Clueless Asshole of the Week: Dennis Hastert
Hey, did you know that working people don’t pay any taxes? Cool!! I didn’t know it either, but House Speaker Dennis Hastert said so.
On the floor of the House, Hastert said “well, folks, if you earn $40,000 a year and have a family of two, you don’t pay any taxes. So you probably if you don’t pay any taxes, you are not going to get a big tax cut.”
He also said “Now, if you earn $1 million a year, you are going to pay about $400,000 of taxes. Maybe you’ll get a $40,000 tax cut.”
How did such a stupid dumbfuck manage to climb so high?? If, Heaven forbid, anything should happen to both George W. Bush AND Dick Cheney (aw come on, we can fantasize can’t we?), Dumbfuck O’Clueless is next in line to become president.
Or as this article puts it: “Hastert is two heartbeats away from the presidency. Unfortunately, Hastert is also two bricks short of a load.”
This article also calls Hastert “the Marie Antoinette of American politics” and “the dim bulb who was screwed into the speaker socket by Tom DeLay.”
Our taxes pay this asshole’s salary (and medical benefits, and retirement pension, and more perks than you could ever imagine). We’re being “represented” — SERVED — by sheltered pampered aristocrats like this. Gee, doesn’t everybody have a limousine, a penthouse suite and a summer place in the Hamptons?
posted by Tom Harper @ 6:18 PM
19 Comments:
wow, Hasert, when you put it that way, it's hard to understand why the working families in this country aren't dancing in the streets!!
Mike V.: Ah yes, we should be partying and dancing in the streets. We don't pay taxes. Who knew?
Kvatch: Yup, I could've sworn I'd been paying taxes all these years, but apparently not. The Speaker of the House wouldn't lie. When my next rebate is $15.27, I'll realize that that's all I deserve.
Wow, that really is an amazing comment (even for a Republican.)
...and it also surprises me that he claims that rich people do do pay all their taxes. I must have been dreaming the whole time.
Well, Mr. Hasert seems to think that taxpayers are only those people who pay capital gains tax - since those with enough money to invest in something beyond paying their utility bill are the only people who count. People with money to invest - are the only people he deems as those who actually contribute to society and the American economy. Tell that to Walmart, who has made millions off exploiting the person who apparently pays no taxes. He of course does not consider payroll tax, sales tax, etc. to actually be paying taxes. His opinion is shared by many of that ilk. Guess that means that those of us who make under a million a year should no longer be required to file tax returns, nor should our employers have to withhold any portion of our income.
Benjamin: I was dreaming too. I had all these delusions about corporations and rich individuals wiggling out of paying their taxes, but I guess I was wrong. Dennis Hastert set me straight.
Frstlymil: You've got it, the investing class is the only class that counts. They're the only ones who can afford to make campaign contributions; what good are the rest of us? Maybe we could tell the IRS that there's no point in even filing a tax return, since the Speaker of the House said we don't pay taxes.
All of our "representatives" of both parties are so sheltered and secluded, they're really starting to think everyone has a limousine and writes 5-figure checks whenever they feel like it. These are the only people who have access to our government; everyone else is just falling off the radar.
Herman: Hey, you're back. Er, I mean: you Goddamn wingnuts are gonna be the death of the middle class. Are you sure you "climbed" to the top, or did you have the proverbial "rich uncle" who lifted you to the top?
Is this guy for real?
Or is his blog satire?
Because on it, he states:
"The only people who would object to being spied on are those with something to hide. Do you have something to hide? Are you a terrorist hiding behind the so-called "right to privacy" in the United States Constitution? If so then I'm not really concerned that you might have to look over your shoulder wondering if "Big Brother" is watching. If you're a terrorist then anything more than the rights that would be afforded to you in a Gitmo jail cell is too generous."
I'm just curious if I am missing the joke or something.
Thanks for emailing me Tom.
And sorry for being so thick today.
You know how it is, surfing the Internets while you work and stuff.
I mean, while I eat my lunch at my desk, of course..
Mike V.: Yes, I trust that any netsurfing you do at work is only during breaks or lunch hour. Otherwise, it would be my duty to inform Mike's America that somebody was blogging on company time, and he would take the appropriate disciplinary action :)
ah..this asshat is such fun to listen to..seriously,where else can you hear logic that defies explanation from a man that is in line for the presidency.
Oh wait..the Shrub matches that description too..nevermind.
We need to drop them all off in the middle of nowhere without shoes or a phone..and then make a tv show out of it..lost,the republicans version.
Dusty: That would be an excellent reality show, a bunch of spoiled, pampered Republicans stuck in the middle of nowhere. Seeing them moaning and wailing -- it would be the feelgood program of the year.
The problem with our government is it is full of Bush/Kennedy family types who have no idea what it is like to be average.
Let them eat cake.
James: Yup, too many rich entrenched politicians, and too many dynasties. And 2008 will probably be a choice between the Clinton dynasty or the Bush dynasty. Swell.
I have decided I will vote Libertarian this time. I am not liberal by any means and the conservatives are just as repugnant to me.
I dont believe in parties anymore, I only believe in freedom.
James: I like a lot of what the Libertarians stand for. Unfortunately, I also think we need to protect the environment, and maintain a certain minimum living standard (wages, health care); and the Libertarian party would do away with all that. But I admire their unified vision. They have a consistency that I wish I had.
You know that was my position as well until I realized that it was my own fallacy. I dont agree with everything that the republicans or Democrats stood for but it never stopped me for voting for them.
I think electing a Libertarian President would not do away with the things we need. The President is rarely able to implement his entire agenda.
Every party is flawed. I picked Libertarians because they are closest to believing in freedom. I too believe we need protections but they need to be minimal. Namely, you cannot leave corporations unchecked; as we have seen, they will rape the environment and cannibalize the population to make a buck.
I think it would swing the pendulum back our way and send a strong message to the other parties. Ultimately, they need us. Maybe its time for a new party.
James: I agree that third parties in general should have a lot more influence. The 2 main parties are so entrenched, they just take everyone for granted.
In '94 I voted for the Libertarian candidate for governor of California. The Republican and Democratic candidates (Pete Wilson and Kathleen Rice) were both totally worthless. You're probably right that environmental protections and corporate regulation wouldn't disappear just because a Libertarian was president. We could sure use a smaller government right now, and both major parties seem to believe in big government and Big Brother.
Sounds like you voted for the right person and I know nothing about him, but I do about the others.
As for the rest i can only say Amen brother.
James: Yeah, we may all end up voting for more 3rd party candidates, the more similar and undistinguishable the major party candidates become.
Post a Comment
<< Home