« Making sense of the senseless | Main | Scientific information wants to be free: Updated »

July 25, 2011

Comments

I'm all for means testing taxation. If you can afford them, pay them.

And, while my recollection is that you yourself are somewhat skeptical of the current direction of the GOP, it bears mentioning that the policy positions - and negotiating strategies - they are employing are now simply unjustifiable on any grounds remotely related to any desire to act responsibly in the interests of their constituents or to make this country a better place.

I think my stance on this has swung all the way from cheerleading the GOP (years ago) to just wishing we'd get some frickin' sanity in DC. Both of our respective party leaders are riding the bomb down. Which is not to equate them, but rather to take note of that the end result is no budget, and no actions taken to address the consequences of when our collective heads run into the debt ceiling.

Which is pipe dreaming, I know. Crack pipe dreaming.

On the plus side, my opinions don't drive policy at all. But on the minus side, my opinions don't drive policy at all.

This business about corporate jets is just a distraction. DC needs to quit pillorying things they don't like (or are simply throwing red meat to their respective bases) and do some legislating.

It'd be nice if they (Congress) were constrained from playing with the rest of their toys until they got 'er done.

Which is not to equate them,

I should hope not.

...but rather to take note of that the end result is no budget, and no actions taken to address the consequences of when our collective heads run into the debt ceiling.

Yes. The end results here look pretty bad. But fatalism isn't that interesting.

This business about corporate jets is just a distraction. DC needs to quit pillorying things they don't like (or are simply throwing red meat to their respective bases) and do some legislating.

The business about corporate jets is to help communicate GOP priorities to voters who still don't seem to get it. That's an important function.

I think, as a practical matter, it's pretty obvious that what we need to do to "do some legislating" - and actually solve the real problems we face - is elect members of congress who either resemble the current average Democratic member (that is to say, moderate Republicans) and/or to elect members who are substantially to the left - so as to move the Overton window, and the window of compromise, somewhere back into a region resembling sanity.

That means voters really need to learn to stop voting for Republicans who think that preserving tax breaks for corporate jets (among other things) is an overriding - perhaps all-encompassing - concern.

Slarti

On the plus side, my opinions don't drive policy at all. But on the minus side, my opinions don't drive policy at all.

That is incorrect that you do not drive policy at all. Not 1 on 1 drive but you are the part of the support group that pushes it in the direction that your opinion supports. Also besides your vote, your opinion is the part of the peer pressure. You have a range of influence on the people that respect you as in private life as in working life, and much more within your family.
Your opinion is the part of the factor that prevents outside information and opinions from reaching your opinion circle.
Try to experiment to see your influence: change your opinion about something even tough you do not believe it, and you will see how many people will change their opinion. Longer you keep repeating one thing more people will come to agree to it.

I described peer pressure, that's all. Everyone is a leader and a follower but on different sections of the influence circle and in different volumes.

"In Marty's reality"

Is CCDG Marty? I don't read all the threads and didn't know that (assuming it's true).

That means voters really need to learn to stop voting for Republicans who think that preserving tax breaks for corporate jets (among other things) is an overriding - perhaps all-encompassing - concern.

I don't think that it's so much about preserving tax breaks for corporate jets, as it is about headscratching over repeated bringing-up of a nearly inconsequential chunk of the revenue stream.

I'm not even sure that I understand completely what that issue is all about; other than it being a relatively tiny amount of money, it seems to be about the rate of depreciation, which if I understand depreciation at all seems like it would just stretch the tax break over a longer period of time, not eliminate it.

Still: not a major player in the revenue stream as far as I can tell. It's a distraction, is what it is.

IIRC the depreciation schedule for private aircraft (think corporate jets) is 5 years, whereas the schedule for commercial aircraft (think American Airlines) is 7 years. This is a fair bit of difference on a % basis, commercial depreciation is 40% longer than private or private is ~28% shorter than commercial, depending on how you view it. Though 2 years difference doesn't sound like much. I believe this is the "tax break" that's in the news.

Does it matter? Well, someone thinks it matters enough to have lobbied to get the private schedule down to 5 years. As Slarti notes this doesn't change the nominal tax break, but it does change the real one, as it's better to pay $100 in taxes five years from now to pay $100 now.

