Meet Janis Lane: Tea Party Leader And Anti-Feminist

Janis Lane is the Tea Party leader in Mississippi and she appears to long for the days when women were happy chattel. Lane had made headlines in complaining that women are inherently poorly suited to not just serve as bosses but to vote.

Lane explained that “Probably the biggest turn we ever made was when the women got the right to vote. Our country might have been better off if it was still just men voting.” A former marketing director who now leads the party in Central Mississippi, Lane further observed that “There is nothing worse than a bunch of mean, hateful women. They are diabolical in how than can skewer a person . . . I do not see that in men. The whole time I worked, I’d much rather have a male boss than a female boss. Double-minded, you never can trust them.”

Once again, it is remarkable how some of our radicalized citizens share striking similarity with our enemies like the Taliban who would agree wholeheartedly with Lane on her view of women.

Source: Daily Mail

290 thoughts on “Meet Janis Lane: Tea Party Leader And Anti-Feminist

  1. “Thank you for checking out our website! It is my privilege to serve as President of the Central MS Tea Party. We are a group of Patriots who want to see our country return to the principles of the Founding Fathers. As you check us out, we hope you will attend our meetings and become very active in ‘taking back our country from the liberals’! As Patriots, it is our goal to see our country functioning with a fiscally sound budget, limited Federal government, and a growing free market economy. If you believe in these principles then we need you to be a part of our group of Patriots!

    It is our duty as God-fearing Patriots to seek conservative Christian candidates to be our elected officials. We are living in a time when ‘these great pillars of human happiness’ are being subverted. Only you, as an individual, can make a difference. When ‘individuals’ join together and become a group of Patriots with the same goals, we can then bring our country back. It will take a lot of perseverence, prayer, fortitude, focus, and unity! Come join the Patriots of the CMTP and make a real ‘change’ in America!! Looking forward to seeing you at our next meeting!” From her website

  2. Blouise, She knows that the republicans have the white male vote nailed down so if she could only take away the women’s vote, her goal could be accomplished.

  3. SwM,

    BTW … I live in a veeeery Republican area and as I was running errands yesterday I happened to notice that there are hardly any yard signs supporting Republicans. Usually by now there are a ton of them everywhere. I found 3. Strange.

  4. Swarthmore mom

    Blouise, The lady reminds me of one of the mean white women in the “Help”.


    lol … perfect!

  5. Electing people to party leadership such as this woman, it is no wonder why a credible third party does not emerge.

    It is a bit of a wonder why she is in a political leadership role perhaps she should set the example for her cause by resigning, getting pregnant, then walking barefoot into the kitchen.

  6. Blouise, It was that way here for awhile, but now the bumpers stickers and yard signs are sprouting up. Your state is the most important at this point in time. Forget the south, it is the tank for the white ticket.

  7. Has anyone thought to ask her if she is going to put her money where her mouth is and refrain from voting? Like a good girl?

    Since she seems to think women should be seen and not heard on politics, how come she is out front and center on political issues? I love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning.

  8. “Just a bit hyperbolic there Mr. Turley. But it does appear to be red meat taco Tuesday!”


    What’s up with you today? Where is the hyperbole, except in this woman’s statements? Or is it perhaps that you think her statements were in the least bit reasonable?

  9. MikeS, I think comparing her beliefs to the Taliban was hyperbolic. The Taliban behead women and shoot them in the face. I like hyperbole in fiction, not when it comes to the real world. I revere facts and intellectual honesty in my world. Of course this woman is a buffoon. Apparently I needed to say that obvious fact, so there it is. The question is, do you think she is comparable to the Taliban? I sure as hell hope not.

  10. “The question is, do you think she is comparable to the Taliban? I sure as hell hope not.”


    I absolutely do compare her with the Taliban, although at this point she is not beheading anyone. However, she is championing a point of view that if adopted and codified into law, will have created an American Taliban. I think I’m at least ten years older than you Nick so I remember the 40’s and 50’s in this Country. Women were oppressed even then, so many years after they had gotten the vote. Fundamentalists are trying to take us back to a era that existed in the 18th and 19th Centuries where women were considered chattel.

    Banning abortion even in cases if rape or to save the Mother’s life.
    Banning Birth Control.
    Banning sex education.
    Banning a woman’s right to vote, which in essence is revoking citizenship.
    Making rape a woman’s fault.

    That’s just for starters. If even those factors above come about in our country, then how different will it be from the Taliban? You don’t think that there will be stoning for adultery, defined as such when a married woman is raped? If this woman’s beliefs gain traction the punishments that will ensue will mirror the Taliban, simply because by their own statements many Christian Fundamentalists today behave exactly like the Taliban, or perhaps you think the murder and condoning of it, of abortion doctors is justifiable?

    Nick, I do accept and appreciate you as being fairly reasonable for a person of your somewhat Conservative viewpoint. However, I think you need to recognize that you often give short shrift to ideas that differ from yours, in the same way that you criticize others for being liberally stereotyped in their responses.

  11. SwM,

    Yeah … we have Clinton and Springsteen in town on Thursday I think. … well, in Parma which is about a half an hours drive from my place.

    But it really is strange … only 3 signs when usually there are hundreds.

  12. What OS said about the hypocrisy of this woman. Secondly, I think the American Taliban label is a proper one. She is suggesting to take women out of all political arenas and corporate arenas as well. She just had to add a veil and we would be all set.

  13. “Lane had made headlines in complaining that women are inherently poorly suited to not just serve as bosses but to vote.”


    edited: “Lane had made headlines in complaining that > Tea Party< women are inherently poorly suited to not just serve as bosses but to vote."

    There, that's better.

  14. MikeS, I tire of the “He’s Hitler” “He’s Pol Pot” “She’s Taliban” hyperbole. I don’t give short shrift, Mike, I just speak my mind as do you. Reasonable people can disagree civilly which is what you and I do. If you consider me being uncivil please tell me. However, in this case I’ll just have to go to my mother’s favorite phrase, “To each their own.” It is the basis of my libertarianism. That doesn’t mean I agree but I will defend your right to say it. I had a couple jobs where I swore to uphold the constitution. I still consider myself under oath, even though a broken down, old PI.

  15. Now where do you find women like this other than Mississippi….. Now is she needing campaign donation….. I think she’s perfectly situated…..for what, im not sure….

  16. ” … remember the 40′s and 50′s in this Country. Women were oppressed even then, …” (Mike S.)

    The “white glove” years.

  17. “The “white glove” years.”


    Ah yes, when being “ladylike” was more important than being yourself. I can still remember my mother wearing hats with veils and she was a fairly liberated woma.

  18. You ever notice how the people that are the most likely to claim that everyone is really (insert negative trait here) are the ones that are most likely to be that way?

    Something tells me she likes to believe that all women are “Double-minded, you never can trust them” to excuse her own misdeeds.

  19. What OS said. How can one complain about a class they belong to being involved in the political and electoral processes while themselves participating in said political and electoral processes without being anything short of staggeringly hypocritical? They can’t. Then again, she’s a Tea Bagger. Contradiction is at the core of almost everything they do.

  20. Some Supreme Court News:

    BREAKING: SUPREME COURT LEAVES EARLY VOTING IN PLACE IN OHIO | Earlier this month, a unanimous panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit struck down an Ohio law cutting back early voting for most Ohio voters. Today, the Supreme Court rejected a request by the state to stay this decision. The Court’s denial of the stay did not explain the justices’ reasoning and did not include a dissent. Moreover, because their order only concerned the request for a stay, it is possible — if unlikely — that the justices will still decide to hear this case at a later date. Nevertheless, today’s order means that the new restrictions on early voting almost certainly will not be in effect during next month’s election.

  21. How about this guy?

    Democrats Aren’t Real Catholics, Says Kansas Senate Candidate
    By Zack Beauchamp
    Oct 16, 2012

    A candidate for State Senate in Kansas believes that Catholics, and Christians more broadly, who support Democrats cannot be true believers in Christ. Republican Steve Fitzgerald, challenging incumbent Catholic Democrat Kelly Kultala, told the left-leaning Polish American Club that the Democratic Party had become un-Christian. When asked if he stood by his remarks by the Huffington Post, Fitzgerald escalated:

    My main point is that the Democratic platform and policies nationally are an attempt to redefine marriage in effect to say what Christ has said about marriage is a lie. Christ said marriage is between one man and one woman and the Democratic platform said that it’s not true. So therefore, my point was that one cannot support the Democratic platform and be a follower of Christ. …The contention that I said that one cannot be Catholic or Christian and a Democrat is not an unreasonable summation of what I actually said. My actual message was fix the party or leave.

    Fitzgerald explicitly excommunicated his opponent, saying that “she calls herself a Catholic and I don’t know how she does that.” However, on the issues Fitzgerald cites, American Catholics are much more in line with Kultala than him: two-thirds support keeping abortion legal and three-quarters favor either full marriage equality or civil unions, with a plurality supporting the former. Catholic theology on assisting the poor is also far more in line with Democratic policy priorities, which seek to sustain a strong social safety net, than Republican ones.

    This isn’t the first controversial comment made by Fitzgerald, who has said that Obamacare has put “the American Republic…on the endangered species list.” But when asked about the controversy generated by his remarks on Catholic Democrats, Fitzgerald said that “I can’t believe this is getting attention.”

  22. Elaine, No, She makes Schlafly look like a feminist. This lady describes her self as a true god fearing christian patriot.

  23. Ms Lane> “They are diabolical in how than can skewer a person . . . I do not see that in men.”<

    Really? Have you ever spent an hour with two or three gay men? Women ain't got nothin on US (as a gay man myself, I claim the right to make that comparison)! My guess is this woman is probably Southern Baptist, teaches Sunday School, sings in the choir, and gleefully pulls the wings off of small flying insects, similar to most of the female side of my family. Oh, and, she probably doesn't consider gay men as 'men' anyway.

  24. Kraken,

    I’m not gay but I’ve spent an hour or two with men who think they’re real men and they can dish as well. The difference is they don’t have the humor and the engaging wit.:)

  25. Just an aside. While doing genealogical research I keep running up against early unstated patriarchy. If it isn’t that a wife’s name is totally unknown, or at least her last name is unknown, then there are the lovely tombstone inscriptions: “John Doe and wife.” I wonder if Ms Lane wants to become that anonymous?

  26. Gyges, I also noticed it did not have any “support the troops” fake ribbons on it either. They are falling down on the job.

  27. Fairly, With a Shirley Ellis and Warren Zevon reference during the same afternoon of commenting. Can Lou Reed be next?

  28. Anonymously Yours, (Hey there!)
    They’re in more places than Mississippi unfortunately, we just don’t hear from them.

    Actually, the most conservative end of the Christian spectrum are exactly like the Taliban in that they advocate a strict patriarchal societal model that controls the family and all decision making. That control extends to all members of the family until they leave the household including who women and men children (even as adults) marry and when they marry. Women have no public role beyond what is biblically appropriate and all such decisions are left to the patriarch and minister- if a minister is in the picture. Withdrawal from society, home-schooling, home-churching and limited societal/media input for children is the ideal.

    There is another aspect of that end of the spectrum called the “Quiverfull” movement which directs that it is desirable that women have as many children as Dog wills (often leaving medical and birthing matters in the hands of the Lard) as their Xian duty with 6-8-10 and more desired. This is also a plan to overwhelm the population in 3-4 generations with like-minded souls that will vote for candidates into office that will turn the country into a fundamentalist Xian nation.

    Now they rely on shunning and Christian (corporal) discipline (spend some time on those websites!) to keep the wives and children in line. It’s a sick societal model and if they ever were successful in taking over the nation the stoning would follow as surely as night from day. Since the blueprint/operating manual (Old Testament) for the society was OK with things like slavery and other separation factors among the populous one wonders what else they have in mind.

    If you start looking at the positions and statements of many politicians, primarily Republicans, this is the direction they are moving, they may not be able to implement the ideal but if you modify enough laws at the state or federal level you can certainly impose many of the restrictions on women’s pubic activities that are desired and influence the intellectual upbringing of children.

    I won’t post the link or my posting will be moderated but do a search on “Christian Discipline” for how to’s on the why, authority for and methods of disciplining ones wife and children. A couple of quotes from one of the sites:

    ….”Likewise, women struggle with sins that men may not even recognize as being sin issues. Here’s a bare-bones sketch of the dynamics:

    1.Women by their peculiar sin nature resist earthly authority and trust.
    2.Women will seek earthly security at the expense of emotional and/or spiritual security. ….

    2.Rebuke and Lash. This is the harshest discipline a husband should administer, and it should always be done privately and with Godly, Biblical love. Usually, exhortation will have already taken place before this method is used, but there may come situations where this is the first step. The rebuke and lashing should be administered with a calm heart. Talk to your wife, let her know you are serious, and tell her why she is to be disciplined physically.

    When administering physical discipline, take caution not to deliver the lashes anywhere but the buttocks. The first attempt at this punishment should only be delivered by hand so you can get an idea of how many lashings are needed. The best position will be for you ….”

    “Quiverfull: Why it don’t work the way David Crank imagines it” – Also check out the David Crank link (first two words of article) and read his multi-part manifesto:

    See posting #2:

  29. “but why do liberals not recognize that Rand was also a champion of individual rights, was outspoken against racism, bigotry and discrimination against minorities, and most notably was ahead of her time in championing women’s rights and demonstrating through her novels (and films) that women are as smart as men, as tough-minded as men, as hard-working as men, as ambitious as men, and can even run an industrial enterprise as good as if not better than men?”

    a sociopath? Nah, sociopaths dont care for the rights of other people and use bully/thuggish tactics to stifle dissent. Rand was all about ideas and their free, unimpeded exchange among free people.

