Go Galt? that's even funnier than running around with tiny tea bags

First rule of a catchy slogan. People have to know what it means------- without an explanation.

Most people are like me. We never read Atlas Shrugged.

And the top tier of rich people voted for Obama.

"Among the demographic groups that helped Sen. Barack Obama cross the finish line last night were the affluent and wealthy–the very voters who could become the target of tax increases promised during Sen. Obama’s campaign.

Exit polls show Sen. Obama did best among two main wealth brackets–the bottom and the top. (The middle was split about evenly). According to the polls, Sen. Obama won 60% of the votes of those with family income of less than $50,000.

He also won 52% of the votes of those earning $200,000 or more. That compares with Sen. John McCain’s 46% showing for the same group. Sen. Obama’s showing among the affluent is about 15% better than Sen. Kerry’s did with wealthy voters four years ago."
WSJ
http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2008/11/05/why-the-wealthy-voted-for-obama/

Malkin is delusional that the rich even know who she is. Even if they are conservatives, most of them have better things to do than listen to her.

this is just a continuation of the right wing victimhood charade.the idea that the truly opressed,the poor,minorities,gays etc...are setting the agenda and wielding great influence around our country.
all the boohoo-ing about ACORN stealing elections.
and how the Community reinvestment Act is what landed our economy in the shitter.
and of course the liberal media conspiracy to marginalize the right,as if they dont do a fantastic job of that themselves elevating people like sarah palin and joe the plumber.

With every boneheaded, reactionary stance and action these imbeciles take, they prove that they're no better than the the "Islamic Extremists" they rail against, save for their collective cowardice when confronted individually.

Don't be persuaded by any Republitrolls showing up here playing like they're brave souls. The chumps crumble under the strain of a real verbal battle. This is especially the case with this nutty Malkin harpy that likes to roleplay as a cheerleader for her slack-jawed, open-maw fan[atics]. She got nice and embarrassed on Hardball when she was attempting to smear John Kerry like her benefactors ordered. She thinks rabble-rousing suits her when it comes to picking on Dunkin Donuts and Rachel Ray, but she a fragile and fickle little bitch that doesn't like people confronting her in public. She's enabled to mouth off like a fake Nellie Olson by media dorks, primarily the dreaded FOX "News." She's a meager pseudo-intellectual wanna-be, a obvious social climber, and a hyperactive con-servative dork.

I understand your need for material, but I would not worry about the dum-dums' constant delusional ego-trips. They're just going through withdrawals after being high on GWB for eight years.

With that said, someone needs to keep track of some of these buffoons. We know they're all bitter and prone to throwing temper tantrums when they don't get their way, right? Their prayers at the alter of the 2nd Amendment compensates for having a weak constitution for actual progress here in America.

Of course John Galt would not have had Malkin, or Santelli, or Limbaugh, or any of the blowhards that we are hearing from in the Goofy-Old-Party. The folks who go on strike in Atlas Shrugged are the "producers" - people who actually invent, create, or make something. Not the talking heads and leeches who profit either from things others have done, or from spouting words to appease the idiot masses.

Ayn Rand espoused a very simplistic, either/or view of the world. There were no shades of gray. No paper money, only gold. No charity. No investments - you earn money only for what you as an individual produce and can sell or trade to others. No taxes, therefore no public infrastructure.

And, of course, as Bob points out, no religion. Some of the most scathing commentary in the book was directed at "mystics" and religious extremists.

For them to "go Galt" they will need to completely remove themselves from society. They must disapear - not just stop working, but completely vanish and take everything they own with them. If these idiots truly understood what they were talking about, none of them would have the balls to attempt it.

What a bunch of moroons!

Yeah, don't be surprised if you see an increase in media dorks discussing Ayn Rand for the next week. I spotted at least two holding up copies of Atlas Shrugged on Friday and Saturday, so they all must have gotten a new corporate memo on hump day this past week.

They keep diggin
We keep makin more popcorn
Enjoy the show

With Malkin as the leader, I think a rallying cry of "Go, Go, Gophers" would be more appropriate.

I hope we are growing enough popcorn. I predict a shortage.

This is JUST FUNNY, because the people advocating it don't seem to "produce wealth" for anyone but themselves, and they aren't bloody likely to stop doing it.

I won't post the full bit again. Fictional Malkin fantasy redux (clickity click):

http://cousinavi.wordpress.com/2009/03/07/michelle-malkin/

If Michelle Malkin stopped "creating" whatever it is she "creates," what would the fuck would that really effect? How much revenue would actually be lost?

Please, Michelle. Go on your Galty Strike or whatthefuckever. I'll happily go without whatever your meager contribution would have covered.

The stupid tree has had every branch broken.

The rich work?? I thought they just paid themselves $10K/hour to preen.

>>>Most people are like me. We never read Atlas Shrugged.

Hey, wait a tick... Can Republicans make literary references? Isn't that a little...elitist?

Who is John Galt? *fictional character

Who is Malkin?? *fictional character, no real person could be this fucking stupid

In looking over a table showing the top marginal rate (http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=19), and adjusting the numbers for inflation, here is what I see:

1930s (Roosevelt) -- 80% on income over $77M
1950s (Eisenhower) -- 91% on income over $3M
1970s (Nixon) -- 70% on income over $1M
1980s (Reagan) -- 50% on income over $314K
2000s (Bush II) 35% on income over $350K
2010s (Obama) 39% on income over $250K

It looks to me like a trend favoring the mega-rich, the top bracket percent getting lower, but the lower your income needs to be to pay it. In other words, if I were mega rich, I'd sure favor expanding the definition of "rich," 'cause it means I'd have to pay less as the burden is passed down the chain.

(I'm not an economist -- in fact, I hate money talk -- but I'm just trying to understand what's going on.)

"Producers" like Michelle Malkin going on strike reminds me of the baseball umpires' strike from some years ago and a quote from Sandy Alderson:
That's either an offer to be accepted or a threat to be ignored.