1
It’s called what it’s called for a reason!
TMT regular Cal Thomas puts on his dunce’s cap:
The NTU reports Count Rangula’s [A humorous way of referring to Charles Rangel -S,N!] claim that “91 million families” will benefit from his tax scheme, but that number includes a spending giveaway to millions receiving the Earned Income Credit, which are households that currently pay no taxes. Count Rangula is playing the familiar liberal Democratic class warfare game, which punishes the productive while subsidizing the nonproductive (but able-bodied). [Emphasis added]
The EITC, of course, goes to these folks:
The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) sometimes called the Earned Income Credit (EIC), is a refundable federal income tax credit for low-income working individuals and families. [Emphasis added]
Thanks for being nonproductive, low-income working individuals and families! [To which we would add that not paying federal income tax is really not the same as not paying taxes.] One might have expected better of Thomas given that he plagiarized parts of his column from the National Taxpayers Union’s press release:
[TABLE=2]
So what did we learn today? Well, it turns out that metaphors aren’t really for everybody:
Like Dracula the vampire, Count Rangula is cagey about his intentions, luring his victims (us) with promises of “reforming” the tax code.
I mean, Dracula the vampire… does he really need “the vampire” in his title, as vampire? Dracula, “the” vampire? Are we going to confuse him with Dracula the district attorney? Dracula the pope? There’s no other Dracula… *
Real Gary said,
November 1, 2007 at 0:42
I’m a big fan of these new SN! charts. They remind me of studying for the Bar.
Wait.
ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,
November 1, 2007 at 0:49
Dracula the vampire, as opposed to Count Chocula, the scary islamo-fasci-homo who wants to suck your children.
(He’s probably a Republican.)
caliph garrett said,
November 1, 2007 at 0:50
Lake of Dracula?
Righteous Bubba said,
November 1, 2007 at 0:51
I’m a big fan of these new SN! charts.
They should be less productive, then they’d get subsidized by Charlie Rangel.
John Protevi said,
November 1, 2007 at 0:57
Buffy totally kicked Dracula’s ass in Season 5, episode 1, “Buffy vs Dracula.” I think she could take Cal Thomas too.
M. Bouffant said,
November 1, 2007 at 0:59
…liberal Democratic class warfare game, which punishes the productive while subsidizing the nonproductive…
Ugh!! If I hear this crap one more time, I’m going to kill the next corporate executive I see. Fucking capitalism, by stealing the products of a person’s labor, punishes the productive & rewards the unproductive every day in this country. The people who get the EITC get it because they are so poorly paid BY THEIR BOSSES!! If bossman could spare his second house or $100,000 car, maybe we wouldn’t have to provide an earned income credit. Or maybe we could reform the tax system so the non-productive rich paid their share. Then we could take from those who don’t work & give it to those who do. That’d make Cal happy, wouldn’t it?
Or we could just EAT THE RICH!!!
AveragewhiteBack said,
November 1, 2007 at 1:02
Wait, wait on the fourth page of a google search for “Dracula” there is this http://www.cadence.com/products/dfm/dracula/index.aspx
some kind of manufacturing design verification. See Cal had to clarify! Productive people might get confused otherwise.
RodeoBob said,
November 1, 2007 at 1:12
Wait, wait, aren’t these guys all big fans of the EITC? I mean, every time someone talks about raising the minimum wage, folks seem to just leap out of the woodwork talking about how the minimum wage is fine, and the better tool to use is the EITC…
It’s almost like they’re not being totally honest about their intentions, supporting a program when it prevents giving more money to the poorest of people, and then opposing that program when it actually gives money to the poorest of people…
I’m so confused.
Herr Doktor Bimler said,
November 1, 2007 at 1:13
Like Dracula the vampire… luring his victims (us) with promises of “reforming” the tax code.
That was only in the first draft of Dracula. Bram Stoker’s publishers persuaded him to re-write it with less ranting about progressive taxation and more virgins in peril.
kiki said,
November 1, 2007 at 1:18
Just for larks, I’m now going to say something that may cause more offense than every single fucktarded troll post ever made here combined.
I believe one of the great mysteries of our age is the question of why otherwise intelligent people enjoy the smug, loathsome “comedy” of Jerry Seinfeld.
Matt T. said,
November 1, 2007 at 1:24
I believe one of the great mysteries of our age is the question of why otherwise intelligent people enjoy the smug, loathsome “comedy” of Jerry Seinfeld.
Well, he was on TV every week, so he has to be funny. Didn’t you hear the laughter from the audience?
It’s the same phenomenon that keeps Adam Sandler (or Dane Cook or Larry The Cable Guy or Carlos Mencia) from having the get a real job.
Righteous Bubba said,
November 1, 2007 at 1:26
I believe one of the great mysteries of our age is the question of why otherwise intelligent people enjoy the smug, loathsome “comedy” of Jerry Seinfeld.
It makes them laugh.
dms106@earthlink.net said,
November 1, 2007 at 1:31
Just for the record, I always thought “Seinfeld” was the most pedestrian of comedy shows. But I am a certified elitist.
kiki said,
November 1, 2007 at 1:37
Matt T. - It does seem to be the formula for US comedy movies at the moment - find a vapid, self-obsessed, unlikeable douchebag and point a camera at him.
RB - Well, of course. By the same token, when I’ve been accused of not liking Seinfeld or some other show or movie because I’m just being a wilfully contrary smartass, I point out that the main problem I have with it is that it simply fails to inspire in me the autonomic reaction known as “laughter”, and that’s really not a conscious choice on my part.
Which is kind of the same as what you were saying.
Djur said,
November 1, 2007 at 1:41
Matt T.: I think it’s highly unfair to compare Adam Sandler to Dane Cook, Larry the Cable Guy, or Ned Holness. Sandler does dreck because it makes him a lot more money than the alternative, while the remaining three do dreck because they just plain suck.
kiki: I’d pay a hundred bucks to never see Jerry Seinfeld’s face for the rest of my life. Special glasses, perhaps, which blur him out as if he were a stray titty on Jerry Springer.
Herr Doktor Bimler said,
November 1, 2007 at 1:42
the formula for US comedy movies at the moment - find a vapid, self-obsessed, unlikeable douchebag and point a camera at him.
File under “Art imitates politics”.
Matt T. said,
November 1, 2007 at 1:55
Djur,
Sandler does dreck because it makes him a lot more money than the alternative,
This is assuming Sandler can do non-dreck, of which I’m not sure there’s an example. In any event, I have to think doing crap just for the money has to be as bad if not worse than doing crap just cause you suck. It is, in the end, the difference between Rod Stewart and Michael Bolton. To get real extreme, it’s like saying George Wallace wasn’t all that bad because he just exploited racial predjudice for votes and not because he was really a racist, which is probably a much heavier comparison than I should make.
Qetesh the Abyssinian said,
November 1, 2007 at 1:59
M. Bouffant: what you said. With knobs on.
Herr Doktor Bimler said,
That was only in the first draft of Dracula. Bram Stoker’s publishers persuaded him to re-write it with less ranting about progressive taxation and more virgins in peril.
Because tight bodices sell better.
mikey said,
November 1, 2007 at 2:01
Buffy totally kicked Dracula’s ass in Season 5, episode 1, “Buffy vs Dracula.
And the look on SMG’s face at the end when he re-appeared and she said “I’m standing RIGHT HERE” was probably the sexiest she ever looked in a seven-year grand slam of sexy…
mikey
Kuda Bux said,
November 1, 2007 at 2:01
Cal Thomas? Dead to me since he murdered his mustache. A thing of beauty, it was.
Principal Blackman said,
November 1, 2007 at 2:16
I liked Seinfeld the TV show. Seinfeld the standup comedian/Seinfeld the person…not so much.
Hoosier X said,
November 1, 2007 at 2:18
Which one’s Cal Thomas? I get these retards mixed up. Is he the one that does that column called “Apples and Oranges”?
SamFromUtah said,
November 1, 2007 at 2:23
And the look on SMG’s face at the end when he re-appeared and she said “I’m standing RIGHT HERE” was probably the sexiest she ever looked in a seven-year grand slam of sexy…
I thought only her boots were visible in that shot - I need to watch it again.
I’m a big Buffy geek, but clearly not big enough.
mikey said,
November 1, 2007 at 2:33
The boots worked. But the eyes. Oh, sweet zombie jeezus, her eyes…
‘Scuse me, I need to towel off..
mikey
‘Course, in all fairness, I was uncontrollably hot for Ally McBeal too…
MrWonderful said,
November 1, 2007 at 2:48
Oh, Dracula the VAMPIRE. I thought (etc.)
Seinfeld wasn’t about Seinfeld. It was about the other three, who “carried” the show to greatness (along w/ the writers and Larry David). Jerry-qua-standup, pfft. And you can quote me.
jacobm said,
November 1, 2007 at 3:27
Hm. Dracula is a Romanian restaurant here in Austin that I keep thinking of going to. I am so glad that they took the time to tell me that it was the vampire that Rep Rangel was emulating and not this restaurant.
I mean- if he were referring to a restaurant in Austin, Texas then this whole spiel wouldn’t make any sense at all. If a rightwing blowhard didn’t make sense, whatever would we do?
tigrismus said,
November 1, 2007 at 3:43
punishes the productive while subsidizing the nonproductive
I’m so glad to hear a Republican come out in favor of taxing unearned income at a higher rate! Glod be praised!
RobW said,
November 1, 2007 at 3:52
To get real extreme, it’s like saying George Wallace wasn’t all that bad because he just exploited racial predjudice for votes and not because he was really a racist, which is probably a much heavier comparison than I should make.
Wait, what? George Wallace is hilarious! And he’s got a regular gig at the Flamingo in Las Vegas! You are talking about the comedian, right?
ThresherK said,
November 1, 2007 at 3:53
…It was about the other three, who “carried” the show to greatness…
The zanies need a straight man, the person whose seeming normalcy stands in for the viewer’s, without which the viewer has no reference.
Can you imagine “Arrested Development” without Jason Bateman’s Michael Bluth?
Oh, and on a topical note: Funny how even Saint Ronald used to differentiate between the shiftless lazy poor and the working poor.
Your new Republican party: “Poor” = “Loser”.
Fozetti said,
November 1, 2007 at 4:01
A curse on your safety thingy! Now I’ve forgotten my clever remark. Something about Eliza Dolittle’s father… Desreving poor and “Undeserving” poor.
suedehead said,
November 1, 2007 at 6:25
Blarangula? Blangula?
It’s hard combining Black, Rangle and Dracula in the same word.
I’m very disappointed in our pal Cal. Thought if anyone could manage it would be him.
That’s Cal Thomas the creepy gasbag not Cal Thomas the Vampire.
Major Woody said,
November 1, 2007 at 9:17
Ranglacula
Ahmed Dinner Jacket said,
November 1, 2007 at 10:52
Dracula the lucky-duck-ulator, silly.
InsaneInTheCheneyBrain said,
November 1, 2007 at 12:03
Dracula the Part-time Cashier At Walgreen’s
Davis said,
November 1, 2007 at 18:05
Cal Thomas is one of the subsidized unproductive, living off winghut welfare all these years.
DAS said,
November 1, 2007 at 18:57
To which we would add that not paying federal income tax is really not the same as not paying taxes.
Wow! As a 4 year old (or so) I was smarter than Cal Thomas!
My dad once took me to some lecture on astronomy or some such. And the lecturer made a comment about everyone paying taxes. Then noticed me and said something to the effect of “well, one person here doesn’t pay taxes”. To which I evidently responded: “I do too pay taxes: whenever I buy a piece of candy, I have to pay sales’ tax”.
Terrible said,
November 1, 2007 at 19:08
Actually quite a high number of people who are elegible for the EITC also do pay an income tax liability. So the argument is flat out false anyway.
Heywood J. said,
November 1, 2007 at 19:25
Dracula the vampire, Bozo the conservatard columnut — tomayto, tomahto.
Duros62 said,
November 2, 2007 at 0:13
Matt T. said,
November 1, 2007 at 1:55
Djur,
Sandler does dreck because it makes him a lot more money than the alternative,
This is assuming Sandler can do non-dreck, of which I’m not sure there’s an example.
Punch Drunk Love?
Otherwise, yeah. All dreck. But, you know, that mortgage ain’t gonna pay itself.