris, you’re bending over backwards to explain why reducing people’s tax bill isn’t tax relief, so don’t lecture me about intellectual honesty.
Solaratov commented:
JPL17
February 18th, 2010 | 6:25 am | #8
Hey Bill, there’s something else average Americans can smell. Arrogance. And you’re stinking up the whole country with it.
**********************************************************
Now, I don’t strenuously object to arrogance, per se, *when there’s something to back it up*. Let’s face it, SeALs, Delta Force, Special Forces, Force Recon operaters are all arrogant, to a degree – and justifiably so.
But people like maher. obama, emmanuel, et alia, have nothing about which to be arrogant. No ability. No accomplishments. Mediocre intellects.
Their arrogance is nothing more than a facade that they have to maintain, lest people see how mediocre they actually are.
Solaratov commented:
Tom
February 18th, 2010 | 10:58 am | #55
No tax cuts in the “stimulus” bill. In fact, most of the uncollected money will have to have tax paid on it in April.
Even you should know that.
Chris commented:
“Chris, you’re bending over backwards to explain why reducing people’s tax bill isn’t tax relief, so don’t lecture me about intellectual honesty.”
And you have the nerve to lecture people about not accepting simple facts? No one’s getting any tax relief if the government is paying for tax credits with GOVERNMENT-BONDED DEBT, you disingenuous chump. We’ll ALL be paying that back later, with interest. I realize you’re probably too dense to understand this, but it doesn’t change the facts.
Take out a loan for $20,000 with interest while holding $100,000 in net worth and tell people your net worth is now $120,000. Let me know if you aren’t laughed out of the building.
Come back you have a clue about how tax cuts and tax credits actually work.
Tom commented:
Chris, if you cut taxes and don’t cut spending, then you have to borrow to make up the difference. That’s what happened under Reagan and Bush, and it’s what’s happening under Obama now. Unless you have a budget surplus (or if everything magically balances out to zero), then you’re borrowing. So tax relief under Obama is just like tax relief under Bush and tax relief under Reagan — financed with debt.
Scott commented:
Maher evokes the “death rattle” of Larry King, CNN and the rest of leftist America hating scum…The new media is here. You don’t control the message anymore. Buh bye!
TheVeryMuchSoShow commented:
People think a govern-Mental High school Diploma makes someone smart? Go read John Taylor Gatto’s The Underground history of American “Education”,or Weapons Of Mass Instruction. THEN….
Go look up the 1895 8th Grade Test from Salinas Kansas……
See if YOU can pass it.
The public have been made an IGNORAMUSES
COMPULSORY Schooling (and 56 years of Television programming)are contributing factors.
Major contributors.
And it was all done by accident ! Really ! It was !
But the good news is it only takes the knowledge of that to get on the road to quit being ignorant.
The first thing that has to go is the television,and the television “news” that only talks about what THEY want to talk about and we parrot their talking points.’
Thats REAL Ignorance and we deserve what we get when we let the corporate whackobox
create our “reality”.
See my new song about this at You Tube just google theverymuchsoshow no spaces and the song is The South Carolina Subversive Cure !
It’s a pro-non television song !
justdont commented:
Speaking of animals in a cage.
The extreme left and the Dems are so scared, so backed up against a wall, they can only do what Maher does best, trash the American people.
It clearly shows his IQ, and his EQ, for that matter.
He’s a lost soul. An angry, sad, lost soul.
Major Kong commented:
I remember when this ass had a show called “Politically Incorrect” which featured a bunch of bubble-headed celebrities opining on issues of the day. I could never figure who cared what these people thought. I still do not get it. I mean who the hell is Bill Maher?
Chris commented:
“Chris, if you cut taxes and don’t cut spending, then you have to borrow to make up the difference.”
Which is completely irrelevant to the question of whether tax credits are tax cuts. You’ve claimed in two separate threads now that they are the same thing.
I’ve demonstrated repeatedly that they are not, so you tried shifting the definition to “tax relief,” knowing damn well that money allocated as a payment from the state (which is what the Obama tax credits are) is not “tax relief” in the de facto nor de jure definition of the term. Money that has already been paid is not tax relief, and using government bonds to provide tax relief is not tax relief–because that debt has to be paid back.
A tax cut is money that the government no longer skims from income or sales taxes. Period. It can be cuts in personal income tax rates, capital gains rates, or sales tax rates, etc., but it DOES NOT include tax credits, no matter what anyone, conservative or liberal, says.
Claiming that Obama’s tax credits are “tax relief” is fundamentally dishonest because those credits are being paid for primarily with bonds–by definition, government debt that will have to be paid back with interest. Those payments will ultimately have to come from–you guessed it–taxpayers. That’s not “tax relief” anymore than purging after stuffing yourself with junk food is going on a diet.
So stop claiming that a tax credit is a tax cut (your initial argument) or tax relief (your second argument when I shot your first one out of the water) when you know damn well that it’s neither of those things.
Angry Dad commented:
Maher’s stock in trade is the controversial statement. It is what has allowed him to continue working a steady job all these years. I suspect he would still be working clubs as a standup comedian if he hadn’t taken this as his schtick.
I have no idea if Maher really believes the things he says, but he knows it keeps him in the public eye. I suspect he also knows it lowers the guard of guests on his show and gets them to say the often foolish, albeit entertaining, things they say.
Whether Maher is serious or not, the ultimate joke is his ability to expose the elitists on his show as the ignorant jackasses they really are.
Chisum commented:
Maher: Palin’s Job at Fox Equivalent to Talking to Her Down Syndrome Baby
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/rusty-weiss/2010/02/18/maher-palin-s-job-fox-equivalent-talking-her-down-syndrome-baby#ixzz0fvvgvFQd
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/rusty-weiss/2010/02/18/maher-palin-s-job-fox-equivalent-talking-her-down-syndrome-baby
Brian Payne commented:
Your Blog and the comments above only prove Maher’s point.
Tom commented:
Chris, you can keep talking in circles, but reducing the tax burden is reducing the tax burden. People end up with more money in their pockets. I don’t like the increase in deficit spending any more than you do, but it’s tax relief nonetheless.
ddhol commented:
Perhaps Mr. Maher has a point….look at who people elected as our President. I think he’s actually insulting the democrats.
Chris commented:
“Chris, you can keep talking in circles, but reducing the tax burden is reducing the tax burden.”
Oh, shove it. You first claim that a tax credit is a tax cut, then when shown that by definition and by practice that you were wrong, you try to change the definition to “reducing the tax burden” or tax relief. Then, when shown that taking out debt to pay for tax credits in fact increases the tax burden in both the short term (by taking out further debt) and the long term (by putting the burden of interest on the debt, which will be paid by taxpayers), you then claim I’m “talking in circles” and “bending over backwards”?
“People end up with more money in their pockets. I don’t like the increase in deficit spending any more than you do, but it’s tax relief nonetheless.”
No, it’s not, by any realistic standard. Debt to pay for tax credits, or “tax relief” is not tax relief, no matter how much you keep insisting that it is. Arguing that taking out debt that will have to be paid by the same people who are supposedly getting “relief,” is the equivalent of telling people that taking out a line of credit on their credit card makes them wealthier.
In other words, you’re the same kind of dangerous weasel that told people to take out equity in their house during the last 15 years to “consolidate their debts,” because hey, that home equity line of credit was “money in their pocket” and “debt relief.”
Tom, you are a liar and a charlatan, plain and simple. You can’t argue a position on the facts, so you practice selective argumentation, re-definition, and denial in order to cover up your deliberate attempt to decieve on even the basics of the difference between tax cuts and tax credits. If you had any sort of integrity or intellectual honesty, you would have given this up a long time ago. But then, thieves and conmen like you don’t give up until you think the mark has taken the bait.
People who think like you are, quite frankly, an enemy to any normally functioning society, and belong in the same circle with the thieves at Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, and the other banksters that robbed American citizens blind with the enabling of our esteemed political “leaders.”
So don’t blithely act is if you give a crap how much debt this country goes under. It clearly only matters to you if you can use it as a tool to criticize your political opponents; otherwise it’s irrelevant to you. You have no spine, no integrity, and no principles.
Now piss off, twimp.
Tom commented:
Chris says: “Money that has already been paid is not tax relief, and using government bonds to provide tax relief is not tax relief–because that debt has to be paid back.”
By that standard, Chris, neither Bush nor Reagan provided any tax relief. Is that really the definition you want to live with?
I’ve been nothing but civil with you, Chris. Your ad hominem attacks are rude and undermine your credibility.
Chris commented:
“By that standard, Chris, neither Bush nor Reagan provided any tax relief. Is that really the definition you want to live with?”
Perhaps you missed my earlier comment–”A tax cut is money that the government no longer skims from income or sales taxes. Period. It can be cuts in personal income tax rates, capital gains rates, or sales tax rates, etc., but it DOES NOT include tax credits, no matter what anyone, conservative or liberal, says.”
So don’t try painting me with the hypocrite brush to prove your failed argument that a tax credit is a tax cut. I haven’t brought up Bush or Reagan ONCE–that strawman was ALL you, and a rather lame attempt at deflection it was, because it was yet another indication that you had no substantive position to stand on.
“I’ve been nothing but civil with you, Chris. Your ad hominem attacks are rude and undermine your credibility.”
Bull. My credibility is just fine because I’ve argued from the facts, repeatedly, throughout my whole argument with you. And your “tone” is completely irrelevant here–this is an internet board, not the Presidential debates. It’s even more irrelevant when you’ve been arguing dishonestly during this whole discussion. As long as I’m not threatening you with actual harm, nobody cares what names I call you as long as the facts are on my side.
You lost YOUR credibility when you at first persisted in claiming that a tax credit was a tax cut, and then, when you realized that the facts weren’t on your side (because the freaking definition is readily available for anyone to see), tried to argue that taking out further government debt that will have to be paid by taxpayers (with interest) is actually tax relief.
As if switching to an alternative nomenclature, after your first one failed so spectacularly, somehow made your argument more accurate. Even a 5th-grader could have seen through that little ruse.
I’m not looking to convince you of anything, Tom–I’m pointing out to the blog’s casual readers what lying little sack of crap you are by using the facts to destroy your assertions.
There’s nothing ad hominem about it, either–calling you a liar and a danger to a functioning society is plain for anyone to see. Claiming that tax credits are tax cuts and that an increased debt burden makes people wealthier will tend to do that.
Equating you with the banksters isn’t out of line at all when you’ve adopted the same arguments about debt they did both during the housing bubble and after it popped.
So take your weasely, passive-aggressive behavior and get bent. There are liberals that can argue from the facts, but you’ve demonstrated, over and over and over, that you’re incapable of doing so. You are a fundamentally dishonest human being and I’ll continue to call you so, and continue to mock you, as long as I see your name in the comments here. So get used to it.
LordBulify commented:
May I remind many here posting that the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IS A DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC!!!! Not MOB RULES / DEMOCRACY!!! Something that all of us FREEDOM LOVING AMERICANS MUST REMEMBER!!!
Tom commented:
Sorry, Chris. You can keep insisting you’re right and I’m dangerous and so forth, but it won’t help the basic weakness of your assertions.
You’re saying that a tax credit isn’t the same as a tax cut because it isn’t permanent. Yes, Chris, that’s a distinction between the two, but a tax credit still means more money in taxpayers’ hands and less in the government’s hands. In other words, tax relief. By your definition, Bush’s 2008 tax rebate wasn’t a tax cut and therefore wasn’t tax relief. That’s slicing the baloney a little thin, son. A tax cut differs from a tax credit, but they both constitute tax relief.
You’re also saying that a tax credit isn’t a reduction in the tax burden if it’s paid for with deficit spending. By that reasoning, neither Bush nor Reagan’s tax cuts reduced our tax burden. What a strange corner you’ve painted yourself into!
It sounds like we agree on one point: it’s not sound long-term fiscal policy to cut taxes without also cutting spending. So can I assume you’re in favor of a pay-as-you-go statute?
Chris, I’m sorry to disappoint you, but I’m not a liar, a con man, a wild-eyed liberal, or any of the other things you would like other readers to believe me to be. You’re trying to discredit me by calling me names and by pretending that I’ve said things that I haven’t.
Apparently your ideology requires you to insist that the stimulus package didn’t include tax relief. That simply isn’t true, and if you don’t recognize it, you’re not even being honest with yourself.
Michael commented:
Tom,
I have been following your thread with Chris because I found if very amusing. Unfortunately for you Tom, Chris is right in the sense that his view of relief (from taxes) is based on the principle definition. By your own logic you believe relief to be a short term refrain or pause from having to pay. Most people (especially ones with even a basic understanding of finance) would define a tax cut and tax credit as two different things.
Personally I believe you lost the argument when you refused to concede when your opponent (Chris) had a valid point. You proceeded to change your definitions to carry on the argument as if he was originally arguing against these “new” definitions. As far as a fair and honest debate, you lost.
Chris commented:
“Sorry, Chris. You can keep insisting you’re right and I’m dangerous and so forth, but it won’t help the basic weakness of your assertions.”
My assertions are rock-solid. You’re the one that keeps having to redefine the basic de facto and de jure meanings of ordinary words to make your non-existent point. And insisting that YOU’RE right doesn’t help the fundamental weakness of your position that you’ve taken since the beginning.
“You’re saying that a tax credit isn’t the same as a tax cut because it isn’t permanent. Yes, Chris, that’s a distinction between the two, but a tax credit still means more money in taxpayers’ hands and less in the government’s hands. In other words, tax relief.”
Uh, no. A tax credit is not the same thing as a tax cut in any way, shape, or form. They are completely different. A tax cut is a cut in the money that the government takes from taxpayers. A tax credit, by it’s very definition, does not do this, as I’ve had to point out time after time after time so people are fooled by your deliberate deception.
Claiming that a tax credit paid for with government debt puts provides tax relief is equally dishonest. It no more provides tax relief than taking out a cash advance on a credit card, or taking out a loan to buy a house, provides you with debt relief. That you keep insisting that it does shows how dangerous you are–people who follow your advice on wealth creation inevitably end up in bankruptcy. Which, not coincidentally, is where this country is heading with all the debt that is piling up.
“You’re also saying that a tax credit isn’t a reduction in the tax burden if it’s paid for with deficit spending. By that reasoning, neither Bush nor Reagan’s tax cuts reduced our tax burden. What a strange corner you’ve painted yourself into!”
You keep bringing up this strawman when I never mentioned, nor defended, anything that Bush and Reagan passed. So this “corner” you think I’ve painted myself into is one you’ve created out of thin air because your own position has no logical or factual basis to stand on. Quite frankly, it’s pathetic that you keep going back to your own vomit like a dumb dog on this.
“It sounds like we agree on one point: it’s not sound long-term fiscal policy to cut taxes without also cutting spending. So can I assume you’re in favor of a pay-as-you-go statute?”
I think it’s irresponsible for the government to set an example of fiscal irresponsibility that would ruin most ordinary individuals. So yes, paygo is absolutely critical to any government operation. If Jefferson had to tell Congress where he was going to get the $15 million to pay for the Louisiana Purchase, then Obama or any other President should explain in specific detail where the money will come from to fund their policy programs. Naming programs as “emergency spending” to get around this measure should be outlawed as well. If they can’t pay for it, Congress shouldn’t pass it. Period.
“Chris, I’m sorry to disappoint you, but I’m not a liar, a con man, a wild-eyed liberal, or any of the other things you would like other readers to believe me to be. You’re trying to discredit me by calling me names and by pretending that I’ve said things that I haven’t.”
You discredited yourself just fine after you switched definitions of tax cut, tax credit, and tax relief to bolster your argument. I didn’t have to put words in your mouth at all, because you adopted the standard left-wing tactic of trying to “re-frame the message” to trick readers into thinking you were making a factual argument. That is the very definition of intellectual dishonesty. Don’t accuse me of putting words in your mouth when you couldn’t even maintain a consistent position to begin with.
It took you over two days just to finally admit you were wrong that a tax credit is not a tax cut, for god’s sake. You’re like a field commander that finally admits he screwed up only after the enemy has infiltrated his base, blown up the command post, and killed 80% of his division. How on earth can you expect anyone to take you seriously when you stubbornly maintain such an intellectually dishonest position?
Tom commented:
Chris and Michael, I started using the term “tax relief” because Chris kept pointing out distinctions between tax cuts and tax credits which were irrelevant to the basic point of my argument: tax cuts, tax credits AND rebates all are forms of tax relief.
It’s like saying that men and women are different, but they’re both human beings.
Tom: “Man needs shelter and food.”
Chris: “You’re being dishonest, Tom. Most men are married to women, and most women can cook and live in houses, so it’s totally misleading to say men need shelter and food.”
Tom: “I mean that two of human beings’ basic necessities are shelter and food.”
Chris: “You’re changing your terms in order to deny the obvious fact that men and women are completely different!”
I began using the generic term not to mislead anyone, but to clarify that Chris is pointing out distinctions that don’t detract from my point. Tax rebates, tax cuts, and tax credits are all different in various ways, but they’re all tax relief. Here’s the definition of “tax relief” from bnet.com, a business website:
“Business Definition for: Tax Relief
(1) Money given to a certain group of people by a government in the form of a reduction of taxes;
(2) the reduction in the amount of taxes payable, as for example, on capital goods a company has purchased.”
By my reading, that definition of tax relief encompasses tax credits, tax cuts, and tax rebates. Chris disagrees.
Chris, you’re starting to sound like you’re making a coherent argument. Let me summarize two key points you seem to be making.
1) Neither Bush nor Reagan provided tax relief.
That’s an interesting way of looking at things. But as long as you’re willing to acknowledge that your definition of tax relief leads to that conclusion, then at least you’re being logically consistent.
2) You support a pay-as-you-go statute.
Sure seems like a logical thing for a deficit hawk to support!
Chisum commented:
Tom,
I have been reading your comments for a while. You seem to have a lot of time on your hands. You lurk in every thread, throw out a provocative comment every now and then, hoping to lure someone into a “discussion” with you. Most times people ignore you. And rightfully so. Once in a while you get your head handed to you. Again, rightfully so. Unfortunately, you are so self unaware that you do not recognize it.
I suggest to you that you start your own blog where people who espouse your beliefs can have discussions all day.
Thus sparing the rest of us your continual inanity.
Chris commented:
“Chris and Michael, I started using the term “tax relief” because Chris kept pointing out distinctions between tax cuts and tax credits which were irrelevant to the basic point of my argument: tax cuts, tax credits AND rebates all are forms of tax relief.”
Except this wasn’t the basic point of your argument–your argument was that tax cuts and tax credits (along with bonds, incentives, and deferments) were the same thing, until I pointed out the difference. You then changed your argument to “tax relief” without acknowledging the change until your last post.
“Tom: “Man needs shelter and food.”
Chris: “You’re being dishonest, Tom. Most men are married to women, and most women can cook and live in houses, so it’s totally misleading to say men need shelter and food.”
Tom: “I mean that two of human beings’ basic necessities are shelter and food.”
Chris: “You’re changing your terms in order to deny the obvious fact that men and women are completely different!””
That you had to use this analogy to try and prove your point is laughable. You never argued a fundamental fact that man needs shelter and food, you argued that a tax credit was a tax cut (which it clearly is not), and then tried to pull the liberal trick of re-framing the argument when you got your ass handed to you. This is why I call you dishonest, because you’re incapable of arguing from the facts or maintaining a consistent position.
“Chris, you’re starting to sound like you’re making a coherent argument.”
I’ve been making coherent arguments since the beginning. You’re the one that’s been continually obfuscating.
“1) Neither Bush nor Reagan provided tax relief.
That’s an interesting way of looking at things.”
Again, it’s pathetic that you have to keep erecting this strawman. I’ve repeatedly said, throughout this whole argument, that a tax cut is a reduction in revenue taken from citizens in the form of cuts in sales taxes, income taxes, entitlement taxes, etc. If Reagan and Bush lowered tax rates, then yes, by that very definition you just cited, they provided tax relief–in that particular event.
That they both negated and undercut this relief by increasing government debt spending that will have to be paid back doesn’t change the simple fact that cutting taxes provides tax relief, nor does it invalidate my point that taking out government bonds to fund tax credits does not.
The essential problem, Tom, is that you seem to believe that all the money made in this country doesn’t belong to its citizens, but belongs to the government. That is probably why you keep arguing that the government giving what amounts to a cash advance on the country’s credit card, that its own citizens will have to pay back, is providing tax relief. The problem is that this provides tax relief no more than taking out a loan provides debt relief–that money still has to be paid back, one way or another.
(and lest you think Republicans are the only spendthrifts, the government’s debt has gone up every year since 1957–even during Clinton’s “surplus” years. See:
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm
and
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm )
If you take out government debt or reallocate existing revenues in order to provide tax credits, then that is NOT tax relief because that money is still being paid by SOMEBODY, either now or in the future. It’s the EXACT SAME THING as taking out a loan and saying you’re now wealthy, when you clearly are not.
The whole point, Tom, is that you initially thought you had people here over a barrell by claiming that there were multiple programs in tax cuts in the stimulus. You were flat-out wrong about that, as I’ve pointed out over and over,
Tom commented:
So here’s the entertaining punchline to the discussion:
Chris says issuing government bonds to fund tax credits is NOT tax relief,but issuing government bonds to fund tax cuts IS tax relief. The rationale apparently being that tax credits are temporary, but tax cuts are permanent. In other words, you have to keep issuing bonds to fund tax cuts. Logical? Prudent fiscal policy? You decide.
And Chisum is judging me for spending too much time on the blog he frequents. Can everyone please submit the amount of time you spend on here to Chisum so he can decide whether it’s too much, not enough, or just right?
Chisum commented:
Tom,
Yet again you prove that you are incapable of honest discussion. Typical of a troll.
I simply pointed out that you seem to have a lot of time on your hands and said this:
I suggest to you that you start your own blog where people who espouse your beliefs can have discussions all day.
Thus sparing the rest of us your continual inanity.
Which you promptly turned into this:
And Chisum is judging me for spending too much time on the blog he frequents. Can everyone please submit the amount of time you spend on here to Chisum so he can decide whether it’s too much, not enough, or just right?
Which illustrates that not only are you a bore and a liar but a troll as well.
So, I repeat my request, please start your own blog.
Tom commented:
Chisum, get a sense of humor! You need to laugh more.