We've all known a kid who upon losing a board game would freak out, hurl the game across the room and storm off while shouting something like, "This game sucks anyway!" The modern permutation of this unhinged sour grapes tantrum is to chuck a video game controller at the TV. (I sheepishly raise my hand: guilty as charged on the latter.)
It's one thing to suffer a momentary lack of self-control after losing a simple game, especially if the game is stupid, stupid, stupid and doesn't give you a chance to fire before enemies converge on your position seemingly out of nowhere I hate that game! Phew. Sorry. But it's another thing entirely to engage in this kind of silly, irrational behavior as a business owner, politician or political pundit in reaction to the results of an election. It's no surprise the Republicans are doing exactly that.
Last week, I wrote about the nonsensical secession movement. But it's safe to say that it was spearheaded by a marginal, fringe, kneejerk group of mostly throw-back libertarian goofballs. The following examples of apoplexy, however, have come from people who reside squarely in the mainstream of the conservative right.
Let's begin with fast food executives like Papa John's CEO John Schnatter who threatened to raise the price of his crappy pizzas by 11 cents per pie while, at one point, saying it was "common sense" to lay off workers as a means to side-stepping the forthcoming Affordable Care Act requirement that businesses with 50 or more employees provide all full time workers with health insurance or else pay a fine of $2,000 per employee. After crunching the numbers, however, Schnatter only needs to raise the price tag of each pizza by around five cents to pay for health insurance for all of his full time workers. Done. Unless Papa John's customers are radical misers, they'll never notice the almost nonexistent price increase. (Schnatter's mea culpa was posted here yesterday.)
Elsewhere, a Denny's franchise owner in Florida threatened to add a five percent surcharge on each bill to pay for his new Obamacare expenses. The backlash was swift. Denny's sales dropped all across the nation, even though John Metz, the franchise owner, only controlled a few dozen restaurants. So naturally the CEO of Denny's had to step in and force-feed Metz some much-need Xanax.
Denny's chief executive John Miller privately reached out to Metz to express his "disappointment" with the Florida franchisee's controversial statements about Obamacare, which sparked a wave of backlash for the national restaurant chain over the past few days. Metz released a statement Monday night expressing "regret" over his statements."We recognize his right to speak on issues, but registered our disappointment that his comments have been interpreted as the company's position," Miller said in an email to The Huffington Post.
Absent legitimate business concerns, what else do we call this behavior other than a tantrum?
Speaking of profits, if the president gets his way and taxes are returned to the Clinton-era levels for incomes above $250,000 for families and $200,000 for individuals, reports are coming in from various small business owners that they inexplicably intend to sabotage their revenue streams in order to keep incomes under the $250,000 threshold. For example:
Kristina Collins, a chiropractor in McLean, Va., said she and her husband planned to closely monitor the business income from their joint practice to avoid crossing the income threshold for higher taxes outlined by President Obama on earnings above $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for couples.Ms. Collins said she felt torn by being near the cutoff line and disappointed that federal tax policy was providing a disincentive to keep expanding a business she founded in 1998.
"If we're really close and it's near the end-year, maybe we'll just close down for a while and go on vacation," she said.
Here's how the tax code really works. If the Bush tax cuts expire on income higher than $250,000, the slightly higher tax rate will only apply to income over $250,000 -- not the entire sum of $250,000. In other words, if the Collins family earns $251,000 next year, they will only pay a higher marginal tax rate on $1,000, not $251,000. And that doesn't even take into consideration various deductions and tax credits that would cumulatively give the Collins family a lower effective tax rate (the process by which Mitt Romney or Warren Buffet pays a tax rate in the range of 15 percent).
So these people are deliberately restraining their revenue potential because they're pissed about the election. In my video game metaphor, this is not unlike bashing yourself in the head with a controller instead of hurling it across the room.
Then there are the red state governors who are refusing to implement the health insurance exchanges required in the Affordable Care Act. Rick Perry, Scott Walker, Rick Scott and the other usual suspects have stonewalled the law. Bobby Jindal, who not only blasted his own party for being "stupid" but who also criticized the stimulus while accepting gigantic stimulus checks, has also joined the blockade against Obamacare.
These so-called states' rights Republicans obviously don't realize that the federal government will simply create an exchange itself for any state that refuses. In other words, here's a case where the states have total control and these governors have all but relinquished that control to the federal government -- literally allowing a government takeover.
I can't even imagine the tarring and feathering that would've taken place if any Democratic politician had refused to implement Medicare Part-D or the USA PATRIOT Act or had refused to allow the deployment of national guard units to Iraq. The outrage would've been punitive and nearly universal. I mean, look at what happened to former-Senator Max Cleland (D-GA) in the 2002 midterms when he dared to oppose the Iraq War. Karl Rove and the Republicans accused this triple-amputee Vietnam War veteran of being sympathetic to Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. Saxby Chambliss won the election and has currently joined the witch hunt against U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, even though he and George W. Bush presided over a six year span of time when there were 11 terrorist attacks on various U.S. consulates resulting in dozens of casualties.
And finally, an article about kneejerk, childish reactions to the election wouldn't be complete without mentioning the latest gibberish from Dean Chambers, the founder of Unskewed Polls. Immediately after the election, Chambers blamed me for his homophobic rant against Nate Silver. Yes, really. He blamed me. You know, because Republicans are all about personal responsibility. Evidently, Chambers objected to an article in which I described him as "portly" in an attempt to visually and professionally contrast him with Silver. Chambers is the "Bizarro Nate Silver," I wrote. The exact opposite of Silver in every way, including the fact that Silver is "thin" while Chambers is "portly." So naturally Chambers lashed out against... Silver. Odd.
But that's not the worst of it. Chambers launched a new site called "Barack O'Fraudo." I'm not making that up. Barack O'Fraudo. First of all, what's the deal with the name? Chambers seems to have combined the president's first name with an Irish version of the word "fraud" and tossed in a random "o" at the end -- the president's actual last name ends with an "a."
The mission, as I predicted weeks ago, is to unskew the results of the election by smoking out cases of voter fraud orchestrated by Obama campaign. Chambers is back to doing what he does best: drawing wild conclusions from numbers he doesn't fully understand. He's pinpointed cases of alleged fraud in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Florida, and has therefore stripped 80 electoral votes away from the president. But, strangely, he doesn't give those electoral votes to Romney -- yet.
Four years ago, when the president won the first time, fringy Republicans merely threatened to "Go Galt," in reference to the John Galt character in Atlas Shrugged who accumulates a group of wealthy disciples to stop contributing to the economy, thus bringing it to its knees. This time around it seems as if this conservative whiny freak-out is a futile extension of that initial effort. It won't work and, in the final analysis, it will only serve to further embarrass and discredit a conservative movement that's already in serious trouble. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Cross-posted at The Daily Banter.
Subscribe to the uncensored and totally raw Bob & Chez Show After Party podcast.
Click here to listen to the Bubble Genius Bob & Chez Show podcast.
BobCesca.com Blog with special thanks to Rockville attorney Kush Arora.
Follow Bob Cesca on Twitter: www.twitter.com/bobcesca_go
Laura Beth Nielsen: The Price of a Civilized Society for Workers
 |
 |
|
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral Votes (270 to win) |
332 | 206 |
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 65,899,660 | 60,932,152 |
| Percent | 51.1% | 47.2% |
| Democrats* | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Current Senate | 53 | 47 |
| Seats gained or lost | +2 | -2 |
| New Total | 55 | 45 |
| Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Seats won | 201 | 234 |
My cousin a severely autistic person couldn't fend for himself without assistance. He can thankfully, however, manage a million dollar trust account that both our government and IRS can't crack for a lifetime.
Oddly after mandating him into assisted living, they attempted throwing him out because they couldn't steal his trust fund. They lost five times in court.
I set up a trust for my family that the government failed to successfully tax as well. Oddly the last Judges who adjudicated this case was quite adamant this WASN'T A GAME ... It was thankfully 100% legal via technicality
My businesses will go to my children reasonably tax-free, and my remaining "Estate" will belong to a church and foreign consulate tax-free as well.
Why would anyone surrender 55% of their home to a government, who taxes them annually for privileges owning that home in the first place? It's simply wiser giving it away, taking the full deduction and simultaneously taking it off the tax roll forever.
Parasites like dictators are easily discovered. They're forever demanding mandates their legal rights to LORD over all those that have more in their pockets or Estate than they do ... forever superseding the 14th amendment.
Equality via extortion ... creates vibrant parasites ... not middle classes
Anyway, I once knew a woman that so hated to pay taxes that she actually started a business with the express result to lose money so she could write of the losses and pay fewer taxes.
Now I was not privy to her actual tax situation, but you don't get to write off dollar for dollar, that is only for tax credits.. so I figure she had to lose 100 bucks or so to be able to save 10 bucks in taxes.. Of course I am just guessing here.. but I suspect the real ratio is similar. You know, I bet she is a Republican.
So now that we know that people, actually all people, can be quite irrational about somethings.. you just have to ask why.
Why is paying taxes such a burden to the Rich and Powerful.. its not like they would miss the money, so there must be some reason that they don't want to pay their fair share?
Only one reason I can think of and that is just getting over on the US government and by keeping wages low, getting over on the workers.. its just a game, one I hope they soon lose.
Why should the Government own 55% of anyone's home after they die? Do their children NOT eat or have illnesses because their parents' has wealth?
I'm reminded of a few college professors who took extreme umbrage I was a millionaire in my youthful years because they after-a-lifetime of service were still impoverished in retrospect to me
I politely stood up and demanded the following: while most professors are indeed legends in their own mind, I've been certified both in the courts and businesses creating a known project that has saved hundreds of lives and bought millions of dollars into the economy today. That debate is finalized.
While most proudly pump their chess telling us what their alleged lives may bring us in the future, I've already proven what my small endeavor has already given us in the present and now. The sad truth is 75% of college graduates will enter into a job tomorrow that the vast majority of your specialized education of study will have little to do with your future successfulness.
A college education guarantees you will be less likely not being employed in the future. As more people become college graduates wages will decrease for future generations as standards always change via the glut of present qualified employees.
America has too many deadbeats contributing nothing
Oh and if the wealthy are actually telling that story of wanting to pass on what "they earned" to their children, its just a story to make them not look quite as narcissistic, selfish, greedy and shallow as they really are.
Oh the same group he had for the last 4 years of his presidency.
who's 'we' anyway,? are you a part of a gang? or is it the editorial we you're employing? or least likely, do I have the honor of addressing royalty?