Rush Limbaugh call your office. Orrin Hatch is stealing your shtick.
Today on Morning Meeting with Dylan Ratigan, the senior Republican senator from Utah said the following:
One of the big goals of the whole Democratic Party is to move people into that category—the bottom 50% that basically don’t pay taxes—and a high percentage of them get money from the federal government, who think everything they are or ever hope to be comes from the almighty Democratic Party.
Such disgusting rhetoric usually flows from the mouths of the right-wing talkers, as they perform daily for the 5% of Americans who gather under the circus tent of extremism.
But since the Republican Party has almost totally succumbed to the extremist performance artists, it shouldn’t be surprising that “respected” figures within the party have joined their act, like circus elephants, and dutifully make such offensive—and false—statements about not only Democrats, but about exactly one half of the American people.
Just for the record, everyone pays taxes. Even if one is part of the 43% who don’t have any federal income tax liability, there are still state income taxes and fees, county taxes, Social Security and Medicare taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes (like on gasoline), and the taxes that are hidden in the price of goods and services.
So, not only has Senator Hatch insulted the Democratic Party and the American people by accusing half of them of freeloading and placing “everything they are or ever hope to be” in the hands of the Democrats, he has done so by bearing false witness—which used to be against Mormon sensibilities.
But then, again, so did monogamy.
The Erstwhile Conservative: A Blog of Repentance 
ansonburlingame
/ October 27, 2009Duane,
Short comment to a short blog. 90% of voting blacks vot Democrat. I wonder what percentage of them pay income (which I suspect was Hatch’s intention to say) taxes.
That is not a racist statement. It is a legitimate political question that might give some evidence as to why such an overwhelming majority of blacks vote Democrat. Care to answer it?
We know tht 60% of white men voted Republican. We know a substantial number of the “rich” vote Republican. What % of the “poor” vote Democrat? My guess is a substantial majority of those poor that in fact vote. If those numbers are “facts” they are no biased or politically incorrect, just simple facts. The conclusions drawn from such numbers might be otherwise.
My guess, and it is only a guess, in that Hatch’s 50% number is not far off for those not paying any income taxes, federally or propbably at state level.
Anson
Anson
LikeLike
seanadunn
/ October 27, 2009I don’t have current statistics, not even swayed swayed by misleading line of questioning like most political polls use. However, from my vantage point as a citizen I agree that there seems to be this need from the cowed people to succke from the Democratic notion that Government is there to take from the haves and redistribute to those who lack.
LikeLike
Duane Graham
/ October 27, 2009Anson,
Nice try. But Hatch didn’t say anything about “income” taxes. In an unrehearsed moment, he simply exposed himself and what he thinks of Democrats and a substantial part of the population. Reminds me of the “welfare queen” meme popular during the Reagan years.
Also, regarding your inquiry about the correlation between the voting habits of blacks and their income, according to the conservative Tax Foundation,
Make of that what you will, but I can tell you how someone on a white supremacist Website spun it:
LikeLike
janereaction
/ October 27, 2009Most of the retired military that I know would fall into the bottom half of the population, as characterized by Anson. Yet, those same folks generally don’t pay any taxes either while they suck up their Tricare and muse about how socialistic decent healthcare for the rest of the people would be.
Anson, anybody who says he is not a racist, then follows up with his own statement about his ‘facts’-“The conclusions drawn from such numbers might be otherwise”, is a racist.
LikeLike
seanadunn
/ October 27, 2009j,
Universal Healthcare is a socialistic idea. When I work my A** off providing healthcar3e for my family, why should someone who is able and has been given the opportunity to work in support of themselves but wont do it for some excuse, be given “Healthcare” of the same quality or better than us who suck it up and do the work?
Why do we focus on handing out “Premium” healthcare to those who cannot afford it, while making us who get standard Healthcare we do pay for pay more for it… instead of focusing on reducing the cost of healthcare overall and across the board.
