Tax System Explained in Beer

52 posts / 0 new
Last post
hellbent
hellbent's picture

This has been making the rounds, and I thought I'd read everyone's remarks to this:

 

The Tax System Explained in BeerApril 2, 2012

 

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this…

 

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing The fifth would pay $1 The sixth would pay $3 The seventh would pay $7 The eighth would pay $12 The ninth would pay $18 The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59

 

So, that’s what they decided to do.

 

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20″. Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80.

 

 

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men ? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?

 

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

 

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by a h higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

 

And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving). The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving). The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving). The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving). The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving). The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).

 

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.

 

“I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,”but he got $10!”

 

“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!” “That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back, when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!”

 

“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn’t get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!”

 

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

 

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

 

And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.  –   Professor of Economics.

Comments

Dominic C
This was actually written by

This was actually written by a real economist and not somebody without the most basic concepts of economics?

My God...

 

Let me change that analogy a bit for ya Einstein.

 

Let's say 10 guys go to the bar and the bill comes out to $100 for 10 beers. (It's a nice beer joint, OK?)

The poorest 5 only pay the tip and the sales tax but not the main bill but they have to split a quarter of a GLASS of beer among themselves.  This totals to $20.

The next poorest three or the shrinking middle class in this case split a quarter glass themsleves but must pay $30.

The second richest gets a glass and a half of beer and pays $15.

Finally the richest individual gets to drink 8 beers (and better not be driving) but only pays $35 for it.

This...is really a much more accurate analogy for what is ACTUALLY happening and what has happened over the last 30 years of trickle-on economics.

Yes the richest pay the most but they take disproportionally more so really they are paying less in relative terms.

 

P.S. I just googled the professor and he claims to have NOTHING to do with what you are talking about.  Seems like whoever is passing this bullshit around is misrepresenting this professor and should be help accountable.

Fucking disgusting people that do shit like this.  I knew a professor of econ would never use a bad analogy like this to explain our tax code.

http://davidk.myweb.uga.edu/

anti-Republicon
Excellent

Excellent response............ BRAVO!!!!!!

rigel1
rigel1's picture
Dominic C wrote: Let me

Dominic C wrote:

Let me change that analogy a bit for ya Einstein.

Fucking disgusting people that do shit like this.  I knew a professor of econ would never use a bad analogy like this to explain our tax code.

 

Dude.

Do you realize that calling someone "Einstein" can be seen as an insult? Completely unprovoked. The man said nothing. All he did was to copy and paste someone's analogy and you went ballistic. 

Simmer down amigo, simmer down.

By the way, I don't care if it was written by a third grader with ADD. It's still brilliant!!!

Dominic C
rigel1 wrote: Dominic C

rigel1 wrote:

Dominic C wrote:

Let me change that analogy a bit for ya Einstein.

Fucking disgusting people that do shit like this.  I knew a professor of econ would never use a bad analogy like this to explain our tax code.

 

Dude.

Do you realize that calling someone "Einstein" can be seen as an insult? Completely unprovoked. The man said nothing. All he did was to copy and paste someone's analogy and you went ballistic. 

Simmer down amigo, simmer down.

By the way, I don't care if it was written by a third grader with ADD. It's still brilliant!!!

 

This post was associated with a professor who wants to have NOTHING to do with economic nonsense such as this.  Did you even bother to go to the link?

He's a fucking idiot to post this associating this with this professor without even bothering to do a Google check.

If you think this is a brilliant analogy then you're understanding of simple economics is rather wanting.

Save your breath.

 

rigel1
rigel1's picture
Dominic C wrote: rigel1

Dominic C wrote:

rigel1 wrote:

Dominic C wrote:

Let me change that analogy a bit for ya Einstein.

Fucking disgusting people that do shit like this.  I knew a professor of econ would never use a bad analogy like this to explain our tax code.

 

Dude.

Do you realize that calling someone "Einstein" can be seen as an insult? Completely unprovoked. The man said nothing. All he did was to copy and paste someone's analogy and you went ballistic. 

Simmer down amigo, simmer down.

By the way, I don't care if it was written by a third grader with ADD. It's still brilliant!!!

 

This post was associated with a professor who wants to have NOTHING to do with economic nonsense such as this.  Did you even bother to go to the link?

He's a fucking idiot to post this associating this with this professor without even bothering to do a Google check.

If you think this is a brilliant analogy then you're understanding of simple economics is rather wanting.

Save your breath.

 

I did go to the link.  As I said, I like the the analogy, don't care who wrote it.

Peace out.

Dominic C
rigel1 wrote: Dominic C

rigel1 wrote:

Dominic C wrote:

rigel1 wrote:

Dominic C wrote:

Let me change that analogy a bit for ya Einstein.

Fucking disgusting people that do shit like this.  I knew a professor of econ would never use a bad analogy like this to explain our tax code.

 

Dude.

Do you realize that calling someone "Einstein" can be seen as an insult? Completely unprovoked. The man said nothing. All he did was to copy and paste someone's analogy and you went ballistic. 

Simmer down amigo, simmer down.

By the way, I don't care if it was written by a third grader with ADD. It's still brilliant!!!

 

This post was associated with a professor who wants to have NOTHING to do with economic nonsense such as this.  Did you even bother to go to the link?

He's a fucking idiot to post this associating this with this professor without even bothering to do a Google check.

If you think this is a brilliant analogy then you're understanding of simple economics is rather wanting.

Save your breath.

 

I did go to the link.  As I said, I like the the analogy, don't care who wrote it.

