Thucky on Double Secret Probation, Again

Nearly four years ago, back when most didn’t know Thucky’s true identity, I had to place him on double secret probation. That occurred because Thucky was playing it fast and loose with his “facts.” But it was mostly in jest, because I knew the world would want to know who our friend Thucky was.

Well, he’s returned to old form, and this time his double secret probation is not a joke. We all know the carnival barker behind the curtain. There’s no need to play along any further.

Here’s what ole Thuckarooskie tried to pass off as fact in a comment:

Compare that 10% to the crushing burden you all advocate on small business women. 39.6% federal, 12.4% social security, 2.4% medicare, 5% state and 8% sales tax = 67.4%. Not enough left to drive business growth.

There’s not a grain of truth in those two sentences.

I’m going to give Thucky one week to identify each and every element of intellectual dishonesty in those two sentences, and apologize for them, in a comment to this post. Should he fail to do so, he’s outta here. 

My feeling here is that Thucky can post here if he does so honestly. But we can’t have him using this site to spread his right-wing propaganda. If he wants to do that, he needs to start his own site. I’m sure he’ll attract millions of readers.

33 responses to “Thucky on Double Secret Probation, Again

  1. Your response is dishonest. Let me quote a Nobel prize winning economist. People only earn to consume. Sales tax absolutely applies to the marginal tax load.

    All decisions are made at the margin. Do I hire another employee or not? Do I work another week or not? Do I work another hour of overtime or not? Do I work a second job or not? Do I work at night starting up a business or not?

    Pathetic Bob, pathetic, pathetic, pathetic. Weak, weak, weak. And you call me dishonest.

    • You said in your prior comment you had plenty of other things to do to keep you busy. So, do I need to actively block you, or are you willing to just go away voluntarily? It s obvious at this point I don’t want you commenting here.

      It’s up to you. You can retain the tiny sliver of dignity you have left, or you can complete the transition from high-ranking elected officeholder to full-fledged nuisance.

      • When Karl Marx spewed his bs, only 3,000 people read it in Russia. That’s all it took for 40 million people to die in Russia.

        Oh, I am going to keep on eye on you.

        You are still retailing his B.S. 140 years after Karl Menger wrote his brilliant The Principles of Economics and was called “Austrian” because, well, Marx was German and a member of the master race.

        Telling young impressionable minds that France and Europe create more jobs than the United States. (Actually, after cutting corporate tax rates significantly below that of the United States, they evidently scraped out a one year victory over Obama’s final year performance of 1.6% gdp growth in 2016, a growth rate that FSNT and Blue crow about, but a growth rate that dooms Social Security).

        • With advanced apologies to Bob, I want to ask John some questions: what is the source of your claim that “…only 3,000 people read it* in Russia”? And by *it are your referring to Das Kapital? The Communist Manifesto? Something else he authored? And what time frame are you claiming for the 3,000 people to read “it” in?

          • Tom, he doesn’t have the faintest idea. He may make something up, but he had no idea when he was writing his comment. Do you think he’s actually ever read Marx?

            I’ll let him answer your questions before I cut him off, although he’ll probably reappear under another pseudonym.

  2. For Sure Not Tom

    Slippery slopes and purges oh my!

    Years ago I ran a small local blog. I outed someone’s identity because they were posting things to benefit themselves financially.

    Sound familiar?

    Since they were my neighbor it made walking the dogs a little unpleasant at times.

    On the other hand, there was a guy named Tom who used to post here who was blacklisted for sticking up for Sanders against one of the very, very, very, very pro Clinton bloggers.

    She did warn Tom, he held his ground, and was blacklisted a minute later. I think unfairly but it was her call.

    I’m sure he still enjoys this site, and probably posts under a very clever name now. No way to know for sure.

    So maybe it’s better to have Huppenthal using Thucky here than some other sock puppet.

    Now, based on that picture you posted, racist court records, aside this is the site of his greatest public shame, I’m not sure why he’s here.

    • That had to be Donna Gratehouse.

      • For Sure Not Tom

        Maybe, only the real Tom knows, but he did stop commenting on her blog posts after he messed up one time, to respect her blacklist wishes.

    • Well, he could use a different pseudonym, but he just said he doesn’t mind going away because he has “plenty in life” to keep himself busy. So, why don’t we take him at his word, then watch as his word proves to be worthless again, like it was when he said he was sorry about the racist comments three years ago?

      • For Sure Not Tom

        I only troll Huppenthal to make sure some innocent web surfer doesn’t land here and think he’s a rational and honest person.

  3. Sen. John Kavanagh

    OOOOPPS! I posted the wrong link about the chemtrailk debunking article. Go to: http://www.factcheck.org/2017/08/misleading-chemtrail-kelli-ad/

    • For Sure Not Tom

      Again, that article is pretty damning of Ward.

    • For Sure Not Tom

      You’re saying the article debunks Ward’s belief’s in ChemTrails.

      It does, sort of, if you believe her changing story. For the record, of course she never believed it, only ignorant gullible people believe such things.

      But I said the article is damning of Ward, and it clearly is.

      “”I don’t believe in the chemtrail theory,” she told Politico in an April 2015 interview. And in a tweet later that month, she wrote: “I’ve never believed it — many in my district do.”

      That was after Ward told the Arizona Republic in March that “I don’t really have any opinions about ‘chemtrails’ one way or the other.”

      Later, when a resident raised the possibility of Ward introducing legislation about chemtrails, Ward did say that she would be “open” to it.””

      Ward should have just said from day one “ChemTrails are not real”. She should’ve said “conspiracy theories are dangerous.”.

      She did not. She tried to play off the issue for votes. She held a meeting, said she had no opinion either way, then said she never believed it.

      She lied along the way, based on her own admission.

      The article is damning. Stop trying to deflect.

      • Sen. John Kavanagh

        She denied chemtrails and decided not to insult constituents. Hardly a damning display. She held a town hall, which is good, and when pressed said she would keep an open mind. That is tact. Chemtrail Ward in not an appropriate label. Using it is misleading, political and wrong.
        Watch it, you may be heading for probation or at least an hour’s detention (in a private prison.)

        • Hmmm! So a constituent can suggest any fact free problem and State Senators will feel compelled to hold town halls on said fact free problem. Interesting. I would like a hearing about the endangered Mogollon Monster species. Ready to set up that town hall, sir?

          • For Sure Not Tom

            The Mogollon Monster happens to be my mom, I’ll bring her along to the town hall, along with BigFoot, the lizard that was piloting the Phoenix Lights, and Trump’s tax returns.

            Now that’s how you troll!

          • I salute you, sir. That is some damn fine trollin’.

        • Frances Perkins

          You are correct. Khemtrail Kelli is much more aliterative. Ironically. Mr. Mike Khemtrail is crazier than she is. The Republican party in Mohave County is blowing itself up over who is crazier.

        • For Sure Not Tom

          She should have said “it’s water vapor, there are no ChemTrails”.

          Anything else is feeding into the conspiracy theory, and conspiracy theories are dangerous.

          Even John McCain shot down a birther.

          People who believe in conspiracy theories sometimes decide to take up arms and people get hurt, and the life of the person who took up arms is ruined.

          It’s not being open minded, it’s not tact, it’s lying to get votes and it’s damning of her character.

          Oops, forgot, you guys gave up the character issue and elected the pussy grabber and former Dean of Trump University.

  4. bob as you know I am against censorship. liberals say they are for freedom of speech until recently. conservatives never were until they started to get censored. over at DU you either worship hillary or your banned. the democratic party is removing sanders supporters from their positions in the party. when you look into the abyss the abyss looks into you. neitchze. over at du people are afraid they will be banned if they say anything but I had a nice day or is my birthday now that the clintonistas run the site. remember the words of pastore nemoller! I have fought censorship all of my life and was taken off the radio shows I paid for by conservatives as they didn’t like my anti fascist talk.

    • This is a blog site, not a media outlet. He can create a competing site with little difficulty.

      And besides, I gave him an alternative. All he had to do was apologize for posting dishonest garbage on here.

  5. Oh, and I don’t have any problem with you locking me out. I have plenty in life to keep me busy. But, think about this, everyone will know you did it. [Of course they will. You’re done here. I gave you a chance to own up to your dishonesty, and you refused to do so. ]

    Buh-bye

  6. why don’t you enlighten us? Isn’t that what debate is all about? Or, do you not want to sully your hands by writing down the true marginal rate that might be a few percentage points different than my calculation?

    It’s a marginal rate analysis which is where people make their decisions [Really? It doesn’t matter where the top marginal rate starts or how low the rates leading up to it, and therefore the effective rate, are?] about work, leisure and investment. [But the investment is tax-subsidized and, in fact, the greater the rate, the more it is subsidized. In the case of deciding whether to hire a new employee, it is subsidized in the year of compensation paid. The bottom line is that the decision to invest, whether in a new employee or equipment is based on whether the investment is a good one. If an additional employee will bring in more dollars than she costs, she’ll be hired, no matter the marginal rate. You maximize after-tax income by maximizing pre-tax income, regardless of rate] [But you said it was for small business people, the great majority of whom never reach the 39.6% bracket. Most don’t even get past the 25% bracket] I’m not pretending that it is an average outcome. This blog is all about public policy as it relates to economics. I live in that sphere so I don’t acknowledge any error there.

    From public documents, your friend Stayer has huge unrealized capital gains which go completely untaxed and self-sacrificing guy that he is, he has made very public statements about his dollars committed to the liberal cause. These dollars total to 10% of his accumulated wealth. [Steyer is not deferring tax by “contributing to the liberal cause,” whatever the hell that means. However, the Mars family may ultimately avoid tax on unrealized gain through their actions — lobbying for it]

    Let’s see, the six % sales tax only applies to what’s left after the feds have taken their 39.6%, so .06 * 60.4 = 3.6%? but, this is Arizona and we have an 8% sales tax burden, so it would be .08* 60.4 = 4.8% So, I would be a percentage point off there. [Sales tax doesn’t apply to income. Further, it does’t apply to all businesses. Further it is passed on to consumers. Depending on the elasticity of the supply curve, some may be passed back, but the consumer typically bears the lion’s share of the cost.]

    The social security 12.4% includes the employer portion so this only applies to small businesswomen and men in the way that I laid it out. [Even if the 12.4% possibly could apply at the same time as the 39.6% (it can’t), half, 6.2%, would be deductible, so you lied again by adding the two rates together, rather than tax-effecting the 12.4%] But, those are the people who hire people, these are the people we talk about.

    And, of course, the 12.4% drops down later, resulting in a lower rate. But that doesn’t obviate the earlier calculation. [But the 12.4% drops down $300,000 of income prior to the time the 39.6% rate kicks in, so adding the two together as a marginal rate was rank intellectual dishonesty]

    And, does the 39.6% not include phase-out of deductions, so it would actually be higher?

    You do the calculation. Then, we’ll compare notes.

  7. Two of your trolls spread right wing propaganda on this blog and the other troll just blathers right wing nonsense. I don’t know why BfA is so tolerant of it’s trolls, its almost as though they are pets, they’ve been around for so long.

    I think the question I would ask if it were my decision is what do they contribute? And to put a finer point on it, what is your goal? Why do you spend your time doing this? And what do they contribute (or take away from) what you hope to accomplish?

    It’s your call, man.

    • Well, this troll likely will be the first to go. Others may follow. You’re right, if they’re not contributing, why have them here?

      • On the other hand, hitting them with facts & truth can be entertaining! Like this video of the BofA trolls participating in an exclusive sporting event:

      • Sen. John Kavanagh

        Sounds like purges.

        • No, John, it’t not. If he wants to engage in honest debate, that’s fine. But if he wants to spout right-wing propaganda, he should start his own site. I’ve concluded, after giving him countless chances, that’s he’s just not an honest man. One case in point is his statements here that he had no remorse for his earlier (2009 – 2014) posting here and other places under a pseudonym, after his tear-soaked apology three years ago. Was he being disingenuous then, or is he being disingenuous now? It has to be one or the other.

          • I would vote to let Huppenthal stay for two reasons: first, I see no difference between Huppenthal and Sen. Kavanaugh or Steve; and second I always view John/John/Steve’s arguments through the prism of Dave Barry’s “How to Argue Effectively.” BTW Sen. Kavanaugh did you listen to the reading from Exodus at Mass today?

          • Tom,

            Steve tends to be more of a problem on posts by others.

            My problem with Huppenthal is that he puts up so much garbage that I have to choose between spending the time to address it, or letting it sit there as un-rebutted propaganda on our site. He should do that on his own site.

            John is in a different category entirely because he holds office. I actually want the opportunity to respond to what he says. I wish more of his colleagues were on here posting.

          • Sen. John Kavanagh

            Does that mean I get a “Get Out of Purge Free Card?”

          • Sen. John Kavanagh

            I do not dispute your right, as the blog editor, to ban a contributor. I know that there are no 1st amendment issues here because you are not a government agent. In addition, I would oppose extending the 1st amendment to private blogs, newspapers, meetings and even radio and TV. It would truly destroy free association and free speech.

            However, I think you are on the so-called slippery slope here. Cross political divide conversations are sometimes subject to double distortion. The conservative views things from his or her political perspective (possible distortion number one) and the liberal hears the comments of the conservative through a liberal lens (distortion number two.) And it is easy to conclude that the other is way off base, although sometimes they are. But knowing when and to what degree another is off base is difficult.

            This policy of banning might also have consistency in application problems. For example, in a recent post about a Democrat congressional candidate forum, one poster said, “My sincere hope is that the GOP picks kooky Kelli “Chemtrails” Ward, so a Democrat can face a genuine crazy fringe candidate.” I replied showing a link that debunked that accusation linking Ward to chemtrails -http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/27/politics/arizona-senate-martha-mcsally/index.html

            In reply, another poster commented, “You need to re-read that factcheck article. It’s damning. Ward will say whatever it takes to get elected, just like the rest of you, and she’s not above wallowing in some fake conspiracy theories to get votes. As the links you yourself provided shows.”

            Now I re-read the fact check article and it is not damning and it exonerates Ward on the chemtrail issue. So unless the dual filters are at play, that poster was wrong, like Thuky. If so, will you put that poster on double secret probation? Doesn’t seem worth it to me.

          • Sen. John Kavanagh

            OOOOPPS! I posted the wrong link about the chemtrailk debunking article. Go to: http://www.factcheck.org/2017/08/misleading-chemtrail-kelli-ad/