Her response, after somebody else pasted the link over there, is worth reprinting here, so that you can be aware of the fact that your host obviously cannot be trusted....
The DELibertarian post is hilarious!
This is my post here, it doesn’t take much to get these guys launched off onto their usual scoldings.
Note that Steve’s post gets material facts wrong and makes a bunch of assumptions about my situation that pretty much allow him to get to the scold du jour. But even more — the comment of mine he is responding to certainly makes no claims that taxes aren’t passed on to the customer. Of course they are.
But have you noticed in all of that Steve still hasn’t responded to the original question by DV? And why would he, really, when there is a ripe opportunity to make stuff up about my post AND then to use that made up stuff to take me to task for a claim I never made.
Forget about it.
Now, the notes:
1) It is amazing to note that I have made up stuff about cassandra's comments, when I not only printed them in their entirety, but provided the link so that readers could go check for themselves.
2) The same applies to cassandra's complaint that I got "material facts wrong"--she strangely fails to spell out what those material facts are. Why? Because it is difficult to get facts about her post wrong, when it's all there for everybody to see.
3) Notice that cassandra carefully skews her response to suggest that I suggested she had denied taxes are paid by the consumer. That was never the issue of my post, and cassandra is well aware of it. She just wants to do bait and switch away from what she actually said, which was that reduced taxation would allow her to put more profits back into her pocket, and not used to either reduce prices or to invest in her business. I'll repeat her exact words here, because I'm pretty sure she'll keep trying to run away from them if I don't. I have (this is probably the "material facts" I've gotten wrong) chosen to place two sentences in bold:
NOW — the way tax cuts work in this scenario (Why is it unusual to have your taxes covered in overhead?) — is that you pay less taxes, but you don’t really change your overhead. You’ve just enhanced your profit. You aren’t really going to buy anything new with that or hire anybody.
4) cassandra then shifts to accusing me of not answering the original question of donviti's post on tax cuts and job creation. Big shit, cassandra. In case you hadn't notice, the writing of a post by any blogger does not place any sort of moral obligation on the commenters to stick to the original question. You could find the answer in my writings, but I'll make it simple for you: I've never said tax cuts would lead to job creation. That's not the basis of my criticism of the so-called stimulus.
5) cassandra, I will leave it up to my readers (since you haven't done it) to show me what I made up about a post that I quoted in its entirety, and how I have asserted a claim by you that you never made. (I only claimed that you said you would not use the profits of tax cuts to lower prices or invest in your business. I wait with baited breath for you to show me where you said you would do either of these things in the wording of your original post.)
The whole little brouhaha, strictly speaking, is more interesting for what it says about the nature of discourse in the Delaware blogosphere.
It is the prerogative of the authors at Delawareliberal to call other folks un-American, to question the patriotism of people who disagree with them, to call people racists (and then back off when challenged), and to pontificate endlessly about their policy brilliance without usually doing much more work than quoting the latest liberal feel-good article du jour.
Significant policy analysis? With the exception of some posts by cassandra (and I will freely give her that), it doesn't exist.
But it is amazing just how thin-skinned most Delawareliberal authors are to any criticism of them or their practices. When they feel any heat, they fall back on using talking points to accuse other people of using talking points, calling other people names, and engage in circle-jerk orgies of self-congratulation of how happy they all are to be the only bright people in the State.
Just watch them trash Mike Matthews or Dana Garrett any time they question their orthodoxy, even though Matthews and Garrett have intellectual and progressive credentials (and the ability to spell) to which many of the contributors at DL would like to aspire...
The problem with being in permanent attack mode is that it becomes both predictable and tedious over time....
If that's your preference, however, you know where to find plenty of it.