Peace out.

The problem with the analogy is that it is incorrect to say the least.

Even my bad analogy explains the economic and tax realities of our current state of affairs better.

Come on rigel there is a reason this professor wants to have NOTHING to do with this analogy...

I thought you were more intelligent than going for some bar-room economic banter.

My guess is a person drunk off their ass started this- yes, in a bar.

 

P.S. And my real problem with it is how the poster mischaracterizes this professor when he obviously wants to do nothing with it.  If somebody was doing the same with me I would not be too happy nor would you.  The mere fact that they use his name and associate him with something that he has nothing to do with is malicious.

Capital
Capital's picture
Nice to see this analogy

Nice to see this analogy that's been around for years is still inciting liberals into a blind rage. 

Dominic,

In your analogy,  you forget to add in the $20 (earned income credit) that the rich slid the poor under the table to pay for thier share so they wouldn't be embarrassed that they were buying beer they clearly could not afford. 

Dominic C
Capital wrote: Nice to see

Capital wrote:

Nice to see this analogy that's been around for years is still inciting liberals into a blind rage. 

Dominic,

In your analogy,  you forget to add in the $20 (earned income credit) that the rich slid the poor under the table to pay for thier share so they wouldn't be embarrassed that they were buying beer they clearly could not afford. 

 

Look my analogy was intentionally as sophmoric as the original email BS one but it is far closer to actual reality.  If you want to include that credit that not all poor receive, it would be around $5 for this analogy which would still leave them to pay $15 for that ONE QUARTER glass of beer.  You know maybe the poor don't pay income taxes but they sure in the hell have to pay every other tax such as SSI, sales taxes, etc.  The WHOLE bill means EVERYTHING, all fees which include many taxes that take much more of a percentage of the poor's income than that of the wealthy.

My analysis crude as it is, stands as being far more accurate than this bar-room banter than too many people think is "reality".

rigel1
rigel1's picture
Dominic C wrote: rigel1

Dominic C wrote:

rigel1 wrote:

Dominic C wrote:

rigel1 wrote:

Dominic C wrote:

Let me change that analogy a bit for ya Einstein.

Fucking disgusting people that do shit like this.  I knew a professor of econ would never use a bad analogy like this to explain our tax code.

 

Dude.

Do you realize that calling someone "Einstein" can be seen as an insult? Completely unprovoked. The man said nothing. All he did was to copy and paste someone's analogy and you went ballistic. 

Simmer down amigo, simmer down.

By the way, I don't care if it was written by a third grader with ADD. It's still brilliant!!!

 

This post was associated with a professor who wants to have NOTHING to do with economic nonsense such as this.  Did you even bother to go to the link?

He's a fucking idiot to post this associating this with this professor without even bothering to do a Google check.

If you think this is a brilliant analogy then you're understanding of simple economics is rather wanting.

Save your breath.

 

I did go to the link.  As I said, I like the the analogy, don't care who wrote it.

Peace out.

The problem with the analogy is that it is incorrect to say the least.

Even my bad analogy explains the economic and tax realities of our current state of affairs better.

Come on rigel there is a reason this professor wants to have NOTHING to do with this analogy...

I thought you were more intelligent than going for some bar-room economic banter.

My guess is a person drunk off their ass started this- yes, in a bar.

 

P.S. And my real problem with it is how the poster mischaracterizes this professor when he obviously wants to do nothing with it.  If somebody was doing the same with me I would not be too happy nor would you.  The mere fact that they use his name and associate him with something that he has nothing to do with is malicious.

Fair enough. Your descri[ption and reasoning comes through much clearer when stated this way.

Dominic C
rigel1 wrote: Dominic C

rigel1 wrote:

Dominic C wrote:

rigel1 wrote:

Dominic C wrote:

rigel1 wrote:

Dominic C wrote:

Let me change that analogy a bit for ya Einstein.

Fucking disgusting people that do shit like this.  I knew a professor of econ would never use a bad analogy like this to explain our tax code.

 

Dude.

Do you realize that calling someone "Einstein" can be seen as an insult? Completely unprovoked. The man said nothing. All he did was to copy and paste someone's analogy and you went ballistic. 

Simmer down amigo, simmer down.

By the way, I don't care if it was written by a third grader with ADD. It's still brilliant!!!

 

This post was associated with a professor who wants to have NOTHING to do with economic nonsense such as this.  Did you even bother to go to the link?

He's a fucking idiot to post this associating this with this professor without even bothering to do a Google check.

If you think this is a brilliant analogy then you're understanding of simple economics is rather wanting.

Save your breath.

 

I did go to the link.  As I said, I like the the analogy, don't care who wrote it.

Peace out.

The problem with the analogy is that it is incorrect to say the least.

Even my bad analogy explains the economic and tax realities of our current state of affairs better.

Come on rigel there is a reason this professor wants to have NOTHING to do with this analogy...

I thought you were more intelligent than going for some bar-room economic banter.

My guess is a person drunk off their ass started this- yes, in a bar.

 

P.S. And my real problem with it is how the poster mischaracterizes this professor when he obviously wants to do nothing with it.  If somebody was doing the same with me I would not be too happy nor would you.  The mere fact that they use his name and associate him with something that he has nothing to do with is malicious.

Fair enough. Your descri[ption and reasoning comes through much clearer when stated this way.

Thanks Rigel.  I know you're a long time conservative poster here but you are one that discussions could be had with.

Still my analogy is crude and not to scale if you know what I mean.