In any event, the real scandal here is the short federal tax depreciation schedule for aircraft, whether commercial or private. Looking at this site, every single major U.S. carrier has an aircraft fleet whose average age is greater than 7 years, with Southwest at 9.8 coming the closest. Why is tax depreciation so mismatched with actual depreciation?

More broadly, these sort of tax breaks add up, even though taken individually they might be relatively small. Further, many of them are effectively hidden from the public (hence the emphasis on this one by Obama, I presume, and not that he's being that clear about what he's talking about). If someone put in the U.S. budget an actual cash outlay of $300 million per year to help large multinational corporations (or whomever) purchase private jets, there would be outrage. Adjusting the depreciation schedule for those jets and producing the same result? Not so much.

Marty,

Obama is no renegging on the agreement to extend the Bush tax cuts. To me, he'd be justified in doing so, given the tactics of the GOPers right now, but he's not.

The tax increases the Dems have been talking about were in the context of a "Grand Bargain" deal, and they wouldn't have kicked in until 2013, IIRC. In other words, the Dems were negotiating for something that would happen anyway if they win or hold serve in 2012. What they wanted was GOP cover, and the GOP wants Dem cover for entitlement cuts. And the Dems are gonna give them that cover, 'cause they're the Dems.

The GOP put through a mix of policies that have left us in a hole. Then we got hit by a *huge* recession. Now the GOP is telling us they know how to fix it. Anyone who listens to them on this is suffering from a serious case of amnesia.

Also, I might note that the stupid fncking debate going on in Washington right now about the debt ceiling and whether we're going to have austerity or super-austerity, misses this point, which really should be the thing everyone in Washington is talking about. Instead, no one is.

We have 9.2% unemployment. The U.S. historical post-WWII average is 5.7%, and we're 62% higher than that, and have been for more than two years now. Yet all anyone in Washington can talk about is cutting federal expenditures by 13 (!) figures.

Maybe cutting a deal to do that is better than defaulting, but Jeebus this is nuts, and I blame Obama almost as much as the GOP.

"The GOP put through a mix of policies that have left us in a hole."

Not to belabor the point, but the Democrats controlled at least a part of Congress during much of the time that the "GOP left us in a hole". The constant yammering about the GOP IS cover for a set of shared responsibilities, even if it was just the Dems being "taken advantage of" by the Bush administration.

Now Obama blames Congress for everything, perhaps even with justification. So let's examine what the Democratic Congress did the years they controlled at least half of Congress?

Or we can hold Obama responsible for where we are just like we do Bush.

Not to belabor the point...

Are you sure?


CCDG: what policies did the Dems from 2006-2008 put through that put us in a hole?

Further, which GOP policies could they have realistically opposed at that point? Should the Dem congress have cut off spending for the wars? And if they had, what would have been the result?

Should they have attempted to repeal the tax cuts, with Bush there to veto such?

What did they fail to do, exactly? They got into office in January of 2007. 1 1/2 years later, the economy fell off a cliff. In the interim, what did they do wrong?

hsh, not really, but I'm done now.

hsh, not really, but I'm done now.

Ugh - great article, that. Thanks.

hey got into office in January of 2007. 1 1/2 years later, the economy fell off a cliff. In the interim, what did they do wrong?

The Dems should have held the debt limit hostage and, in exchange for their votes to lift the limit the first time they had the chance, asked for $ for $ revenue increases for each $ the debt ceiling was raised and then insist on taking their ball and going home rather than do anything else.

Still: not a major player in the revenue stream as far as I can tell. It's a distraction, is what it is.

No, it's not. It's a messaging tool.

It's true that this or that tax break or loophole usually doesn't add up to much on its own, but they do add up to an awful lot together.

And more than that, it's about the symbolism. The point is that, as a nation, we need higher taxes on high income earners. It's the fair, responsible thing to do. Yet the GOP is so far up the unmentionable orifices of their rich constituents that they won't give even a millimeter on something like tax breaks for private jets.

hsh, not really, but I'm done now.

Of all the things to be double posted. Heh.

I don't have much to add to this thread at this point, but I think that, unless there's a major electoral shift in this country, even within the Dem side, rather than just toward it, we're all well and good screwed. It's depressing.

