He promised to remake the country when the country was vulnerable and over half the country took the bait, Democrat Congress and Senate members thought they were on the gravy train; it only cost them their careers to be the cannon fodder for Obama’s silly dreams of Marxism. The Democrat Party is on the verge of extinction and after two more years of the man child trying to convince us that we are too stupid to accept Socialism, there will be few who will bemoan the passing of the once powerful and vibrant political voice.
It is hard to feel sorry for a political party that put all its faith in an unknown who was raised in a family of Marxists, who was mentored by a Marxist and pervert (Frank Marshall Davis), who sought out Marxist professors at college (by his own admission), who befriended Marxist Terrorists (Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn) and who surrounded himself with Marxist Czars after being elected. Did they think the country would slide into Marxism and they could enjoy the privileges of being Marxist Elite Rulers for the rest of their lives?
Surely some of them did and others thought they better follow the lead of the Marxist and his nitwit leaders Pelosi and Reid, just in case they did make the country into a Marxist cess pool. Now they await the verdict of the public on November 2, like French Nobility awaiting their date with the guillotine.
Some of the indications of Obama’s political demise are more subtle. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito is refusing to be used as a prop for the Obama State of the Union Address when the Justices enter the House of Representatives and assume their obvious position in the front row. He maintains that the speech has become awkward and political for the justices, who are expected to sit:
“like the proverbial potted plant.”
Justice Alito, pushed the dignity of the situation at the last State of the Union Address, when the president lied during an unprecedented rebuke of the Supreme Court for their decision in a campaign finance case by shaking his head and mouthing the words:
Not True
It is nice to see a Supreme Court Justice refuse to participate in a political ceremony that has now devolved through the arrogance and Narcissism of the President into a political ploy designed to appear as if the president is lecturing the Supreme Court for decisions that he doesn’t approve of, in front of the nation and the world.
The 60-year-old justice, an appointee of President George W. Bush, acknowledged with a smile that his colleagues “who are more disciplined refrain from manifesting any emotion or opinion whatsoever.”
Alito, answering questions following a speech Wednesday at the conservative Manhattan Institute in New York, also said, “Presidents will fake you out.” The institute provided an online video link to Alito’s talk and question-and-answer session.
The president will begin a sentence with an invocation of the country’s greatness, Alito said. If justices don’t jump up and applaud, “you look very unpatriotic,” he said.
But, Alito continued, then the president may finish the thought by adding “because we’re conducting a surge in Iraq or because we’re enacting health care reform.” Justices aren’t supposed to react to statements about policy or politics.
The better course, Alito said, is to follow the example of more experienced justices like Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and the recently retired John Paul Stevens. None has attended in several years.
“So I doubt that I will be there in January,” Alito said.
There are a few Democrats that are willing to blame Pelosi for their refusal to listen to their constituencies and vote with Obama on Obama Care and the Stimulus, as if they were robbed of their ‘free will’ and had to follow the dictates of the extremely unpopular Speaker of the House, who maintained that her members would need to pass Obama Care if they wanted to know what was in the bill. Fortunately, there are many citizens who don’t want the country to operate on these Marxist type parliamentary procedures and are more than ready to reject those who supported Pelosi and her dictatorial control of the House. A control that was only real because of the weakness of those who followed the Pelosi/Obama White Rabbit down the outhouse hole.
Call them the anti-Pelosi Democrats who are openly opposing Pelosi for another term as speaker if their party can somehow maintain control of the House. Republicans are widely expected to make big gains in the Nov. 2 elections.
Two Democrats, Reps. Jim Marshall of Georgia and Bobby Bright of Alabama, have even taken out ads saying they won’t support Pelosi in the next Congress.
Marshall told Fox News he’s not running against Pelosi per se; just seeking to neutralize the resonant issue Republicans have created by tying all Democratic candidates to the California Democrat.
Yet Marshall still hedged when asked if he thinks Pelosi has been a “good” speaker.
“It’s a real challenge when somebody comes from a district that is as liberal as Ms. Pelosi’s district to govern from the middle, which is where we need people to be governing,” he said.
Vulnerable first-timer Bobby Bright in Alabama is also pledging to oust Pelosi as speaker as are at least four other House Democrats, from New York to Oregon.