  30. Bron,

    It has been demonstrated here that Rand meets the criteria of a sociopath by both the DSM and WHO diagnostic criteria. To whit:

    “‘As far as sociopath goes? How do you know that? Are you a trained mental health provider? Why do you think she was a sociopath? Because she didn’t give her money away and take a vow of poverty? By that yard stick we are most all sociopaths.

    I just looked at the profiles for sociopaths and psychopaths, she doesn’t fit them at least based on her writings (I did not know her personally).’

    Then you should have read more about her the person is all I can tell you.

    Here’s just one excerpt about her life:

    ‘Alisa Rosenbaum (her original name) was born in the icy winter of czarism, not long after the failed 1905 revolution ripped through her home city of St. Petersburg. Her father was a self-made Jewish pharmacist, while her mother was an aristocratic dilettante who loathed her three daughters. She would tell them she never wanted children, and she kept them only out of duty. Alisa became a surly, friendless child. In elementary school, her class was asked to write an essay about why being a child was a joyous thing. She instead wrote ‘a scathing denunciation of childhood,’ headed with a quote from Pascal: ‘I would prefer an intelligent hell to a stupid paradise.’

    But the Rosenbaums’ domestic tensions were dwarfed by the conflicts raging outside. The worst anti-Jewish violence since the Middle Ages was brewing, and the family was terrified of being killed by the mobs—but it was the Bolsheviks who struck at them first. After the 1917 revolutions, her father’s pharmacy was seized ‘in the name of the people.’ For Alisa, who had grown up surrounded by servants and nannies, the Communists seemed at last to be the face of the masses, a terrifying robbing horde. In a country where 5 million people died of starvation in just two years, the Rosenbaums went hungry. Her father tried to set up another business, but after it too was seized, he declared himself to be ‘on strike.’

    The Rosenbaums knew their angry, outspoken daughter would not survive under the Bolsheviks for long, so they arranged to smuggle her out to their relatives in America. Just before her 21st birthday, she said goodbye to her country and her family for the last time. She was determined to live in the America she had seen in the silent movies—the America of skyscrapers and riches and freedom. She renamed herself Ayn Rand, a name she thought had the hardness and purity of a Hollywood starlet.

    She headed for Hollywood, where she set out to write stories that expressed her philosophy—a body of thought she said was the polar opposite of communism. She announced that the world was divided between a small minority of Supermen who are productive and ‘the naked, twisted, mindless figure of the human Incompetent’ who, like the Leninists, try to feed off them. He is ‘mud to be ground underfoot, fuel to be burned.’ It is evil to show kindness to these “lice”: The ‘only virtue’ is ‘selfishness.’

    She meant it. Her diaries from that time, while she worked as a receptionist and an extra, lay out the Nietzschean mentality that underpins all her later writings. The newspapers were filled for months with stories about serial killer called William Hickman, who kidnapped a 12-year-old girl called Marion Parker from her junior high school, raped her, and dismembered her body, which he sent mockingly to the police in pieces. Rand wrote great stretches of praise for him, saying he represented ‘the amazing picture of a man with no regard whatsoever for all that a society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own. A man who really stands alone, in action and in soul. … Other people do not exist for him, and he does not see why they should.’ She called him ‘a brilliant, unusual, exceptional boy,’ shimmering with ‘immense, explicit egotism.’ Rand had only one regret: ‘A strong man can eventually trample society under its feet. That boy [Hickman] was not strong enough.’

    It’s not hard to see this as a kind of political post-traumatic stress disorder. Rand believed the Bolshevik lie that they represented the people, so she wanted to strike back at them—through theft and murder. In a nasty irony, she was copying their tactics. She started to write her first novel, We the Living (1936), and in the early drafts her central character—a crude proxy for Rand herself—says to a Bolshevik: ‘I loathe your ideals. I admire your methods. If one believes one’s right, one shouldn’t wait to convince millions of fools, one might just as well force them.’

    She poured these beliefs into a series of deeply odd novels. She takes the flabby staples of romantic fiction and peppers them with political ravings and rapes for the audience to cheer on. All have the same core message: Anything that pleases the Superman’s ego is good; anything that blocks it is bad. In The Fountainhead, published in 1943, a heroic architect called Howard Roark designs a housing project for the poor—not out of compassion but because he wants to build something mighty. When his plans are slightly altered, he blows up the housing project, saying the purity of his vision has been contaminated by evil government bureaucrats. He orders the jury to acquit him, saying: ‘The only good which men can do to one another and the only statement of their proper relationship is—Hands off!’

    For her longest novel, Atlas Shrugged (1957), Rand returned to a moment from her childhood. Just as her father once went on strike to protest against Bolshevism, she imagined the super-rich in America going on strike against progressive taxation—and said the United States would swiftly regress to an apocalyptic hellhole if the Donald Trumps and Ted Turners ceased their toil. The abandoned masses are described variously as ‘savages,’ ‘refuse,’ ‘inanimate objects,’ and ‘imitations of living beings,’ picking through rubbish. One of the strikers deliberately causes a train crash, and Rand makes it clear she thinks the murder victims deserved it, describing in horror how they all supported the higher taxes that made the attack necessary.

    Her heroes are a cocktail of extreme self-love and extreme self-pity: They insist they need no one, yet they spend all their time fuming that the masses don’t bow down before their manifest superiority.

    As her books became mega-sellers, Rand surrounded herself with a tightly policed cult of young people who believed she had found the One Objective Truth about the world. They were required to memorize her novels and slapped down as ‘imbecilic’ and “anti-life” by Rand if they asked questions. One student said: ‘There was a right kind of music, a right kind of art, a right kind of interior design, a right kind of dancing. There were wrong books which we should not buy.’

    Rand had become addicted to amphetamines while writing The Fountainhead, and her natural paranoia and aggression were becoming more extreme as they pumped though her veins. Anybody in her circle who disagreed with her was subjected to a show trial in front of the whole group in which they would be required to repent or face expulsion. Her secretary, Barbara Weiss, said: ‘I came to look on her as a killer of people.’ The workings of her cult exposed the hollowness of Rand’s claims to venerate free thinking and individualism. Her message was, think freely, as long as it leads you into total agreement with me.

    In the end, Rand was destroyed by her own dogmas. She fell in love with a young follower called Nathaniel Branden and had a decades-long affair with him. He became the cult’s No. 2, and she named him as her “intellectual heir”—until he admitted he had fallen in love with a 23-year-old woman. As Burns explains, Rand’s philosophy ‘taught that sex was never physical; it was always inspired by a deeper recognition of shared values, a sense that the other embodied the highest human achievement.’ So to be sexually rejected by Branden meant he was rejecting her ideas, her philosophy, her entire person. She screamed: ‘You have rejected me? You have dared to reject me? Me, your highest value?’” (

    It corresponds to the other materials I have read. If you want to know more? Do your own homework. Now that you have some background and cannot feign ignorance . . .

    I’m not a trained mental health provider but there are two who post here who agree with me (although one is off on vacation, I know his stance from previous conversations). Why do I think she was a sociopath?

    The WHO ICD-10 criteria for sociopathy (which they call dissocial personality disorder) lists:

    1. Callous unconcern for the feelings of others and lack of the capacity for empathy.

    Rand? Check. To the core.

    2. Gross and persistent attitude of irresponsibility and disregard for social norms, rules, and obligations.

    Rand? Check. By her own admission she care nothing for social norms, rules and obligations.

    3. Incapacity to maintain enduring relationships.

    Rand? Check. See Buckley and stories of other persons who fell into her disfavor. It was always something “they” did.

    4. Very low tolerance to frustration and a low threshold for discharge of aggression, including violence.

    Rand? Check on the low tolerance to frustration. See Buckley and stories of other persons who fell into her disfavor. She treated them like exiles and pariahs or browbeat them into submission.

    5. Incapacity to experience guilt and to profit from experience, particularly punishment.

    Rand? Check. She had no empathy, so I really doubt she felt much if any guilt about doing others wrong.

    6. Markedly prone to blame others or to offer plausible rationalizations for the behavior bringing the subject into conflict.

    Rand? Check. People don’t deserve love except for those who met her narrow criteria and it’s their fault.

    7. Persistent irritability.

    Rand? From what I’ve read and seen, she was an unpleasant bitch, check.

    So on the WHO ICD-10 criteria? Scoring a perfect seven out of seven, Ayn Rand was a sociopath.

    Of the DSM-IV criteria for antisocial personality disorder (of which sociopathy is a subset), she only meets two and a halves of the seven criteria and three are required for diagnosis:

    1. failure to conform to social norms and although the DSM requires manifestations of violence and/or arrest, it can be argued (successfully I think) she engaged in emotional violence as a proxy (see her treatment of those who fell into disfavor) – since this point is debatable, I’m calling this is a half until OS or Mike S. weigh in on this point.

    2. irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults – again, it can be argued she engaged in emotional violence as a proxy – since this point is debatable, I’m calling this is a half until OS or Mike S. weigh in on this point.;

    5. reckless disregard for safety of others – if they aren’t her ubermench, Ayn could give a damn about others as evidenced by her mischaracterization of altruism as evil and her hero worship of a serial killer for his inhuman personality traits;

    7. lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another – her entire “philosophy” is built around a lack of empathy rationalized away as “rational (i.e. enlightened) self-interest”.

    Since two halves make a whole, I’m saying she meets the DSM-IV criteria of three of the seven traits. This, combined with her stunning sweep of the WHO ICD-10 criteria?

    I’m going to stand by the statement Ayn Rand was a sociopath. It may have been a result of post traumatic stress or simply her disposition, but either way? She was effectively a sociopath. I’ll also standing by the statement that her “philosophy” appeals only to the selfish, narcissists, and other borderline disorders up to and including true full blown sociopaths. You’re all engaging in the religion of “me, Me, ME! and fuck everyone else”.

    Rationalizations for selfishness and greed, no matter how they are clothed, are still just rationalizations. Which brings us to another feature of mental illnesses. Those suffering them often do not or cannot acknowledge that they have a problem and will rationalize things away or blame them on others.

    Just like Rand and her followers.” – Buddha Is Laughing

    To which Otteray Scribe, a well respected forensic psychologist, said, “I am about to turn in, but will comment on the Buddha’s comment above. Short version: What he said.
    FWIW I am one of the two he mentions who does have the wallpaper that says I am qualified to comment.”

    So given that she meets the criteria described fully in BIL’s post and it has the concurrence of a professional in such diagnosis, I’m going to go with the statement “Ayn Rand was a sociopath” is a truthful statement.

    Feel free to try to prove otherwise, Bron, as you’ve done futilely before.

  31. Gene,

    Rand was unquestionably a sociopath and her life snd writings prove it beyond doubt. Your summary of her history proves it as well. Her sppeal to people was she provided rationales for their selfish behavior. Were she to ever gain power, her reign would have been Hitlerian.

  32. Whether you folks realize it or not, equating this dottering old fool w/ the Taliban discredits virtually everrything you say. Ask the mother of the girl in the UK w/ a bullet in her head if it’s equivalent? Ask the loved ones of women beheaded and stoned to death if it’s even in the same ballpark. My eyes have been opened, MikeS and lottakatz. My eyes have been opened. And so have others.

  33. Well since you arent a trained professional and you havent sat down with her to evaluate her in person, your diagnosis is lacking.

    But you do get an atta boy for the extra effort you put into trying to prove your point.

  34. Bron,

    Do you know what forensic psychologists do?

    I don’t think you do or you’d realize why OS’ agreeing with the diagnosis was critical.

    You get an atta boy for once again missing the point.

    The burden of proof was made by two standard diagnostic standards that Rand was a sociopath and got the concurrence of a professional trained to do remote psychological diagnostics. And I’m supposed to take your word, a civil engineer and proud Objectivist with a vested interest in saying Rand isn’t what she clear was over a clearly presented set of data that fit within the stated standard diagnostic framework so clearly that a layman made a case for her sociopathy and an professional concurred?

    I don’t think so.

    If I want to know how to build a water treatment plant, I’ll take your word on it. Otherwise, you need to prove she wasn’t a sociopath in the same scientifically based manner to meet your burden of proof on counterclaim. I stated sufficient proof for the claim and your response was the equivalent of “uh uh”. Not good enough.

    Get to work or accept that you cannot counter the assertion that Ayn Rand was a sociopath.

  35. Gene and Mike S. nailed her. She fit clearly into the personalty disorder spectrum, and fits the definition of sociopath. She was narcissistic, lacked empathy, and exuded a kind of evil one typically only sees in movie villains, except hers is the real thing, not acting. But, like many villains, her demagoguery attracted followers, just like many other demagogues in history.

  36. Well, I suppose that puts the rest the question on whether or not Ayn Rand met the definitions of a sociopath.

  37. Gene H:

    that isnt even good satire. Satire, to be good, should have some truth in it. There was none in that except maybe the 3 grams of gold part.

  38. And who could leave out that old eugenicist Margret Sanger who never met a slav, a Jew, a black she didnt want to abort.

    Talk about sociopaths, they are all over the history of the left. Throw in Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Beria and others and Ayn Rand’s pronouncements that you have a right to your own life, that life is a value, that people have a natural right to liberty and we see who the natural sociopaths really are.

    Killing and totalitarianism on the one hand and natural right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness on the other hand. I know who the Hitlerian/Stalinesque/Maoists are and have been and I dont see anything even remotely similar to the writings of Rand in their world views and more importantly their actions.

    But I understand why people on the left would not like her or her works, she certainly has nothing but the lowest form of contempt for many of their ideas.

    Talk about ad hominem.

  39. Smom:

    we must have seen 2 different debates, Obama did Ok and so did Romney. If you are a partisan Obama supporter he won and so to for Romney.

    The Prez didnt seal the deal. But at least he quit hiding behind Hillary’s skirt, or did he?