DRC
DRC's picture
Sure, if we were only taxing

Sure, if we were only taxing income above the cost of living, if we provided human needs for "free" and as rights, then the savings in tax cuts at the top would not come at the impoverishment and added tax burdens on those already "under water" in the economic freedom measure.  If we agreed that "citizens" were human beings deserving a share of our family goods and services, then we would not be resentful of their consumption and would care deeply about our family welfare as if it were our own.  Which it is.

We would also avoid cutting the taxes on the top if we had revenue needs for the family.  We would expect the wealth to be shared and those who had more to give more.  It would be real "family values" and once again the welfare of the family would come first rather than any personal feelings about being dragged down by one's relatives.  I think we would also be concerned about bad behavior and those who wouldn't do their chores; but the analogy that conservatives love does cut out all the important facts of life.  It is what they do under the rubric of "conservative."  It has made the label really stink.

Dominic C
Why hasn't the OP responded

Why hasn't the OP responded to this at all?

Just wondering...

media_muse
amazing & awesome at the same

amazing & awesome at the same time - who woulda thunk it?

Drunk men drunk on beer makes more drunk sense than anything else. Gee whiz, drunk economics brought down to its most basic level is still really really silly drunk.

BTW,Stephen Harrod Buhner writes about beer in his book: The Natural Testosterone plan for Sexual Health and Energy. You can find out why beer makes men so dumb and why historically the guys in power wanted men dumb.

.....it sounds like modern day profs of economics want men to stay drunk & dumb.

    

Dominic C
media_muse wrote: amazing &

media_muse wrote:

amazing & awesome at the same time - who woulda thunk it?

Drunk men drunk on beer makes more drunk sense than anything else. Gee whiz, drunk economics brought down to its most basic level is still really really silly drunk.

Alcohol at your service!

P.S. The OP posts this and then just disappears...poof!

I wonder why??

chilidog
The problem with this stupid

The problem with this stupid analogy is the beer.  Replace the beer with shields and spears and talk about which of the group is going to hold against the Mongol attack.

media_muse
chilidog - the problem is it

chilidog - the problem is it is just a stupid analogy and that's what makes it stupid.

Now if you are going to go with the shields &  spears part -  I will again suggest reading Stephen Harrod Buhner book: The Natural Testosterone plan for Sexual Health and Energy. You can find out why beer makes men so dumb and why historically the guys in power wanted men dumb.

Wake Up, Men! Your Masculinity is Under Attackwww.treelite.com/.../Wake-Up-Men-Your-Masculinity-is-Under-Atta...

This transition requires healthy masculine role models who can guide boys through ... The combined result of this three-fold attack is a loss of healthy male energy in ... I'll also talk about how to reacquire the values and attitudes of real manliness .... The Natural Testosterone Plan, beers were originally made from a variety of ...

rigel1
rigel1's picture
Dominic C wrote: media_muse

Dominic C wrote:

media_muse wrote:

amazing & awesome at the same time - who woulda thunk it?

Drunk men drunk on beer makes more drunk sense than anything else. Gee whiz, drunk economics brought down to its most basic level is still really really silly drunk.

Alcohol at your service!

P.S. The OP posts this and then just disappears...poof!

I wonder why??

I Don't dissapear for long. Normally just a few days at a time. Patience my friend.

 I like how Michelle Bachman put it. "Everybody should pay something, even if its a dollar". Most people want to contribute something. Not simply take and depend on others. If everybody paid something it would it would give us all a vested interest in our country. I believe that the people who pay nothing have no right to say that the people who do pay, don't pay enough.

DRC
DRC's picture
She is an idiot, so of course

She is an idiot, so of course you agree with her.

media_muse
we agree... the tax system

we agree... the tax system needs change. But Beer to Bachmann - is just more BS for tax NON sense.

Just when I thought the subject couldn't get any sillier - thank you thank you thank you! Woo Hoo Hoo Hoo -  I needed a good laugh! Whomever wrote & posted our "Tax System Explained" made a salient point - our tax system is ridiculous - with or without the service of alcohol.

Bachmann, bagger of the tea party & balance sheets - does tax execution rip offs for us low class folks. As a welfare queen she is much more dangerous than a drunk professor - this is not funny.

 Welfare Queen Michele Bachmann Exposed By Tax Returns

 www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNe9W-q6E4oAug 17, 2011 - 3 min - Uploaded by TheYoungTurks

Is 2012 Republican presidential candidate, Tea Party darling and Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann.   

Wikipedia says: "Bachmann and her husband own a Christian counseling - named Bachmann & Associates. The clinic received nearly $30,000 from Minnesota government agencies between 2006 and 2010 in addition to at least $137,000 in federal payments and $24,000 in government grants for counselor training. The clinic is run by her husband, who has a PhD with “a concentration in clinical psychology”[42] from Union Graduate School. Marcus Bachmann is not a licensed clinical psychologist in Minnesota.

In personal financial disclosure reports for 2006 through 2009, Bachmann reported earning $32,500 to $105,000[45] from a farm that was owned at the time by her ailing father-in-law, Paul Bachmann. The farm received $260,000 in federal crop and disaster subsidies between 1995 and 2008...."

I believe folks that can afford to pay taxes ought to pay them. I believe folks making millions don't need subsidies from our government. If the poorest among us must offer up their one dollar I say fine - if the money is used for the common good rather than the typical giveaway to corporate welfare kings & queens. Bachmann is just another royal wanabee - wants the goodies for heself and to hell with everyone else.She ain't practicin' what she's preachin' - otherwise MIchelle would give back the  millions she has received.

DRC
DRC's picture
mm, I enjoy your posts. I

mm, I enjoy your posts. I also think feminism is about being as stupd as men, so we can see how the GOP woemen are doing their part.  And don't you just love "pray away the gay" Marcus?  I still love his Three Muskateer sense of honor.  It is also a great relief to find this comic Manna From Heaven because if I tried to write this stuff, I would be a very bad human.

Phaedrus76
Phaedrus76's picture
See you are missing the

See you are missing the point, the govt is supposed to funnel tax dollars to rich white folks. That is not welfare. It is just corruption and cronyism.

rigel1
rigel1's picture
DRC wrote: She is an idiot,

DRC wrote:

She is an idiot, so of course you agree with her.

Maybe. But compared to that nit -wit Nancy Pelosi, she's Einstein.

There are people who are content to ride in the wagon while the rest of us push. All they want is their free Obama bucks. What's wrong with asking them to get out and push too? Even if it's only for one or two feet. They contributed something.

DRC
DRC's picture
rigel, you are being

rigel, you are being ridiculous.  You don't have to agree with everything Pelosi is about to respect her as a skilled politician and far better morally oriented than the opposition offers.  Bachmann was always of comic interest, but seriously...not a bit.  Michelle do Loon and Marcus--ho boy, who does the casting in this show!

I had hopes that you might get tired of the dumb talking points and deal with intelligent responses. I have seen a number, and I let others judge my own.  I am talking about how you deal with others, not with me.  You are glib, but not all that erudite.  You do not take criticism to heart or learn from it well.  Few do.  And why do so here where cons come to have sport or evangelize.  You would not want to get lost in conversation.  Something unexpected might happen.

Unless you really missed it, Progressives are talking about ground up activism, initiative and involvment.  We do not complain about having to cover for those who are unable/unwilling to get the money to qualify as human.  We think of them as human by birthright, not by earning their way.  We are confident that the value of experienced participation in power will pay off.  We want them ready and able to do more than "pull their weight." 

It is the cons you ignore who don't pull their weight.  Fraud, legal and otherwise devalues our money and our culture.  You taunt with tabloid consistency to find the exotic Democratic corruption instead of the everyday "house" GOPimp kind.  False equivalency is not honesty.  To blame "both side," one must not just be dueling and dealing in polemics.

Why are you so concerned with the delusion that "all they want is their free Obama bucks?"  I think they want a lot more than that, and I doubt you would get any of "them" to agree to how you have caaricatured them.  Ignorant and cheap in the shots.  Treat "them" as human and not as slime and see what happens. 

media_muse
DRC wrote: I also think

DRC wrote:

I also think feminism is about being as stupd as men, so we can see how the GOP woemen are doing their part.  And don't you just love "pray away the gay" Marcus?  I still love his Three Muskateer sense of honor.  It is also a great relief to find this comic Manna From Heaven because if I tried to write this stuff, I would be a very bad human.

stupidity is undeniably an equal opportunity behavior for all folks - I have enjoyed & not enjoyed my own such behavior! WE all have to do our part. However, MIchele Bachann does more stupid than most of us. Since she was running for the prezeedential place & she is still in the Minnesota governent it seems we need to be careful how much stupid can handle in our governance.

The fascinating part of what you bring up here is the  "fit" between Marcus & Michelle Bachmann. A "fit" of workable components of the gender roles, & how they act out their own "gender" roles. Like many folks who go into the Over Lording Business they get overly busy about areas that are not their business. The Bachmanns  are not willing to extend to others folks the same sort of workable life-business arrangement that they themselves enjoy. I see their double standard as problematic. 

The Great Debate / Michele Bachmann’s glass house

 By Amanda Marcotte

January 4, 2012

Of all the candidates who rose and fell during the prolonged Republican primary campaign going into Iowa, Michele Bachmann took the wildest ride. Bachmann won the 2011 Ames Straw Poll in August, taking 28 percent of the vote, mainly due to conservative evangelicals who supported her strong anti-abortion views and her ease in speaking Christianese. But a mere five months later, after a disastrous showing in Iowa where she only took 5 percent of the vote, Bachmann is dropping out of the race.

The campaign has blamed sexism for her precipitous fall. It’s an accusation that hasn’t done her any favors with defensive voters, but this may be one of those rare occasions when the Bachmann camp has correctly assessed reality. As a conservative female politician with an evangelical base, Bachmann was forced to hang her ambitions on voters who believe in traditional gender roles. It’s a strategy—a woman who rejects feminism who also wants to use feminism to gain serious power–that causes cognitive dissonance for voters, like fruit-flavored beer. The novelty will generate some sales, but at the end of the day, people will return to the half-dozen other beer-flavored beers available.

The sustained culture war that has created modern conservatism has many aspects to it: homophobia, racialized resentments, hostility to immigration. But anger about feminist gains surely rises to the top, with a special anger reserved for reproductive rights that free women from the kitchen and allow them to compete with men in the workplace. Bachmann herself gloated frequently about her love of traditional male power, noting publicly that she submits to her husband and strictly forbids her daughters to take the lead with boys, forcing them to adopt a strictly passive role in dating. Unsurprisingly, her belief that women should not control when they give birth has been a major platform for her, one she routinely describes as her number one priority.

That these opinions created an initial bout of enthusiasm for Bachmann is unsurprising. For decades now, conservatives have loved an anti-feminist woman, believing, correctly, that having women express hostility to women’s rights dilutes the feminist ideology. Putting anti-feminist views in a woman’s mouth allows conservatives to argue that many women are perfectly happy allowing men to take the lead.  Additionally, anti-feminist women can be used to shame feminists, by asking them why they can’t just accept the status quo like conservative women do. Many pundits and writers have made a career being the woman who opposes women’s empowerment: Phyllis Schlafly, Ann Coulter, Beverly LaHaye, among others. As long as these women’s actions are seen as fundamentally supportive of male dominance, they’re applauded for speaking out, and make money doing it.

The problems arise when anti-feminist women start to seek real power for themselves. Bachmann is far from the first female candidate whose anti-feminist views gained her a flurry of enthusiasm but whose conservative base reneged at the last minute. That base is unable to grant serious power to a woman, no matter how much she promised to use it to disempower other women. Michele Bachmann is simply the latest conservative woman who has found that she’s trapped not under a glass ceiling, but in a glass house: stuck in the role of champion for male control, unable to get a piece of the pie for themselves.

The Bush administration learned about this conundrum when they foolishly thought evangelicals would line up behind an evangelical female anti-abortion Supreme Court nominee in the same way they line up for such women at book signings. It played out differently. An evangelical outcry against Harriet Miers led Bush to make the unusual move of retracting a nominee because of pressure from his own party, and he quickly replaced her with a more standard-issue conservative male nominee, Samuel Alito.

Sarah Palin had a similar trajectory: an initial burst of conservative enthusiasm that turned to serious doubts. Palin saw the writing on the wall and has since retreated from seeking office, instead sticking to the more woman-friendly role of making speeches and writing books. In 2008, Sharron Angle tripped across the contradiction between her hostility to female equality and her own ambitions, and ended up losing the Nevada Senate race to Harry Reid, despite early polling data suggesting he would be an easy candidate to beat. Thirteen percent of voters in exit polls claimed Angle was not conservative enough, a surprisingly high number considering her far-right views, and one that hints at underlying suspicions about women with too much ambition.

Republican women who want a career in politics have usually found more success avoiding the anti-feminist pitch. Only one female Republican Senator, Kelly Ayotte, has much play with the evangelical right, and she managed that feat mainly by running a quiet election in the small and atypical state of New Hampshire. For politicians with aspirations of winning over the Christian right, a better bet is to moderate your ambitions and not vie for prominent federal offices. Many evangelical female Republicans hold governorships and even sit in the House of Representatives. It’s those showy offices with serious political power, such as Supreme Court judgeships, the Senate, and certainly the Presidency, that go a step too far.

Bachmann seems to be aware of the dissonance caused by a female politician running on an anti-feminist platform. During her post-caucus speech last night, she resorted to denying that she possessed that feminist-y quality of ambition, stating, “I am not a politician,” and, “I do not aspire to be a politician.” Clearly, she hopes to convince voters that she’s nothing more than a contented housewife who magically got swept into a suit and behind a podium, running a campaign for President through God’s will, not that of her own. It’s a strategy that was likely never to work—they’re conservatives, not idiots–but certainly at this point, trying to stomp out the contradictions with a neat little bit of dishonesty about the extent of her ambitions is too little, too late.

DRC
DRC's picture
I love it, "anti-feminism"

I love it, "anti-feminism" Rightwing women in politics, explained in beer!  Yup, that yucky fruit blend tends to be for people who don't like beer, but try to keep an open mind for really great sours and some tasty stuff with a bit of fruit. 

I love the "I am not a politician" from people elected to public office.  Those are the jobs I want politicians applying for even if some who are called have broader life experience.  I want them to be politicians too.  Just not crooks or ego struck "leaders" who don't understand what the job of a politician in a democracy is supposed to be. 

And why would Rightwing Women be less hypocritical than their men?  Do we just expect the latter to be arrogant and stupid? 

polycarp2
Well, I like the analogy that

Well, I like the analogy that the U.S. produces about $40,000 per year for each man, woman and baby...or $160 000 per family of four. What is the socially just distribution of the national pie?

A better distribution would probably enable the poor man to buy his own beer and the rich one to still purchase his imported champagne.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease".. 

media_muse
DRC wrote: And why would

DRC wrote:

And why would Rightwing Women be less hypocritical than their men?  Do we just expect the latter to be arrogant and stupid? 

Hmm... based on this response perhaps that is what we must expect...........

rigel1 wrote:

Maybe. But compared to that nit -wit Nancy Pelosi, she's Einstein.

There are people who are content to ride in the wagon while the rest of us push. All they want is their free Obama bucks. What's wrong with asking them to get out and push too? Even if it's only for one or two feet. They contributed something.

perplexing and silly this is....."But compared to that nit -wit Nancy Pelosi, she's Einstein". Bachmann doesn't have the smarts or savvy to sell herself out of her Minnesota seat. To date Bachmann is known for the Light Bulb Freedom of Choice Act, Opposition to higher education finance bill. Bachmann has called for phasing out Social Security* and Medicare*. Pelosi is a politician & as a politico is no nit-wit. She holds a position of historical importance - the first female to hold the position of Speaker. So I suppose I could agree with you and say right on!   We need more nitwits like Pelosi!

inconsistent this is: "There are people who are content to ride in the wagon while the rest of us push. All they want is their free Obama bucks. What's wrong with asking them to get out and push too? Even if it's only for one or two feet. They contributed something."

How do you see Bachmann pushing the wagon rather than riding in it ? Valid question rigel1. What is she doing to push or contribute? (Cracking her whip over the poor ravaged human bodies in her way doesn't qualify as a contribution**.) Taking subsides from the US  government or money from the Minnesota government are directly & flagrantly oppositional to the Tea Party platform she says she supports AND leads. These examples provide no evidence that she is contributing to our economy. In fact, it demonstrates she is doing what you say you abhor - Bachmann is receiving free USA bucks.

rigel1
rigel1's picture
media_muse wrote: DRC

media_muse wrote:

DRC wrote:

And why would Rightwing Women be less hypocritical than their men?  Do we just expect the latter to be arrogant and stupid? 

Hmm... based on this response perhaps that is what we must expect...........

rigel1 wrote:

Maybe. But compared to that nit -wit Nancy Pelosi, she's Einstein.

There are people who are content to ride in the wagon while the rest of us push. All they want is their free Obama bucks. What's wrong with asking them to get out and push too? Even if it's only for one or two feet. They contributed something.

How do you see Bachmann pushing the wagon rather than riding in it ? Valid question rigel1.

I don't. But she does pay taxes. In fact she is a tax attorney and by all accounts a pretty sharp one.

How do you see Pelosi as pushing the wagon rather than riding in it? At least Bachman isn't cruising around the world on a government jet sipping whiskey that was bought by me. They are both in the wagon, but Pelosi is a much, much heavier load.

chilidog
Does the House minority

Does the House minority leader get a jet?

Dominic C
rigel1 wrote: I don't. But

rigel1 wrote:

I don't. But she does pay taxes. In fact she is a tax attorney and by all accounts a pretty sharp one.

How do you see Pelosi as pushing the wagon rather than riding in it? At least Bachman isn't cruising around the world on a government jet sipping whiskey that was bought by me. They are both in the wagon, but Pelosi is a much, much heavier load.

And Pelosi doesn't pay taxes????

You need to stop using disingenuous debating tactics like this because it casts doubt on your integrity.

As far as who is a "bigger drag" I don't ever recall Pelosi receiving huge sums of "USA Bucks" for a bogus "counseling" practice like the Bachmanns.

Hypocrisy more?

media_muse
ok rigel1 let's start here,

ok rigel1 let's start here, the example provided by you is not quite correct & over simplified :

media_muse wrote:

[Pelosi is a politician & as a politico is no nit-wit. She holds a position of historical importance - the first female to hold the position of Speaker. So I suppose I could agree with you and say right on!   We need more nitwits like Pelosi!

Pelosi's behavior AND position demonstrate her abilities as a Stateswoman -the ability to show foresight, planning, developing ideas & dealing with difficulties - as well as a politician. If she wasn't able to do this there is no flippin' way she would be "the historical female in the USA" due to the pathetic woeful underwhelming numbers of females in our federal governance. Pelosi has a wider view of the world & people - which allows her to respond & interact with different sorts of people under difficult circumstances. Pelosi has more skills in her purse than Bachmann ever had to begin with.

I suppose I find Pelosi pushing her "Stateswoman" cart far more useful & sensible than Bachmann. As Bachanns cart is limited to antiquated ideologies while simultaneously hypocritical about them in real time.

I suppose you aren't aware of how difficult Bachmann is to get along with. Here is a section from her wikipedia page: "Bachmann's bid suffered a setback when she was passed over for the GOP's transition team on which Hensarling was placed.[130] Despite Bachmann's leading all other Representatives in fund raising, a Republican aide stated some "members are getting resentful of Bachmann, who they say is making the argument that you're not really a Tea Party supporter unless you support her. That's gone through the formation of the Tea Party Caucus and the formation of this candidacy of hers. It's just not so."[130] Sarah Palin, with whom Bachmann had campaigned earlier in the year, declined to endorse her leadership bid, while other Tea Party favorites Reps Adam Kinzinger and Tim Scott were placed on the transition team.[130] According to some senior House staff members, the party leadership was concerned about some of Bachmann's high profile faux pas, the high rate of turnover among her staff, and how willing she would be to advance the party's messaging rather than her own.[131] "

Knowing how concerned you are about getting the facts correct here's more for you - from wikipedia: "Use of government aircraft - In March 2009, the New York Post wrote that the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch obtained emails sent by Pelosi's staff which requested that the United States Air Force (USAF) provide specific aircraft – a Boeing 757 – for Pelosi to use for taxpayer-funded travel.[54][55][56] Pelosi responded that the policy was initiated by President Bush due to post-9/11 security concerns (Pelosi was third in line for presidential succession) and was initially provided for the previous Speaker, Dennis Hastert. The Sergeant at Arms requested, for security reasons, that the plane provided be capable of non-stop flight, requiring a larger aircraft. The Pentagon said "no one has rendered judgment" that Pelosi's use of aircraft "is excessive."[57]

Both Pelosi and Bachmann undeniably are politicians. Admittedly both enjoy the advantages of elitism their jobs provide for them while the majority of us live very differently. Pelosi is just able to contend with a wider variety of matters and she seems to act smarter than Bachmann - the smarter part is more appealing to me.

Phaedrus76
Phaedrus76's picture
Bachmann's family farm are

Bachmann's family farm are big moochers off the government. Farm subsidies for the moochers to farm. 

Phaedrus76
Phaedrus76's picture
As for the jet, in the 90's

As for the jet, in the 90's Newt got a personal jet, for the Speaker of House, theory being he was the 2nd in line-of-succession to the POTUS, and commercial flights were charging him extra for his ego space. 

Then, Denny the Hutt became speaker, and that same plane was capable of flying Denny to Illinois and back without needing to stop to refuel.

Pelosi however, going from DC to California, was not able to make do with the same plane. So for both safety and convenience, they got her a larger plane. Plus, the old plane stank of Polish sausage.

Phaedrus76
Phaedrus76's picture
Lastly, anyone notice how

Lastly, anyone notice how conservatives carp about giving money to the poor is a bad thing, teaches them dependence, blah blah blah...

But then they turn around and pass laws that give govt money to rich farmers, big oil, and defense contractors. Aren't we making Halliburton dependent moochers? Get off the govt teat, bitches.

chilidog
    http://www.snopes.com/pol

 

 

http://www.snopes.com/politics/pelosi/jet.asp

 

media_muse
well whada say - both snopes

well whada say - both snopes & wikipedia are on the same page with the plane use!

There is always an ironic twist to these matters - apparently the only decisive twist factor has to do with which party is in power. AS taxpayers we ought to be concerned also with the perks the corpo-rapers get for their use of planes. I hope rigel1 can hold on to his horses when he finds out that the top executives have the advantage of taxpayers funding their air plane trips just like Pelopsi & Newt.

Moyers: Wall Street's Massive Freak Out When Asked to Pay Their Fair SharePosted on Apr 12, 2012, Source: BillMoyers.comFormer allies are turning on the president now that he wants to close gaping tax loopholes for the 1 percent.

".....To add insult to injury, average taxpayers even help subsidize the private jet travel of the rich. On the Times’ DealBook blog, mergers and acquisitions expert Steven Davidoff writes, “If an outside security consultant determines that executives need a private jet and other services for their safety, the Internal Revenue Service cuts corporate chieftains a break. In such cases, the chief executive will pay a reduced tax bill or sometimes no tax at all.”

Are the CEOs really in danger? No, says Davidoff, “It’s a common corporate tax trick.”

Talk about your friendly skies. No wonder the people with money and influence don’t feel connected to the rest of the population. It’s as if they live in a foreign country at the top of the world, like their own private Switzerland, at heights so rarefied they can’t imagine life down below....."

Dominic C
media_muse wrote:  I hope

media_muse wrote:

 I hope rigel1 can hold on to his horses when he finds out that the top executives have the advantage of taxpayers funding their air plane trips just like Pelopsi & Newt.

Moyers: Wall Street's Massive Freak Out When Asked to Pay Their Fair SharePosted on Apr 12, 2012, Source: BillMoyers.comFormer allies are turning on the president now that he wants to close gaping tax loopholes for the 1 percent.

".....To add insult to injury, average taxpayers even help subsidize the private jet travel of the rich. On the Times’ DealBook blog, mergers and acquisitions expert Steven Davidoff writes, “If an outside security consultant determines that executives need a private jet and other services for their safety, the Internal Revenue Service cuts corporate chieftains a break. In such cases, the chief executive will pay a reduced tax bill or sometimes no tax at all.”

Are the CEOs really in danger? No, says Davidoff, “It’s a common corporate tax trick.”

Talk about your friendly skies. No wonder the people with money and influence don’t feel connected to the rest of the population. It’s as if they live in a foreign country at the top of the world, like their own private Switzerland, at heights so rarefied they can’t imagine life down below....."

I bet that he would have no problem with this since according to these folks, the rich are A-OK.

Bush_Wacker
Bush_Wacker's picture
Capital wrote: Nice to see

Capital wrote:

Nice to see this analogy that's been around for years is still inciting liberals into a blind rage. 

Dominic,

In your analogy,  you forget to add in the $20 (earned income credit) that the rich slid the poor under the table to pay for thier share so they wouldn't be embarrassed that they were buying beer they clearly could not afford. 

You also forgot to mention that the 10th guy owned the bar.

Dominic C
Bush_Wacker wrote: Capital

Bush_Wacker wrote:

Capital wrote:

Nice to see this analogy that's been around for years is still inciting liberals into a blind rage. 

Dominic,

In your analogy,  you forget to add in the $20 (earned income credit) that the rich slid the poor under the table to pay for thier share so they wouldn't be embarrassed that they were buying beer they clearly could not afford. 

You also forgot to mention that the 10th guy owned the bar.

Nice :)

media_muse
Bush_Wacker wrote: Capital

Bush_Wacker wrote:

Capital wrote:

Nice to see this analogy that's been around for years is still inciting liberals into a blind rage. 

You also forgot to mention that the 10th guy owned the bar.

hmm.....was the tenth guy drunk? Not sure how imbibing this silly slushy-sloshy tax system could blind any one - unless of course they are already blind drunk! BTW - blind rage in this posting? Seems I missed it. Or is "blind rage" just a Capital projection ? ?

hellbent
hellbent's picture
Sorry, I've been busy.  Also,

Sorry, I've been busy.  Also, just wanted to read people's comments.  Which I'm now doing, I don't plan to argue over this.

nosrac
nosrac's picture
Yeah, and the other 9 guys

Yeah, and the other 9 guys work for the bar.  If it weren't for the 10th guy, they would all be like the first 4 and pay nothing, leaving the 10th guy holding the entire bill.

The complete and utter nonsensical, illogical thought of the left is astounding.  Some of them are educated, but very few think seem to think for themselves.  They have gobbled the liberal bait from their college professors hook, line and sinker. 

To paraphrase Winston Churchill, [If you are not liberal at 20, you have no heart.  If you are not conservative at 40, you have no brain.]

