People Who Want You To Vote for Obama

April 2, 2008

Oscar & Lola, My Pugs


The Little Baby Cupcake


Shamus, the Scotsman who molested me as a child



  1. Can we infer that the Missus is throwing her support behind Mike Gravel?

  2. That 28% Cap Gains tax make him look SO APPEALING!

    Does he have a good guacamole recipe? I will share some bowling tips with him if he would be so kind as to share!

  3. 28% on the highest bracket, not across the board. Wouldn’t that be for those $349K and up? (Correct me if I’m wrong, I’m really not sure on that. You would know!)

    He does however want to eliminate capital gains taxes on startup businesses and reduce the self-employment tax for small businesses. His plan would also eliminate taxes for 10 million workers and allow nearly 7 million senior citizens to save roughly $1,400 per year.

    Sounds downright conservative to me!

  4. Mr Nelson – serious question – what’s a good argument against capital gains taxes? Aren’t those people with high capital gains the sector of society most able to afford a higher tax rate? After all most wage earning jobs won’t generate capital gains; isn’t it only significant investment income or other “non-wage” income that is subject to this tax?

  5. I understant what you are saying, but a lower cap gains allows people to invest for retirement above and beyond the extremely low limits for qualifed plans and IRA’s. By increasing capital gains taxes, you run the risk of large investors and institutions not being able to effectively manage for tax loss harvesting for their clients and themselves. Yes, you are correct that some may find it easier to afford it than others, but, when and institution or large investor buys or sells investments, that “moves the market” across the board, so “Joe Employee” working 9 to 5 on an assembly line will feel this market move on his retirement plan through work, or his smaller IRA. Taxes are a huge consideration for my clients when it comes to liquidating a position and locking in a gain. I get what your beliefs are; mine are different. I believe that money invested in the market by individuals and institutions is better for a capitalistic society than higher taxes. Companies sell their stocks and bonds to boost growth, which can increase wages and jobs, true, not all companies do that, but if a highly compensated business owner or officer has more money, doesn’t it make sense that they can hire more people, or pay the ones they have a better wage?

  6. This is something I wrote a few weeks ago. I’m not trying to be too political, and really not trying to be rude, as I once was. Kinsley may have already read this in my blog

    “Everybody just CALM down!”

    Here we are, nearly two-and-a-half months into 2008, and already the media is causing a frenzy in the economy. “WE ARE IN A RECESSION”. Dear media, no we are not, technically. The definition of a recession is two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth; that has not occurred. Now, it you ask people if the FEEL like there is a recession, some will say yes, some will say no; that really depends on a few factors; perhaps YOU have come on harder times, therefore YOU may be in a personal recession, although others around you are not. Second, if you don’t like President Bush, then you will probably state that we have been in a recession since January 20th of 2001; That is “Bush Derangement Syndrome”, but I digress.

    The economy is fine in that it is experiencing what it need to, as part of the NORMAL BUSINESS CYCLE. This happens from time to time, and if you check history, you will see that economic trend lines are not straight. (Unless of course, you are a Bill Clinton fan, then you believe it was straight up from January 20, 1993, until January 20, 2001). Yes, some periods were booming. Lots of money made in the stock market, but mostly on speculation. Very few companies were really making any money. Companies were enjoying increases in their per-share price, unprecented in history, funny thing is; earning were generally not there, thus the bubble grew, and when the economy found out, the bubble burst (Much like real estate, except for the whole “earnings” thingy). Investors (I should say “novice” investors) like to jump on the caboose of the train, thus in 2001, $1 of every $2 that went into the stock market went into technology. Now, you don’t have to be a rocket scientist (or maybe you do), but a sector maxed out with investors, cannot be sustained; Money pouring into an industry which was iffy on earnings (now I’m not talking about the big boys like Cisco, and Intel, etc), but smaller companies, like E-toys, and so on, that is going to catch up sooner or later, and it did. People did not learn, and a recession happened; millions lost millions, and so on.

    Enter 2005 through today…We have just come out of a relatively solid bull market, and an economy that has seen job growth, income growth, etc. Real Estate has become the new catalyst to the economy. Now, I work in the investment industry, I’ve been through both bubbles, an have seen money made AND lost. Once again, investors have decided that money could only be made in Real-Estate, therefore they invested and invested, and to satiate the appetite of buyers, banks came up with more creative ways to get people into propery, the risks were disclosed, but investors just never looked into what they COULD afford in the future; Whens loans began to recast, just like the disclosures said, people couldn’t afford their payments anymore. Demand for new homes, and older homes begain to wain. Now inventories are higher, and demand is lower, thus all the makings for a decline in the economy, which will, as a result, bring on a recession; a normal function of the business cycle. If the mortgage crisis had not occured, there would have been something else related to the industry to bring on recession.

    The good new is; recessions end, and it really has nothing to do with Presidents, Senators, or Congressmen. It has to do with the normal business cycle. It is the natural way the economy goes “on sale” to create the NEXT wave of wealth and opportunity. We can blame others, the government, unscrupulous lenders, etc. In the end, citizens need to take action on knowing what they are doing, don’t sit around and wait for governement bailouts, etc. Show a little responsibility, suck it up, and educate yourselves, so the NEXT time the economy begins to roar, you can get onto the engine of the train and not the caboose. Remember; it is the normal business cycle.

  7. Oh man this blog could use a trout picture or two.

  8. Prostectic leg beatings, how bacon is made.

    -This blog.

    All those words up above that made my head explode.

    – this blog http://www.politicalforum.com/

  9. This is a little dated, but the premise is still effective.


  10. For any interested, some non-partisan reporting on Obama’s tax plan.

    What’s an interest carryover loophole?

    If cap gains taxes are so bad, why isn’t everyone for eliminating them? (Real question, not rhetorical.)

  11. Correction: carried interest loophole, not carryover.

  12. Of course not everyone is for them, and that is based upon the “belief” that capital gains are something that rich people have. Since the majority is not “rich”, then the majority must be getting “screwed” by the rich. It’s how votes are made. The mindset in the country is that the rich are “rich” at the EXPENSE of the poor. That is not the case in most instances.

    Remember there is a 500k cap gains exclusion on your home if you sell it, and move into another property. Isn’t that nice? Imagine if you had to pay over 20% on that!

  13. It’s not as if I totally disagree with all of what Obama says, in fact, simplification would be great, but simple economics states that the more tax outlay to the government by an individual or employer, the less there is to hire and pay new people or comfort the existing. Do the math, companies are not “obligated” to be in business; if you have $8000, you can employ 100 people at $8.00 per hour or 80 people at $10 per hour. Either your under-paid, or unemployed. All the government incentives in the world won’t take the place of simple economics.

  14. All you people are talking about politics and important stuff. All I can think about in putting porn into those “Vote for Obama” frames.

  15. Actually Rob, we’re multitasking – we’re talking about important stuff while thinking about porn, both with and without Obama frames.

  16. So, Rob & Mr Kinsley… confession: the internet has destroyed my ability to recognize what regular people consider “porn.” Is THIS what you guys were thinking?

  17. Maybe we should re-name the Obama logo “The O-Hole.”

    Not reeeeeally what I had in mind, but yes, that would qualify as porn. Shocking, horrific, disgusting, nightmare-inducing porn.

  18. You should see the whole movie. It makes more sense. That logo image is taken out of context.

  19. With all of this porn and Obama talk, I managed to find the connection: Somehow we are going to get SCREWED!

    (Sorry Jonson…it was left out there, I had to say it)

    Back to behaving…

  20. Mr. Nelson, if I read jonson correctly, most of us liberals support progressive tax policy: if you earn higher capital gains, you should pay higher capital gains taxes. Nobody wants to stop the engines of progress and entrepreneurship with oppressive tax policies, but those who make very high sums of money are paying lower taxes now than at any time since Reagan was in office. Why? What was wrong with the top bracket paying 70% instead of 39%?

