Comcast, which shook down taxpayers for $42.8 million to build its 58-story Comcast Center in Philadelphia a decade ago, is rationalizing its theft of $40 million from the taxpayers' swag to build a 59-story skyscraper in Philadelphia by projecting that it will return $75 million in tax receipts to city and state coffers during the construction phase. In other words, the public will pay a $40 million premium to get $35 million in net new tax revenues. Great deal, eh? ... Waaaaay back in 2009 and 2010, economist-turned-New York Times columnist Paul Krugman wrote in two textbooks that extended unemployment benefits can increase unemployment by delaying the unemployeds' search for new jobs. But these days, Mr. Krugman, full of “progressive” Kool-Aid, argues that extended benefits increase employment. Perhaps for those working in the unemployment offices. ... To “defeat poverty,” Toledo, Ohio, Block Bugler ambassadorialist Dan Simpson advocates emulating the French and taxing the part of salaries exceeding $1.36 million at an effective rate of 75 percent. Which will spawn massive capital flight, reduce government tax receipts and make us all poorer. Ever hear of Andrew Mellon, Dan? ... There's supposedly a shortage of Velveeta, the meltable processed cheese, just as “peak season” for it arrives (think the NFL playoffs and the Super Bowl). The “shortage” was announced by Velveeta parent Kraft Foods. Surely we're not the only ones who smell a velvety rat.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.