  40. Janis Lane is not too much of a mystery to me. I don’t care whether she can fairly be compared to the Taliban or not; she wanted the cameras on her and the printed words written about her and she wanted controversy and drama and she’s got it and I’m not gonna sweat about whether any particular part of it is fair.

    Here’s how I would write Janis Lane (whom I would name “Cathy Kreugerman) if I were writing her as a character in a short story or one-act play (she wouldn’t GET a part in any full-length work I wrote):

    She wants to be prettier and sexier than she is, but she does try hard.

    She has always gotten much more appreciation from men than women — guess why and guess how!

    She wants attention and admiration more than she wants real close working relationships with people anyway. Women don’t give her enough of that.

    She has had some rough times at work and she felt undervalued and that got her really angry. She probably “went up against” a woman boss and bad-mouthed some female co-worker and lost on at least one round of an office intrigue.

    She is manipulative but not terribly smart. She finds it easier to manipulate men than women. But she has never really been with a smart man so she isn’t able to even figure out how to manipulate that type of person. She wins approval from her man or her men by showing them how right they are about the qualities of OTHER WOMEN who, she assures them, are INFERIOR. (This puts her in a good position with the men because she is superior to those other, more inferior, women AND it shows those men that THEY are naturally SUPERIOR so they risk nothing in granting her wish to be “special” and better than other women.)

    Enfin, I am not impressed. She does know how to pose for her little “Fly Me” picture, though, gotta admit…

  41. …….and perhaps Janis Lane was very unhappy that her man lost although she probable was delighted that Romney tried to bully that “pushy” female moderator. lol

  42. Rafflaw, your suggestion that Lane “add a veil” is interesting. I think if she added SEVEN VEILS she still couldn’t shake it up with ME. I’m getting a feeling for her future, and this makes her a little more interesting to me. She will not take her years well. She will feel a bit of power for ten, fifteen years, max. Then she will start to miss those feelings that were keeping her from realizing how inadequate she is. Unlike an aging man who was just like her but male, she will not have an automatic “society of like-minded cronies” to buffer with her and for her the slings and arrows of her outrageous fortune. I see real meanness and bitter rage coming. Her Tea Party “guys” won’t be cushioning her fall very effectively. I may be wrong; she may be worth a whole screenplay. That remains to be seen.

    I wonder if she could ever win a local election.

  43. Smom:

    “Even Joe Scarborough said that Obama clearly won.”

    Now I know he lost, good ole Joe sucks up to just be on the air.

  44. Smom:

    Ok, so did Chris Matthews and a host of other democrats.

    I think it was pretty much a given that Obama was going to show a little life this time and also that liberal commentators were going to declare “victory” for their man.

    The msm is doing as much as it can to float his boat. There is an 800 pound gorilla in the room, the high debt and the lackluster economy which is moving in the wrong direction.

    Reagan took a terrible economy from Jimmy Carter and turned it around in 2-3 years and there was some debt but not this level. I even grant that Obama received a basket of pooh from GW but it could have been solved by now or moving in the right direction.

    As I was listening to the debate I came away convinced that the problem with this country is a complete lack of understanding by the people of finance and economics. Not even a rudimentary understanding by the majority. Most treat the subjects as some kind of supernatural mystery only interpreted by elites. They think principles they use in their own lives dont apply to the country as a whole.

    1. you cannot spend more than you make.
    2. if you dont work chances are you are going to go hungry.
    3. if you dont save for a rainy day chances are you are going to go hungry.

  45. “Reagan took a terrible economy from Jimmy Carter and turned it around in 2-3 years and there was some debt but not this level.”


    You’ve got your facts wrong. Reagan incurred a $3 trillion national debt (in 1908’s money) and actually started the middle class on its downward slide, while rewarding companies who took jobs overseas. While cutting the tax rates to the wealthy, he implemented the greatest tax raise on the middle class is the 20th Century and called it saving social security. He created “trickle-down economics, which his own budget Director, David Stockman, called a sham. Ah but why bother you with the facts since your political preferences seem to run to washed up “B” level actors, in the throes of the onset of senility, puppeting for the Elite, to whose ranks you aspire.

    As for Obama in the first debate his error was in understanding that the many racists who you would call allies, would have branded him as “uppity” if he was aggressive. In their eyes a Black man isn’t entitled to argue with a
    White one. He made a mistake in not understanding that their were certain peoples’ minds that wouldn’t change despite the fact that his opponent is a proven liar and huckster.

  46. “There will be more who would say, ‘No, I need to re-examine this thing.
    I’m not so sure I want to just vote for President Obama again.'” she
    explained, noting that the president acquitted himself better than in the first debate when he “totally tanked” but that he didn’t carry the night either.”

    Alveda King [niece of Marting Luther King]

  47. “It was ultimately a draw. The polls may stabilize — maybe a point or two movement to Obama if only because he showed some life.”

    Democratic pollster Doug Schoen

  48. Bron, Obama motivated his supporters. We had become a rather gloomy lot. Now we are headed to the phone banks.

  49. Smom:

    yes but then so have Romney supporters. The problem is the presidents baggage – 5 trillion in additional debt, a substantial number of unemployed people and a waning economy.

    If there was currently a republican president and a democrat told me he could do better and he had a history like Romney’s, I would give him a shot. Doing more of the same and expecting a different outcome, well you know what they say.

  50. Tigers 2-1. Justin Verlander is a throwback to when pitchers weren’t prima donnas. Oh..was there a debate last night? What channel?

  51. Mike Spindell:

    I know the left’s history of the Reagan years.

    But as Reagan used to say, progressives know a lot that isnt so.

    I read Carvilles and Begalas book about the largest tax rise in history, yes it was because we had a very good economy which lasted for a very long time. Increase salaries, increase the number of people working, expand business and shezam, more tax revenues even with lower marginal rates.

    I know it is hard for progressives to wrap their minds around that concept, Obama has an incredibly hard time every time he mentions Romney’s plan. He just cannot understand that lower tax rates generate the additional revenue. It happens everywhere, in every era it is tried.

    You have made yours, Mike, you have a nice retirement, a house in Florida a nice family. How about help making it so the rest of us can have the same thing? With this economy, I can never retire, can never sell my house for enough to buy one in Florida or somewhere else warm. Bush and now Obama have stolen from me and my wife and millions of others just like us.

    I would worry more about an Obama second term and my comfortable retirement being scaled back when there isnt any more money left to pay state pensions than I would about losing my house to rising sea levels.

    If Obama gets a second term, I hope I am wrong for your sake. You certainly seem like a decent guy.

  52. “You have made yours, Mike, you have a nice retirement, a house in Florida a nice family. How about help making it so the rest of us can have the same thing?”


    Given that you’re a small business man I would guess that you’ve earned three or four times what I’ve earned in my life. A major part of my income today is social security and the other part is a pension which I worked very hard to get. Even with Medicare and my secondary insurance coverage, what small liquid assets I had were wiped out by expenses not covered by insurance. I’m certain you will live for more comfortably then me in retirement.

    Let me get though to the fact that I’d be dead right now without Medicare since it paid for my heart transplant and for the medication I must take as a result. You and your ilk oppose Medicare, so I guess you can say you oppose me having the right to be living.

    “I would hope he would not exempt the capital gains tax from tax cuts, he should actually eliminate it so the middle class can salvage what is left of our estates after 4 years of plunder.”

    Your ignorance is your bliss. You define “middle-class” very loosely. The overwhelming majority of middle class people in this country don’t have any “capital gains” to take advantage of. I certainly have never once been able to file a capital gain.

    “I read Carvilles and Begalas book about the largest tax rise in history, yes it was because we had a very good economy which lasted for a very long time. Increase salaries, increase the number of people working, expand business and shezam, more tax revenues even with lower marginal rates.”

    I didn’t read Carville’s book, I lived through the period as an informed adult. The gimmick of the Reagan Plan was to double the social security withholding tax to the point where it was greater than the middle class persons income tax and then use the money to fund the defense buildup. This was how Reagan tripled the deficit and put the tax burden on the middle class, since there was a cutoff for the higher salaried people. Social Security only got into “minor” trouble because its funds weren’t segregated from the governments General Fund. The Social Security “shortfall” was a hoax, which unfortunately some defense obsessed Democrats like Pat “the Rat” Moynihan went along with.

    “Bush and now Obama have stolen from me and my wife and millions of others just like us.”

    You supported Bush, you define taxation as theft and greed as the highest value. Yet:

    “With this economy, I can never retire, can never sell my house for enough to buy one in Florida or somewhere else warm.”

    I can’t help it if you’ve failed as a business entrepreneur and want to blame your failure on the government. As Mitt Romney would say, you are not taking responsibility for yourself and your failure is your own fault. I would think Ayn Rand would say the same.

  53. Smom:

    right he is going to not rehire when they leave or retire. Which is how it ought to be. I wouldnt want people thrown out into the cold in this Obama economy.

  54. Bron,
    it is disengenous to suggest that Obama has a hard understanding Romney’s tax plan. He doesn’t even have a plan. The experts have chimed in that the math doesn’t add up, plus he is all over the recorded web that he will cut the rate for the top. It changes with each speech and he is on the record supporting the Ryan budget that is nowhere close to his alleged across the board tax cuts. If he was serious, he would exempt his own tax friend, the capital gains tax.

  55. rafflaw:

    no it is not.

    Please show me where the experts have said this and who the experts are.

    I would hope he would not exempt the capital gains tax from tax cuts, he should actually eliminate it so the middle class can salvage what is left of our estates after 4 years of plunder.

    You would deny the elderly widow an extra few dollars from her retirement account or the money saved on the sale of a house, which is really what most middle class people have as assets, in the name of class warfare?

  56. Bron,

    Romney’s comments about defunding PBS and Planned Parenthood as a means to reduce the deficit when he refuses to name the tax loopholes he plans to eliminate should be ridiculed. Why is he so reticent to discuss the details of his tax plan? Does he really have a tax plan?

  57. Elaine, he said he did. Eliminate taxes on capital gains, investments, stock portfolios and estate taxes. By doing all those cuts, the school teacher, nurses, construction workers and plumbers can all improve their financial status and become solvent again. He does not have a clue that all too many people have had to cash in whatever little retirement they had saved just to eat. And as for estate taxes, what the hell is that going to do for the millions of people who have been foreclosed?

    He lives in a bubble so removed from the rest of us that he truly does not have a clue. There have been studies of the children of the super rich. They really are wired up differently from the rest of us.

  58. “He lives in a bubble so removed from the rest of us that he truly does not have a clue. There have been studies of the children of the super rich. They really are wired up differently from the rest of us.”


    That and what preceded it in your comment are so damn true. The man simply doesn’t know, care, or understand how most people live. When i became of driving age I would ask my friends to contribute to the gas. The one of my friends, whose father was the wealthiest and had gotten a brand new mustang Convertible for his 18th birthday, asked me with all seriousness: “Why don’t you get your father to give you a credit card for gas like mine does?”. My father never had a credit card in his life and saved by putting his excess change in a cigar box every evening. My friend could never understand that he was the exception and not the rule.

  59. “He does not have a clue that all too many people have had to cash in whatever little retirement they had saved just to eat. And as for estate taxes, what the hell is that going to do for the millions of people who have been foreclosed?”

    Yes, it has been terrible for the middle class in the last 4 years under Obama. Thanks for Pointing that out OS.

  60. Bron, you know as well as I do that the intransigence of congress, with a refusal to pass ANY economic reform proposal from the White House is at the bottom of the sluggish recovery. What is amazing is there is a recovery in progress DESPITE the congress. Mitch McConnell stated early on that the number one priority of congressional Republicans was to make sure Obama was a one-term president. That was their only agenda. McConnell and Boehner made no bones about it.

  61. Bron,
    No, nothing much changes, in your mind. That book was written in 1891.
    Socialism? Really?
    Admiring Ayn Rand? Admiring Ronald Reagan? Really?

    “Doing more of the same and expecting a different outcome, well you know what they say.”
    Yes. Did you vote for George W. Bush? Congratulations!
    Letting neo-conservatives destroy the nation for 8 years, then re-electing them after a four year break. Different outcome? No. More of the same.
    Did you expect a different outcome?

  62. Mike, I had to pay a capital gains tax once. I bought a twin engine airplane and due to the fact many aircraft factories have shut down due to the economy, used airplanes have been increasing in value since so few new ones are being built. Manufacturers have been sued out of business due to liability issues, so the ones left have to pay exorbitant liability insurance on every airplane built. A few years go, I read the manufacturer’s insurance on a Beechcraft Bonanza is about $60,000 per airplane. As a result of market pressures, my airplane actually went up in value while I owned it. So I had to pay a tax on the eight thousand dollars it appreciated while I owned it. That’s it. No other capital gains taxes in my life.

  63. Mike, Maybe you and your friends should have ridden in that mustang convertible and let his dad, who was in better financial shape to do so, pay for the gas. Oh the advantages of hindsight.

    My brother had a classmate who was never bought a cigarette, but he smoked, and never bought a drink, but he drank. Every night this guy would put the equivalent of what others paid out for him in his “piggy bank”. At graduation he showed up with a car and bragged that his friends bought it for him. Sleeeeeaze

  64. Otteray,

    “Elaine, he said he did. Eliminate taxes on capital gains, investments, stock portfolios and estate taxes.”

    Okay…Romney has half a plan. He hasn’t explained how he’ll raise revenue to pay for his tax cuts and hasn’t told voters which loopholes he’ll close.

  65. Elaine, As you know older females are among the most vulnerable in this country. You get some real weirdos around here. I wonder if candy is related to dung ho.