The whole idea of "spreading the wealth" is very Socialistic in nature. Many liberals think that somehow we can spread the wealth until we reach a happy median and everything will be copacetic.  It doesn’t work that way.  There is no end to spreading the wealth because the mentality that is born from these types of politics is that everyone should have the same amount of money.  It is simply human nature.   Socialism has worked somewhat (they have huge debt to GDP ratios) in smaller, homogeneous countries (Finland, Norway, etc.)  Socialism will NOT work in a country as large and as heterogeneous as the US. There are too many takers as compared to givers.  There isn't the same sense of national pride with people coming from so many different countries.  Some cultures promote hard work and some do not.  We have a huge melting pot, larger than any country in the world.  Success should continue to be rewarded and we should incentivize people to work towards being successful, not reward them for doing nothing. (See Obama's removal of work requirement for Welfare recipients).

 

Sadly, liberals won't get it until the country is in financial ruins.  

Bush_Wacker
Bush_Wacker's picture
It's more like this. 3 guys

It's more like this.

3 guys go into a cafe.  A union member, a tea partier and a CEO.  There's a dozen cookies on a plate.  The CEO takes 11 of them and looks at the tea party member and says "Keep an eye on that guy, he wants your cookie".

Phaedrus76
Phaedrus76's picture
nosrac wrote: The whole idea

nosrac wrote:

The whole idea of "spreading the wealth" is very Socialistic in nature.

...

Socialism has worked somewhat (they have huge debt to GDP ratios) in smaller, homogeneous countries (Finland, Norway, etc.)  Socialism will NOT work in a country as large and as heterogeneous as the US. There are too many takers as compared to givers.  There isn't the same sense of national pride with people coming from so many different countries.  Some cultures promote hard work and some do not....

 

Why won't socialis, work in a large multicultural nation? Because the majority is being told "those" people are takers. And "those" will always refer to Blacks and Mexicans. As for takers, CEO's and Hedge Fund titans who have never labored a day in their life take far more undeservedly than anyone else in this country.

polycarp2
Probably in a nation like the

Probably in a nation like the U.S. where the national income is only $160,000 for each family of four, it's better to have some living on one meal a day and others living under bridges.

We should probably  make more cardboard boxes to provide affordable housing. A 5 cent box out of $160,000 wouldn't break anybody.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

nosrac
nosrac's picture
There are plenty of "takers"

There are plenty of "takers" from many different cultural backgrounds.  It is the left that makes the pretty racial assumption that "we" are referring to African Americans and Hispanics.  It is very indicative of who the real racists in this country are.

Race aside, we continue to give away housing, food, clothes, etc. with no strings attached.  Human nature is to take the easy way out. Sorry, but creating more and more dependency will NOT fix our problems, instead it will ruin our country.  The liberals are gaining more and more ground in elections because there are more "takers' who vote themselves money.  We need the working middle class to wake up and realize that this is detrimental to them as well.  I LOL when I hear Obama talk about helping the middle class.  

All I can say is that if liberals set aside their ideology long enough to actually THINK about fiscal issues, we would have a lot of converts.

Phaedrus76
Phaedrus76's picture
And conservatives and the

And conservatives and the Banksters aren't voting for money for themselves? Disney didn't buy the law to extend copyright law to extend out to 100 years? How many billions ( or was it trillions?) did the US throw at the banksters to bail them out?

There is always enogh money to save the wealthy financiers who fund conservative Republicans' campaigns. So STFU.

D_NATURED
D_NATURED's picture
Bush_Wacker wrote: It's more

Bush_Wacker wrote:

It's more like this.

3 guys go into a cafe.  A union member, a tea partier and a CEO.  There's a dozen cookies on a plate.  The CEO takes 11 of them and looks at the tea party member and says "Keep an eye on that guy, he wants your cookie".

Brilliant!

D_NATURED
D_NATURED's picture
nosrac wrote: There are

nosrac wrote:

There are plenty of "takers" from many different cultural backgrounds.  It is the left that makes the pretty racial assumption that "we" are referring to African Americans and Hispanics.  It is very indicative of who the real racists in this country are.

The real racists switched to the Republican party in the late sixties. They remain there, caging votes, starving school systems and tearing down social programs.

Quote:
Race aside, we continue to give away housing, food, clothes, etc. with no strings attached.

Wow. You must be talking about tax subsidies to corporations.

 

Quote:
Human nature is to take the easy way out. Sorry, but creating more and more dependency will NOT fix our problems, instead it will ruin our country.  The liberals are gaining more and more ground in elections because there are more "takers' who vote themselves money.  We need the working middle class to wake up and realize that this is detrimental to them as well.  I LOL when I hear Obama talk about helping the middle class.

What makes you think there's anything easy about being on food stamps or public assistance? If it's so easy, why aren't you doing it? Charity for the poor is NOT detrimental to the middle class. What is detrimental to the middle class is fascism. If you're LOLing Obama's words, it should be for that reason.

Quote:
All I can say is that if liberals set aside their ideology long enough to actually THINK about fiscal issues, we would have a lot of converts.

Trust me, if there's one thing the Republicans want people NOT to do, it's think, and their followers don't disappoint. The poor have been turned into a republican boogy man, just like socialism. The idea that it is the poverty stricken, and not the Ken Lays and Romneys of the world that are bankrupting this country is laughable. Why aren't you laughing at that?

D_NATURED
D_NATURED's picture
You forget that there is a

You forget that there is a glass tax that everyone must pay, and the poor pay in a higher percentage. You also forget that the rich guy owns all of the urinals and charges a fee to pee.