"Should the Dem congress have cut off spending for the wars? And if they had, what would have been the result?"

A virulent wave of violent threats against liberal, "Democrat" commie, homo, towelhead-sucking traitors, from the armed, vermin Republican base (of which no one here is a member, but you would have been targeted too if you happened to be a traditional RINO piece of anti-American vomit in their eyes who happened to infer support for ending the wars), including armed former military f*ckwads brandishing weaponry and yet recruited for elective office by scum-filth Norquistian Republican corporate money for their own ends, and then transmitted like an overdose of heroin through the right-wing hate media directly into the veins of the body politic and its vaunted national "discourse".

"Should they have attempted to repeal the Bush tax cuts ....?"

Yes. And the few remaining "RINOs" in Congress (if they weren't already fully bunkered and scared crapless by the above-mentioned John Birch garbage that have destroyed the Republican Party) should have joined them, and then what do think would have happened to all of them? They might as well have opened their veins under the tree of liberty themselves rather than have it done for them.

This is no fault of CCDG or anyone else here. You don't matter. That's why you are at OBWI.

If CCDG somehow earned a seat in Congress and voiced his relatively moderate views (in this sh*t political world) regarding taxes and spending, he'd require armed guards at his constituent outreach meetings, and not for protection from the Weathermen or the Black Panthers.

Look, when Democratic candidates and DNCC officials are asked by their liberal interlocutors (second meaning of that word in Websters: "an entertainer in a minstrel show who asks questions of the end men") "how many guns do you own?" and "sign this pledge to never cut taxes again" by the liberal equivalent of Grover Norquist, I'll know both sides do it.

Blow it the eff up.

Slarti,

But unless we're willing to cut spending, we're screwed no matter how much tax-hiking we do. We'd best face facts: you can't keep increasing spending during a time when revenues are declining, and you can't just outright lie to the public that the revenue picture is rosy when everyone can see damned well that the employment picture is not.

Cutting spending now, when the employment situation is terrible, is exactly the wrong thing to do. Exactly. One big fear I have about this whole debt-ceiling nonsense is that there will be agreement on a plan that will tank the economy further. Indeed, that seems very likely.

I personally am not convinced that current deficit levels are a huge problem, provided we behave sensibly from here on. That means:

1. Getting health care costs - not Medicare/Medicaid in isolation - under control.

2. Not cutting spending in a time of high unemployment.

3. Getting the budget into a more-or-less long-term balance once we get a recovery. That means some combination of spending reductions and tax increases. It also means allowing for countercyclical deficits.

4. Not instantly p***ing away budgetary improvements with wild tax cuts or crazy spending, like unfunded wars.


As long as these people have influence in our civilazation, none of us matter:

http://www.balloon-juice.com/2011/07/28/why-do-bad-things-keep-happening-to-rupert-murdoch/

As long as these are the people we are dealing with in our civilization, none of us matter:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_07/joe_walsh_and_the_virtues_of_f031153.php

As long as these are the people we are dealing with in our civilization, none of us matter:

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/business/2011/07/goldmans-secret-cash-cow-detroit-warehouses-full-metal/40525/

I personally am not convinced that current deficit levels are a huge problem, provided we behave sensibly from here on.

Given the interest rates we've been paying and the willingness of people all over the world to purchase our bonds, markets agree. They might stop agreeing if this debt-ceiling circus keeps up.

This is the longer storyin Countme's 4:18pm comment. It really is quite amazing, Goldman owns the warehouses, trades the commodities it warehouses, and owns a stake in the regulator of such commodities and warehouses. All of which appears "perfectly legal" (though it's hard to say), but amounts to economic "rents" (essentially theft).

It makes me wonder how much of Goldman's business model and/or the revenue it generates is based on exploiting and/or creating regulatory structures that it can then distort, or finding incongruities in such structures to take advantage of. It reminds me of the "flash trading" from a year or two ago (and AFAIK still goes on), that, along with liquidity payments from the exchanges, essentially let Goldman (and other IBanks) peek at the maximum price a purchaser was willing to pay for a security and profit from that information by buying the security for less from someone else for less and then selling it to the purchaser.