  66. Elaine M, I actually did fall off the turnip truck once. What happened was that I was trying to hold on to one of the turnips (it was my DINNER for pity’s sake) and when the truck took a turn too fast it flew out and me with it. But I got up, dusted off my turnip, and kept on a truckin’ — and here come Mitt Romney hopin’ to make sure if it ever do happen again I don’t have no more medical coverage to patch me up afterwards, which really gripes my old decrepit a55.

  67. OS ,
    I have to correct you. Romney has exempted tax deductions for the extreme wealthy. The tax credit used by fund managers which allows them to pay 15% is exempted in his so-called plan. Besides, he has changed this alleged plan almost daily since the primaries.
    the Capital gain tax exemption that he mentioned for the middle class will do little to help their cause unless they have significant amounts in their savings or mutual funds. How much interest on CD’s these days? And he has also now suggested a cafeteria style deduction plan but can’t detail the amounts he would allow for deductions. The estate tax would not kick in unless you have a Five million dollar estate so I don’t see taking that away helping anyone except the wealthy.
    Here is one expert analysis of the thin on facts Romney tax plan:
    Here is an article discussing statements by Moody’s chief economist who was a McCain advisor stating that the math does not add up:
    Now I really have to produce the information that has been out there for days and weeks for you?

  68. Malisha,

    You don’t need health insurance. The next time you fall off a turnip truck and need medical attention–just go to the emergency room!


    Romney: Uninsured have emergency rooms
    by Rachel Weiner
    September 24, 2012

    In his interview with CBS News’ “60 Minutes” that aired Sunday night, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney pointed to emergency rooms as a form of health care for people without insurance.

    “Well, we do provide care for people who don’t have insurance,” Romney told interviewer Scott Pelley. “If someone has a heart attack, they don’t sit in their apartment and — and die. We pick them up in an ambulance, and take them to the hospital, and give them care. And different states have different ways of providing for that care.”

  69. (Reuters) – Voters say that President Barack Obama performed better than Republican rival Mitt Romney by a substantial margin in their second debate, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Wednesday.

    Forty-eight percent of registered voters gave the victory to Obama, while 33 percent say Romney prevailed in the Tuesday debate, the online poll found.

  70. SwM,

    Th project being run by Amber Boydstun, Rebecca Glazier, Timothy Jurka, and Matthew Pietryka measuring college students reaction to the debates in real time showed 70% of students named Obama the winner, as compared to 22% for Governor Romney. (2,295 students took part in this debate)

    The students thought Obama’s biggest dodge was on Libya while Romney’s was on gun control.

  71. This same group considered Romney the winner in the first debate though not by as big a margin as this one declaring Obama’s win.

  72. Whether it’s 26,000 or 45,000, it’s too many. (Only the strong, healthy and fit should survive, from the perspective of some, it would seem.)

    Mon Oct 15, 2012

    CDC Reports 45,000 Americans Die Each Year From Lack of Health Care

    by HoundDog

    Over 26,000 annual deaths for uninsured: report

    by David Morgan

    WASHINGTON | Wed Jun 20, 2012 1:02pm EDT

    (Reuters) – More than 26,000 working-age adults die prematurely in the United States each year because they lack health insurance, according to a study published ahead of a landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling on President Barack Obama’s healthcare reform law.

  73. Bron,

    That your sense of humor is radically deficient is not exactly a secret around here.

    Sorry about that. That you took umbrage to the Funny or Die bit? I’m not sorry about that at all.

  74. Bron, you hard-headed radical you, if you won’t listen to anyone here at least listen to Samuel L. Jackson, he’s talking to a wider audience than just Obama voters. Also, it has banned words. [BANNED WORDS ALERT!!!] One blocks Samuel L. Jackson at ones own peril :-)

  75. lotta katz:

    that is funny but we are paying 8.5% interest on student loans, I am not sure how good a deal that is when the interest rates are around 3%.

    Why should planned parenthood be funded with tax money? You want to support abortions go ahead and support them. But to force people to pony up who disagree? Well that isnt very “liberal” is it?

    Romney isnt going to outlaw abortion and he isnt going to prevent gay marriage. Romney is a flawed candidate but he is a lot less flawed than Obama.

  76. Bron, for the same reason I think education through 4 years of college or post high school trade schools should be entirely publicly funded, it’s in the long term and short term interest of the nation. I’d have liked to have that done for me and for my parents but it didn’t work that way. I don’t begrudge succeeding generations the shot. The country and world would be a better place. I would consider it one of my few tangible legacy’s to the future. Same for a lot of things, single-payer health care, all that socialist stuff. I pay well over 500$ a month for health insurance, between my ex-employer and I we pay almost 14K a year. The price could drop, we could pay it to the national health-care trust and probably get better care. It evens out over the long haul. If you’re not in it for the long haul, well, you must be al Qaeda or something! :-)

  77. Bron,


    Planned Parenthood, Abortion & Federal Budget
    04/ 8/11

    WASHINGTON — Republicans portray Planned Parenthood as primarily focused on performing abortions and – intentionally or not – using American taxpayer dollars to do it.

    Not so, say Democrats who counter that the group’s 800-plus health centers nationwide provide an array of services, from screenings for cancer to testing for sexually transmitted diseases. Abortion is just one of many procedures, and the law bars Planned Parenthood from using tax money for it.

  78. October 17, 2012

    So, I was amazed to hear Mitt Romney describing himself as having “come through small business”, as if his private equity firm were just like a mom-and-pop store or something. But Digby informs us that he made similar claims in his convention speech, making Bain sound like a scrappy little start-up. And it’s true it had only 10 people at first — that, and $37 million, yes, $37 million, in seed money.

    Where did that $37 million come from? A large part from foreigners, in many cases investing via Panama-based shell companies. Also, funds from families of Central American oligarchs, who were sitting things out in Miami while death squads sponsored by their class, and in some cases by their relatives, were roaming their home countries.

    Hey, doesn’t this sound like just your usual small-business success story?

  79. GOP Rep. Contradicts Romney, Says Uninsured Do Die From Lack Of Coverage
    By Scott Keyes
    Oct 17, 2012

    HENDERSON, Nevada — Last week, Mitt Romney justified his desire to repeal Obamacare by arguing that “we don’t have people who die because they don’t have insurance.” And so on Monday, ThinkProgress spoke with Tea Party freshman Rep. Joe Heck (R-NV), a former emergency medicine doctor, at a candidate forum and asked him whether Romney’s comments jibe with his past experience. Heck took issue with Romney’s assertion that emergency room care for individuals without health insurance is a real solution. “I’ve seen people presented later in the course of their disease because they didn’t health insurance,” Heck said. At that point, “it’s certainly much more difficult for them and it’s much more costly to the system”:

    KEYES: You’re a doctor. Mitt Romney took a little heat the other day for saying that there aren’t any folks in the United States who have died because they don’t have health insurance. Is that something you agree with in your experience? What have you seen personally?

    HECK: I’ve seen people presented later in the course of their disease because they didn’t health insurance. So they put off getting help until they’re far along and then it’s certainly much more difficult for them and it’s much more costly to the system.

  80. Bron,

    “Yes, it has been terrible for the middle class in the last 4 years under Obama. Thanks for Pointing that out OS.”

    That’s really funny, Bron. From my perspective things started getting bad in mid-2005, and the only relief has been the last year and one-half.

    I know we live in different worlds, (thank you, entropy) so I’m not surprised that you think things have only been terrible under Obama.

  81. gbk:

    I dont know what line of work you are in but in mine the reduction started in 2008 and has only gotten better in the last couple of months, it seems there is some activity but that is probably from more stimulus spending to pump the economy up before the election.

  82. Bron,

    “You have made yours, Mike, you have a nice retirement, a house in Florida a nice family. How about help making it so the rest of us can have the same thing?”

    This is a callus, insulting, and hypocritical statement, Bron.

    “With this economy, I can never retire, can never sell my house for enough to buy one in Florida or somewhere else warm. Bush and now Obama have stolen from me and my wife and millions of others just like us.”

    This is the fallout of the race to the bottom, Bron; a race you so seem to love, encourage, and argue the other side of consistently with your, “free market,” mythologies.

    Maybe you should reassess some perspectives you hold and realize that your own philosophy doesn’t care about nor has time for you.

  83. Bron,

    “I dont know what line of work you are in but in mine the reduction started in 2008 and has only gotten better in the last couple of months, it seems there is some activity but that is probably from more stimulus spending to pump the economy up before the election.”

    My line of work is none of your business, Bron. I just think it’s so like you to see economic realities delineated and bound by executive administrations.

  84. About that ER thing. I went to the ER, picked up a serious infection and was admitted to the hospital the next day with antibiotic drip. Since I had no income or maybe my $600/month had kicked in, I couldn’t pay the nearly $6000 bill. My property ended up with a lien on it. My mother died and left me enough that, adding to it some of my IRA, I was able to pay the hospital off. The lien wasn’t released b/c I hadn’t paid another $3500 to the lawyers. The lawyers said I had been personally served but I was half way across the country caring for my father at the time so I don’t know how that happened.

  85. “He just cannot understand that lower tax rates generate the additional revenue. It happens everywhere, in every era it is tried.”

    Also, since you’re so sure, you’ve got some sort of emperical backing for that, like nice charts where the income tax rate and revenue are shown side by side right?

  86. America Has Now Met the Many Romneys, and America Knows They Can Get Their Asses Kicked: At the Debate
    By Charles P. Pierce

    HEMPSTEAD, New York — Those of us who lived under the barely distinguishable leadership of Willard Romney in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (God save it!) know very well that the emotional membrane separating Lofty Willard from Snippy Willard is thin indeed, and that the membrane separating Snippy Willard from Dickhead Willard is well-nigh translucent. Both of those membranes were tested fully here on Tuesday night by the president, by Candy Crowley — who has clearly had enough of your bullshit, thank you very much — and by the simple fact that certain members of The Help tested the challenger’s ideas and found them wanting and, my dear young man, that simply is not done. And both of those membranes failed like rotting levees in a storm.

    Before I arrived to Hofstra on Tuesday, I thought that, given the roll he’s been on, Romney would be able to keep both Snippy Willard and Dickhead Willard in check. I had no doubt that, because the nature of the event required that he mingle with actual carbon-based life forms, we undoubtedly would see English-as-a-Second-Language Willard. And we did. (“Binders full of women”?) And, because at least some of the questions were likely to be wild cards, there was a better than even chance that Zany Improv Willard would put in an appearance, as he did on the very first question of the night, when he told a young man named Jeremy that, “I want to make sure we keep our Pell Grant program going,” when, in fact, one of the under-appreciated consequences of the overall zombie-eyed granny-starving onto which he signed when he picked his running mate is the fact that his running mate’s “budget” would utterly devastate… wait for it… Pell Grants!

    (I have to admit it: When the president let that fat, hanging curveball go by, I thought he was in for another long evening.)

    But not even I expected Romney to let his entitled, Lord-of-the-Manor freak flag fly as proudly as he did on Tuesday night. He got in the president’s face. He got in Crowley’s face. That moment when he was hectoring the president about the president’s pension made him look like someone to whom the valet has brought the wrong Mercedes.

    “You’ll get your chance in a moment. I’m still speaking.”

    Wow. To me, this was a revelatory, epochal moment. It was a look at the real Willard Romney, the Bain cutthroat who could get rich ruining lives and not lose a moment’s sleep. But those people are merely the anonymous Help. The guy he was speaking to on Tuesday night is a man of considerable international influence. Outside of street protestors, and that Iraqi guy who threw a shoe at George W. Bush, I have never seen a more lucid example of manifest public disrespect for a sitting president than the hair-curling contempt with which Romney invested those words. (I’ve certainly never seen one from another candidate.) He’s lucky Barack Obama prizes cool over everything else. LBJ would have taken out his heart with a pair of salad tongs and Harry Truman would have bitten off his nose.

  87. Once a bully always a bully, Elaine. Apparently Mittens doesn’t think it’s intimidating when your employer tells you how to vote. What a hairpiece.

  88. Bron,

    What the heck have you been investing in that has taken such a beating over the last four years??? Dow Jones had fallen to 6000 the month that George left office. It is now more than DOUBLED – 13500. And you’re complaining about capital gains on home sales? You and your wife can make up to $499K profit and OWE NO TAX. Give me a break!

  89. Elaine,

    I’ve been thinking and part and parcel of the recent “employers tell your employees how to vote” nonsense is a direct result of that abomination that is Citizens United. Due to the power inequity inherent in the relationship, even if the don’t use direct threats? It’s still intimidation, plain and simple. Fascists.

  90. If I was going to change the capital gains tax, and somehow had the power to make such a change, I would make three categories of gains; adding a bracket for very short term holdings.

    Currently, there are two capital gains essentially: Short Term which is sales less than one year from purchase; and Long Term for those exceeding. The short term capital gains are taxed at a higher rate than long term.

    My proposal would be to have a Very Short Term Capital Gains for securities held less than 10 days. These would be taxed at a higher rate than the other rates. The reason for this is to address the high volatility and speculative “day trading” of stocks which has in at least my view caused too much instability in the market and makes for wild spikes based upon chart watching rather than investing fundamentals.

    Such uncertainty and volatility makes financial planning and ratings of business wealth for the purpose of credit ratings and such more difficult which leads to less confidence in the security or the market.

    But if there are those who choose to partake in this sort of speculation, their rewards might be higher and hence the higher gain. It would be a financial incentive to hold stock longer and create more even investment choices.

    Just “speculation” on my part.

  91. We’ve been granted a look into the kind of mental gymnastics necessary to vote for a pathological liar. It’s fascinating, in a repellent way, like watching an autopsy.

  92. Darren,
    I would charge gains on stocks and bonds and mutual funds at the same level for ordinary income, with no exceptions. I would also not have an exception for fund managers. Income is income, no matter how you earn it. Real estate capital gains are fine the way they are now.