Some may squeak by to hang on to a seat for another go around, condemned to be a lame duck that no one will take seriously during the rest of their term. It is highly possible that the TEA Party may rise to challenge the Republicans in 2012, for Obama is taking the Democrat Party with him to inglorious defeat and humiliation in 2012, if he decides to run.
You can’t help but pity those few states and local politicians who insist on maintaining their Democrat identity, even if it means having almost no representation in Washington, except for a president who appears to be less and less in touch with reality as his failures become more obvious and based on Marxist ideology. Like the cowards who elect to go down with the ship rather than risk jumping to a life boat.
States like Connecticut are involved in hotly contested races and are on the verge of major political upsets with Senate Candidate McMahon, Congressional Candidate Janet Peckinpaugh, Decorated Veteran State Assembly Candidate Chris Coutu and Ct Governor candidate Tom Foley.
In typical Obama style leadership reflecting a Totalitarian Marxist mindset, the same that has condemned him and his policies, the new Norwich Assessor, Donna Ralston, has taken it upon herself to make sure that all businesses honor the letter of the law by reporting the sum total of their equipment. Now we the public are left wondering if these efforts are a method of control by politicians lost in the lust of power and control that was the hay day of the Obama Administration or is this another wise method of increasing the tax base so that local governments can survive in this, The Obama Recession.
Following the Obama template for increasing the public payroll, increasing tax revenue, and attacking businesses, Ralston has added 400 members to her staff and is now going after taxes for all the equipment owned by businesses.
In this profile we have Mr Harold Mecteau, who maintains these collection efforts are counter productive and doing more harm than good. He is a one man home remodeling business doing less than $14,000/year out of his home, he is now being required to pay taxes on his hand tools: the same ones he’s had for years, the circular saw he bought used for $68, the 20 foot ladder that is 30 years old, and his electric drill. The county under Ralston plans to get every tax dime possible no matter how ridiculous the effort seems, for at the core of every Obama Socialist beats the heart of a pure Maoist dictator.
Just this month, Mr Mecteau received a notice from Ralston’s Assessor’s office requiring him to declare his personal property including the tools of his trade. Ralston maintains that she has sent out 400 notices this month asking for people to list their personal property.
“They are supposed to file,” she said. “So if they don’t find me, I find them.”
She said she did in Norwich what she did everywhere else she has worked. She checked the Consumer Protection Agency for business licenses, the secretary of the state’s office for limited liability corporations and incorporated groups and the city clerk for registered businesses. She also looked in the phone book.
“If they’re a home business, they probably don’t have a lot to declare,” she said. “However, fair is fair. If a big business is declaring (personal property), a little business should be declaring, too. We’re not trying to drive them out. We’re just trying to be fair.”
Harold thinks the totalitarian attitude of the local Progressive Socialist Assessor isn’t fair, he is turning 64 in February and admits to slowing down and since the small business man doesn’t get the breaks like the big businesses (GM, Chrysler, and our Banks) it puts an undue pressure on him in this tough economy.
He and his wife live in a three bedroom home that they now share with a grown son that was laid off recently when a relative’s business failed. He has been drawing his Social Security since July and is limited to $1,400 a month income, the Mecteaus pay $5,000 a year in property taxes
The state will reap a tidy sum of $5.12 (that’s right five dollars and twelve cents) after hiring 400 employees for the tax assessor’s office, tracking down Harold, and figuring the depreciation on the equipment. The Democrats feel the control and power is worth the effort despite the diminishing returns on the efforts of the state. In other words they want control over your life. If you buy a pencil and tablet for three dollars, the state needs to know and tax you accordingly; it may also indicate the possibility that you intend on taking on a much larger portion of the economy than you are entitled.
People of Connecticut, you have an opportunity to turn around this hypocrisy and insanity; you have excellent candidates, Senate Candidate McMahon, Congressional Candidate Janet Peckinpaugh, Decorated Veteran State Assembly Candidate Chris Coutu and Ct Governor candidate Tom Foley, who are determined to purge your state of this Obama Totalitarian Government. There is a movement sweeping across America, a reactionary wave to rid ourselves of Obamanism and government intrusion in our lives. The rest of the country is asking you to open your checkbooks and remember to vote for the Conservative candidates. We Americans and Harold Mecteau are counting on you.
