John Ransom
Recommend this article

Longball38884 wrote: Won't it be great when the department of pregnancy can tie down every woman and force her to have her monthly ultra sound to PROVE she's not even thinking of having an abortion? -Another Excuse from Both Ways Barack

Dear Comrade Oddball,

There is only one party dumb enough to start a Department of Pregnancy and it’s not the GOP. 

How exactly would an “ultrasound” prove what a woman is thinking? Like most liberals, I think you are confused a bit by a woman’s biology. That part doesn’t do a woman’s thinking for her.

I know liberals tend to think that women are just uteruses who vote, but, again, you are wrong.

Talk about denigrating women.

The bigger point is, and it’s most telling, is that in an article detailing the economic war that Obama is waging on everyone, including women, you are desperate to change the subject from the economy and jobs to something, anything, else.



See more top stories from Townhall Finance. New Homepage, more content. Be the best informed fiscal conservative.

Good luck with that. Soon Obama will be one of only two people who lost to Romney in a one-on-one race.  

Doctor Roy wrote: You are tripping. No matter who is elected not one of your wish list items will be enacted. It will be business as usual. The only thing that will change if Romney is elected is a slight change in who gets greased. -Another Excuse from Both Ways Barack

Dear Comrade Doctor,

Not really.

As usual, now that your Moses has failed to deliver the promised-land, you are whipping out the “both parties are the same,” excuse.

I thought the halos in the AP photos of Obama were genuine because he was so different.  

There was a lot not to like about the George Bush administration, but come on: This is easily the worst administration in the history of the country. They tie themselves in knots daily trying to redefine what they did, what they said, what they mean to do.

Here’s a an example: Just weeks after denying the Keystone permit, Obama’s down in Oklahoma for a photo op on the part of the Keystone pipeline that the administration can’t stop.

Voters aren’t THAT stupid.

That was Obama’s “read my lips” moment. He’s done, over, finis, history, toast.   

And here are some things that a Romney administration will do:

1) Repeal Dodd-Frank and fix the too-big to fail banking issue;

2) Get rid of the record red-tape enacted by the Obama administration that its own Small Business Administration says costs $1.75 trillion before Dodd-Frank and Obamacare;

3) Prevent the appointment of Eric Holder to the Supreme Court in a second Obama term; 4) Replace Obamacare with free market reforms aimed at getting the federal government out of the healthcare business.    

Mac287 wrote: Poor Bush...it is not all his fault that he was used by the real powers behind the throne. Please don't ask me who they are...if I knew, I'd say so...but you may want to ask Karl Rove...he probably does know. -Another Excuse from Both Ways Barack

Dear Comrade 287,

Could you learn how to use the spacebar? Seriously. You’re not e.e. cummings. Correct punctuation makes you look more learned.

Karl Rove doesn’t know who the powers beyond the throne are either.

We generally have that meeting on Wednesdays at Chili’s, and that’s the night that Karl’s model airplane club meets at his house. So he’s never been able to come to those meetings.

Haven’t you ever wondered why a restaurant like Chili’s, which has really mediocre food, has so many locations?

ML wrote: You are an idiot--and that's a moniker that I reserve for very few in my life. Your attempt at melodrama is immature, at best, and I would prefer you try straight reporting of political events that would actually help move our country forward. - Ezra Klein and the High Priests Channel Obama the Divine

Dear ML,

You’re a charmer, aren’t you? I bet dudes are just lining up to hear your sweet talking uterus. I mean the dudes who aren’t idiots.

By the way, how much are you wasting, err, donating to Obama this year? Please donate the maximum. It will give me a great chuckle come November.

Another green investment declaring bankruptcy. 

Canetoad wrote: Conservatives are so gullible, just like when you believed the tobacco companies when they told you the science was wrong and cigarettes couldn't possibly cause lung cancer, or when Hardie Bros assured us that asbestos was totally safe. Vested interests have no problems with lying and obfuscation if they are trying to protect their bottom line.

Dear Comrade Mr. Toad,

Loved your Wild Ride at Disney when I was a kid. Too bad you went commie. Walt would be upset.

Anywho…You are correct that vested interests have a way of lying to protect their interests.

Knowing that, why in the heck would you vest so much power in the federal government and thereby ensure that the federales continue to lie about an increasing number of things?

Here’s where liberals really suck eggs. They assume that vested interests in corporations are evil and those vested in the government are benign.

At least with corporate interests the public has some recourse. In the examples you mentioned companies have paid out literally billions of dollars in fines and settlements.

When is the federal government going to pay for Fast and Furious? How long did it take for the government to admit that they conducted experiments regarding radiation on our own troops? How long did it take for the government to admit that Agent Orange causes cancer? Why the heck are you willing to turn over everything from the house you buy-FHA-, the car you drive- the EPA/GM-, the education your kids get, your healthcare and your banks, just to name a few to a government that can’t even be honest with us about simple things.