    We have seen these tax rates drop, and conservatives espouse trickle-down economics, which you seem to support. While higher taxes leave companies and the wealthy less money to invest in jobs or growth, the opposite is not logically true. Giving the wealthy lower taxes hasn’t caused GDP to rise to 5% or 10% per year, but it has created a growing rift between the wealthy and the middle-class. Couldn’t it be argued that lower taxes can only guarantee rising inequality, not more growth?

    I’ve read that about 70% of the national debt was incurred during the Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and George W. Bush administrations. If that’s so, couldn’t it be argued that not only are Republicans less fiscally responsible than Democrats, but that they utterly fail in their stewardship of our economy? The debt is going to have to be paid by somebody, and borrowing money from China for optional wars just moves your children and mine ever closer to picking up the tab.

    I’m not trying to pick on you. I’m a business owner myself; I benefit from lower capital gains taxes. I can legally get a lot more money out of my company through distributions than a salary. I’m not against capitalism, I’m just against corrupt capitalism.

    But seriously, where’s Cock these days? Shouldn’t he have an input into the Obama hole?

  21. “Input?” Indeed.

  22. I like your input, but I don’t want to interject the word “corrupt” into the vernacular. Corrupt is a word made up to to explain one sides disdain for the other. You could ask someone who supports those administrations, and the may make up a different word to describe the situation, so, lets move on.

    I could agree with you that 70% of the national debt was incurred in those administrations, those administrations also served 20 of the last 28 years in the White House which is 71.43% of the the last 2.8 decades in the Presidency, yet that 70% is 23.33% averaged over the three administrations. The balance of 30% came from one administration on the other side of the aisle. Reagan, Bush, and Bush II accounted for 3.57% per year as a contribution to the debt. Clintons administration accounted for 3.75% per year condribution to the debt, so for all intents and purposes, the numbers are virtually identical.

    60% of the current national debt in the United States is attributed to entitlement programs. That number is expected to grow to 70% in eight years. I believe we can make the biggest impact on this nation by hiring people, paying more, etc. But to do that, we must put more money in the hands of those who are in a position to hire.

    These are my thoughts, they don’t have to mean anything to anybody, nor is my intention to sway you because that isn’t what I am about. What I am about is creating a transformation into the future. Change is counter productive, because change is a focus on the past. Transformation is creation from nothing. How can we move forward if our slate is not clean?

  23. Maybe I didn’t explain it very well, but I meant that Reagan and the Bushes accounted for 70% of the total national debt accumulated since this nation began incurring it with Alexander Hamilton as Secretary of the Treasury under George Washington. For three presidents to account for nearly $7T in spending after being in office for a total of twenty years is remarkable, don’t you think?

    As for Clinton, the national debt stood at $4.19T on January 20, 1993, and grew to $5.73T by January 19, 2001, for an increase of $1.54T, or $193B per year on average.

    When George W. Bush took office, the national debt stood at $5.73T on January 19, 2001, and is $9.44T today, for an increase of $3.71T, or about $512B per year on average (dividing it by 7.25 years).

    Hence, $3.71T or about 39% of the national debt has been spent during the George W. Bush administration alone.

    By comparison, the national debt on January 1, 1791 was $75M.

    So, Clinton grew the debt at $193B per year, and George W. Bush grew it at $512B per year, so Bush spent more than 2.5X what Clinton did.

    Is it your contention that entitlements have grown by 2.5X since George W. Bush took office? If not, what accounted for such a large increase in spending and debt?

    For reference, I pulled the national debt figures from http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

  24. We could go back and forth and we are not going to accomplish anything in a blog, and we are certainly not going to give up being “right”; I’m not going to convince you and you are not going to convince me. I’m not “backing down”, but if you want to say that you win, then more power to you. I’m not committed to that. All we will do it battle the “goodness” versus the “badness”, or our perception of either political party. At the end of the day, opinions may exist, but they are not “real”.

  25. Its all just cascading numbers, Neo.

  26. I’m with you on the entitlements situation Senor Nellie. Seems to me that we need to get creative with new ways of funding/administering soc. sec and medicare. How? I have no clue, but it certainly won’t come from only one side of the aisle (which is pretty much what you said so nicely in your last comment.)

    Maybe it’s time for partial privatization of soc sec? Maybe we should abandon it altogether for those born after, say, 2010, and come up with a new & improved version of it for them? Should we require everyone to start their own IRA, 401K, etc or what have you at the age of 18? Maybe we go for a Logan’s Run solution and kill off everyone over 40… oooh, but only if your birthday is after September 5, 1968! 😉

  27. Requiring 401k contributions, or IRA contributions is too similar to being required to pay Social Security Tax. Back to the talk about Capital Gains taxes; Many people don’t think about this:

    When you contribute to an IRA, you are able to take distributions at 59.5 years of age, and become REQUIRED to take those distributions at 70.5 years of age. Here’s what happens though:

    Today, you put money into a qualified plan, ex. IRA, 401k, Defined Benefit plan, 403b, 457, etc…You are simply putting off paying the income tax on that contribution today. You are getting a tax break on an IRA by bringing your AGI down a mere 4000.00, and saving perhaps, $1500.00 in taxes. If you are for example, 30 years old today, that 4000.00 returning 8.5% per year until 70 1/2 years of age is now worth, get this….$108,974.68. Sounds fantastic, but the catch is, do this for many years, you will have a LOT of money in retirement. If you still earn income in your 70’s, your RMD, or required minimum distribution is ADDED to that income, and now you have to pay tax on that amount. In a perfect scenario, retirement would have you paying only 10 or 15 percent. That is no longer likely. People are living longer, and are required to generate income to last a longer period of time. If you are 80 years old, and lets say your RMD brings you to the 33% tax bracket, then you need to withdraw about 100k, so that after paying your deferred taxes, you’ve got 67k in income. Saving 33% on your $4000.00 at age 30 accounted for a tax break of $1320. Was it REALLY worth it? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. That $108,974 has the buying power of $73,013 after paying those deferred taxes. Now, lets say you invest $4000.00 at 8.5% for the same 40.5 years, this time in a non-tax deferred account, you would now have the same $108,974 at 70.5 years of age. But, you are only paying 15% capital gains tax, and you did not get the initial deduction on that when you were 30. The buying power of that money is now $92,627 (less sacrificing the tax savings of putting it into an IRA ) – $1320, so the adjusted buying power is $91,307.90. That is over $18,000.00 in money in your pocket. Wow, could that really supplement getting 75 cents on the dollar on Social Security in 40 years! So, IRA’s are not always the best vehicle for investment, and should really be looked at closely when investing.

    This may be weird to some people, but I actually side a little with the democrats on privitizing social security. Imagine if the social security fund becomes an investor in the stock market, suddenly the governement becomes the largest “owner” of equities in the market. There is a word for when the government owns businesses. Yeah, we know what THAT is.

    The solution??? Cash Value Life Insurance….Front loaded 7-pay policy, with a low death benefit to accumulate cash quicker. It does grow tax deferred, but when you retire, you can take loans on the policy, which do not have to be paid back! The insurance company utilized the death benefit as collateral for the loan. Do these types of policies for retirement. It’s called a LIRP. If you are worried about not having enough life insurance, because you’ve drawn down on the death benefit, then a TERM insurance rider on the policy should help cover that. Hey, I’m all for explaining how this shit works.

    Is that more information than you’ve asked for?

  28. Arrgh!! I have scratched out my eys, so forgve any typos. Please, prtty pleas, Jonson: snd us something knew!!!

  29. Jesus H. Christ. Not sure what possessed me to google you, but I did and here’s your blog and now there’s no going back. I’d ask how you are, but I read your blog so I already know you’re married and have a daughter and pugs and you’re still funny as hell. Bravo, sir!

  30. HOLY FUCK. Stephan Cox, the man who INVENTED THE NICKNAME JONSON!!! This entire blog is in some sense due to you. I haven’t heard from you in 14 years or so, and now when I click on your name it turns out I hear your voice every goddamn day on the radio? The only way this could be more surreal is if my wife ripped off her face like some Mission Impossible disguise & secretly she had been you all along. Excuse me while I proactively go & tug on her face to make sure that doesn’t happen. I couldn’t take the surprise.

  31. jonson’s been secretly running a reunion blog all this time..Chris Barrus, are you reading this?

  32. “The only way this could be more surreal is if my wife ripped off her face like some Mission Impossible disguise & secretly she had been you all along. Excuse me while I proactively go & tug on her face to make sure that doesn’t happen. I couldn’t take the surprise.”

    Wow. You like me more than I thought! Hey, if you want your wife to actually be a dude… Whatever gets you through the night, my friend. I’ll be waiting for you on the sofa with the Slanket.

  33. sigh… Oh Cock. Always raising your head @ innappropriate moments.

    Hey, I think from now on out instead of updating this blog, I’m just going to update the comments section of this post.

    Serious question, macsimon: how do you know Chris Barrus’s name, is it just cause I mentioned it here, or are you his friend?

  34. It is me….Your man-toy! Chris Barrus is in the house!

  35. Barrus! It’s like a 1993 renuion of the Irvine Kinko’s desktop publishing department in this place. If only Mike Barskey hadn’t gone insane & moved to the Indio desert to practice objectivism & live a life of solitary angst, we could totally get the band back together.

    On that note, I was thinking earlier about how Stephan invented the whole Jonson nickname, and how I never came up with a nickname in return. And I figured his nickname should have something to do with his prominence in radio voiceover work, like “goldthroat” or the like.

    But frankly, the only gayer name than “Stephan ‘Goldenthroat’ Cox” is “Joe ‘I love huge penises in my ass’ McGillicuddy.”

  36. I want you inside of me

  37. And, if you think this is actually Chris Barrus, then you are mistaken. I am…..BALLS! I don’t even know who the fuck Chris Barrus is.

  38. Dang, I thought it was actually CKB, who has commented here several times. Oh well – I should have checked the IP address & seen that it matched Mr. Nelson.

  39. I’m sure in some way, he will find his way to your blog

  40. After all, is there anyplace more fun in the virtual world than Jonsonblog? I think not. It’s the most fun I can have on the internet while using BOTH hands.

  41. Nope, I worked at Kinko’s as well.

  42. …wait a second. Wait a good goddamned second. Mac Simon is Mitchell Smith? Seriously. What. The. Fuck. How long has this been the case?

  43. The “hey, you’re my long lost friend” pick-up line is getting rather tired. May I suggest going to a bath house and getting it over with?

  44. I’ve used macsimcon for years, but I think I only started reading your blog a year ago. I found you the same way Stephan did..the Google!

    Cock, your humor and wit are writ large, just like you.

  45. …so that’s really weird, huh? Weird that you’ve been commenting here for the last year or so, but you just now mention who you are?

    I have a policy, Mitch, and it’s complex & nuanced, but here it is in the summarized version. If I’ve knowingly shared sex partners with someone, I identify myself to that person the first time I comment on their blog.

  46. Lest anyone conjure up visions of group sex (most especially our respective wives), I am compelled to point out that we were never having sex with her in the same room at the same time..

    But of course, you’re right. My apologies for not announcing myself properly.

  47. Mitch is right. The only regular jonsonblog reader I have had sex in the same room with is The Missus. And Cock, of course. Mustn’t forget cock.

  48. I just realized your handle is macsimCon, with a C, and I’ve been calling you macsimon all this time. Sorry about that.

  49. Just….dawned….on….me. Since you knew I was fucking with you by pretending to be “Chris Barrus”, did you ever cleverly determine that I was also “Diego Honeysuckle”? I was so proud to that name because Mr. Kinsley said it was the best name ever.

  50. Kinsley mentioned it. Per my response to Mitch/Macsimcon, I’m not really a fan of people I know hiding their identity on this blog. The “Cock” id is amusing, but it’s not a trend I’m much interested in spreading.

  51. Yes, I can imagine that Kisley would know. Ask him to tell you what a “Shmendrick” is sometime.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: