At least according to Stephen King:
“So, you’ve got LePage in Maine, Walker in Wisconsin, you’ve got Scott in Florida. Larry, Curly and Moe. That’s what we’ve got here,” he said, according to a video of the event posted on YouTube.
It’s a good one, but I liked this very straight-forward – and true – point King had to make:
“As a rich person, I pay 28 percent tax. What I want to ask you is, why am I not paying 50 percent? Why is anybody in my bracket not paying 50?” he said. “Well, you know what? The Republicans will tell you — from John Boehner to Mitch McConnell to Rick Scott — that we can’t do that. Because if we tax guys like me, there won’t be any jobs. It’s bull. It’s plain, old bull.”
King said he and his wife, Tabitha, try to make up the difference between what they pay in taxes and the 50 percent threshold they feel is appropriate by making charitable donations to support libraries, schools, fire departments and veterans.
But that wasn’t the best part:
He also sarcastically praised Scott’s decision to decline federal funding for a rail line in Florida.
“He’s probably right, probably it would be a bad deal, considering how low the price of gasoline is,” King said, referring to Scott’s decision. “Who would want to get on a railroad when they can ride scenic I-4? And wait in traffic? Maybe my next horror novel could star Rick Scott.”
Filed under: News | Tagged: LePage, Scott, Stephen King, Three Stooges, Walker |
For the Sake of Science 
Well done Steve!
Go ahead and tax at 50%. It would likely be symbolic but whatever makes you happy.
Whats stopping Mr. King from paying the extra 22%? I’m sure the Treasury accepts donations.
Personally I would rather King donates that 22% to charity than give it to the government to squander.
He does. I even quoted the part that says he does.
I know, I just said I would rather that he did that. I even saw the video and thought the same thing. “Good, better than giving it to Washington”
Why 50%? He has millions and millions, surely he doesn’t neeeeeed 50% of his millions. Why not 80%?
The entire collection of Republican governors is a look at the bad side of humanity. Scum of the earth.
Because you disagree ideologically with them?
The three of them are like Winkn’, Blinkn’ and Nod sailing of in a wooden horse called the Republican
party.
It is because most of them are elitist and exclusionary, some of them are racist and/or/bigoted and/or misogynists. Many of them are extremely ignorant, either undereducated or willfully, arrogantly ignorant. Some of them want to dismantle the secular, democratic government we have and want to replace it with a theocracy. Like I said, the scum of the earth.
And the ultimate test of them being elitist and exclusionary is the rising gap between the rich and the poor, They are abosrbing thegreat wealth of this country but we are beginning to get wise. ON WISCONSIN!!!!!
Ok Bob. This isn’t your dream diary.
Paul, the “rich people are stealing our money!” argument is getting pretty old for me. It’s best left to Michael Moore.
OK, Nate, I guess you can’t handle the truth. You can’t refute what I say, so out comes the nonsense, so predictable, so pathetic. I know Palin, Bachmann and Pawlenty just wet your panties.
How do you expect anyone to refute a claim of: “Scum”?
Bob is scum. Refute that. It’s meaningless, so don’t take it too hard.
Of course more nonsense. What about the other 5 sentences. The bigotry, racism, theocracy, etc. Keep on spinning away, I don’t care.
Again, where is your evidence? Aside from simply shouting the nonsense you’re accusing me of you produced none. I presume you call them names because you have no evidence, nothing ‘real’ to contribute.
Your major beef is an ideological one, you have a different opinion of the role government should have in people lives and how it should manage the public finances. Good for you, but that doesn’t make any of these guys the devil incarnate.
Pure bullshit, Nate. When they say in their own words that the US government should be replaced with the “laws” of Jesus, then scum they become, as well as traitors.
You haven’t read Michael’s posts about rhetoric?
Even so, what about the rest of your claims, I’ll even give you the benefit of the doubt on that one.
http://www.fms.treas.gov/faq/moretopics_gifts.html
If King really thinks the money would be better spent by the government and not by him, it turns out uncle sam does accept donations.
How’s this for evidence to back up Bob’s claim that Repugs are:
“Elitist”……the attempt by corporations to destroy the free internet and to divide users into the haves and have nots….biggest funders of the repugs…
“Exclusionary”…..well when 400 of the very rich earn more than 150,000,000 of us, that’s pretty excusionary…as Warren Buffet says there is class warfare and “our class” is winning…
“Racist/bigoted”…..The Southern Poverty Law center says hate groups are on the rise….the right wing “militia” movement spring from scumbags on the right….
“Misogynisitic”….Doesn’t “bible believers” ring a bell?….the right wing christian bloc is the foundation of the republican party…ask George Bush..the bible keeps women in their place.
“Extremely willfully arrongantly ignorant”….Michelle Bachman…their Tea Party spokeperson who claims our constituional fathers abolished slavery and that Lexisngton bridge was in Concord N.H…..
“Undereductated”…Sarah Palin…why have her college transcripts not been published?
“Dismanttle the Secular Government”….Watch Pat Robertson and shiver at his right wing raves…..
Ideology??? You bet….I’m with Bob….
Yet another willfully ignorant, arrogant Republican in congress:
http://friendlyatheist.com/2011/03/15/north-carolina-state-representative-dismisses-churchstate-separation/
“Elitist”……No one wants to wreck a free internet. The people that own the lines and provide the service want to regulate what that service entails. I don’t agree with them, but they own the equipment, people can always shop around or start their own company to provide a different service.
“Exclusionary”…..When the government decides how much a person can make, or that X is too much success than we will all find that we have guaranteed mediocrity and no incentive to innovate. As it is, any of us could become billionaires and if Mr. Buffet doesn’t think he pays enough taxes than he can pay more, or do something better like give it to charity. or me.
“Racist/bigoted”…..The term “hate group” is a loaded designation. As far as the right wing “militia” I don’t see very much right wing violence around, keep your rhetoric.
“Misogynisitic”….You know what else keeps women in their place and earning less money than men? Their decisions to work in the public and non-profit sectors when they get out of college, all well documented. Not to say their isn’t any sexism anywhere else, but I don’t see women fleeing from churches left, right and center, not even islam.
“Extremely willfully arrongantly ignorant”….Michelle Bachman might be stupid, wonderful. I’m not.
“Undereductated”…Why should she? Education is a wonderful thing, but not the same as knowledge. I think we put too much stock in grades and not enough in actual performance. Go to college for 4 years and whatever job you get will still require significant training, training that if given without a college degree would still produce an effective worker.
“Dismanttle the Secular Government”… Watch the Reverend Wright. Every political group has their share of nutbags. Do I need to list some crazy left wingers you wouldn’t leave alone with your kids or house pets?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhdPrA0b1UM&feature=player_embedded
There is an example that I wouldn’t let near my dog.
You are well idealogically positioned…….explains your posts…..and you must have a dumb dog if he would object to the airing of the constitutional provisions advocated by Jesse Jr. …….make sure you tie him up when he hears news of the Wisconsin re-call…..he might foam at the mouth….
You agree with Rep. Jackson? That you can solve all of societies ills by declaring them rights?
If you want to go on about Bachman than you should also be going on about this guy who clearly has never even looked in the door of an economics course.
To associate these guys with the Three Stooges is insulting … to the Stooges.
Read my post again. Where did I state I agreed with Rep Jackson???
We need a thorough debate and airing of the issues he is raising because these rights are under assault. Are the right to decent housing, medical care, and a decent education Jesse Jr, spoke about basic human rights or not?
If they are, should they be included in our constitution? Our economic system? Should these rights be under the jurisdiction of State or Federal?
If these are not basic human rights, as you seem to argue, what principles of governing do you espouse when it comes to housing, educationm and medical care? Economic laissez-faire ones? How do you translate these priciples ito public policy? What are the ramifications of this policy?
Do economic concerns play the dominant role in setting social policy or should social policy lead the way towards better economic justice??
In the meantime..ON WISCONSIN!!! The intelligent populist movement has awoke from it’s long slumber and are raising these issues once again for public debate and action.
And a p.s……Obama is being widely attacked as a socialist (which he is decidedly not ) . Jesse Jackson is being attacked by you for espousing certain constitutional rights. Both Obama and Jackson are Black.
I of course know there is no connection in your mind to these facts….just a coincidence these two black men are under scrutiny….I’d have much preferred you to use a clip of Eleanor Roosevelts speech before the UN when she raised the platform of basic human rights….but there again she was a white woman.
pps….I’m just curious…why did you use Jesse Jacskon Jr?
Because I hate black people
Not really, I had recently seen the clip that’s all.
To answer the bulk of that:
There is a vast chasm of difference between human rights that are protected by the government and human rights like having medical care and a house and a dog and so on.
Free speech, of course is a right we have under the constitution.
The right to speak on television is not such a right, but if you have the money you could buy an hour of TV time and say whatever you want.
Whats the difference? I think its obvious, but perhaps not. Being on TV is a service provided by others. Much like owning a home or having medical care. People have to be paid to build the house and wire it and plumb it and so on. How would such a right be guaranteed if it were put in the constitution? It couldn’t be.
You simply don’t have a right to the goods and services provided by others.
I didn’t even notice he was black! He sounds so much like a white trust fund liberal! Who knew?
Owning a dog is not a basic human right. I guess to members of PETA it is an animal right belonging to a dog but not a human right….so by including the right to own a dog you are discrediting human rights….at least I think so..
I realize there is a chasm between human and constitutional rights.This chasm needs to be narrowed and I trust both liberals and conservatives recognize this need. I just get frustrated at the ineptnessof the a rising branch in the republican party who worship ignorance and greed and who control this country.
I didn’t mean owning a dog was a human right, it just seems to me that there are people on the left that think the right to the “white picket fence” life is a right.
If you want to close that gap perhaps ditching the commerce clause would help, but I’m not entirely sure what you mean. The fact that the government can interfere with peoples right to procure the goods and services they want, need and can afford seems to me to make that gap bigger.
The basic point of contention here is the same as always, I don’t support taxing people symbolically, particularly if the goal is to take from them and give to people who didn’t earn it. The laffer curve works both logically and in practice. Tax too high and the incentive to find ways not to pay grows. You are getting about as much as you are going to get out of the top bracket, there might be a little more wiggle room but there isn’t much.
You might also be interested in my post on a ‘negitive income tax’, might make both side of the isle feel warm and fuzzy.
No one thinks that. That is just foolish.
…and more stupidity from the Republicans in congress TODAY:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/03/15/next-up-for-congress-repeal-the-law-of-gravity/
Sure Bob.
What a detailed come back with supporting evidence, Nate. You go, girl!
Sure Bob .
Thanks for the link Bob……when it comes down to basic intelligence, some bloggers are attempting to fly higher than their ability on these pages….