Tricare, medicare, or professional care, it doesn’t matter what kind of care we use, it all costs way too much and most of that is to some insurance group that invest it and make a killing…. ect.
argh!
Sorry for my tirade but face the facts “Universal Health” is a sham.
LikeLike
ansonburlingame
/ October 28, 2009Jane,
I have the best possible health care “insurance”, Medicare followed by Tricare (military retirement benifit) paying for Medicare deductibles. It cost $96 per month total. I also get great benefits on prescription drugs. Did I “earn” it?
Am I two-faced to accept that government gratuity while saying health care as proposed is unaffordable? Before you launch that spear be very careful and read what I have written before.
I don’t recall writing about any conclusions drawn from the “facts” presented. Are you now calling me a racist?
Go ahead, Jane. Say what you really think. I can take it but I don’t want to respond based on inuendo. Tell it like you really think it is, HONEY. Then add sexist to the charges.
Anson
LikeLike
ansonburlingame
/ October 28, 2009Duane,
On a more rational level, your numbers above have me really confused, honestly. I started to look up the total numbers of votes tallied in 2008 and convert all your %s of %s to actual numbers. I gave up as too much trouble.
I am also wondering if you were being sarcastic in saying “Once again, Blacks and Hispanics prove that they’re a burden on a per capita basis. The facts clearly show that over half of the 25 percent of the population that they represent are burdens.” That of course means that of the 75 million black and Hispanic Americans 35.5 (one half) are “burdens”???
That number comes close to the 47 million “uninsured” we have heard so much about. But again, I am not sure, honestly if your are saying that sarcastically or if the words were intended as those of the “fringe” group you address. Please clarify.
This is not an attempt to poke fun or ridicule at you or anyone. I am simply trying to understand the “facts” as presented and separate out the opinion.
Anson
LikeLike
Duane Graham
/ October 28, 2009Anson,
Go back and look at the post again. I didn’t say that “Once again, Blacks and Hispanics prove that they’re a burden on a per capita basis…”
That was the conclusion of the person on the white supremacist Website.
I was merely trying to illustrate how real racists use the statistics you had inquired about.
Again, go back and look at it. You can see the gray bar on the left includes the statement you quoted, thus it was part of the Website.
If that wasn’t clear, I should have set it off better.
Duane
LikeLike
ansonburlingame
/ October 28, 2009Duane,
That is what I thought but wanted to be sure on who alleged what.
Now, I took the time to “run the numbers” in your “nice try” statistics. My conclusion is that neither “study” supports their contentions and neither “study” disproves the allegations of the other.
As suspected the statistics provided are all about apples and oranges and provide no “proof” of anything in terms of who pays what or does not pay.
Thus I have no idea how many black “households” whatever that number is do not pay taxes nor do I know that for whites as well.
Both sides are empty vessels and we must thus go back to our “opinions”, however unproven they may be.
Anson
PS: For all you skeptics, I provided by email to Duane a step by step breakdown in my logic and calculations trying to make sense out of the statistics.
LikeLike
Jim Hight
/ October 29, 2009Lets see–Republicans give corporate welfare to the oil companies and support the status quo for healthcare while opposing an increase in the minimum wage and a public option. Who really wants to keep those at the bottom of the income scale at the bottom, thus affecting their payment of income taxes? I just heard on CNN, too, that many Republicans are also supporting the huge bonuses for those whose speculation brought this country to the brink of depression and more corporate welfare. I guess they have to take care of their campaign contributors and those who they truly represent.
LikeLike
ansonburlingame
/ October 29, 2009Jim,
Again, nicely put in a very partisan way. Was Hatch right or wrong in his statement?
Anson
LikeLike
Jim Hight
/ October 30, 2009Hey, the truth is the truth. Just take a look at voting habits of both parties. And, yes, I am a Democrat. I was a Republican until Ronald Reagan, who was very close to Satan with his love of warfare, letting thousands die of AIDS before he acknowledged it was a problem, his unBiblical love for the rich and disdain for the poor (my opinion only) took office. In fact, I was an officer with the MSSC (then) Young Republicans. The party changed with Reagan, becoming intolerant and full of hate, and I could not take that anymore, so I switched. And I am aggravated with the Democrats now, so I will probably become an Independent before too long. They’re just not progressive enough.
LikeLike
seanadunn
/ October 30, 2009Again I see another place that is deep in the dichotomy of Right/left politics.
So can anyone here answer me this:
Why do we have a dual or bi-partisan government? Why do we not have more “big name” parties?
All I hear anymore is Republicans calling Lefties out for their statements and actions (that don’t match) and Democrats calling Righties out for their statements and actions (that don’t match)! Why are we putting up with the Government if we know they all lie to us and will do nothing to stand up for what they said they will?
Observation… When Bush was Pres. Lefties called him al sorts of names when he sent troops into the mid-east in War, Obama runs on the platform “I will bring our troops home… I will pull them out of Iraq.” when he is pres. he moves troops from Iraq to Afghanistan and is signing off on plans of calling more troops for Afghanistan than Bush did for Iraq… and no-one is calling him names like they did to Bush!!
Are we just cowed by this “Rock Star”?
LikeLike
Duane Graham
/ October 30, 2009Seanadunn,
Working backwards:
Lefties are preemptively criticizing Obama because they believe we should just get the hell out of Afghanistan, before we lose more lives and spend another trillion. I don’t know if you have noticed just how much criticism he is getting from the left, but your “rock star” suggestion does not apply to committed leftists—or anyone else I know for that matter. He has been criticized frequently for not aggressively defending issues important to the left.
As for Iraq, Obama did promise to remove the troops “responsibly,” which he is doing.
As for your contention that “they all lie to us,” I couldn’t disagree more. Obama is doing pretty much what he said he would do in the campaign, as far as I can see. I hope he does change his mind, however, on a few things, which I won’t go into now. I hope you don’t think politicians should be held to the letter of what they have previously said, if they learn new information that changes their views.
Finally, our system is organized around the two parties largely, I think, because of our presidential system. In parliamentary systems, when a general election is held, candidates are more fractionalized into various parties, then after the election, those parties have to form coalitions in order to have a governing majority. In our system, we tend to form coalitions before the election, which means that sometimes we have to ignore some of the differences between us in order to have a viable political party that can win elections.
You can see what is happening in the GOP at this moment. Extremists are not content with any candidate who does not exactly measure up to their template and they are attempting to either boot out or marginalize others who are not as extreme. Such people would not thrive in a parliamentary system. They would have little power and influence because they would be unwilling to become part of a governing coalition. You have to be willing to compromise at least some of your positions in order to advance legislation and govern.
Bottom line is, more parties would not work well in America. In any case, if we did have many parties, they would still have to join ranks in Congress to get anything done. So, what would be the difference?
Duane
LikeLike
ansonburlingame
/ October 30, 2009Duane,
Now here is a real quote for you. The Chairman of the Democratic Party in Newton County, Missouri said:
“I was a Republican until Ronald Reagan, who was very close to Satan ”
I read no farther after seeing that little gem.
Anson
LikeLike
Duane Graham
/ October 30, 2009Anson,
At least quote the whole statement:
How can you take offense at that statement and not take offense when someone, like Geoff Caldwell, makes “Hitler” references to Obama?
I don’t condone the “Satan” reference, but at least Jim set it in a “biblical” context, unlike the people who call Obama “Satan.”
And speaking of the Geoff Caldwell “Herr Obama” reference I alluded to above, how can the Obama-as-Hitler or the Obama-as-Stalin or the Obama-as-Mao suggestions be set in their proper context? In other words, how many people has Obama killed to keep himself in power? How many TV and radio stations and newspapers has he shut down?
We can attack the other side without referencing historical fiends or mythical ones. I am willing to criticize a guy on my side for using the “Satan” reference. How about you criticize Geoff Caldwell for his allusions to Hitler and Obama?
Duane
LikeLike