  93. re: capital gains. Since capital gains are based on speculation and not work, they should be taxed at a higher rate than money earned by actual labor.

  94. gbk:

    I didnt ask you what you do, I really dont care.

    Although I hope your sector is doing well, mine isnt and neither are a bunch of others under this administrations fiscal and regulatory policies.

  95. “Although I hope your sector is doing well, mine isnt and neither are a bunch of others under this administrations fiscal and regulatory policies.”


    Seriously, have you considered that the difficult times you are suffering through might be due to your own skills or management? Don’t you think that by blaming others for your problems is not taking responsibility for yourself? Why should the government bail you out by changing a course it considers to be for the benefit of all citizens?

    I take no comfort for the fact that you are going through hard times financially because I have a certain affection for you as a regular on this blog and I think you are essentially a good person. Really though, I have listened to many people of your beliefs through the years, Mitt Romney in his 47% recording, who decry people not taking responsibility for themselves. The very meaning of taking responsibility for oneself is not blaming others for the problems they face.

  96. Bob Kauten:

    If you are talking about Obama, I agree and wonder how you could vote for that man in good conscience.

    The only reason I am voting for Romney is because he isnt Obama. I wish someone else was running but you get what you get and at least he has business experience.

  97. gbk:

    I am taking my licks and making do, unfortunately, because of the infatuation both the left and right, but more the left, have with big government making economic policy an administration’s economic policies have a good deal to do with how well the economy does.

  98. Eeyore:

    I actually believe that government should not be involved in economics in any way and should only be the referee through the court system.

    I am not complaining about the Dow Jones. Although most people I know tell me their retirement plans are still in the toilet or are just now starting to grow again. Some people I know have had to put off their retirement because of it.

    Understandably, Bush takes part of the blame.

  99. bettykath:

    capital gains are from money someone earned at some point in time.

    I dont know about you but when I invest I dont speculate. If you want to gamble/speculate go to the race track.

    Furthermore investment/savings help grow the economy. It seems to me there should be some incentive to keep people investing.

  100. Elaine:

    what is wrong with telling your employees that if things get worse you might have to shut the door or reduce your work force? It could get worse with Romney too but based on the last 4 years the chances are pretty good it will be worse with Obama.

    How is your employer going to know how you voted anyway? It is a secret ballot after all.

    This hysteria over employers telling employees that things may be worse under Obama is a tempest in tea cup. Why should the past be any different than the future? I used to warn my children to stay away from Pit Bulls.

    I guess democrats dont have a spine or are so addlepated they cannot think for themselves?

    I am sure no employers who are democrats have suggested to employees how to vote?

  101. Bron,

    You can also take guidance from the world of sports. Most who play the game will say when asked about bad referees, or umpires, that it is the players and coaches jobs to readjust their style to the bad calls and play accordingly.

  102. Mike Spindell:

    I dont disagree with you, I am doing better than some and not as good as others.

    So there is truth in what you say. But the facts are that the policies of this administration are not benefiting the majority of people.

    With millions of people out of work, I am not sure how you can say this administration is good for the majority of people?

    What was the game that had that really bad call in the end zone? Wasnt it Greenbay/Seattle? How can you adjust for incompetence? I guess you can play really hard so you make sure you win big but the other team is doing the same. Why should teams who are working really hard have to deal with incompetent refs when competent refs are available?

    If someone works hard and plays fair, why would you want to penalize them? Life isnt fair and people cant make it so.

    I am just a middle class joe but a rich person doesnt take anything out of my pocket except when Bush bails out Wall St., the average rich guy who owns a company and creates something is a potential client. Why stick it to them? They can only spend so much, the rest goes into savings/investment which helps the economy.

    I know you have seen a good deal of hardship and heartache in your professional life but is that really going to be ameliorated by throwing cash at the problem? Isnt cash just palliative and not prophylactic?

  103. “Advocates for the red-state approach to government invoke lofty principles: By resisting federal programs and defying federal laws, they say, they are standing up for liberty. These were the same arguments that the original red-staters made in the 1800s, before the Civil War, and in the 1900s, before the Civil Rights movement. Now, as then, the liberty the red states seek is the liberty to let a whole class of citizens suffer. That’s not something the rest of us should tolerate. This country has room for different approaches to policy. It doesn’t have room for different standards of human decency.” From the article by Jonathon Cohn above

  104. Bron,

    The policies of the last administration benefited the majority of people? Reagan’s trickle down economics benefited the majority of people?

    I’d say that programs like Medicare and Social Security benefit the majority of people.

  105. Clinton and Springsteen are in town this morning at the Tri-C soccer fields (in the field house if it rains). I got two tickets but gave them to the grandkids who are there right now.

    I wonder if Clinton will go to Sokolowski’s for lunch as it’s one of his favorite places to eat in Cleveland.

  106. The grandkids are wondering if Clinton will play sax.

    I haven’t heard from any of them yet but will later tonight at dinner.

  107. Blouise,

    People misunderstood what Clinton said about Monica Lewinsky years ago. He really didn’t lie. What he actually said: “I did not have saxual relations with that woman.”

  108. Elaine:

    how so? If you work for 30 or 40 years the SS you receive is a pittance of what you could have if the 12 to 15% you pay for SS, etc. were put into a mutual fund, a conservative mutual fund. If you only made 30,000/year your entire work life for 40 years and you started working and saving at 18, by the time you were 58 you would have $557,000 by putting away $3,600 per year at 6%.

    Using that same number and 6% this is what you could have for the next 30 years – $3323/month. More than your working salary I might point out.

    What does SS give you? $800-1,500 maybe?

    I am not really clear on why you think SS is a benefit? You want hardworking people to be deprived of $1,800/month? Why? Most people who make $30,000 per year could never put aside $3,600/year along with SS taxes.

    The wealth that could be transferred intergenerationaly is staggering when you think about it. How wealthy could our people/country be without government taking the kings portion?

  109. Bron,

    I had money taken out of my paycheck and put in a retirement fund for many years. Unfortunately, I lost a ton of money–twice–the last time in 2008. I don’t invest anything these days.


    I suggest you check out Social Security benefits. The amount of SS benefits one receives depends upon one’s age at retirement and one’s recent annual income.

    Basics of investing in mutual funds
    Better understand and learn how to invest in mutual funds with these informative tips.

  110. Bron 1, October 18, 2012 at 7:53 am


    capital gains are from money someone earned at some point in time.
    You’re talking about what you earned before you invested? That’s after tax money that you invested. Now you’re into something else and the income from the something else should be taxed. Now you really didn’t expend any labor for that income so why should it be taxed at a lower rate than the money you got for expending your labor?

    If you’re talking about the tax being paid by the corporation for its profits, well, that’s fair. They pay on their profits, you pay on yours.

    I dont know about you but when I invest I dont speculate. If you want to gamble/speculate go to the race track.
    No stock guarantees you a profit. Stock value goes up and down. It sure isn’t a savings account. Dividend amounts can vary depending on the profitability of the company. If you lose money on one stock you even get to deduct it from whatever profit you make from other stock, or even the same stock depending on the price when you bought/sold. What a deal! Bonds guarantee you a certain income through interest. You’re guaranteed the face value if you hold the bond to maturity, but there are no guarantees if you decide to sell early.

    Furthermore investment/savings help grow the economy. It seems to me there should be some incentive to keep people investing.
    The incentive is the opportunity to return a good profit (not guaranteed).
    Interest and dividends should also be treated at least as ordinary income, not special, cut-rate-on-the-taxes income. Since you don’t do anything for the capital gains except speculate that the market will go up, you should pay a higher rate on that than for the money you earned by going to work every day moving all that paperwork or whatever you do. (I was going to go snarky by using a ditch digger b/c of the physical labor involved but they don’t earn enough to speculate. Besides, they’re more likely to be successful at the race track and be entertained to boot.)

  111. Mmmm…no, Bron, I was referring to Romney, if that’s actually his name.

    I think you’re already suffering enough, and I needn’t have been so sarcastic.

  112. Elaine:

    that chart proves my point, if you retire at 62 with $35 in annual income you get the princely sum of $813.00/month.

    that is 3300 vs. 813 dollars per month.

    According to Eeyore above, the stock market is doing just fabulous.

  113. Bron,

    That’s the amount someone would get if he/she retired early.

    You make a lot of assumptions about how much interest one would accrue on an investment in a mutual fund. Can you provide proof that the amount you state the person would receive at retirement is guaranteed?

  114. “Bron,

    So, I can’t help but feeling a little left out. Maybe you missed my earlier…”

    … question. Do you have any actual numbers to support your claim that tax cuts always increase revenue?

  115. Mitt Romney’s Bailout Bonanza
    Greg Palast
    October 17, 2012

    This investigation was supported by the Investigative Fund at the Nation Institute and by the Puffin Foundation. Elements of it appear in Palast’s new book, Billionaires & Ballot Bandits: How to Steal an Election in 9 Easy Steps (Seven Stories). Research assistance by Zach D. Roberts, Ari Paul, Nader Atassi and Eric Wuestewald.

    Mitt Romney’s opposition to the auto bailout has haunted him on the campaign trail, especially in Rust Belt states like Ohio. There, in September, the Obama campaign launched television ads blasting Romney’s November 2008 New York Times op-ed, “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt.” But Romney has done a good job of concealing, until now, the fact that he and his wife, Ann, personally gained at least $15.3 million from the bailout—and a few of Romney’s most important Wall Street donors made more than $4 billion. Their gains, and the Romneys’, were astronomical—more than 3,000 percent on their investment.

  116. It is generally necessary from an economic standpoint to tax capital gains at a lower rate than ordinary income. Nearly all countries that have a capital gains tax tax it at a lower rate than ordinary income. Many countries have no capital gains tax.

    I know there is a certain resentment some feel in that “only the rich pay capital gains tax” or that people who realize capital gains did nothing (meaning labored) to earn the gain and “deserve” to pay higher, but there is no economic basis to this and it seems to be based upon idealism or opinions rather than tax policy or economic growth.

    One reason is that if capital gains were taxed at or higher than ordinary income it would foster disincentive in the economy to invest in equities such as stock, company formation, real estate, or even bonds to some degree. For stocks, investors believing there to be higher cost in taxation due to capital gains could demand higher dividend payments which would force the company to pay out more money to shareholders which could cause companies to cut costs or delay expansion or hire more workers.

    Another reason is that much of the gain in a company or investment’s value was the result of incomes the business acquired and had already paid corporate income tax on and this gain is factored into the value of the capital gain of the company.

    Risk is also another factor. Consider this. For those who might argue the investor “did nothing to earn” the gain, the investor Risked his / her money to buy the investment facing the possible loss of principal. Those with wage income do not generally face any loss of principal in order to labor at an employment. If the tax disincentive with capital gains was too high, it would magnifiy the risk to invest and might shunt investors into income investments, and out of equities.

    Lastly, a lower capital gains tax fosters liquidity in the market. If an investor holds an equity investment such as a real property or a stock, they have the choice of either holding the investment and earning dividends or rent or selling the investment and having gains. If the gains tax is too high the investor will not sell the investment which locks that investment out of the market. If this is too frequent the market stagnates with lack of inventory to sell and money does not flow to create more investing opportunities, durable goods purchases, or commerce in general. When an investor realizes a gain from the sale of an equity usually within time, the investor then purchases other investments or buys goods or services which offers others the benefit of the money resulting from the capital gain. Since gains tend to be in much higher amounts than income, it does inject substantial money into the economy.

  117. Gyges:


    “The tax cuts of the 1920s

    Tax rates were slashed dramatically during the 1920s, dropping from over 70 percent to less than 25 percent. What happened? Personal income tax revenues increased substantially during the 1920s, despite the reduction in rates. Revenues rose from $719 million in 1921 to $1164 million in 1928, an increase of more than 61 percent.”

    “The Kennedy tax cuts

    President Hoover dramatically increased tax rates in the 1930s and President Roosevelt compounded the damage by pushing marginal tax rates to more than 90 percent. Recognizing that high tax rates were hindering the economy, President Kennedy proposed across-the-board tax rate reductions that reduced the top tax rate from more than 90 percent down to 70 percent. What happened? Tax revenues climbed from $94 billion in 1961 to $153 billion in 1968, an increase of 62 percent (33 percent after adjusting for inflation).”

    Now this part is interesting and something I have said before:

    “The tax cuts of the 1920s

    The share of the tax burden paid by the rich rose dramatically as tax rates were reduced. The share of the tax burden borne by the rich (those making $50,000 and up in those days) climbed from 44.2 percent in 1921 to 78.4 percent in 1928.

    The Kennedy tax cuts

    Just as happened in the 1920s, the share of the income tax burden borne by the rich increased following the tax cuts. Tax collections from those making over $50,000 per year climbed by 57 percent between 1963 and 1966, while tax collections from those earning below $50,000 rose 11 percent. As a result, the rich saw their portion of the income tax burden climb from 11.6 percent to 15.1 percent.

    The Reagan tax cuts

    The share of income taxes paid by the top 10 percent of earners jumped significantly, climbing from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. The top 1 percent saw their share of the income tax bill climb even more dramatically, from 17.6 percent in 1981 to 27.5 percent in 1988.”

    If you want to stick it to the rich lower the tax rates, just as if you want to stick it to corporations make them compete in a free market.

    You guys just keep bumping your head against a wall and the only people you hurt are the ones you want to help.

    I find it fascinating.

  118. Elaine:

    I laid it all out above for a $30,000 yearly income for 40 years and working from 18 to 58 [retiring 4 years earlier than SS with 4 times the money]. I dont know about you but retiring at 58 sounds pretty good to me and you are young enough to do something else and you can live on $3300 per month and quite comfortably especially if you are married and your wife or husband has the same thing.

    6% is not a large return on your investment and so is conservative unless you have a severe, protracted bad economy. Which you cannot really plan for in any event.

  119. On the breaking news OS mentioned:

    “The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on Thursday struck down the Defense of Marriage Act, finding the Clinton-era law violates the right to equal protection guaranteed by the Constitution.
    DOMA defines marriage as between a man and a woman and says states don’t have to recognize same-sex marriage.
    It has the practical effect of sometimes requiring gay couples to pay more federal taxes.
    In striking the law down, the Second Circuit sided with a 83-year-old Edith Windsor, who was forced to pay estate taxes after the death of her wife in 2009.
    The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to take up DOMA – as well as California’s Proposition 8, which barred same-sex marriage in the state – this term.

    this is great news … going to make the Supreme’s job interesting

  120. Gene H:

    I guess if you spend the additional revenue instead of putting it toward deficit reduction you would think that.

    But strictly speaking, reduced tax rates increase revenues.

  121. spending is what causes deficits.

    Why not reduce spending to 2008 or 2007 levels instead of cutting the rise in spending and calling it a spending cut?

  122. Blouise, Obama’s decision not to defend DOMA is looking better and better. Scalia has already signaled what he will do.

  123. Bron Contributed:
    “spending is what causes deficits.”
    That is the very heart of the matter. If an organization or individual cannot increase revenue cutting spending is just about all that can be done. Of course it would be best to do both.

    Though I would qualify my statement by saying if people or organizations do not spend money to buy investments or buy inventory to later sell for a gain their overall income will fall or stagnate.

    The key might lie in deciding what items to spend money on will offer a return that offsets the cost and can be accomplished in a period of time that is advantageous.

    From a gov’t social point of view I take this into an example:

    A college student and his wife are having great trouble paying tuition and living expenses and ask for food stamps because they are having to choose between living expenses and dropping out from college. The gov’t provides the couple with food stamps that over six months allow them to finish school and graduate at a cost of $2,400 in benefit payments.

    Having graduated an after a year, the college student joins a profession that pays $50,000 and for simplicity sake he is at a marginal tax rate of 28% and pays $14,000 in income tax (simple no deductions involved) Had he not received the degree he earns $30,000 a year at a 20% marginal rate and pays $6,000. So for the gov’t essentially investing in this person $2,400 they have a rate of higher income tax return of $5,600 and this was in the first year.

    Now if the 2,400 was spent entirely on waste or inefficient programs it only drains the ability of the gov’t to provide the above investment on individuals and contributes to the debt problem.

  124. Bron sez:
    “…spending is what causes deficits…”


    You are exactly half right. Spending contributes to the deficit. Lowered revenue through lower taxes also contributes to the deficit by not paying it down.

    I see the Republicans and their front man, Romney, want to give the military enormous amounts of money they do not even want or need. One of the best ways to cut spending is to get the hell out of war zones and stay out. And then cut back on new toys for the Pentagon. Romney wants to crank out new aircraft carriers and submarines as if it is still 1942.

    It is no longer in our national interest to stay bogged down in Afghanistan, among other places.

  125. Does anyone have thoughts or interpretations of this quote by Gov Romney from earlier today while speaking to the largely conservative, anti-union National Federation of Independent Business?

    Romney 10/18/12: “I hope you make it very clear to your employees what you believe is in the best interest of your enterprise and therefore their job and their future in the upcoming elections. And whether you agree with me or you agree with President Obama, or whatever your political view, I hope, I hope you pass those along to your employees.”

    Apparently, direct lobbying by employers to employees is now mostly unrestricted thanks to the…wait for it…Citizens United Supreme Court decision.

  126. Bron,

    You didn’t answer the question that I asked:
    “Can you provide proof that the amount you state the person would receive at retirement is guaranteed?”

    I retired at 58–but I don’t get a full pension. My husband and I don’t buy new cars–we buy them used. We don’t go on expensive trips. We live quite modestly. I’d have had a lot more money in retirement if the Wall Street banksters weren’t so greedy and unethical.

  127. October 18, 2012
    Obama, Romney tied nationally

    Today PPP is releasing the first results from the daily tracking poll it will be running for the rest of the election, sponsored by Americans United for Change. It will be based on a three day rolling average, with 400 interviews conducted each day.

    Based on interviews completed between Monday and Wednesday Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are all tied up at 48%. This represents some improvement for Obama compared to PPP’s last national survey, conducted last weekend for Daily Kos and SEIU, which found Romney up 50/46.

    Obama is up 51/45 with women, 62/34 with Hispanics, 87/8 with African Americans, and 57/38 with young voters. Romney is ahead 50/45 with men, 46/41 with independents, 58/38 with whites, and 53/43 with seniors.

    Voters narrowly disapprove of Obama’s job performance, with 46% of voters giving him good marks to 50% unhappy with how he’s doing. That’s actually up a little bit from a 44/53 spread over the weekend though. Americans are split right down the middle in their assessments of Romney- 47% see him favorably and 47% unfavorably. That’s down from a 49/45 spread on last weekend’s survey.

    With less than three weeks to go until election day, this race couldn’t be much more of a toss up nationally. We’ll keep you apprised of the daily movement.

  128. Elaine:

    the only certain thing in life is that we are going to die and that may not even be certain in the next few hundred years.

    Since it is your money and you have been investing and reading about investing and buying stocks and bonds and maybe paying someone for help, it is probably a safe bet to say that yes it is. We can take this what if scenario to social security as well, the government could go bankrupt, we could have a war, any number of things could happen to prevent paying social security.

    Based on your chart social security is not a good deal when people could invest and have a retirement income of $3300 per year after 40 years of work and retire whenever they wanted after age 58.

    20 somethings should refuse to pay into it and take the money and invest in private plans. They will do much better on their own and it will benefit the economy.

    Do the math, there are financial calculators all over the net.

    bottom line though is people ought to be offered a choice, a government retirement plan or a private one. You can do both but if you choose private you are on your own if you screw up. And the money for the government plan should be in Al Gores lock box, you cant borrow against it, you cant use it for other spending or deficit spending. Retirement only.

  129. Bron,

    Don’t you get a little sick of this? I mean, here it is 3 or 4 years since we started talking, we’ve got history. You know, this whole time, I’ve treated you pretty decently, I may have lost my temper a few times, but I’ve always been honestly inquisitive about your beliefs, and actually given what you said consideration. I’ve even given you home-brewing advice.

    The thing is, I knew without googling that it was a Heritage foundation article. Because the only time you don’t give a source is when it’s from that particular group. I knew I was going to have to do a stupid unmasking, because the only source you could find was one that would get disregarded by most people that read here.

    Well, since I knew that much, you should have known that I’m actually going to take the time to read the article and respond based on it’s merits. I just like a little context to quotes before I take their claims at face value.

    Like does the author mention what the growth rate was BEFORE the tax cuts? In the case of the Kennedy example he does, because that phenomenal growth in revenue he crows about, he includes three years before the tax cut took effect. Hmmmm That doesn’t really seem all that… honest now does it? So, just on a hunch, I checked to see what the GDP looked like in the 1960s. After adjusting for inflation, at first blush is sure looks like growth for the whole decade was pretty static.

    but hey you know what, the revenue from income did grow. See

    Now if the GDP didn’t pick up any, if I had to guess I’d say the rest of the increase was because employment picked up. So, hey let’s see when that happened According to the link that I’ll post in another post, The unemployment rate began to fall (a very tiny bit) in 1963. Then dropped from 5.6 to 5 (or 12%) between Jan. and Dec. of 1964 (after it was passed but before it went into effect) The following year (the first year the tax cuts were in effect), it dropped from 4.9 to 4 (or 18%). ’66 (and remember that the tax cuts were a gradual process, not all at once so this is as the tax cuts begin to take effect), the rate of new jobs began to slow once again, so just a 5% decrease in unemployment. 67 sees a similar small change, and 68′ sees another large drop in unemployment. The change in the GDP (which you’ll remember was already growing) between 63-64 is 5.8%; 64-65, 6.4%; 65-66, 6.5%; 66-67 7%, 67-68 4.8%; and 68-69 3%.

    For comparison, the revenue grew by 2% between 63 and 64, <1% in '64-65 12% 65-66 and 8% 66-67 8% gain, and 67-68 a loss of 2%.

    Now, it sure looks to me like the change in revenue was a direct combination of a increased economy and people returning to work. Both of which started BEFORE the tax cut was in effect, and both of which slowed after the tax cut went into effect.

    I don't really have the time or energy to look at the rest of the claims, but if one is so grossly wrong and inaccurate (3 of the 8 years of growth that was supposed to be a result of the tax cut happened BEFORE THE TAX CUT, as did the beginning of the things that at first look seem to have driven the increase in revenue).

    So, hey, thanks for making me go to all the work of googling your stupid source in the first place. I mean, telling me to look it up myself, and me doing so sure changed the conversation for the better.

    (For future reference, if you're too ashamed to link your source, get a better source).

  130. Bron,

    “Since it is your money and you have been investing and reading about investing and buying stocks and bonds and maybe paying someone for help, it is probably a safe bet to say that yes it is.”

    Yes it is what?


    “Based on your chart social security is not a good deal when people could invest and have a retirement income of $3300 per year after 40 years of work and retire whenever they wanted after age 58.”

    I’ll ask again: Where is your proof that a retired person is guaranteed $3,300 a month in retirement if he/she invests his/her money?


    What did the financial meltdown of 2008 do to pension plans? BTW, that’s a rhetorical question.

  131. The talk of revising taxes on capital gains and other investment misses the point that the way investment is done is completely unregulated and works to provide unfair advantages to a handful of traders belonging to a particular investment consortium (2nd article) and the speed with which investment can be done with no market brakes can completely distort a market. The drunken binge trading illustrated below is just an egregious example of the speculative commodities trading practices (energy is now playing by those rules- or more to the point- has been freed to play by the virtually no rules imposed on that kind of trading) that has artificially inflated oil and food prices.

    It is crucial to regulate these investment methods, a tax per trade is a great place to start, and a tax high enough to cause real repercussions to the people engaging in them would be even better. Also, it would seem to me that simple access alone could be an enormous advantage to some. Did not Carlin say “It’s a club, and we ain’t in it.” That seems to apply generally throughout society but it gets to be dangerous and nation destroying when that’s how a nations wealth is handled/manipulated. I thought that was what caused the crash of ’08. We haven’t really done anything about that either.

    I also think it’s interesting that any old anonymous one that has access to the proper input codes through the preferred system can engage in a practice, for test purposes, that can distort the market and it’s assumed to be benign or up-to-tricks as usual. There doesn’t seem to be any concern that this kind of thing could be a test run for a malicious hack. I’d like to know how much money (if any) is being made by bad actors with a good head for code- a series of blitz attacks of a size that didn’t raise suspicion maybe could make someone a lot of money. Maybe I just watch too many movies though.

    “Blackout’ trading binge: Drunken broker pushed oil price to 8 month high overnight”

    “A drunken broker apparently shook the global oil market much like a major international incident. A report claimed a senior broker at PVM Oil Futures pushed oil prices $1.50 higher in a night of blacked-out trading.

    Steve Perkins spent $520 million of his client’s cash on oil futures contracts throughout the night during a “drunken blackout”.”

    What is also very troubling is this story which deserves a read as it explains the impact of ‘bandwith stuffing and the non-existent control over it:

    “Mysterious Algorithm Was 4% of Trading Activity Last Week”

    “A single mysterious computer program that placed orders — and then subsequently canceled them — made up 4 percent of all quote traffic in the U.S. stock market last week, according to the top tracker of high-frequency trading activity. The motive of the algorithm is still unclear.

    The program placed orders in 25-millisecond bursts involving about 500 stocks, according to Nanex, a market data firm. The algorithm never executed a single trade, and it abruptly ended at about 10:30 a.m. ET Friday.

    “Just goes to show you how just one person can have such an outsized impact on the market,” ….

    “My guess is that the algo was testing the market, as high-frequency frequently does,” says Jon Najarian, co-founder of “As soon as they add bandwidth, the HFT crowd sees how quickly they can top out to create latency.” (Read More: Unclear What Caused Kraft Spike: Nanex Founder.)

    Translation: The ultimate goal of many of these programs is to gum up the system so it slows down the quote feed to others and allows the computer traders (with their co-located servers at the exchanges) to gain a money-making arbitrage opportunity.

  132. The Romney House Is a House Full of Punks
    By Charles P. Pierce
    Read more:

    Here’s what Josh Romney said last week about the president of the United States:

    “So as a father, he learned how to debate an obstinate child. We had a lot of fun, we had a lot of fun watching the debate.”

    Here’s what Willard Romney said the other night to the president of the United States:

    “You’ll get your chance in a moment. I’m still speaking.”

    Here’s what Tagg Romney said on Wednesday about the president of the United States.

    “Jump out of your seat and just want to go down and take a swing at him.”

    Any questions?

  133. Why Bosses Always Win if the Game Is Always Rigged
    By Charles P. Pierce

    The gang on Morning Joe this morning was gassing on about how neither of the presidential candidates — but especially not the incumbent, as was repeatedly pointed out by Mark Halperin, successful pundit and talk-show sycophant — have been “specific enough” about their plans to pull the country out of the ditch in which 32 years of crackpot conservative economics and a decade of deregulated thievery have left it. (Okay, that last part was me.) There was, as you might expect, very little talk about income inequality, or about stagnating wages, or about how so many largely unaccountable centers of power have decided that the country doesn’t need a middle class and, to that end, have worked on their own to make the one purportedly accountable center of power — the government, and the electoral politics that power and staff it — as unaccountable as they are, folding them into that impregnable iron bubble in which the other centers of power carve things up for their own benefit.

    No, there was not any talking about that.

    Joe Scarborough talked about how the people will willingly follow a politician who proudly “slays sacred cows.” Willie Geist said something about a Grand Bargain, and that the biggest problem with the election is that the politicians can’t tell the people what “we” really need. Steve Rattner lumped in Social Security with The Deficit. Halperin mentioned that some people picked on him for not giving the president’s performance the other night a better grade. Mika Brzezinski meeped something that sounded recognizably humane and Scarborough accused her of hijacking the show.

    It is easy to mock the sheer entitled audacity of these people’s talking about the “sacrifices” that “we” all have to make. It is easy to mock the notion of a Grand Bargain which, even in its most benign form, will involve changing the very natures of Social Security and Medicare while closing “loopholes” that will sock the middle class and cost the richest people in the country a little of their pin money, at least until their lawyers and lobbyists close in on Washington and devise new loopholes to replace those old ones. (We’ve had an endless discussion of the mortgage-interest deduction, which is pretty plainly on life support, but almost none on the preposterous carried-interest deduction. Coincidence? I think not, and neither does my banker in the Caymans.) But the discussion failed to include what I think is the most important factor driving the current drift of support in the general direction of Willard Romney.


    There was a moment right there at the end of 2008 and the beginning of 2009 when the nation could have radically reassessed the power of corporations and the power of their money in our politics. The way that American corporations did business was laid bare in all its magnificent avarice and mendacity for all the world to see. The damage that an unaccountable and deregulated corporate elite could do to the rest of the country was just standing there in the open with a huge spotlight on it. It became possible for the country to see how the game had been rigged and for whose benefit, and for the country to see the complicity of the political elites in building the crooked casino that was our national economy.

    And then the moment passed.

    We need not cast blame again as to why the moment passed. Suffice it to say, it passed because those same forces that brought on the crisis — and, therefore, that brief, glimmering opportunity — were able to make it pass. We need not go into all the reasons they were able to do that. Suffice it to say that there has settled upon our politics, as we perceive them among ourselves, a notion that the rigged game is the only game in town.

    We have allowed ourselves to become mired in the habits of oligarchy, as though no other politics are possible, even in a putatively self-governing republic, and resignation is one of the most obvious of those habits. We acclimate ourselves to the habit of having our politics acted upon us, rather than insisting that they are ours to command. TV stars tell us that political stars are going to cut their Grand Bargain and that “we” will then applaud them for making the “tough choices” on our behalf. That is how you inculcate the habits of oligarchy in a political commonwealth. First, you disabuse people of the notion that government is the ultimate expression of that commonwealth, and then you eliminate or emasculate any centers of power that might exist independent of your smothering influence — like, say, organized labor — and then you make it quite clear who’s in charge. I’m the boss. Get used to it.

    And, hell, we’re already entertaining ourselves by watching bosses act like jackasses all over television. Donald Trump is sui generis in this regard, of course, but the cable lineup is full of shows about angry misanthropes who come in and treat the employees of hair salons, restaurants, and saloons like dirt, all in the name of “improving” the businesses in question. The Economist last week published an astonishing sentence in one of its allegedly “centrist” editorials calling for the Grand Bargain: “No Wall Street financier has done as much damage to American social mobility as the teachers’ unions have.” Do not look up at your betters with anger. Look around at your neighbors who teach in the public schools. Inculcate the habits of oligarchy in people — especially the habit of resignation — and you can turn them on each other and go on your merry way. Look at the now weekly stories of corporate chieftains “encouraging” their employees to vote a certain way, lest the chieftain — regretfully, I am sure — be forced to destroy any economic independence the employees have.

    So, as we groan on towards the election, it’s becoming clear that a lot of people have decided to vote for Willard Romney because he is The Boss, and because we all know that everything in our lives, including the exercise of our freedom, is at the whim of the boss. Those are the habits of oligarchy. The Morning Joe crew speaks their language.

    Read more:

  134. It occurs to me that maybe somebody should come up with a field of mathematics dedicated to measuring rates of change in things. Somebody, or two somebodies working separately but contemporaneously, should get right on that…

    Maybe invent a few laws of motion while they’re at it.

  135. gYGES:

    I was pretty sure you could figure it out on your own, I didnt think I was pulling the wool over your eyes. I wouldnt even try, you are way too smart.

    There was the Viet Nam war back in the 60’s and also the space program. Both took money from the economy.

    So what happened in the 20’s and the 80’s? The 70% rate in the 20’s was because of the first World War.

    Why is there such a difference of opinion on this subject?

    Revenues increase when you reduce taxes.

  136. Elaine:

    “What did the financial meltdown of 2008 do to pension plans? BTW, that’s a rhetorical question.”

    According to Eeyore above, everything is hunky dory and your investment has increased 100% since 2008.

    Your 800 dollars from social security isnt guaranteed either and on top of that if you die the survivor benefits arent all that great.

    There are no guarantees in life.

    Historically the market has always moved up over the long term. If you remember in 1987 the market was around 2300. There has been a good deal of fluctuation in the ensuing 25 years but the trend is positive.

  137. Bron,

    “Revenues increase when you reduce taxes.”

    I’m not looking anything up but this sounds like an oxymoron.

  138. Bron,

    If there are no guarantees in life, your numbers mean nothing. You can’t prove that a privatized pension plan would be better than Social Security. In the words of Kurt Vonnegut–“So it goes.”

  139. Elaine:

    the 110 year average of the Dow Jones, based on the second link above, is 6.87%. From 1897 to 2007

    40 year average = 7.62%
    30 ” ” = 9.49%
    20 = 10.55%
    10 = 8.45%

    with the last 5 years the numbers will change somewhat but not that much or to the good because of the growth in the past few years.

    My 6% was conservative, I could have used 8%.

    which would give you – 1,050,000 dollars or about $4400 per month for 30 years and that is at 3% during retirement just to be really conservative.

  140. Bron,

    At this point, I’m sorry that I asked in the first place.

    Seriously, your response to finding out that the writer of the article was deliberately misrepresenting facts was to say”well what about the other stuff he said.” I mean, really. Did you even stop to think “huh, maybe I should double check that with other sources?” Hell, you didn’t even admit that he was wrong, you just changed the subject. Hell, I pretty much proved that there was very little chance that one third of the examples weren’t even accurate (aside from the misleading way the numbers were used), and your response was to wave it away with “what about X?”

    You’re just playing economist of the gaps. At some point you start to sound like every other fanatic of a failed ideology “well, ______ would work if it was REALLY tried.” What’s worse is you don’t even see the contradiction between “X would have caused Y but for Z” followed in the next breath by “X always causes Y.”

    Why should I bother? I don’t enjoy the feeling that every word I type that doesn’t agree with your preconceptions just gets ran through a Chinese Room of your ideology and both it and your own reply are promptly forgotten.

  141. Elaine:

    if there are no guarantees in life then social security isnt guaranteed either.

    I would rather have $3300 not guaranteed than $800 not guaranteed.

  142. SwM,

    “But other national polls published on Tuesday were not in agreement with the Gallup and Public Policy Polling numbers. Rather, three of the six national polls published on Tuesday had Mr. Obama leading the race. The same three polls also had Mr. Obama improving his numbers from the previous edition of the same survey …”

    Interestingly enough at Intrade the prediction is slightly under 65% that Obama wins.

    On the linked graph you can see the results of the first debate quite clearly

    (Keep in mind a neck and neck gets the voters off the couch and to the polls … and gives the News Media something to write about … ;) )

  143. Gyges:

    have you heard of Hauser’s Law? Tax revenue holds steady at about 18-20% of GDP no matter what the rate is.

  144. Tagg Romney: Mr. White Privilege
    Tagg Romney admits he’d like to slug Obama, becoming the latest white man that thinks he can say whatever he wants
    By David Sirota

  145. Elaine:

    that is from your SS chart retiring at 62 with an annual income of $35k.

    If you can retire at 58 why would you want to work until 70 to be able to get 100% of your social security which would be less anyway than your private plan.

  146. Bron,

    Did the financial meltdown of 2008 affect the amount of money retired people got in their SS checks? No. Did it affect my private retirement fund? Oh, yes–in a very negative way!

  147. “One of the hallmarks of White Privilege is the unquestioned and largely unchallenged assumption that white people can say heinous things about people of color without blowback or even mild criticism — things that people of color rarely dare to say about white people, for fear of serious retribution. Tagg — aka Mr. White Privilege — proves the point perfectly. He feels totally comfortable fantasizing about committing physical violence against an African-American man. And remember, he’s not just any white guy pondering such grotesque dreams. On the contrary, he’s one of the public faces of a national presidential campaign appearing in a public media interview, meaning White Privilege has made him feel so comfortable airing such notions, that he didn’t hesitate to whimsically broadcast them to thousands of voters.” David Sirota, Salon

  148. So Tagg Romney fantasized about he-manning Obama … then he was dumb enough to talk about on the radio. We all know what’s been baked in his cake.

  149. Bron,
    The private plan is not only more volatile, it is also more expensive because of the fees taken by the wall street bandits.
    It is interesting that Tagg seemed to forget his Daddy comparing Obama to his boys who kept telling lies at the first debate. I think the Secret Service should make a visit.

  150. “So Tagg Romney fantasized about he-manning Obama … then he was dumb enough to talk about on the radio. We all know what’s been baked in his cake.”


  151. Blouise,
    It is interesting that Tagg seemed to forget his Daddy comparing Obama to his boys who kept telling lies at the first debate. I think the Secret Service should make a visit. (raff)

    Chuckle … I know there are a few million heterosexual he-man fantasies going on right now about ol’ Tagg as a … ahem … sparring partner. He’s left his mark on the history books and that will, more than likely, be the most he ever accomplishes in his otherwise meaningless life.

  152. Romney is the oldest son of Ann and Mitt Romney, born when both were undergraduates at Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah.[1]

    He graduated magna cum laude with a BA in economics from BYU and earned his MBA from Harvard Business School.[1][2]

    He has worked as the head of marketing for the Los Angeles Dodgers,[1] VP of onfield marketing at Reebok, and director of strategic planning at Elan Pharmaceuticals. Romney founded and subsequently sold Season Perks.[2]

    He also worked for several years as a consultant at both Monitor Group and McKinsey and Co.[2]

    Romney has been a partner in the private equity firm Solamere Capital, together with Spencer Zwick and Eric Scheuermann.[3]

  153. Gene,

    Well, back in the day when I was running from the cops and rednecks who were trying to beat on me for supporting civil rights for persons of color, I would occasionally run into the “pretend” liberal offering to give me shelter. There was a code phrase my brothers and sisters in the movement would use to warn me (and others) about such pretenders … “it’s baked in his/her cake.” Meaning racism has been well mixed into the early batter and baked in his cake. He looks good but inevitably the racism will be seen ’cause it’s part of his very being and nothing can undo a baked cake.

  154. “He looks good but inevitably the racism will be seen ’cause it’s part of his very being and nothing can undo a baked cake.”

    maybe not.

    “What is brain plasticity? Does it mean that our brains are made of plastic? Of course not. Plasticity, or neuroplasticity, is the lifelong ability of the brain to reorganize neural pathways based on new experiences. As we learn, we acquire new knowledge and skills through instruction or experience.”

  155. Bron,

    It’s from WWII onward, And figures can’t lie but liars can figure…

    Funny thing about it though, the times where the numbers are higher is right after tax hikes. And look at that, a couple of famous tax cuts make the revenue as a % of GPD drop. Which is what you’d expect,

    But that’s a digression right? Because tax cuts make the economy grow enough to offset that. Otherwise, the revenue wouldn’t increase.

    Hey, let’s look at the economy around those tax cuts and hikes. Say 1980-2000 (because we all know what happened in the 00’s)?

    Well. The tax cuts\hikes may have had an effect on economic growth, but it sure doesn’t look like much.

    It looks to me like… well the economy grew fast enough that as long as the tax cuts weren’t too drastic, it made up for the tax cuts. The flip side to that is, it grew when taxes were raised. It looks like revenue just grew because the economy grew.

    Of course that doesn’t really support your theory about cutting taxes raising revenue (revenue was increased, but it wasn’t the cuts doing it), so that’s probably why the economic growth of the years surrounding the tax cuts always seems to get left out when people make that claim. Unless of it gets included in the growth caused by the tax cuts.

  156. Blouise,

    Ahh. An inside reference. Thank you for the elaboration.

    I still think Mittens has been hittin’ the mercury though. Maybe lead.

  157. “It’s true that the differences between the major parties are not nearly as large as they and their candidates claim, let alone what we would want. It’s even fair to use Gore Vidal’s metaphor that they form two wings (“two right wings,” as some have put it) of a single party, the Property or Plutocracy Party, or as Justin Raimondo says, the War Party.

    Still, the political reality is that there are two distinguishable wings, and one is reliably even worse than the other, currently much worse overall. To be in denial or to act in neglect of that reality serves only the possibly imminent, yet presently avoidable, victory of the worse.

    The traditional third-party mantra, “There’s no significant difference between the major parties” amounts to saying: “The Republicans are no worse, overall.” And that’s absurd. It constitutes shameless apologetics for the Republicans, however unintended. It’s crazily divorced from present reality.” Daniel Ellsberg He said it so well………

  158. Gene H,

    What ever it was, Romney and his wife mixed the batter and baked the cake that is Tagg.

    The dude wasn’t even smart enough to figure out that his comment might cause grief for the campaign and as a totally unnecessary utterance was best joked about privately over drinks with his mommy and daddy.

    But then that story about the dog on top of the car was considered a touching family memory when first related to an interviewer. In fact … it was Tagg again … “Reading the original mid-2007 Boston Globe story, it seems clear that one of the sources was Romney’s eldest son, Tagg. The anecdote presumably was proffered as an amusing childhood reminiscence (Tagg was 13 in 1983) ….”

    Yep … there’s a lot strange baked in that cake.

  159. Something quite sinister, even in addition to the obvious racism and “privilege of immunity” Tagg adopts to even fix his mouth to say that drek:

    He said there were basically two reasons he wouldn’t actually assault the President of the United States. ONE of them, the FIRST ONE, was that the Secret Service would prevent him from being ABLE to do it. :oops:

    So…you’d like to assault the President but law enforcement officers won’t let you? Ahem? But those law enforcement officers DO allow you to SAY that, don’t they? So on top of arrogance, treasonous tendencies and a confessed desire to engage in violence, what other wonderful family values has your father instilled in you, boy?

    And the reason for these disreputable desires you vent so openly without apology or shame? Mr. President — YOUR President — said to your father that something HE said was “not true” — so. Do you think that with President Obama’s inherently inferior status he was required to stay mum and obsequiously refrain from pointing out his position that your father was not in fact telling the American people the truth? Was he supposed to say, for instance, “Well Senator Romney, may I respectfully disagree?” or was he allowed to say, with authority, “Not true”?

    You’ve set yourself on a rather high horse, kid. You have actually shamed yourself and your parents but you’re apparently not humble enough and not smart enough to realize it and apologize.

    MY parents raised me right. Even if I DID want to take a swing at you, I wouldn’t say it on national television. :roll:

  160. Tagg Team: The Romney Family Recipe for Crony Capitalism
    Lee Fang
    October 10, 2012

    Marc Leder, a wealthy investor, played host to Mitt Romney last May at a private fundraiser at his $4 million home in Boca Raton. Little did Leder know at the time, however, that someone would videotape the event and later leak it to the world, revealing the GOP standard-bearer in the act of caustically dismissing 47 percent of the country as too “dependent upon government” even to consider voting for him this year.

    Leder attempted to duck the ensuing storm of media attention, telling Fortune that he had simply “hosted a fundraiser for an old friend.” But Leder’s ties to the candidate run deeper than campaign contributions or an old friendship. As an investor, he is part of a network of links to the Romney family business empire that will acquire enormous relevance if the GOP nominee manages to ascend to the White House.

    In 2008, soon after Romney ended his first bid for the presidency, his eldest son Tagg and his chief fundraiser, Spencer Zwick, formed Solamere Capital, a private equity firm named after the exclusive community in Utah where Romney owned a vacation ski lodge.

    What Tagg lacked in experience in the world of high finance, he made up for with a vast network of political connections forged through his father, who seeded the firm with $10 million and was the featured speaker at its first investor conference in January of 2010. Romney also reportedly gave strategic advice to the company, which secured prominent campaign donors as some of its first investors.

    Unlike most private equity firms dedicated to analyzing and buying companies, Solamere specializes in something else: billing itself as a “fund of funds” with “unparalleled networks,” it provides investors with “unique access” to an elite set of other private equity firms and hedge funds. Sun Capital Partners, the fund founded by Leder, is one of at least thirteen Romney-linked firms in Solamere’s network, according to a prospectus circulated among potential investors and uncovered by The Boston Globe last year. Solamere also has an investment relationship with Bain Capital, the pioneering fund founded by Mitt Romney.

    Solamere, a firm predicated on its founders’ relationship with Romney, presents a channel for powerful investors to influence the White House if he wins. Private equity executives looking to lobby a Romney administration may very well have a leg up if they are already doing business with the firm that the president created for his son.


    Tagg Romney’s Company Misled Reporters About Its Relationship With Ponzi Scheme–Linked Firm
    Lee Fang
    October 12, 2012

    The private equity firm run by Tagg Romney—Mitt’s eldest son, who is now taking a leadership role in guiding his father’s presidential campaign—misled reporters last year about its involvement with a company run by men accused of taking part in a multibillion-dollar Ponzi scheme.

    Last year, I reported that Tagg had formed a business partnership with several North Carolina investors who are still facing a lawsuit for receiving bonus pay for selling CDs as part of the $8 billion Stanford Financial Group Ponzi scheme.

    In a nutshell, Tagg helped these investors form a company—called Solamere Advisors, a nod to Tagg’s firm Solamere Capital—shortly after their boss, Allen Stanford, was caught by law enforcement for his elaborate Ponzi fraud.

    When I interviewed him in Las Vegas, Tagg told me that his associates were “cleared” of any wrongdoing associated with the Stanford Ponzi scheme. Court documents directly contradict Tagg and show that the lawsuit has not been dismissed.

    The New York Times followed up on my story with its own report and confirmed that Tagg’s business partners received incentive pay for selling bunk Stanford CDs. They wrote about one Stanford victim, a local Charlotte businessman and philanthropist named Herman Stone. Stone was pressured by Brandon Phillips, an executive working now for Tagg’s firm, into putting $2 million into a fraudulent Stanford CD and lost everything.

  161. Whats striking to me about Tagg, as Bron pointed out, is he was a marketing exec for multiple high profile companies. He must have been fantastic at those jobs if he hasn’t learned that he should avoid sabotaging his own brand.

  162. BF,

    Or he got his jobs through connections and is an example of the Peter Principle who let underlings do the work while he took the credit. You wouldn’t believe how much of that I’ve seen in the corporate world and the bigger the company the worse it seems to be. Or maybe you would believe it. You seem like a reality oriented person. :mrgreen: He strikes me as what someone I once worked with described as a “flip duck”. He’s floating and quacking but when you flip him over he’s a hollow piece of plastic.

  163. BF:

    good point but people can get emotional about their parents. I would probably want to smack someone who gave my dad crap.

    Is it really that big a deal? Especially in this day and age when everything is pretty loose.

    The guy loves his father. I am pretty sure when the Pres’s children heard that TR wanted to punch him in the nose they probably wanted to punch him.

  164. Bron

    I’m not sure where you find the flexibility to rationalize the really amateur mess up in a presidential election(and one of few candid Romney family moments) from a 42-year old marketing guy by claiming that someone else’s young children would go tit-for-tat.


  165. “I am pretty sure when the Pres’s children heard that TR wanted to punch him in the nose they probably wanted to punch him.” (Bron)

    Oh, you think Obama’s kids have been as poorly raised as Romney’s?

    That’s another point about Tagg Romney … Obama’s kids are bound to hear that he, a 42 year old man, son of the man running against their father and close adviser to the campaign, wants to take a swing at their dad and the only thing that stopped him was fear of the Secret Service.

    When he was flappin’ his mouth on the radio buffing up his he-man image do you think he considered that his threat to their dad might worry Obama’s children? Do you think he gave a flyin’ f*ck?

    Like I said … we know what’s been baked in his cake. He’s a product of his environment.

  166. Bron,


    “If you can retire at 58 why would you want to work until 70 to be able to get 100% of your social security which would be less anyway than your private plan.”

    I don’t qualify for Social Security. You still have no proof that a private plan would be better than Social Security.

    BTW, in order to retire early, I had to pay in thousands of dollars to the State Teachers Retirement during my last three years of teaching.

  167. The salient parts:

    What is it like for you to hear the President of the United States call your dad a liar?”

    “You want to jump out of your seat, and you wanna rush down to the debate stage and take a swing at him, but you know you can’t do that, because, well, first because there’s a lot of Secret Service between you and him, but also because this is just the nature of the process.”

    Tagg then said:

    “They’re gonna try to do everything they can do to try to make my dad into someone he’s not. We signed up for it, we’ve gotta try to kind of sit there and take our punches, and then send them right back the other way….”

  168. Blouise:

    “Oh, you think Obama’s kids have been as poorly raised as Romney’s?”

    Well, I dont know how Romney’s children were raised. So I have nothing to compare to.

  169. Steg, I fail to see your point.

    No one here misquoted Tagg as far as I’ve read. Romney was telling lies(contradicting earlier statements and stated platform) and got called for it. Tagg’s response was to share that he would react violently if given the chance.

    You’ve only added that Tagg can rationalize his violent impulse, rather than say “My dad is lying. He should get called on it.”

    I don’t know you, obviously, but I do know folks who tend to sympathize with violent aggression do so because they themselves share those tendencies. In other words, they see nothing wrong with violence or threats of violence due to ethical shortcomings, mental illness, violent history(received and inflicted) and inability to express emotion without using/threatening violence.

  170. and, Steg, your support for a lack objectivity is to link to a blog post that begins “I really sense that Obama supporters are losing it, completely. I sense fear in their stupidity.”

    Very objective. Thank you. Especially since many here have been extremely critical of Obama too.

  171. Elaine, I forgot to add a tag. I found it more than a little strange that Steg’s support in complaining about lack of objectivity was to link to an outrageously biased blog.

    Thanks for stating what I probably should have. Cheers.

  172. The way Bron tried to involve Obama’s children in Tagg’s fisticuff’s desires was kinda sick but totally in character.

  173. With friends like this–who needs enemies?

    Scott Brown Supporter From Ad Calls Elizabeth Warren ‘D*****bag,’ Obama A ‘Muslim’ On Facebook
    Posted: 10/19/2012

    NEW YORK — Scott Brown recently got in hot water for falsely claiming that his Senate race opponent, Elizabeth Warren, was using paid actors in her commercials. But it turns out that Brown is perhaps the one who should have known more about the people appearing in his ads.

    In a television advertisement running as recently this week, Sen. Scott Brown’s (R-Mass.) reelection campaign featured a union construction worker whose publicly accessible Facebook page is riddled with insults against Brown’s Democratic challenger Elizabeth Warren and President Barack Obama.

    (Editor’s Note: This post contains strong language that some readers may find objectionable.)

    On one post made in August, well before Brown’s ad appeared, the worker, George Patriarca, calls Warren a “DOUCHEBAG.” On another he labels the president a “faggot,” and on a third he says, “there is a Muslim in the White House.”

  174. ThinkProgress ‏@thinkprogress

    “And if you come down with a case of’s the good news: Obamacare covers pre-existing conditions”

  175. Blind-

    I’m sorry if I offended anyone who happened to read the blog post. I did not mean to insult anyone.

    My point is that the entire media took his quote out of context. The families understand that their parents are going to be ripped, and they need to deal with it. They cut off the quote before he explained how they signed on for this deal- and that this is how it works.

    While neither are perfect and both are caught in lies, the ones close to either candidate are in with their family 100%. This means Tagg truly believed his dad was not lying, and when he heard something he believes to not be the truth, and with an attack, it naturally angered him.

    I can sympathize with that type of situation. If my dad were the track coach and I believe him to be an honest time keeper- and another kid’s dad comes and calls him a liar because ‘my boy ran a mile in 6:45 last week!’ or something- while I might not have been privy to the other boys run, hearing my father called a liar is something that would make my face burn.

    I think it falls into the ‘protect the family’ feelings at a very primal level. I’m not saying Tagg was right, I’m saying the media failed again in being objective about the whole story, and edited the quote to further an image and an agenda.

    Also, I am relatively new and sporadic poster, probably considered troll by the regulars or one of their past crazies with another name. That’s OK, it’s only the internet. For future though-

    I follow the libertarian violence code- you don’t have the right to initiate violence against anyone for any reason. You may defend yourself though.

  176. Haha, I guess that is funny. The objectivity complaint linked to a outrageously biased blog. I see it as biased, but not ‘outrageously’.

    I believe the point is still salient though.

  177. Steg

    Thanks for the elaboration. You’ve helped me to understand your position and just that is important, I think.

    I’m pretty sporadic poster too, just a longer term sporadic poster. Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

  178. Steg,

    Tagg isn’t a child. He’s an adult in his early forties. One has to question whether he has failed to see the flip flops in his father’s position on a number of important issues–or chooses not to acknowledge how many times his father has changed his positions on issues for political expediency. One also has to question the wisdom of Tagg’s remarks with regard to President Obama.

  179. Thanks, Blind.

    Yes, gbk, it is basically as I stated. Hardcore libertarians will not initiate violence, although they will defend themselves. It is pretty much as I stated. Violence code seems like a bad phrase. More like code of conduct- and as it pertains to violence. Although Violence Code might be a fun band or album..

    Elaine- you are correct. It must be a question about the whole of his remarks, and not a cherry picked segment. (Like waiting until the end of that young reverend’s speech)

    As far as Tagg’s witness to the flipping, all I can do is shrug. Beats me.

  180. You realize therefore significantly on the subject of this subject, produced me in my opinion consider it from numerous varied angles. Its like men and women aren’t fascinated except it’s something to do with Lady gaga! Your personal stuffs nice. At all times maintain it up!

  181. Janis Lane, are you the person I spoke with about my public speaking training? I’m Tony Ruiz, preparing for a run at Congress from Arizona

  182. Mike Spindell, do you really believe that not being permitted to vote is being denied citizenship?
    Then children born to American citizens are not themselves citizens until they turn 18 AND register to vote? What are they? Where should they be deported to if they become undesirable aliens?
    Then people who are not registered to vote are not citizens? Where should they be deported to if they become undesirable aliens?
    Then Blacks who were not allowed to vote were not citizens? Even though they were counted in the census as citizens?
    Then convicts who are not allowed to vote are not citizens? Even though they are counted in the census as citizens?
    Voting and citizenship are not the same. Only citizens are (supposed to be) permitted to vote. But not voting, or not being allowed to vote, does not mean one is not an American citizen.

  183. “Mike Spindell, do you really believe that not being permitted to vote is being denied citizenship?”


    Amazingly dumb misconstrual of my point. not being permitted to vote is a denial of one of the rights of citizenship, or do you believe differently?

  184. Yes, “gbk,” if you read his comment you saw it. Nonviolence except in defense of innocent persons. No initiation of violence. Moderation of violence if violence becomes necessary.
    Unfortunately the national Libertarian party does not extend this principle to anyone who has not been born yet. Some State and local LP affiliated parties do.

Comments are closed.