Lileks Gold (Plus an UPDATE for MIKE)
BY WC WINDBAG
James Lileks is funny and brilliant, but you don’t need to hear that from me, you already know that! I hope even our favorite commenter Mike can agree with me about this.
Being behind on my Hugh Hewitt podcasts, I did not get to hear his Thursday, March 19th interview until yesterday… and I did not have a chance to transcribe what he said until just now.
All of Lileks’ interviews on Hugh’s show are great and I wish that James could stick around longer. In fact, it would be nice for Hugh to interview both Lileks and the Steyn each Thursday for the entire three hours, or at least every other week. Dreams.
This Last week, Hugh had played an outtake of President Barack Obama from a speech to someone or another, in which he said the following about raising taxes on the “rich”:
“These folks could afford it. They were rich back in the 90’s. It’s not like suddenly they’re going to have to go to the poor house, but what that does is allow us to pay for healthcare reform for a whole lot of people.”
I hear that and being quick on my feet, I start by thinking “Hey, me no like… me disagree.” For a mope like me, it takes time to read the quote over and over again, ponder, and come up with some sort of brilliant retort, which is generally less than brilliant.
But not James Lileks. Hugh asks him for his thoughts, and talk about thinking on his feet:
All right, now there’s three things there… let’s take the middle one first. It’s not like they’re going to go to the poor house. Again, I love the new standards that are being set. Now their standard for confiscatory taxation is whether or not you will be impoverished and deprived of your home and sent to break rocks or something at the county workout.
That’s interesting, but the best part of that or the most illustrative is the first… and that is, they were rich in the 90’s. The 90’s? Does he actually believe there is some race of immortal rich people who… who never age, and who never have their financial situation changed whatsoever, they’re like in Highlander… you have to chop off their heads to get rid of them.
In the 90’s… I mean, I’ve… lot of people who were rich in the 90’s got cleaned out in the dot.com bubble and a lot of people actually came up from modest circumstances in the aughts and made a pile, but it’s almost as if he sees sort of permanent class of coupon clippers from which we can extract any number of golden eggs without harming anything that they do.
The idea that these people, these rich people from whom he can take… they’ll do one of three things with their money: they’ll spend their money, they’ll invest their money, or they’ll give there money to charity, and yet you always have to ask, which one these do you want them to do less, and which do you think the less doing is better for the country?
But, you know what? The third part of it says it all. The third part says, ‘we’re going to give healthcare to these people.’ That’s it. Fait accompli. The very act of taking the money away somehow guarantees the accomplishment of providing healthcare for these people.
All nicely said in about 60 seconds, so I had to post it. Like every week, I am looking forward to this Thursday.
UPDATE: For Mike… Obama is going to save us all, but the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office sees deficit spending going through the roof…
All your responses about uncontrollable, deficit increasing spending, well here is another independent view of it. Looks as if Obama’s plan is a little worse… and by the way, this is with a significant reduction in war spending and increased taxes.
- Open Thread - August 12th, 2010
- Fun Video of the Day - July 22nd, 2010
- Jimmy Buffet Channeling His Inner Obama - July 9th, 2010
- Shocking Poll of Elites: W One of the Worst Presidents Evah - July 2nd, 2010
- Funny Video of the Day - June 25th, 2010
You do know that the Obama tax proposal is to go back to the tax code under Ronald Reagan, right? So I don’t get the giddy delight. I get you don’t like Obama. Obama is going to save your butt, so listen up.
Here are a few sobering facts
- discretionary social programs accounts for 1.2% of the Federal budget, as measured in the 2008 GW Bush budget. The percentage drops in the Obama budget.
- US federal spending can no longer be contained. There is nothing you can do to stop the growth of the budgets any longer. Excluding extraordinary expenses like TARP, Stimulus, bad asset control (I’ll get to them), the budget is growing due to Medicare and Prescription drug benefits.
- The US could drop foreign wars to save significant dollars, probably 10% or more. That money could go to pay down the debt
- The US will have to curtail Medicare spending. It needs to do so by using a model that costs less and by adding younger people. Insurance is about spreading the risk. We can get into the details of how and why later.
- TARP, Stimulus, bad asset control are “oh the new horror”, but they add up to less than 20% of the existing deficit. If these programs create jobs and stabilize banks, then we can solve the other problems.
- What I have wanted for years and years is for a drop in Federal expenses. We need to pay for what we spend. We have had 17 years of expenses exceeding revenues, 16 of them under Republican presidents. Those deficits have bankrupted the US.
Do you not believe that Americans should be paying our own way year after year?
Sigh… A post meant to show how a person is witty, quick on his feet, and funny turns into another Mike laundry list. I thought you might disagree with his analysis (you are quite disagreeable), but… oh well… I will selectively reply to your two questions and statements.
No, this will not return us to the Reagan tax code. Reagan had the top tax bracket was 28%. Obama’s will be 39.6%. Reagan was cutting the tax rate, which spurned more investment. Obama’s would be a hike, which would likely reduce investment (hasn’t happened yet, but this is what normally happens). Obama is also recommending reducing the charitable deductions for the “rich”, which is in essense a tax increase. He is also proposing uncapping (or raising the cap) on payroll taxes, which is another tax increase. So no, I don’t think it is the same.
The second statement that Obama is going to “save your butt”… I could not stop laughing when I read that. Oh… the One will save me. Sounds good Mike, but your faith is high. We will see what higher taxes on the rich do to charitable giving and investment in the future.
By the way, my tax cut showed up in my paycheck this week and I plan on buying a cup of coffee with it… wait, no… tea. I hate coffee.
Oh no, I’m not going to do this today. I have a ton of facts and links to support my position, but you dismiss all of our sources and facts anyway, so I won’t bother. What I will say is this: I disagree with the ascertion that Obama and Congress raising taxes, printing money, and increasing government spending will save my butt. There is plenty of evidence to support that conclusion from history, economists and talking heads. But as I said above, you will dismiss it, so I will not spend the 20-30 minutes gathering it.
But after I post this reply, I will do this for you. The CBO came out this week with a projection of anticipated deficits expected over the next 10 years based upon President Obama’s plans, and there is a graphic that shows it side by side with former President Bush’s deficits. You can comment how this is saving my or anyone’s butt. I will attach an update to this post (Lileks Gold) for your review.
Simple question for you Mike: what was the party in Congress during much of that time and what was their actions? In addition, what was the voting records of the individual members? Examples at a high level: Reagan was able to take a Democratic Congress and break it up into lefties and Reagan democrats and push tax cuts, but cutting spending was more of a challenge. Clinton was President with a Republican Congress that tied his hands on spending. It is not as simple as saying that there was a certain President in office since it is the Congress under the Constitution that has the power to tax and spend. The President has influence, but our government is not that simple. Democrats have been in charge of Congress since the 1930’s for most of the time, excluding the 12 years of Clinton/Bush.
Yes, and we have nailed the former GOP majorities on this site for their reckless spending. We also are doing it with the Dems. The difference is that the Dems are doing it with impunity… radically attempting to change our government (nationalized healthcare, cap and trade, etc.) at a time when the economy is the “worst since the Great Depression”. And finally…
I almost did not respond to this, because the comment is silly on its face. This is not a column about the validity of the Iraq war, but it was in my opinion a valid and just war. We lost many lives in that war, and each loss was a terrible loss of one of this country’s best and brightest, but it does not take away from the rightiousness of our cause. We don’t budget wars, but do them when it is in our nations interest. If you removed 9/11 and the subsequent Bush Doctrine from the mix, I have no doubt that we would not have the war debt.
One thing I found interesting about that Bush vs Obama deficit chart is that even the Obama administration’s projections forecast that the lowest deficit under his plan will be worse than the highest deficit under the Bush administration.
Most rich people made their money by being enterprising, and coming up with a product or service that they sell. This statement excludes the mega rich heirs who are a very small cross section (unless totaling their assets)When you raise their taxes they transfer that cost to the consumers they service. As Mike said the tax rates are not a new idea, it is a roll back to a time when we (America) were doing quite well. I do believe that some people (for the sake of arguement) say family of four at 40k a year, cannot afford taxes. To even up the ball field, let all go tax free on the first 40k. Obama said he was in the earning class that would carry the largest tax burden of his proposal. This is a small percentage of the population.What is happening now is that to protect this small (yet very vocal) group the majority of people are paying the bill, out of a smaller income level.For a few to live in mansions while the majority is living in their cars, or cardboard boxes is wrong. Seems to me all the opponents of health care reform have health care, many paid by employers, several receiving 1 mil dollar bonuses paid by companies bailed out on taxpayer dollars. The only thing worse than the “me first” attitude these people have displayed, is the “only me” position they are raising the bar to.
Well, there you have it. Here is what I read in your posts,
- Yeah, Reagan outspent everyone, but it was the Dems fault
- Yes, Reagan outspent everyone, but he defeated USSR, so point for Reagan
- Yes, Bush, outspent everyone ever, but he was fighting a just war, so point Bush (but please don’t look at the fact that the war cost $700B – $1T and the deficits were $5-6T, oh please oh please don’t post about it Mike)
- Yes, Clinton saved everyone money, but it was a Republican congress who reigned in spending (but please don’t mention that it was the same folks that then went loose under Bush)
At some point we, you and I as voters, have got to start making some very harsh decisions. Look at the budget and find places to cut
- Iraq war would save $350B (or $1.4T over 4 years)
- Reducing Medicare expenses (or means testing it) could save $about $200B
- Reducing Soc Sec (or means testing it) could save another $200B
A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon that ads up to some serious money. You have offered no concrete solutions, only a justification for why it was ok to spend under Bush.
How about some constructive dialog around solutions.
I would be interested in the links you have about the economy, recovery, and spending. To be credible, it has to be from an economist with some cache.
For example Nouriel Roubini. He isn’t Rep or Dem.
It can’t be some poll pretending to be a study group, although their analysis helps us to see other points of view.
Your blog is a pro-right, often pro-Republican, conservative down the line blog. I am sure that what you want is analysis. Your arguments would be stronger if they passes the test of debate.
Your arguments would not be stronger if it is merely dug-your-heels-I-think-everyone-but-us-conservatives have nothing to say. So far it’s been a lot of that, although this blog is more interesting when it’s a fair exchange.
Proud, I agree with your thought that if you tax on businesses and individuals who own businesses, they will pass that cost on to the consumer and it will wind up being an indirect tax on those purchasing those goods. There is no free money out there.
On the other hand, the majority of the people are not paying the majority of the taxes. The top 1% pay 40% of all taxes. The top 5% pay 60% of all taxes. The top 10% pay 70% of all taxes. This means the the bottom 90% only pay 30%. The fact is that the bottom 50% pay about 3% of all taxes. Even more, there is a large percentage of people (don’t have that number in front of me) that pay no taxes at all.
Yet, they are are receiving a tax cut. Back to Lileks: “it’s almost as if he sees sort of permanent class of coupon clippers from which we can extract any number of golden eggs without harming anything that they do.”
Mike, you have accused me of drive-by analysis several times, but yours takes the cake.
See my previous comment. It is tough to have a serious dialogue with you when you are constantly insulting us, ankle biting on some joke you did not understand, or making mountains out of mole hills.
Some of your constructive dialogue? My request for you not to comment was when I stipulated a fact that I knew you were going to come back with… which funny enough, you did even after I stipulated it.
Yes, it would be interesting to have a response with links, but I don’t bother anymore because you have gone so far in other responses to deny the source documents but instead give credibility to anonymous comments attached to the source article. Giving you links is just a source of frustration and sore ankles. The economists and sources we site are what I would consider very credible.
Ding, ding, ding, ding!!!! Yes, we are conservative. There is also a lot of debate on this site, back and forth with those posting. I don’t follow the idea that there is no debate since your comments are always posted and almost always answered.
There is more exchange on this blog than on most I have seen. Most allow posts but the authors never reply, and if they do they rarely reply in such detail. The fact is that you have not offered enough to either Viking or myself to sway our opinion on any macro issues. What you see is that you have people who are informed and believers in what they write. If you are looking for someone who will post nonsense and then change their mind the first time someone sends them a reply, then you are misjudging our opinions.
