Mark Kirk for Senate (Chicago Tribune Endorsement)

Chicago Tribune ^ | 10/7/2010 | Tribune Editorial Board

[Inyokern]

In 2010, the citizens of Illinois should send to the Capitol a senator who will bring expertise and independence. The candidate who fits that bill is Mark Kirk.

Today the Tribune endorses Kirk, a Republican, for the U.S. Senate seat that Roland Burris soon vacates. To understand our verdict, watch Giannoulias and Kirk's appearance before us this week. You'll find the video at chicagotribune.com/senate. Judge each man's depth and preparedness for the job. Judge knowledge and scope. Judge accomplishment. Judge which candidate has a proven record of thoughtful independence — of bucking his party when the good of this nation is at stake. You won't have difficulty making these judgments.

[arrogantsob]

I had assumed you were honest but that last post shows that you are not. Kirk is a moderate and The Greek is just another Machine crook and YOU KNOW IT.

[BlackElk]

Senator Nancyboy will have babies killed.

Senator Nancyboy will encourage sexual perversion to masquerade as "marriage" and subsidize such arrangements through the tax code.

Senator Nancyboy will grab guns.

Senator Nancyboy will support global warming mythology and double the cost to consumers of gasoline, oil, heating fuels, etc. The Ruling Class just KNOWS that we need to slash our lifestyles as peasants and peons so that they can thrill themselves over the sacrifices they impose on us.

Senator Nancyboy will sell out the troops in the field.

Senator Nancyboy will stab conservatives and the GOP and America in the back as a continued reflex action and habit of a lifetime.

Senator Nancyboy will chow down on brie and chablis at yacht races and polo matches while preening before his element over his shifting of the tax burden from "sophisticates" like arrogantsob to that unimaginative teenaged burger flipper at Mickey D's. He and his sycophants will deny that his tax policy is class warfare. Nancyboy knows that the burger flipper won't "invest" in what Nancyboy regards as great "art" like the late Mapplethorpe's photos (Ohhh, alas pooooor Mapplethorpe martyred by AIDS in the cause and practice of lavenderism!!!). The burger flipper won't "invest" in Serrano's works or the babe who smears her naked body with chocolate on stage or even in NPR or Public TV. What a philistine, right!

Those are issues that I KNOW are important and one hell of a lot more important than protecting your portfolio or trust fund. Soon enough, Giannoulias will be in prison anyway and his election would have cut six years or more off the wait for an actual Illinois Republican Party and the election of someone worthwhile as a Senator. Now we must destroy Nancyboy first and THEN elect a decent human being. Alexi failed because the Chicago Machine voted only one corpse per gravesite and divided those votes with Nancyboy.

What I am divided from is despicable lavender-loving culturati like Nancyboy and from phonycons whose god is money and who place money above any and all other values, thereby rejecting the rich tapestry of conserevatism. Conservatives are the ones who SUPPORT the military and our wars, work to save the babies from the likes of Nancyboy, and who support not designer tax cuts for the abusive and intrusive Ruling Class but the tax cuts that benefit most Americans in the Country Class as defined by Codevilla.

That you find my posts ludicrous is, of course, a compliment from such a source as you, just as it would be if I were criticized by Pelousy or Nancyboy. Thank you!

Class warfare is a two-way street. The more discredited forces in the Class (and cultural) War are the ones that squeeze the last nickel out of their stock holdings by sending American manufacturing jobs to other countries so that Bangladeshis can do for 10 cents an hour what Americans would expect an actual paycheck for doing. Of course, it is the formerly working class folks whom the Ruling Class expects to fight in the military or be police to protect their lives and property, jobs just too icky for future rulers like Muffy and Skipper.

Hopefully Nancyboy will be caught with a dead girl or a live boy. That will make recovery from his miserable existence in politics simpler.

BTW, I am still waiting for some offer of proof that you live in Illinois or that you have any resume whatsoever as a conservative. Remember that letters to the editor trying to preserve the trust funds of windtunnel Muffies and Skippers does not count. The Junior League is not the conservative version of the NOW gang.

Still waiting....

Still waiting....

Still waiting....

for the all too obvious reason that you have nothing to offer except your opinions which are like noses or whatever other body part that everyone would have....

[BlackElk]

arrogantsob: Etiquette on this website is that when you are attacking someone, you should have the honesty and integrity to ping the someone.

Second, you are in no position to speak for Ronaldus Maximus. Get over your pretensions. Tell me what Reagan did for Gerald Ford, for example. Careful now. You apparently do not know. Cue: Ford lost, thereby saving the national GOP when Reagan came back against Jimmy Peanut, the slayer of attack rabbits on a lake.

FYI: I don't want your vote in a primary. You and Nancyboy ought to take a hike, hand-in-hand to the Demonrat Party where you both belong.

Class Warfare is a two-way street, but you knew that.

[Dr. Sivana]

I don’t live in Conn so had no vote in that race.

The principle is the same. Applying your principles, Buckley was acting as a RINO. I assume that you know the major players (Weicker, Lieberman, Buckley) so you should be able to apply your principle (a lefty corrupt Republican is better than a lefty corrupt Democrat because he will vote for the right leadership, and throw some votes the Republican way because of party discipline or appearance [correct me if I am not synopsizing properly].)

Since you imply that you live in Illinois, please tell me that you didn't vote for Baar-Topinka.

[arrogantsob]

Your BS is wasted on the rational so forget about it. Kirk will vote pretty much with the rest of his Republican Senators. He can read the election results, too.

[arrogantsob]

One thing I do know about RR is that he did NOT vote for Jimmuh.

You can take a hike too along with the Lovers of Losers who claim to be conservatives but are just disgruntled.

Illinois couldn’t even elect a conservative governor when scandal surrounds the entire Democrat party, disgusting.

[arrogantsob]

I voted for every Republican save one who had no chance so I voted for an “Independent”.

[BlackElk]

Okie01: The real question is not WHETHER there should be tax cuts. One question is what tax cuts in what priority for whom? Do you think that defending tax cuts for incomes above $250,000 (concededly economically sensible) is more important than tax cuts across the board?

For example, the Bush tax cuts included the reduction to zero of federal estate taxes (certainly a direct benefit to the affluent only since there is a $1 million exemption) and an end to the "marriage penalty" for the general married public, and a lot of other popular cuts.

Now, as is often the case, the GOP is being set up for a politically toxic dichotomy. Plenty of Demonrats will announce their support for extending most of the Bush tax cuts but NOT the rate cut from about 39.5% to 35% on the top marginal incomes above the $250,000 line. Then the Demonrats will draw the line against the latter and will say that they were willing to give the Republicans virtually all of the tax cuts with that one exception and the Republicans stopped the tax cuts because of that one exception. There will be wealthy people who will be po'd because the estate tax will be restored through the ritual GOP stupidity. We are already hearing tales about wealthy codgers in poor health planning pre-12/31/10 suicides to avoid restored estate taxes.

The second question is what are our priorities? Are tax cuts for those with incomes above $250,000 (and rather minimal tax cuts at that) the exclusive platform of the GOP and of conservatism or are we at least equally concerned about the babies, marriage, guns, envirowhackoism, street crime, political corruption, military, wars, and the rest of the rich tapestry of conservatism. If "fiscal conservatives" (assuming that such actually exist and are not merely social revolutionary cheapskates in GOP drag) reject that tapestry, why should we EVER support them and further degenerate the GOP brand??? Do we punish them for abandoning all other conservative causes and yet expecting us to be loyal footstools? If so, how? If not, why not?

Was it "liberal" to destroy Weicker and elect Lieberman? Would you have voted for Weicker? Or John Lindsay? Or Nelson Rockefeller? Or Charles Mathias? Or Lindsay Graham? Or Olympia Snowe? Or Susan Collins? Or Arlen Spector in his Republican days? Or Arlen Spector in his Demonrat days, for that matter? Or Saul Alinsky so long as he ran as a Republican. Is it brand name or the actual content of political creed? Why and/or why not?

[Dr. Sivana]

Do you vote in Illinois?

[BlackElk]

Ego te absolvo....

[Dr. Sivana]

For example, the Bush tax cuts included the reduction to zero of federal estate taxes (certainly a direct benefit to the affluent only since there is a $1 million exemption)

It doesn't take a whole lot for a family farm or a small business to meet that $1 million threshold for estate taxes. A jump from 0% to 55% on money that for the most part has already been taxed at least once is a big one.

Even for the high rollers, there tend to be unintended consequences. Family owned baseball teams can no longer survive the death of the owner. (And of course I despise the O'Malley family, but I am not against the concept of keeping a small or not so small business in the family.)

I would put the estate tax in a different category with marginal tax rates on incomes over $250,000.

[BlackElk]

I would also place the estate tax in a different category than the top rate on top marginal income. In fact, that is just what I did in saying it is a question of passing the extension of the entire package of Bush tax cuts including the income tax cut from 39.5% to 35% on income above $250,000 and having it vetoed and being unable to sustain that bill over a veto or passing the entire package without that one tax cut that applies only to high earners.

Do we leap off the cliff politically for economic and philosophical tidy bowl and drink the Demonrat Kool Aid designed to end popular opposition to Demonrat tax policies? Or do we get what we can when we can and put the burden back on Obamao and his gang??? Who said: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds"?

BTW, George M. Steinbrenner was practical enough and wise enough to pass on in July, 2010, to keep Obamao's laws off the the Steinbrenner family ownership interest in the Yankees. He is probably enjoying the company of the Babe, the Iron Horse, Joe D, the Mick, Rajah, Casey, Billy the Kid Martin, Jumpin' Joe Dugan, Catfish, Pooosh 'em Up Tony, the Scooter and others. As a Yankee fan, that's one upper bracket tax cut as to which I am verrrrry enthusiastic as you know. Ummm, the O'Malleys are long gone from baseball. It is now some guy getting a divorce whose name is McCourt, I believe. I think the gummint can tax estates when the gummint takes responsibility on the same level as the owner, and actually not even then since that WOULD be socialism. Under Comrade Selig, baseball has enough communist schemes of its own without the gummint getting involved in stripping the families of newly deceased owners of their property.

Be careful now. Walter O'Malley was a rich Brooklyn banker who got control of the Dodgers by lending them money on which loans they defaulted. People may mistake you for a class warrior. I know better. You just believe, among many other fine things, that even rich guys like the unlamented Walter O'Malley can do wrong to others.

[arrogantsob]

Yes.

[BlackElk]

#208 should have referenced even wealthy folks as being po’d if GOP intransigence on tax cuts on high income meant the defeat of all tax cut extensions including their estate tax cut. BTW, if one sells the family farm for a million bucks, one is in little immediate danger of homelessness or starvation especially if the mortgage is previously paid and the federal estate tax is no longer applicable.

[BlackElk]

arrogantsob:

Well, since Judy Baah Baah, a regular Combine attendee at the Chicago Machine's annual pervert parade actually won she certainly had a chance. That means you have the additional shame of voting for that lot lizard in 2010 to increase her pension from $188K per year to the stars. You have bad habits and probably voted for her over Blago (a respected figure by comparison). Okay, you voted for Karl Marx but he was running as a Republican, right??? The way you vote, the GOP's destiny is as a garbage dump.

Who was the Independent? Peraica??? Was he claiming he was going to cut your taxes? Or those of the FR departed Sword of Damocles??? I am guessing Crook County. Right?

Meanwhile: still waiting!

Still waiting!

Still waiting!...........

[BlackElk]

Since you confess voting in Illinois, you no longer can credibly fall back on ignorance s an excuse as an out-of-stater might.

[BlackElk]

Checking out of this thread for now. I will catch up later.

[PhilCollins]

I’m very honest. You and I have different opinions. I know about Kirk’s views, and you probably don’t.

[okie01]

Okie01: The real question is not WHETHER there should be tax cuts. One question is what tax cuts in what priority for whom? Do you think that defending tax cuts for incomes above $250,000 (concededly economically sensible) is more important than tax cuts across the board? For example, the Bush tax cuts included the reduction to zero of federal estate taxes (certainly a direct benefit to the affluent only since there is a $1 million exemption) and an end to the "marriage penalty" for the general married public, and a lot of other popular cuts.

Yes.

I've no objection to any "benefit to the affluent".

I'm not into class warfare. When taxes are reduced -- to anybody -- government profits less and we all benefit.

[BlackElk]

Again, the question:

Alternative #1: Pass a bill extending all Bush tax cuts including the high dollar rate reduction, knowing Obamao will veto it and the minority Demonrats cast many votes for it but not enough to override the veto. Then the Democrats say: "We tried to help but that top dollar tax cut was too much for the POTUS. Republicans are running this place but we did our best to help. Don't blame us when the GOP is more interested in fighting than in cutting taxes."

Alternative #2: Pass a bill, then or later, with extensions of EVERY Bush tax cut except the high dollar rate cut. Demonrats are forced to vote for it and defend it or be blamed for defeating the estate tax abolition, the abolition of the marriage penalty and what not. Whether Obamao vetoes or not. Whether Congress overrides or not.

Are you saying: "No tax cuts for anyone unless the big guys get theirs." That would be saying that their high dollar rate cut is more important than any other cut. Why is that "class warfare" (the "class warfare" card is the GOP equivalent of the Demonratic race card as a tactic. It is supposewd to preclude rational debate and force everyone into line against their will or not.) I don't know about you but I go for Alternative 2. If anyone disagrees, make the most of it.

Also, as I believe you previously pointed out, tax rate cuts tend to produce more not less revenue from the wealthy and a greater not lesser "profit" to the gummint. That is supply side economic doctrine and was proven true under Coolidge, Kennedy and Reagan. That is not the belief of the general public however. The Demonrats like revenue enhancement a lot but not enough to give up their cherished hobby and policy of punishing the rich just for being rich and relentlessly propagandizing for that punishment, lying through their collective teeth every inch of the way. Republicans usually, in their capacity as the "stupid party" simply cannot get off the dime and stop reflexive knee jerk support for all things assisting the affluent.

inally, I find it unlikely that you have no objection "to any 'benefit to the affluent.'" I had asked another poster whether in the eternal struggle against "class warfare" (that cliche again), he would favor rewarding those making more than $250,000 per year by canceling every tax on that income from dollar one. If that were OK, how about federal matching funds to double the incomes (tax free) of such folks since they are said to be so verrrrry irreplaceably valuable to our society. I suspect those are two examples of benefits to the affluent to which you would object. If not, you are a hopeless case and ought not to be making political decisions without a conservator.