It’s this easy: If you trust the government, go ahead, be a liberal. If you don’t, you’re a conservative, but just don’t know it. 

Quiet Reason wrote: I am still trying to understand the consistency of Ransom’s outrage. As I noted earlier, what Gleick did was wrong-even worse because of his previous positions on ethical issues. But isn’t hacking an email account at the CRU and then publishing private emails without permission also wrong? Yet Ransom has no problem citing “climategate” publishing a “climategate” link. -Lie, Cheat, Steal: Save the Planet!

Dear Comrade Quiet,

Hacking is hacking no matter who does it.

But there is a big difference between revealing government misconduct through the knowing manipulation of data by scientists anxious to sell an hypothesis as settled science and stealing and altering documents from a private non-for-profit- which, the last time I checked, still had the right of free-speech and therefore a right to their own  opinion.  

I applaud the Heartland folks for coming up with educational material that challenges the establishment and their one-world-weather scheme.

Every one here should visit the site Fakegate.com and help support the work Heartland is doing.

BananaSplit38 wrote: So, Mr. Ransom dislikes President Obama. What's new? You are getting boring. Get some new material and tell us how YOU are going to resolve all of the problems of the nation instead of why you think someone else is not doing it. You must make a decent enough salary to think of something, so cut the crap talk and start coming up with some real ideas instead of your damn right wing propaganda. - Obama bin Biden 2012

Dear Comrade 38,

Newsflash: I am not running for president of the United States. Readers don’t really care what I would do to fix the problems of the nation. It would be highly presumptuous for me to have a “platform” when I’m not, you know, a candidate.

That said I do make suggestions from time to time.

Since you are like most liberals and you don’t like to undertake your own research, here some ideas that I’ve supported in the past:

1)      Scrap the tax code. The tax code is the most corrupt document in the history of our Republic. The tax code, by statute, should be one page (8.5x11) long.

2)      Term limits for Congress

3)      All legislation should be limited to 100 pages.

4)      All legislation should be limited to a single subject. We shouldn’t have unemployment benefits attached to a bill for dealing with military pay.

5)      Open up oil development. We can generate about 10 million jobs in ten years along with $15 trillion in GDP just by developing domestic sources of oil.

6)      Get rid of the Department of Education, shrink the EPA and Commerce Department, scrap the DHS, the Import-Export Bank, de-fund the UN and kick them out of the country.

7)      Create a transparent Federal Reserve Bank, with a single mandate to ensure liquidity during bank panics.

That’s enough for one day. On the second day I would… 

CaptNed wrote: I don't know. The conservative supreme court and the Bush tax cuts seems to have been a pretty darn good investment by the wealthy for the last 30 years. -Buying Obama: How the UAW Got the Best Investment Returns in History

Dear Capt Comrade,

OK. Ha!

Bush was elected president less than 12 years ago. Leave it to a liberal to “blame” Bush for 30 years of tax cuts when he was president for 8- starting 12 years ago. 

You know how actors have stuntmen to fill in for the real dangerous work? Liberals should have stuntmen for economic arguments. Because it’s becoming increasingly apparent that anytime a liberal gets into an economic argument, he just hurts himself.

I really should start a list of comments from readers that prove that liberals should never be in charge of economics.

Thank you Capt Comrade. You just made number 1.     

AlsoSprachGideon wrote: US got GM back in business and they make better cars thanks to "government" control. -Buying Obama: How the UAW Got the Best Investment Returns in History

Dear Comrade Gideon,

You just made number two.

Better cars than what?

I thought liberals argued that the government wasn’t really in control.

DoctorRoy wrote: That's OK tibby the Corporations want a monopoly on Capital. That's the way the game is played. -Buying Obama: How the UAW Got the Best Investment Returns in History

Dear Comrade Doctor,

OK, since we are on a roll, you made number 3.

Corporations want a monopoly on capital? Since when?

If that’s the case, where do corporations get capital to run and expand?

Pension funds control the largest amount of capital in the world, according to Investopedia, at about $10 trillion. They make up about 40 percent of all professionally managed capital. Behind those pension funds are the individual retirements of teachers and firefighters and cops and auto workers.

This is where all the liberal class-warfare nonsense falls apart.

The truth is that the only hope that the SEIUs and UAWs have for survival is if the stock market starts to perform more like their historical returns.

Even back in 2006, before the market crash, it was estimated that private pensions had a shortfall of at least half-a-trillion dollars, mostly because of over promises from pension fund managers- see unions. Since then the number has just mushroomed.

There really is no rich-versus-poor.

We are all in this boat together.

You better hope the rich do well. Otherwise, you and your union brethren are pretty much screwed. 

Mac287 wrote: I suppose anyone who is not out in your real world working qualifies as unwashed, anti-American, etc. etc, etc. You are dead wrong...lots of home owners who lost their jobs to patriotic American companies who moved to China are struggling to keep those homes. -Occupy Wall Street Operates on Mayan Calendar

Dear Comrade 287,

Spacebar, man. Spacebar.

Jobs going to other countries is a problem that has been going on for a long time. When I was young, the manufacturing jobs were going to Japan; now it’s Mexico and China.

Instead of trying to pass more complex laws that make it more difficult to set up businesses, the government ought to examine why the long-term trend has been to move jobs off-shore.

The most obvious reason is that labor costs are lower off-shore.

But it would be a mistake to believe that the U.S. can’t get around those issues. Businesses will give up a little bit in labor costs for the benefits of manufacturing in a FREE country that respects property rights. Companies will make investments in countries where corruption isn’t rampant and skilled workers who take pride in their work can be found. Companies would rather be in the U.S. than anywhere else. We just have to give them reasons to be.

Imagine being a CEO of a company and having to recruit people to go work in Shenzhèn.

Do you think it would be easier to find skilled managers to live in Atlanta or Shenzhèn? 

That’s why the U.S. must lower corporate taxes. I’d prefer zero corporate tax, but will settle right now for a competitive corporate tax.      

Longball38884 wrote: Well, if lower expenses = lower prices, then how low do Nike expenses have to get before the consumers see any benefit?- New York Times Outs Apple, Enemy of the People, on Tax “Sidestep”

Dear Comrade Oddball,

You have now demonstrated reason number 4 you should never but liberals in charge of anything economic.

Price is a function of demand, not expenses. Just because you lower expenses, doesn’t mean that that translates into lower prices. It could, but it could also mean that a company devotes more money to marketing or retains more profits to reinvest in the company.

Where do you think companies get more money to hire more workers? More profits.

You’ll never see a company where profits are falling desperate to hire workers. More jobs is a function of higher profitability.  

Patrick wrote: John. I guess I'm missing something here. If the NYT is losing so much money each year; how do they stay in business? - New York Times Outs Apple, Enemy of the People, on Tax “Sidestep”

Dear Comrade Pat,

They almost don’t stay in business. They came pretty close to bankruptcy in 2009.

They’ve been selling assets to fund cash flow, and doing what other capitalists do to stay afloat: lay off workers. GASP!

Here’s another shocker for you. The biggest problem for newspapers? Their pension plan. DOUBLE GASP!

Dow Jones Newswires- Pension funding requirements are hurting credit quality at three major U.S. newspaper companies, while consuming cash that could be used to invest in new opportunities or reduce debt, according to Moody's Investors Service.

Moody's said the companies--Gannett Co. (GCI), New York Times Co. (NYT) and McClatchy Co. (MNI)--have seen a four-fold jump in pension contributions in the past two years. Moody's estimates that pensions contributions consumed more than 20% of aggregate adjusted free cash flow at the three companies and the combined share is expected to increase to more than 30% this year and next year. By comparison, the amount directed toward pension plans was 7% in 2009, Moody's said.

Thirty percent of cash flow from the company is going to pensions?

That’s why the NYT imaginatively FROZE their pension plans and moved workers over to a 401k style plan where workers invest in the stock market. TRIPPLE GASP.

DoctorRoy wrote: That was my question a couple of weeks ago. The one Ransom claimed was the dumbest question in the history of the world. If they don't actually pay tax then are they using the so called high corporate tax rate as an excuse to move offshore. - New York Times Outs Apple, Enemy of the People, on Tax “Sidestep”

Dear Comrade Doctor,

Really?

I answered this once previously.

You have now demonstrated reason number 5 why you should never but liberals in charge of anything economic.

Corporations may pass along corporate taxes to customers, but that doesn’t mean that the tax has no effect on them.

When a corporation is saddled with high taxes, they raise the price of the products they sell, which means that they sell fewer products and they do so at a lower profit margin. 

You own a company- and you make a product that for ease of demonstration has 100 percent profit- and you have a choice of: 1) Staying in the U.S. and charging customers $100 for a product while paying the 35 percent tax on corporate profits and netting $65 or; 2) moving off-shore and charging customers $90 and paying 20 percent corporate profit tax (the tax in Greece) and netting $72 or; charging customers $85 for the product and paying no corporate taxes and netting $85?

Questions for you: Who is really paying the tax and what do you do if you are the owner?

That's it for this week,

V/r,

JR

Recommend this article

John Ransom

John Ransom is the Finance Editor for Townhall Finance.