You also miss the humor and tongue-in-cheek posts and replies we put up and respond as if we have provided some huge offense to humanity. I don’t know why, but you seem to be missing the humor gene.
I appreciate you reading and commenting all the time. It is nice to have readers, even if they do not always agree with us, but continually insulting us, misunderstanding and restating us incorrectly is not a sign of a good debater either.
Your complaints fall on deaf ears. There is plenty of insulting on your part, you know, comments like Mike… Mike… Mike.. and more. Raise up the level of commentary to be more fact based.
I cannot help you if the links you post are not acceptable or credible. You’ve freely questioned or dismissed some of my sources as well. It is all part of the debate.
You should ask yourself why is it that your sources lack the stature of an economist or a scientist. I am sure that if you are right, these links should be out there some where.
So where are they? The credible links?
A great deal was made in past posts about the use of irony and sarcasm, the use of which you defended, encouraged, promised to continue using, and which all other excuses not withstanding enhanced entertainment value.
The use of oh please oh please (OPOP) was meant to indicate the fallacy of the arguments you posed in the form of the device you cherished, sarcasm. You have to learn to accept it if you are going to dish it.
Your replies to GW, or Stimulus, were replete with sarcasm, insults, talking down, and it continuous throughout all of these threads. I have ignored the bait and have called you out on it in the past.
(a) This is funny http://technorati.com/videos/youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DAqV3AXjqP0w
(b) This isn’t funny http://www.thegreatilluminator.com/blog/?p=2999
(c) This is also funny http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkqrI3IibYI
Get the picture. If you didn’t like (a) or (c), but thought I was kind of off on my analysis of (b), well then all I can say is you just don’t have a funny bone in your body. That is if you accept the notion that you are the official metric of funny.
Never mind that using insult to complain about insult, is well, an insult.
The debate on these pages is about informing or entertaining the reader with different opinions, yours, and everyone else who posts.
Raise to the level of no insults or sarcasm and post concrete solutions.
Regarding sarcasm… point taken. Written word is not exactly the perfect area to use it, and I am not sure where it was used first. I assume you understand mine, and maybe you don’t. Vice versa. I will say this, I saw the sarcasm in many of your replies, and the “Mike Mike Mike” falls into sarcasm and not insult.
As a rule, I will not post the links to sources for the simple reason that I do not have time to refute every line of every assertion you put forth. This is not an occupation for me, but rather a hobby. I enjoy reading the news and making comments. I enjoy some back and forth with those who disagree as well as “Amens” from those who agree, but I can not turn responding a single person into a full time job. I will try to provide sources in the main article as I see fit, or refute others that come back in comments, but two page responses will not get the attention you may wish. This is not because I concede defeat, only that I concede time.
Contrary to your belief, I believe that all three of those entries were funny. I patrol the Onion site on a daily basis, and Will Ferrell is hilarious when he does Bush (even W agrees with that). I also find Lileks funny, although I was not putting forth a funny line for the post. The purpose of the post was to show that Lileks is quick on his feet in addition to being funny. To see some of his funny stuff, follow the link.
Reviewing my posts, I see only sarcasm… but understand that can be interpreted as an insult. In return, I see your responses either doing the same or providing a more over-handed criticism of our site that (although it may not have been intended) was taken as a direct insult of the authors. You may not intend it Mike, but your responses often do not stick to the issues and instead go after our motives and thoughts, and draw incorrect conclusions.
Bottom line: lighten up, ya big jerk. (Kidding.)
Mike does have a sense of humor. Who knew?
All three of those were funny. Good choices Mike.
Trackbacks
So… What is Funny? How About Olby! | The Great Illuminator
Leave your response!
Our Growing Debt
Countdown Timer
in 25 months, 4 weeks, 1 day, 19 hours, 5 minutes, 33 seconds
Latest Illuminations
Subscribe to Posts
Categories
Authors
Archives
Center Links
Conservative Links
Great Forums
Liberal Links
The Great Illuminator
Most Commented
Tags