Money for nothing, in other words, with no added economic value, AFAICT.

Given the interest rates we've been paying and the willingness of people all over the world to purchase our bonds, markets agree. They might stop agreeing if this debt-ceiling circus keeps up.

Yeah. Possibly one of the craziest parts of the whole thing, though it's a close contest. If a clean debt ceiling increase had been passed without fuss, there really would have been no problem.

Not a short term one anyway - we were enjoying what I think are pretty much the best borrowing rates anyone has ever had. And the thing to do would have been to heavily leverage that to put our economic and infrastructure house back in order so that our productive capability was maximized down the line - to pay back those debts, and be in a strong position to deal if any of the real difficulties on the horizon started to manifest.

Now, it's likely that even if Congress DOES do something - however destructive - in time, markets and ratings agencies are going to be so shaken by the close call that rates are going to go up anyway.

Really amazingly responsible government there. It's what you get when you elect cultists, I guess.

Jack Lecou,

And the thing to do would have been to heavily leverage that to put our economic and infrastructure house back in order so that our productive capability was maximized down the line - to pay back those debts, and be in a strong position to deal if any of the real difficulties on the horizon started to manifest.

Of course that wouldn't be "running the government like a business." I mean, no business ever borrows to expand productive capacity when money is cheap.

Money for nothing, in other words, with no added economic value

This characterizes a non-trivial percentage of US GDP.

It never ceases to amaze when auterians insist on "common sense" and urge the government to buy high (i.e., retire the outstanding bonds) and sell low (when interest rates are high).

To compound this lunacy, they will yammer..."but what about all that future interest when rates go back up?" Look, dolts, the bonds are already sold. The low cost is locked in NOW. Jeebus.

I understand and sympathize with conservative values when it comes to family hearth, home....even religion. But when it turns to economics....they are beyond the pale.

I don't uderstand conservative values when it comes to families, hearth, home or religio. So far as I can tell "family values" means opposing gay marriage and religion means worshipping Ayn Rand. At this point I don't think it is possible to be both a CHristian and a Republican.

I understand and sympathize with conservative values when it comes to family hearth, home....even religion

No doubt a topic for another thread, but I don't see that conservatives bring anything special to the table regarding any of the things you mention.

It turns out that the Constitution itself is the problem.

From Andrew Sullivan:

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/07/the-right-and-the-constitution.html

I can't keep up.

As long as these are the people we ... yadda, yadda, yadda

More from Sullivan:

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/07/the-fruits-of-christianism.html

Tim Scott told World Net Daily, cited in my previous comment and whose readership includes most of the John Wilkes Boothe Republicans in the Tea Party caucus, that he'll bring impeachment proceedings against Obama if the President invokes the 14th Amendment.

Which seems a good enough reason for the President to take that step, because in addition to a worldwide financial crisis, I think the world awaits yet another Constitutional impeachment crisis from the filthy, malign reality show that American has become.

Now I know some here will think, well, so who here reads World Net Daily anyway, much less lends it any credence?

Well, no one here does, I expect. Because we don't matter. We read the good stuff.

But crazy f$ckers actually running the country lap it up. Because they matter.

How did that happen, that crazy f*ckers who read crazy, destructive sh&t became the boss of all of you smart people?

Of course that wouldn't be "running the government like a business." I mean, no business ever borrows to expand productive capacity when money is cheap.

Right? Taking out a ridiculously cheap loan to invest in improvements for your business would be crazy. That's why businesses never ever take on any debt. Everyone knows that! (/sarcasm)

(I usually think it's safe to assume that the set of people who say we should run government more like a business is a subset of the union of: the set of people who would go bankrupt in a matter of months if they ever had to run a real business on their own + the set of people who are just lying through their teeth.)

Interesting though. This thing is bad enough that it's starting to get even people like Joe Klein to give up on the "pox on both your houses" nonsense and call Republicans nihilists. (Just saw that today, but others like David Brooks have been writing things along the same lines lately.)

I wonder if this might end up doing some real long term damage to the Republican brand, inasmuch as it might be making criticism of the nutcase wing a popular focus within the elite punditocracy.

I think the "more like a business" referred to and practiced by the Bush Administration and the Republican Party is the type of business subjected to leveraged buy-outs --- deliberately pile on tons of high-interest debt, and then shrug your shoulders innocently, craft a slick apology in the reptilian brain stem for a p.r. lizard to release and tell everyone that, well, the only way out is to break it up, sell the assets, fire everyone and disband the pension and healthcare plans.

For the benefit of Mr. Kite, and only Mr. Kite.

Mr. Kite requires push back of the most ruthless and fatal sort.

Nah, the elite punditocracy are like the rational corporate scientists portrayed in the "Alien" series of movies, as in:

Let's bring the alien specimen back to Earth alive, kind of poke it, observe it, study its mating and dining habits, sample its inner acids, and see if might even be able to govern.

No, the punditocracy is as good as eaten and/or set up as a food source in the Alien's hive to gestate the next generation of new, improved Aliens.

Sure, some of the pundits are now begging, from their squishy, gloppy ensconcements as their bodies are slowly digested, oh please kill me, it's too late.

O.K. The only thing for it is to nuke from space.

Kill the Aliens. Destroy the planet just to make sure.

Too bad about the pundits. They got too close.

Check out the bar chart at The top-end-of-town have captured the growth. Here's the intro ahead of the chart:

This Report – The “Jobless and Wageless” Recovery from the Great Recession of 2007-2009 – published by the Center for Labor Market Studies of Northeastern University (thanks Stephan) should have received headline attention from all the American media outlets instead of the disgusting venting of religious zealotry that goes under the name “debt ceiling debate” which has dominated media space. The Report was published in May 2011 and seeks to examine the way in which the recovering real output in US is being distributed to beneficiaries – workers, firms etc. It shows that the so-called economic recovery in the US has not delivered any tangible benefits to the vast majority of citizens and has rather, concentrated real gains among the top-end-of-town. Given that the recovery has floated on the fiscal stimulus the findings reinforce the biased nature of policy in the US. That indicates poor fiscal design by an incompetent and corrupt government not that fiscal policy is inherently unsuitable for advancing public purpose.

Consider this graph which is taken from Table 14 of the Report mentioned in the introduction. The US Government should resign immediately (including the President and his Administration) for overseeing this failure to advance public purpose.

The graph shows that growth measures for various measures of income and asset values for the period from the June quarter 2009 to the March quarter 2011. It is a stark reminder of what has been going on in the US over the last few decades.

The wage share had already fallen dramatically in the period leading up to the crisis. The fiscal stimulus provided corporate America with a lifeline and a basis on which to continue manipulating the real income produced for their own financial advantage. The big losers have been the workers – both employed and unemployed.

Too bad about the pundits.

Opinions probably differ on that.

At least the aliens make sense: they're just innocently trying to have a meal and lay some eggs.

The pundits, OTOH, should just be nuked either way. It's the only way to be sure.

Raise by damned taxes.

Don't do this, dammit:

http://www.offthechartsblog.org/boehner-plan-dumps-long-standing-protection-for-the-poor/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=TWITTER&utm_campaign=CBPPTwitter

When I say nukes, I mean actual real nuclear weapons.

I think trampling by rogue elephants would be more appropriate. Live by the (GOP) elephant...

Russell
I want to explain further effects of high marginal tax rates on the economy.
Since high tax rate are incentive for management to leave more money in a company account, low tax rates will cause the companies to rely more on loans to finance the operating expenses then on the company reserves. That is also causing more IPO to be offered so more cash can be pulled out. IPO cash is wasted on management bonuses and fees.
When economy goes into crisis, stocks loose value, banks need more stocks that are used as a collateral. Companies find themselves in liquidity trap without ability to borrow more in order to survive trough the slowdown. Companies with a decent cash flow but with too much debt to be serviceable. Companies like GM, Ford, all banks in this crash that used their own stocks as a collateral got a call from lender to increase their stock collateral or their loans will be recalled.
That was the basis for Obama's claim that the crash of 2008 was liquidity problem not an income problem. Most of the companies can go into bankruptcies to get out of under crushing debt. Result is lower wages and damage to the pension plans that invested into such company stocks, just as we have seen it with auto industry. They survived, returned the bailout loans and keep going with less debilitating debt but also with less consuming power of their employees.
That's how banks became 40% of the economy as the rent (value) extractors, instead 20% and as basic utility of the economy how it was before Reagan changed incentives and lowered marginal tax rates. It is a mentality of loan based operating expenses snailed into every company over time, because of the incentives to management to pay themselves as much as possible.

Bankruptcies are used to rehire previous workers without accrued benefits that senior employees accumulated. Sick days, vacation days, wage levels even 401K accounts. I am self employed so i never experienced such but i have plenty of friends that did.

The President, within the next 48 hours, should invoke the 14th Amendment on the debt ceiling, with the proviso that all Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security payments will cease to districts represented by Republicans, as a show of good faith on the cost-cutting front.

Like clockwork, amid crashing markets worldwide, caused by rogue anti-American elements in the capital markets, Tea Party scum in the House of Representatives will garner a majority to begin impeachment proceedings against him.

Obama should speak to the American people and heartily welcome the impeachment proceedings and the Constitutional crisis it will light afire, and muse that the circumstances would have been more enjoyable for him if the right-wing c*cksuckers in the Republican Party had tried to impeach him for his invite to them to bl*w him, ala Monica Lewinsky, but if they'd prefer a Fort Sumter moment instead, that's fine by him.

He should then embark on a series of Presidential visits, planned and announced well in advance, complete with motorcades (top-down on the limo, no visible security details, standing, waving, wearing bright colors) thru strategic enemy territories, perhaps starting in South Carolina, Macon,Georgia, and on to Arizona, Republican districts in Wisconsin and Ohio, and various Texas strongholds, with a ticker-tape open limo slow wind finale through downtown Dallas.

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/07/quote-8.html

Or Obama could skip the motorcade tour, and spend a few nights at the theater.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2011/07/and-how-did-you-like-kabuki-dance-mr.html

This business with invoking the Fourteenth is made out of little other than silliness. The Fourteenth doesn't hand any such power to the Executive.

As far as I can see, anyway. It'd be a good way to hasten the demise of the Republic, though.

Slarti

It'd be a good way to hasten the demise of the Republic, though.

How do you see that develop further? I am interested to know your view on it.

I think it'd amount to a usurpation of legislative power by the executive. There would be repercussions. Exactly how things would proceed, I don't know.

I think it'd amount to a usurpation of legislative power by the executive.

Article I, section 8, gives the authority to borrow money on the credit of the United States to Congress. Specifically, Congress.

Not the POTUS.

I'm hoping Obama doesn't go down the 14th Amendment path, regardless of what the Big Dog advises.

What I'm really hoping is that the Republicans in the House get over themselves and raise the debt ceiling. Just like the President can't borrow money, the President can't authorize expenditures.

Congress spent the money, now it's time for Congress to pay the bill. It's got nothing to do with appropriations going forward. Cutting spending in future budgets doesn't change anything about money already appropriated and spent.

We spent the money, and the bill is due. If we need to borrow to make our nut, then that is what we need to do. Money's cheap right now, enough so that it's actually cheaper to borrow to pay the bill than to pay from cash on hand. I'm not arguing for borrowing to pay operating expenses in general, I'm just pointing out that it's not a particularly risky moment in time to take on debt to cover operating expenses.

Businesses do it every damned day. It's how they operate, they'd be unable to function otherwise.

If you want to talk about silliness, the credit ceiling nonsense takes the cake.

Regarding the demise of the Republic, there are lots of paths by which the demise of the Republic can be achieved. We're more than a few steps down several of them, already, right now, today.

I sincerely hope Obama doesn't horse around with the 14th Amendment nonsense. But, should he head down that path, the way it will likely proceed is that there will be a mad rush on the part of the Republican members of the House to be the first one to file impeachment proceedings.

My money would be on Issa, I think the man goes to bed with a hard-on every night just thinking about impeaching Obama. If you'll pardon my French.

Article I, section 8, gives the authority to borrow money on the credit of the United States to Congress. Specifically, Congress.

This. Also, a pretty sizeable chunk of the rest of what you said.

"little other than silliness"

It seems to me a little silliness from the executive is about time considering the silly walks from the legislature over the past seven months (not to mention the past Luntzian 25 years).

Maybe the Republic should go down in a silly slap fight rather than flames.

That Murdoch got slammed with a cream pie beats the bolo he deserved, the Aussie immigrant eff.

The history books will show important people squirting each other with whipped cream and goosing each other as the poor, the sick, and the unemployed try to buy ammo from grover norquist's black market operation.

If all else fails Obama should call all the important RWers including pundits, Norquist etc*. to a meeting and then, behind locked doors, reveal his suicide vest boosted with Polonium and some vials with nasty germs. Those that cannot attend should get some exclusive gift loaded with necrotizing fasciitis and an immune suppressor in advance.
Twilight of the GOP!

*some cyano canines included

If a version of Reid's bill gets passed and the debt ceiling gets raised, the Republican politicians will immediately fan out across the country and lie, lie, lie. They will lie that they were willing to compromise. They will lie and claim the Democrats are responsible for the big cuts in entitlements in the bill. They will lie and claim they want balanced budgets whe wha they really want is more deficits to force more cuts. They will probably lie and say they want to create jobs, too, when what they really want is a permenent underclass of uemployed people to help pull wages down.

And the peoiple who vote for them will lie to themselves that they are good citizens with good intentions.

The Republicans will get away with the lies because the corporate media cult of false equivalencies provides cover for them and because the crisis was adverted--and no one ever gets credit for avoiding trouble, only for helping out if trouble actually arrives.

And as soon as they possible can they will pull this exact stunt again: cut tases for the wealthy, create deficits, use the deficit as a excuse to cut the Big Three, refuse to raise the debt ceiling...lie, lie, lie.

We would actually be better off in the long run if they didn't raise the ceiling now and they blew the economy up. At least then a majority of the voters would put the blame on the right , vote them out of office, and we could mover forward with constructive problem solving. The Republican party is not a legitimate political party. I don't mean that it should be outlawed, of course, but it should be shunned.

yes, velociraptors and triple-jawed slasher bug aliens always take a good shunning to heart.

There's an article floating around the tubes this morning regarding the now-quaint Debt Clock that was retired in the late 1990's because the Federal government had amassed several hundred billion dollars of surplus, a surplus so dangerous to government-hating vermin like Alan Greenspan that he endorsed the government and economy destroying Bush tax cuts.

As the "deal" is taking shape today, apparently one of the basic legislative duties of raising revenue will not even be permitted to be talked about by whomever my elected representative might be.

I believe my franchise was just denied me and handed over to a commission to which any petition for additional revenue to pay the bills will not only be ignored, but won't be permitted.

That's not a wise thing to do to an armed population as Grover Norquist had pointed out so many times over the past 25 years.

I take back my endorsement of Russell's pleas to raise taxes.

I now demand all of my taxes be cut to zero.

The first penny of tax at any level of government run by Republican filth is now theft.

Well, at least the Planet of the Apes is in full revolt, which leavens the universal disappointment.

http://www.redstate.com/dhorowitz3/2011/07/31/why-we-fight/

No matter what I do, I can't hate with the ferocity of the Redrum scum.

No matter what I do, I can't hate with the ferocity of the Redrum scum.

OK, against my better judgement I clicked through, and got as far as this:

Reagan came to power and fought for limited government in order to preclude the very eventuality that we are experiencing today.

Yes, and the sword he wielded to "fight for limited government" was to underfund it. Deliberately.

Who remembers Reagan's homey little fable about cutting off the allowance of the spendthrift child? Poppa Ronnie was here to teach those little scamps a valuable lesson.

Cheney claimed that "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter".

And here we are.

What a bunch of irresponsible f***wits. I don't mean to be rude, but seriously, come on. Just do the math. They were, and still are, a pack of irresponsible bomb-throwing sociopathic knuckleheads.

We're still paying the bills for morning in America.

And why are the spammers always selling shoes?

Taxes will not be raised by this President nor by this Congress. Taxes will be cut.

Social Security will have to be revised into a welfare program and benefits reduced and Medicare will probably be privatized in order to make room for more aggressive tax cuts.

Obama will be fine. His family will be fine. Many American may not be ok but that is the way of the world we live in.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad