• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

I did not have telepathic declassification on my 2022 bingo card.

The words do not have to be perfect.

Good lord, these people are nuts.

Eh, that’s media spin. biden’s health is fine and he’s doing a good job.

They traffic in fear. it is their only currency. if we are fearful, they are winning.

A democracy can’t function when people can’t distinguish facts from lies.

All your base are belong to Tunch.

A last alliance of elves and men. also pet photos.

Americans barely caring about Afghanistan is so last month.

Motto for the House: Flip 5 and lose none.

I really should read my own blog.

… pundit janitors mopping up after the GOP

Tick tock motherfuckers!

Russian mouthpiece, go fuck yourself.

Republicans in disarray!

Too often we hand the biggest microphones to the cynics and the critics who delight in declaring failure.

Today’s GOP: why go just far enough when too far is right there?

Optimism opens the door to great things.

Anyone who bans teaching American history has no right to shape America’s future.

We are builders in a constant struggle with destroyers. let’s win this.

Wow, I can’t imagine what it was like to comment in morse code.

Insiders who complain to politico: please report to the white house office of shut the fuck up.

If senate republicans had any shame, they’d die of it.

Not so fun when the rabbit gets the gun, is it?

Mobile Menu

  • Winnable House Races
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • Balloon Juice 2023 Pet Calendar (coming soon)
  • COVID-19 Coronavirus
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • War in Ukraine
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • 2021-22 Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Politics / Republican Stupidity / One Percent is High

One Percent is High

by $8 blue check mistermix|  September 5, 20119:31 am| 72 Comments

This post is in: Republican Stupidity

FacebookTweetEmail

The Huntsman on the teevee phenomenon, where a candidate consistently polling at 1% gets invited on almost every cable show, is fascinating to me. In part, I assumed that the reason that Huntsman was becoming a cable TV darling was that he was the “reasonable Republican” foil to the Bachmann crazy, but here’s Huntsman on Face the Nation:

SCHIEFFER: That’s pretty clear. Let me just ask you some details on that. Does that mean that there will be no deduction for interest on mortgages, Governor? Does it? That’s what it means?

HUNTSMAN: That means no deductions. That means no deductions at all.

SCHIEFFER: What about — what about no child tax credit? I guess it means none of that, no earned income tax credit…

HUNTSMAN: None of that.

SCHIEFFER: But let me ask you this, does that mean that Social Security recipients are now going to have to pay taxes on their income?

Will veterans have to pay taxes on their disability checks and their benefits?

HUNTSMAN: Bob, what I’m asking for is a complete remake of our tax code. And in order to get where this country needs to be, in a position for the rest of the 21st century, given where of our other competitor nations have come since 1986 tax reform, which I thought was very successful under President Reagan — we forget we just haven’t made a whole lot of progress in the last 30 years.

Usually when you hear some crazy shit come out of a candidate’s mouth, you can assume there’s some demographic at whom it’s aimed. What Huntsman’s peddling can’t be popular with anyone.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « Labor Day (Yet Another Framing Problem)
Next Post: Open Thread »

Reader Interactions

72Comments

  1. 1.

    Omnes Omnibus

    September 5, 2011 at 9:36 am

    True believer?

  2. 2.

    afferent input

    September 5, 2011 at 9:36 am

    What Huntsman’s peddling can’t be popular with anyone.

    I guarantee it’s popular with our Galtian overlords. Hence his presence on da TeeVee.

  3. 3.

    Southern Beale

    September 5, 2011 at 9:37 am

    What Huntsman’s peddling can’t be popular with anyone.

    You so sure about that? That “a complete remake of our tax code” line is a classic Teanut talking point. I know Huntsman is not a Teanut but still, all I ever hear from conservatives these days is about the need to “completely overhaul the tax code.”

    This is usually a prelude to their waxing poetic about the Glorious Flat Tax. Overhauling the tax code is very appealing to people, who think our current system is to inefficient, complicated, and has too many loopholes.

  4. 4.

    cleek

    September 5, 2011 at 9:37 am

    and MSNBC.com has a big slide show “10 Thing You Didn’t Know About Mrs Huntsman”.

    i didn’t even know there was a Mrs Huntsman!

  5. 5.

    Mary

    September 5, 2011 at 9:40 am

    Social security and veterans’ disability is already taxable.

  6. 6.

    Omnes Omnibus

    September 5, 2011 at 9:41 am

    @cleek: If you watch the slideshow, you will have learned eleven things today. Isn’t that nice?

  7. 7.

    cleek

    September 5, 2011 at 9:42 am

    @Omnes Omnibus:
    it’s my day off. i ain’t learnin shit!

  8. 8.

    Amir Khalid

    September 5, 2011 at 9:42 am

    Jon Huntsman is probably not as smart as people say he is. The simplest explanation for his ubiquity on TV talk shows, I guess, is that he’s desperate to shift that humiliatingly low poll number.

  9. 9.

    Chris

    September 5, 2011 at 9:43 am

    Bob, what I’m asking for is a complete remake of our tax code. And in order to get where this country needs to be, in a position for the rest of the 21st century, given where of our other competitor nations have come since 1986 tax reform, which I thought was very successful under President Reagan—we forget we just haven’t made a whole lot of progress in the last 30 years.

    One of my best friends and I watched the Republican debate back in 2007 with a room full of a Republicans, and did a soccer fan wave every time Reagan’s name was invoked, just to highlight the absurdity of the fetish.

    The Thick-Skinned Rugged Individualists were NOT pleased.

  10. 10.

    Omnes Omnibus

    September 5, 2011 at 9:43 am

    @Mary: Your facts will only confuse things.

  11. 11.

    mistermix

    September 5, 2011 at 9:44 am

    @Southern Beale: No deductions at all is cool with teatards? I guess I’m out of the nut loop.

    @Mary: At income limits. I think Schieffer was getting at taxing the poor whose sole income is SS or disability and don’t hit those limits.

  12. 12.

    Southern Beale

    September 5, 2011 at 9:44 am

    @Mary:

    Social security and veterans’ disability is already taxable.

    I can’t believe Schieffer doesn’t know that. Surely he’s old enough to be getting Social Security, maybe he just turns it all over to his accountant ?

  13. 13.

    Amir Khalid

    September 5, 2011 at 9:45 am

    Hep meh! Comment in moderation despite removal of word potentially offensive to FYWP!

  14. 14.

    Southern Beale

    September 5, 2011 at 9:46 am

    @mistermix:

    No deductions at all is cool with teatards? I guess I’m out of the nut loop.

    The ones I’ve talked to, yes. They want to get rid of all deductions and all the loopholes and credits and just have a flat tax. They also call it a “consumption tax.”

  15. 15.

    Ed Marshall

    September 5, 2011 at 9:47 am

    Ummmm, it’s actually popular with me. I think the mortgage deduction is one of the most pernicious and poorly thought out piece of social engineering in history (and maybe not so poorly thought out, certain advocates of the policy said out loud that making tying workers to a mortgage would keep them in line at work and unable to strike). It’s also lead to sprawl and ecological devastation.

  16. 16.

    Southern Beale

    September 5, 2011 at 9:49 am

    Here, my Teatard commenter Jim explains why a consumption tax is such a great idea in my “cheap labor” post from May:

    The problem is in the tax laws that grant 13 million exemptions and in essence encourage people to hide their wealth from the government. Get rid of the current tax code. Go to a simple income tax with no exemptions and progressive tax brackets, or even better, a consumption tax (sales tax) that people could not avoid. With the correct allocations for the poor, a straight sales tax could fairly fund the government because those that make more money would spend more money either for goods or services (services would need to collect sales tax).

    This is the same BS I’ve heard from other Teanuts & regular conservitards as well.

  17. 17.

    Southern Beale

    September 5, 2011 at 9:50 am

    @Amir Khalid:

    I’ve found when I edit a comment to remove an embargoed word the comment remains embargoed. But if you repost it as a new comment it will show up.

    I don’t know why.

  18. 18.

    frapalinger

    September 5, 2011 at 9:52 am

    It will be popular with Bobo, Sully, and Joe Scar. They will all point to his lack of ideological flexibility because he will raise taxes – on the middle and working classes! That’s what they really love, an unashamed class warrior.

  19. 19.

    Southern Beale

    September 5, 2011 at 9:53 am

    I posted this last night, but I’ll repost it here … there’s an interesting discussion at my place about education and the current jones toward using computers and other high-tech crap to teach kids … and how kids’ test scores are actually stagnating as a result.

  20. 20.

    boss bitch

    September 5, 2011 at 9:55 am

    He’s just positioning for the sane vote in 2016.

    doink.

  21. 21.

    Southern Beale

    September 5, 2011 at 9:55 am

    @Ed Marshall:

    I wonder if the banking and real estate industries will ever allow the mortgage deduction to go away, though. I know that was discussed a little bit earlier this year…

  22. 22.

    MonkeyBoy

    September 5, 2011 at 9:57 am

    I do think the tax code needs to be strongly overhauled but I think doing so would be near impossible. I don’t see how it could be done incrementally and a for a total rewrite it would be hard to anticipate what new problems it introduces.

    For one example consider the mortgage interest deduction. While mortgage holders of course like this the rule essentially subsidies banks and contributed to the housing bubble.

    I can’t see one such group with tax advantages agreeing to forgo them as long as other groups still get tax advantages, and thus the incremental problem.

  23. 23.

    jwest

    September 5, 2011 at 9:57 am

    No deductions at all is a very good idea, but not in the context that Huntsman advocates.

    Eliminating all deductions eliminates the primary job of lobbyists, makes taxing fair and simple and gives the country a competitive advantage so jobs will not go overseas. However, eliminating deductions must be done right as with the Fair Tax Plan.

  24. 24.

    Ed Marshall

    September 5, 2011 at 9:58 am

    @Southern Beale:

    Yeah, Huntsman makes the proposal “revenue neutral” by slashing tax rates , which isn’t attractive to me, but I’m actually surprised to find any Republican actually trying to pay for their policy proposals instead of making bullshit promises to pay for them by promising undisclosed “spending cuts”.

    On Edit: Hell no they won’t allow that to happen.

  25. 25.

    JCT

    September 5, 2011 at 9:59 am

    @Amir Khalid: I also think that he gets all of these invites because they are desperate to show that not all of the GOP candidates are hopelessly craven, borderline imbeciles. After this interview, they may have scraped bottom.

  26. 26.

    Mino

    September 5, 2011 at 9:59 am

    Ah, yes, reform the tax code. Remove the loopholes and lower the rate. Reinsert loopholes and keep lower rates. Is anyone fooled by this?

  27. 27.

    dr. bloor

    September 5, 2011 at 10:00 am

    The Huntsman on the teevee phenomenon, where a candidate consistently polling at 1% gets invited on almost every cable show, is fascinating to me.

    Bobblehead show bookers regard Huntsman as being a fresh new face to break the McCain-Lieberman monotony.

  28. 28.

    cleek

    September 5, 2011 at 10:01 am

    @Mino:

    Is anyone fooled by this?

    sadly, yes.

  29. 29.

    Napoleon

    September 5, 2011 at 10:03 am

    @Southern Beale:

    I thought SS was indexed to your income. The more you earn by working (and I do think it is from working) the less you get from SS. If correct the only question is does it phase out at some point.

  30. 30.

    Mark S.

    September 5, 2011 at 10:06 am

    SCHIEFFER: Well, what about what Sarah Palin said yesterday, let’s just do away with corporate taxes. Do you think — would you be willing to go that far?

    HUNTSMAN: Listen, that’s a great political bromide. And everybody would love to go down to zero in terms of corporate taxes.

    Whoa, who is this everybody you speak of? I would guess that 93% of the country don’t want there to be no corporate tax. I don’t remember a lot of cheering when it turned out GE paid no taxes last year.

  31. 31.

    Omnes Omnibus

    September 5, 2011 at 10:08 am

    @Mark S.:

    Whoa, who is this everybody you speak of?

    Everyone who matters. Duh.

  32. 32.

    Amir Khalid

    September 5, 2011 at 10:10 am

    Further to my comment #8:
    Huntsman needs a decent poll number now, better than that risible 1%, or he won’t be a credible candidate in ’16.

  33. 33.

    Linda Featheringill

    September 5, 2011 at 10:17 am

    @Napoleon: #28

    I thought SS was indexed to your income.

    Nope.

    The amount of SS you get is related to how much money you’ve made in your lifetime because the more you earn, the more you put into SS.

    So a person who was stuck in low-paying jobs for all of his/her working life will receive less in SS, even though that person most likely doesn’t have a pension or substantial savings.

    SSI [I forget what the “I” stands for] is a supplemental payment that is based on current income. That might be what you’re thinking of.

  34. 34.

    cleek

    September 5, 2011 at 10:18 am

    @Amir Khalid:
    doesn’t “running for 2016” require him to assume that Obama is going to win in 2012?

    and wouldn’t that then require him to do what he can to make sure that happens? cause, if he fights too hard now, and damages Obama enough for someone in the GOP to win in 2012, he’ll have torpedoed his 2016 plan…

    a dilemma

  35. 35.

    Mino

    September 5, 2011 at 10:18 am

    @Napoleon: You are allowed a certain amount of income without changing your benefits. After 72(?), no amount of income will affect your benefits.

  36. 36.

    PurpleGirl

    September 5, 2011 at 10:31 am

    @Linda Featheringill:
    SSI = Supplemental Security Income

    It’s for low benefit seniors on Social Security; you can also get it if you are disabled. Often it’s more than Social Security Disability would be. I never figured that one out, but that’s how it worked out for a friend.

    ETA: Maybe it was that she was getting welfare at the time (circa 1995). I don’t remember the whole story. It was weirdly complicated.

  37. 37.

    Mino

    September 5, 2011 at 10:31 am

    effect. Sorry, grammar police.

  38. 38.

    catclub

    September 5, 2011 at 10:36 am

    @JCT: I think he gets all those invites because he is a billionaire. It is the same reason that FOX ‘news’ does not ridiculed by journalists — they might (hope to ?) get hired by those guys.

  39. 39.

    RalfW

    September 5, 2011 at 10:37 am

    Eliminating nearly all middle-class deductions and zeroing out the capital gains tax…that’s “moderate” now.

    If Dems can’t find a way to message against this menu of evil, then we really are fu*ked.

  40. 40.

    Amanda in the South Bay

    September 5, 2011 at 10:38 am

    I know that one VA benefit-specifically, the Gi Bill-isn’t taxable. That would be pretty devastating to a lot of veterans if it was.

  41. 41.

    catclub

    September 5, 2011 at 10:38 am

    @Mino: lots and lots of people.

  42. 42.

    JPL

    September 5, 2011 at 10:41 am

    Huntsman thinks ridding the rich of those nasty taxes on unearned income will magically create jobs so the poor are just going to have to pay more in taxes. Walmart sales should skyrocket with that type of thinking. It’s on average a 2000 dollar increase on the middle class.
    I’m still for a flat tax but only if the first 50,000 dollars of income is excluded. Therefore if you earn 55,000 only 5000 is taxable and if you earn 500,000 only 450,000 is taxable.

  43. 43.

    Hawes

    September 5, 2011 at 10:43 am

    Whenever Huntsman or someone like him talks about inflicting pain on the middle class, Tom Friedman and David Brooks get tiny erections.

  44. 44.

    Satanicpanic

    September 5, 2011 at 10:45 am

    The “I Say Unpopular Shit” candidate will never be the winner no matter how much the media wants it.

  45. 45.

    dmsilev

    September 5, 2011 at 10:46 am

    @Chris:

    One of my best friends and I watched the Republican debate back in 2007 with a room full of a Republicans, and did a soccer fan wave every time Reagan’s name was invoked, just to highlight the absurdity of the fetish.

    A worthy activity, but may I suggest upgrading to a set of vuvuzelas?

  46. 46.

    Samara Morgan

    September 5, 2011 at 10:50 am

    Can’t sell product without a plausible horserace.

    i, personally, cant wait for Conservative Thunderdrome.
    8 angry clowns enter, one angry clown leaves.

    an old friend said to me….but Perry is all we’ve got!

    /ineffable sadness

  47. 47.

    JPL

    September 5, 2011 at 10:50 am

    @dmsilev: What a great idea.

  48. 48.

    Sly

    September 5, 2011 at 10:53 am

    What Huntsman’s peddling can’t be popular with anyone.

    Not quite true. It’s popular with people who believe that people who are struggling to pay their bills aren’t quite desperate enough.
    @MonkeyBoy:

    For one example consider the mortgage interest deduction. While mortgage holders of course like this the rule essentially subsidies banks and contributed to the housing bubble.

    Historically, housing prices have been fairly stable. Existing homes values increased by about half a percent a year from 1950 to 2000 above inflation (and then shot up for various reasons). The big, systemic increase in housing prices since around the mid seventies has been primarily due to two trends:

    1) Newly constructed homes have caused the average home size to nearly double over the past forty years. The average size of a home in 1970 was 1400 sq. ft, compared to 2700 sq. ft. in 2009.

    2) The cost of paying a mortgage has increased, Mortgage interest rates are lower than they were 40 years ago, but you’re paying a lower rate on a much higher principal.

    And, remember, interest from all personal loans was deductible before 1986, including revolving debt, and we’ve seen an increased rate of cost increases on all personal debt since then. So if MID causes inflation, its negligible compared to other factors. It’s certainly not on the level of how poor securitization standards for mortgages created a whole lot of moral hazard for mortgage lenders who, in turn, lowered lending standards.

    MID is a backdoor subsidy to lenders, but that’t generally not a make-or-break issue because their ability to game the system can be mitigated through a regulatory response. I don’t think it would justify scrapping one of the main vehicles for housing affordability a family has.

  49. 49.

    Chris

    September 5, 2011 at 10:53 am

    @dmsilev:

    A worthy activity, but may I suggest upgrading to a set of vuvuzelas?

    Well, dude, this was 2007… Vuvuzelas hadn’t become infernally ubiquitous yet.

    Fantastic idea, though, thanks!

  50. 50.

    sherparick

    September 5, 2011 at 11:03 am

    The Huntsman Demographic: Corporate CEOs, movie stars, Sports stars and their agents, and folks whose income can be classified as Capital Gains. Steve Schwartzman and Pete Petersen will go from paying 15% tax on their $500 million to $1 billion a year to paying NOTHING AT ALL. That is about the upper 1% of the U.S. Population. They must really dig this guy.

    My own view on taxes is probably pretty heterodox for someone on the left in that I don’t like the corporate income tax. I think in our system, no matter how you “reform it,” the K street lobbyists will start working on both Congress and the IRS carve out exceptions and substitutions. It is the primary excuse that CEOs have to pay shareholder money into political campaigns. I would like to see it zero’d out and replace it, in-part with a carbon tax, a VAT tax, and tax surcharge of 25% on all those earning more than %1,000,000 a year. Also, a repeal of treating capital gains and dividends differently than ordinary income (the most regressive, rich people benefits, in our entire system). It is always a good thing to remember that a corporation is not a real thing, but an organization of people, and that right now most corporations are being run by the people who control the corporation, the CEOs and their immediate underlings, and the primary job qualification for being a CEO of a publicly traded company is to be effectively a sociopath who can avoid getting caught breaking any law. (See Milton Friedman’s article from the 1970s on the “responsibility” of a CEO.).

    I would also have Congress pass a law that would state that corporations, as fictional persons, have no more Constitutional rights than any character of fiction. As creations of the State, corporations are subject to regulation by the state, including regulation of all corporate speech.

  51. 51.

    Bex

    September 5, 2011 at 11:07 am

    I saw an interview with Huntsman on the Snooze Hour. He talked about “shared sacrifice” when the subject of raising taxes on the rich came up. I yelled at the TV about just exactly what kind of sacrifice I would share with a multi-millionare chemical fortune heir. No surprise that he’d love to see corporate taxes go away completely.

  52. 52.

    Mike in NC

    September 5, 2011 at 11:09 am

    Like Donald Trump, Jon Huntsman is merely a bored billionaire looking for media attention. He’ll call off his vanity campaign sometime in the next couple of months.

  53. 53.

    BBA

    September 5, 2011 at 11:16 am

    @cleek: He can always run for the Democratic nomination in ’16. By then we’ll have slipped far enough to the right that he’ll be a mainstream Democrat.

  54. 54.

    Amir Khalid

    September 5, 2011 at 11:18 am

    @cleek:
    Huntsman wouldn’t stand a chance primarying an incumbent Republican President in 2016, true. But unless that 1% poll number shifts upward in a big way, and right now it doesn’t look likely, he’s a no-hoper in 2012. I guess his chances of winning the White House in 2016depend on two things happening in 2012:

    (1)Obama being re-elected and

    (2)him being the runner-up in the primaries, making it his turn in 2016.

  55. 55.

    wrb

    September 5, 2011 at 11:29 am

    @sherparick

    . I would like to see it zero’d out and replace it, in-part with a carbon tax, a VAT tax, and tax surcharge of 25% on all those earning more than %1,000,000 a year. Also, a repeal of treating capital gains and dividends differently than ordinary income

    I like this but I’d make it simpler: a carbon tax and a confiscatory inheritance tax are all that is needed.
    An upper-income tax surcharge would be ok but is no big deal as long as the wealth isn’t passed to the kiddies, making a new feudal princely caste to feed off the rest of us in perpetuity.

    By wiping out all other taxes in exchange for a carbon tax, passing a carbon tax becomes more likely- you can show that it isn’t just an additional tax but a great simplification.

  56. 56.

    Southern Beale

    September 5, 2011 at 11:32 am

    @JCT:

    I also think that he gets all of these invites because they are desperate to show that not all of the GOP candidates are hopelessly craven, borderline imbeciles.

    That is exactly right. The GOP and their media enablers need to point to someone and say: Look! They’re not all batshit insane!

  57. 57.

    Southern Beale

    September 5, 2011 at 11:37 am

    BTW yesterday caught the tail end of a Weekend Edition piece, wish I caught the name of the person being interviewed, she was some academic type … she cited a behavior study where people all had an increasing number of coins, and everyone was given two coins they had to give to either the person immediately above them (who had one more coin than they did) or the person immediately beneath them in line (who had one less coin than they did.) By giving the person beneath them their two coins, that person automatically became wealthier than the giver by one coin.

    They found that most of the time, people gave the person beneath them their 2 coins. The sole exception being people at the END of the line. If you were next to last in line, they found people didn’t want to give the person beneath them their two coins because then that would make them the poorest.

    This seems to explain a lot of Teabagger behavior and voting against their own self-interest. Because they already feel marginalized and don’t want those beneath them to jump over them in the prosperity line.

    Anyone else familiar with this study? I’d love to read more about it.

  58. 58.

    WereBear

    September 5, 2011 at 12:11 pm

    @Southern Beale: I’ve heard about it before, and googled with no success. It is fascinating, and describes exactly the situation that puzzled me so as a child; the particular brand of racism that will gladly oppress people if it means their sorry-a$$ lives are better by comparison.

  59. 59.

    Alex S.

    September 5, 2011 at 12:12 pm

    Huntsman might be proof that republicans just want to elect someone to piss of liberals. Huntsman is too civilized and his platform, basically rock-hard fiscal conservatism, is unpopular.

  60. 60.

    Irony Abounds

    September 5, 2011 at 12:18 pm

    As long as the rates are progressive enough, eliminating most or all deductions and credits is the way to go. Stop social engineering (and lobbying influence) with the tax code. It should have one function: raising enough revenue to pay for what the government needs to spend. Huntsman undoubtedly wants flatter rates than I do, but the concept isn’t the problem.

  61. 61.

    Chris Grrr™

    September 5, 2011 at 12:35 pm

    @56, 57: last-place aversion.

    h/t to Reddit

  62. 62.

    Barry

    September 5, 2011 at 12:37 pm

    “Stop social engineering (and lobbying influence) with the tax code. ”

    I’ll tell the lobbyists (and those who hire them) to allow this :)

  63. 63.

    Mino

    September 5, 2011 at 12:58 pm

    The tax code is not necessarily the primary reason that industries lobby. In fact, it might be pretty far down the list anymore. Many other things legislated by governmant are reflected in their bottom line.

  64. 64.

    Southern Beale

    September 5, 2011 at 1:05 pm

    @Chris Grrr™:

    THANK YOU!!!! You’re my hero. My Google-fu sucked yesterday.

  65. 65.

    Frankensteinbeck

    September 5, 2011 at 1:29 pm

    @Irony Abounds:
    The problem is that the people arguing for removing all the deductions are also arguing for either a non-progressive ‘flat tax’ or replacing the income tax with a universal sales tax. Both of these massively shift the tax burden down towards the poor while claiming to treat everyone equally.

