Republicans are just plain daft, part 2

DeNiro as Vito Corleone

One of the most prosaic lines in film history is in 1974's Godfather II. When Vito Corleone (Robert DeNiro) is asked by Peter Clemenza (Bruno Kirby) if he checked out the package of oily guns Clemenza had left him as the NYPD was hauling Clemenza away, Corleone replies coolly that "I'm not interested in things that don't concern me".

At that point, we realize that the future Don was not a Republican.

Today's GOPster clown cultist is obsessed with things that do not concern them. Embryos and fetuses germinating in women they've never met. Same sex couples marrying thousands of miles from them. The well-being of the same plutocracy that do not pay them the same mind back in the least.

Conversely, when it is things that do concern them--Gulf oil spills, rising seas, warrantless searches of emails and phone calls, endless wars---oddly indifferent.

When someone prioritizes the irrelevant over the important, what else can one say?

They're fucking daft.


endlessly how much money some people have, when that has little to do with the economic wellbeing of the vast majority. It's not as if taking all of Bill Gates' wealth and giving it to the 300 million plus Americans would make any difference to them.

So both parties are playing the same game here - obsessing about people who they don't know who do not matter and who they don't care about.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 18, 2013 @ 2:04 pm

Actually, while nobody here came close to proposing the confiscation of the sum total of Bill Gates' wealth, 136 billion dollars distributed 300,000,000 ways would yield $456 for every man woman and child in the U.S.; almost $1200.00 per household.

Posted by lillipublicans on Jun. 20, 2013 @ 7:33 am

The "left" would like the government to stop bailing out the economy-wrecking top tier and that said top tier's Cayman-stashed wealth be subject to the same taxes as everyone else's.

Which means that it very much affects them.

Nice try, though. 

Posted by JohnnyW on Jun. 18, 2013 @ 2:13 pm

as US citizens are taxed on their world-wide income regardless of location.

US corporations can defer tax on profits that have not yet been repatriated, but that is mainly a result of the fact that corporate tax rates in the Us are the highest in the west apart from Japan.

That said, i do agree with you that GM should have been allowed to fail. We do not need to have a car industry at all, but we do need some form of banking system.

Posted by anon on Jun. 18, 2013 @ 2:32 pm

You'd throw hundreds of thousands of people out of work but protect the scum who collapsed the economy? Seriously?

BTW, US tax rates are among the lowest of industrialized nations, not highest. And too many companies use off-shore accounts to keep from paying anything in taxes. See GE for that; took thousands of American jobs to China, paid zero income tax, and got a $3.5b tax credit to next year's taxes for it.

Posted by Kyle Michel Sullivan on Jun. 18, 2013 @ 2:49 pm

Letting the banks close would have led to far more layoffs than GM.

And corporate tax rates are very high in the US. That's why US corporations go to great lengths to minimize their liability - because the tax rates are punitive.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 18, 2013 @ 3:00 pm

The top tax rate for corporations in the US is 35%

The rate they actually pay is about 12%. That is from the CBO.

It's like the 39% "top tax rate" that no one in the top 1% pays (cf Mitt "12.9%" Romney).



Posted by JohnnyW on Jun. 18, 2013 @ 3:34 pm

Even France taxes it's corporations less. So is it any wonder that US corporations optimize and finesse their liabilities? Of course not.

And everyone (apart from you, allegedly) understands that one's highest marginal tax rate, on the last dollar of income, is nothing like one's average blended tax rate.

Come on, JAW, you may be dumb but you're not that dumb.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 18, 2013 @ 4:08 pm

"Letting the banks close would have led to far more layoffs than GM."

Are you fucking nuts? Even our foreign competitors were talking up stopping GM's slide! Both the banks and GM needed a fix. Though I would have done the banking "bailout" differently, when you have firms unable to make payroll because of a credit freeze, well...think about it. As for GM, once again, a collapse in that firm (not to mention Chrysler, though not as much) would have eventually lead to difficulties for Ford. The libertarian idea of just letting the market do its think here is must more cartoon logic. If GM were an eighth of its size and we had 6-7 more firms making autos here, then perhaps. But General Motors is practically an economic of a nation-state at this point. If they failed along with letting the banks fail, I truly believe in my heart that we would have seen a New Depression instead of the Great Recession.

Posted by Johnny Venom on Jun. 18, 2013 @ 6:40 pm

We can import cars - we cannot import a banking system.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 18, 2013 @ 6:50 pm

Yeah, we could import our cars, but then why? You're not seeing it, and I am beginning to think you're not capable of it.

Posted by Johnny Venom on Jun. 18, 2013 @ 8:22 pm

Apple Computers Inc. does not entirely pay what it really earns world wide. They utilize a slew of companies to hide that income in the form of royalties going towards "foreign" entities. And Apple isn't the only one doing this.

Secondly, the effective tax rate is much different than the official tax rate. A C-corp could earn say a hundred million dollars, but through the right investments and expense deductions, could actually end up paying next to nothing. Indeed, some companies actually get cash back!

Lastly, regarding GM, allowing them to fail would have had catastrophic results. Even Toyota, their biggest competitor at the time, begged Uncle Sam to do something. Why? Parts suppliers, be it here or in Asia, could have seen their industry witness a massive shakedown if one of their largest clients literally shut down overnight. The ripple effect would have been enormous!

Posted by Johnny Venom on Jun. 18, 2013 @ 6:35 pm

US rate of corporate tax is so excessive, punitive and confiscatory.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 18, 2013 @ 6:51 pm

Cheap and easy words to use, that sound good "like death tax" but are hollow. I own 2 C-corps, I know damn well that the official tax rates really take into effect after deductions. So tell me, how are they "excessive" "punitive" and "confisicatory"? Nothing is stopping your average corporation in the S&P 500 from conducting business. They seem to have enough dough to pay out pretty nice executive compensation packages. So go ahead, please, if you're able, be specific.

Posted by Johnny Venom on Jun. 18, 2013 @ 8:27 pm

An atrocious example.

The US is 53rd or 55th in taxes, in reality:

Please--spare me the nonsense. The US has no VAT, as long as you're talking blended.

And yes--you're daft--because you pay nowhere near these rates at all and spend every day here taint massaging away.

Posted by JohnnyW on Jun. 18, 2013 @ 4:24 pm

so that is a red herring.

The US does have lower taxes, which of course is why we have a more dynamic economy. But the US corporate tax rates are ridiculously high which, as we have known since Laffer, means that almost no corporation will pay them.

So let's reduce those tax rates and watch our economy grow!

Posted by Guest on Jun. 18, 2013 @ 4:42 pm

Thank you, Johnny Angel. This daft Republican series is one to beat the band!

Posted by Daniel on Jun. 18, 2013 @ 9:11 pm

With the SFBG upheaval of recent days, I become more convinced than ever that JAW is being paid in MUNI transfers. How masterfully he connects the dots between the Godfather, gay marriage, and Obama's endless wars.

Posted by Chromefields on Jun. 19, 2013 @ 7:39 am

"I become more convinced than ever that JAW is being paid in MUNI transfers."

Of what use would MUNI transfers be to Johnny in LA?

Looks like Johnny has been voted off the island - I said Johnny would be kicked off this blog by Tuesday afternoon at the latest, and his last post was Tuesday, 1:45 PM.

Posted by Rick on Jun. 21, 2013 @ 9:06 am

inevitable that that would be reversed quickly. JAW simply provided some volume while everything else was in disarray.

And JAW's old-school commie politics was more like the old SFBG, i.e. mindlessly anti-business, rather than the new, more moderate focus of the new management.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 21, 2013 @ 9:18 am

Yeah, I wondered whether hiring belligerent, not-too-perceptive, Angeleno, Johnny as the most prolific blogger on the SFBG website wasn't something of a calculated gesture of disrespect towards senior management.

At least Tim tried to make the intellectual case for rent control - Johnny simply announced that it was self-evident that rent control was a good thing, and berated anybody who thought that it wasn't quite so self-evident.

Posted by Rick on Jun. 21, 2013 @ 9:59 am

A little wry satire to lighten the burden of hard times.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 21, 2013 @ 10:11 am

I think that the Johnny argument that I'll remember most fondly was his argument that tech jobs in San Francisco would inevitably migrate to LA, since San Francisco is so small, and Los Angeles is so big.

I mean, I had heard rumors that there might be a tech firm or two in the Bay Area located outside of San Francisco, but I must have been wrong about that.

Johnny, along with the rest of the SFBG staff, firmly believed that there was a force-field event-horizon surrounding the City of San Francisco, and that any person or business that existed or moved outside that force field, immediately and completely disappeared from view.

Posted by Rick on Jun. 21, 2013 @ 11:22 am

it's native habitat is between these pages.

Odd really, since this is not a San Francisco paper, but a San Francisco BAY paper. You know? Those nine counties and dozens of cities that you'd hardly knew existed if you got all your news only here.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 21, 2013 @ 11:50 am

I do recall that the SFBG at one point had an "East Bay edition". I don't know what happened to that - the SFBG probably got their lunch eaten by the East Bay Express, and retreated back into their 49-square-mile fortress.

Maybe that bad experience helped cement their view that there was nothing in the Bay Area outside San Francisco.

Posted by Rick on Jun. 21, 2013 @ 12:21 pm

could be changed to the "San Francisco Guardian" rather than pretend, via the "Bay" in it's title, that it claims to cover the entire urban area rather than just the downtown part of it.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 21, 2013 @ 12:30 pm

Well, Bruce worked for the Redwood City Tribune before he founded the SFBG, for God's sakes.

When he came up with the name, he probably didn't realize how narrowly geographically focused the paper would turn out to be.

Posted by Rick on Jun. 21, 2013 @ 12:41 pm

Presumably because it is the kind of "loser nirvana" that they love to advocate.

Maybe the odd honorable mention for Berkeley, whose politics are certainly whacky enough for the SFBG, but there is that faint fear that Berkeley is full of wealthy academics who like to eat well at restaurants.

Then there is the million plus people who live in the South Bay, who might as well not exist for all the attention they get here.

I'm hoping that now changes and that we treat our one large urban metropolis as, well, one large urban metropolis rather than a hundred bankanized petty fiefdoms.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 21, 2013 @ 12:50 pm

Wholesale leggings from China leggings Wholesalers. You can Online Wholesale tight leggings,Wholesale knitted Leather leggings and more, Best quality and Cheap price Jeggings in China.
Wholesale Jeggings China
Wholesale Jegging China
Wholesale leather leggin

Posted by Wholesale Jeggings China on Dec. 16, 2013 @ 10:33 pm