    The even further problem is that they’re including Medicare, Medicaid, and SS as part of what’s being replaced. Why, you can’t even claim to be creating a simple tax system without removing SS, can you?

    This is an old Libertarian position. It’s based off of their consistent belief that there must be a simple solution to everything that only they’re smart enough to have figured out.

  66. 66.

    SiubhanDuinne

    September 5, 2011 at 1:48 pm

    There’s some CW out there that even if Romney could be competitive in the general he will never be able to win the GOP nomination because he’s a Mormon.

    Why wouldn’t the same apply to Huntsman?

  67. 67.

    Frankensteinbeck

    September 5, 2011 at 1:57 pm

    @SiubhanDuinne:
    It has often been argued that it does apply to Huntsman. It’s just considered moot because he’s so far out of line with the GOP core voters anyway.

  68. 68.

    Ella in New Mexico

    September 5, 2011 at 4:49 pm

    @Hawes:

    Whenever Huntsman or someone like him talks about inflicting pain on the middle class, Tom Friedman and David Brooks get tiny erections.

    That’s only because their income covers the cost of Viagra.

  69. 69.

    Ella in New Mexico

    September 5, 2011 at 4:51 pm

    @Hawes:

    Whenever Huntsman or someone like him talks about inflicting pain on the middle class, Tom Friedman and David Brooks get tiny erections.

    Yeah, but only because they can afford the daily per-pill cost of Viagra.

  70. 70.

    Ella in New Mexico

    September 5, 2011 at 4:54 pm

    @dmsilev:

    Whenever Huntsman or someone like him talks about inflicting pain on the middle class, Tom Friedman and David Brooks get tiny erections.

    Yeah, but only because their income covers the pill-per-day costs of sildenafil.

  71. 71.

    Ella in New Mexico

    September 5, 2011 at 5:00 pm

    @Hawes:

    Whenever Huntsman or someone like him talks about inflicting pain on the middle class, Tom Friedman and David Brooks get tiny erections.

    Yeah, but only because they can afford the daily per-pill costs of sildanafil.

    However, given the political fixation on this topic today, I imaging they have switched to the longer acting tadalafil.

    (using generic names cause WP Moderation bumps me for their trade names, BTW.)

  72. 72.

    Gus

    September 5, 2011 at 10:49 pm

    What Huntsman’s peddling can’t be popular with anyone.

    Oh, I’m sure the Sullivan types will be touting his bravery.

Comments are closed.

Primary Sidebar

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

2023 Pet Calendars

Pet Calendar Preview: A
Pet Calendar Preview: B

*Calendars can not be ordered until Cafe Press gets their calendar paper in.

Recent Comments

  • JPL on On The Road – BigJimSlade – Hiking in the Alps, Chamonix and Grindelwald 2022, Planpraz to Le Brévent (Feb 2, 2023 @ 6:15am)
  • 🐾BillinGlendaleCA on Wednesday Night Fights Open Thread: The Sacrificial Warm-Up Rounds Begin (Feb 2, 2023 @ 6:11am)
  • Aussie Sheila on Wednesday Night Fights Open Thread: The Sacrificial Warm-Up Rounds Begin (Feb 2, 2023 @ 6:04am)
  • Greg on Wednesday Night Fights Open Thread: The Sacrificial Warm-Up Rounds Begin (Feb 2, 2023 @ 6:03am)
  • Aussie Sheila on Wednesday Night Fights Open Thread: The Sacrificial Warm-Up Rounds Begin (Feb 2, 2023 @ 5:52am)

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
We All Need A Little Kindness
Favorite Dogs & Cats
Classified Documents: A Primer

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Mailing List Signup

Front-pager Twitter

John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
TaMara
David Anderson
ActualCitizensUnited

Shop Amazon via this link to support Balloon Juice   

Join the Fight!

Join the Fight Signup Form
All Join the Fight Posts

Balloon Juice Events

5/14  The Apocalypse
5/20  Home Away from Home
5/29  We’re Back, Baby
7/21  Merging!

Balloon Juice for Ukraine

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2023 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!