A professional horseman for over 50 years, Skook continues to work with horses. Skook has finished an historical novel, Fifty Thousand Years, that traces a mitochondrial line of DNA from 50,000 years ago to the present. The story follows a line of courageous women, from the Ice Ages to the present, as they meet the challenges of survival with grit and creativity. These are not women who whimper of being victims, they meet the challenges of survival as women who use their abilities without excuses or remorse, these women are winners, they are our ancestors.
Fifty Thousand Years is available in paperback and e-book, it is getting great reviews. You can purchase a copy here; Visit me on Facebook.
Twitter: https://twitter.com/Dylantheauthor
That’s such a great picture. 8)
BTW, Skookum, the people of CT are morons. Democrats have ruled this state for 25 years, and the idiots keep re-electing the criminals who have destroyed the state. There are fewer jobs today in CT than there were 20 years ago.
Think about that for a minute.
We are becoming Detroit East.
It is not an accident that we have fallen so far. If you subsidize poverty and you subsidize failure and you subsidize ignorance you get more of it. And it is the subsidy of those negatives that keeps Democrats in power here.
Like many people, a couple of things I am on the lookout for in the near future:
1. Election fraud, both on Nov. 2 (110% turnouts, ballots discarded, polling place intimidation and so on), and in the months that follow (uncounted ballots gradually discovered in trunks of cars, back rooms of polling locations, subway toilets, etc.)
2. Lame-duck legislative orgy in November, December.
And Executive Orders…
O/T but meanwhile the troops are hemmed in by RULZ
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Troops-chafe-at-restrictive-rules-of-engagement_-talks-with-Taliban-1226055-105202284.html
Dreams of 2008 Obama’s Lost Magic
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,723814,00.html
DrJohn, I believe that people can change, especially when faced with the loss of everything including their freedom. In the US we have many who were sincerely seeking change. The man child enticed them with change and they received change; in less than twenty months they came to realize that changing towards one of the Socialist countries of the world Cuba, China, North Korea, or Venezuela with their poverty and oppressive totalitarian regimes are not exactly what they were bargaining for.
There is no doubt that many of the Entitlement Classes are willing to trade freedom for Repression; especially if they think they will gain a better standard of living. A promise that the Obama socialists are only to willing to offer.
Now that the people of Connecticut have had a naked glimpse of Socialism, the producers will hopefully realize how close they are to a complete subversion of American Freedom and rise up to smack it down before the Marxists take root.
@ plainjane31, Great article and this quote stands out for me…
That’s what happens when Career Politicians get involved in diplomacy when the Military issues. IE, beating the Enemy are not completed. Obama’s new NSA, his adviser, has never been to Afghanistan or had any Military experience. Bush and Rumsfeld are history so now this is Obama’s War and his to lose. The same applies to the Economy, Social Security, Medicare and his Health Insurance Scam. It comes with the territory when you seek an office with No Qualifications and an Empty Resume. When you meddle with things that you don’t understand sh*t happens.
Meanwhile in Ohio the Teachers Unions pulled a fast one.
Lawsuit: CPS pushing Democrats
http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/AB/20101018/NEWS010702/10190308/
As we set here and talk about this violation of our consitutional protections and discuss the whys our Federal Government is . . . preparing for ENFORCEMENT. Laws have been passed and scores of people are being trained on exactly how to go about collecting revenues from We the People. There will be a virtual totally new set of IRS forms that We the People will be deluged with. We will no longer be able to comprehend what this paperwork means . . . yet thousands of new aduitors are being produced that will invade every aspect of our lives. Our homes will be OPENED to inventory and our belongings will be evaluated, based on the fact that NOT one of us will be able to protect our holdings because we will be forced to pay . . . and when we can not pay . . . our belongings will be confiscated to pay. The real question is how this is going to be perpetrated . . . Obama has virtually created his “Home Army” . . . He has done so by creating a force of over 15 million unemployeed who are standing in line for that government job. The technical and business resources are there and just waiting. Over the next 6 years the country of our forefathers may very welll cease to exist.
I wondered what brought out the demons …
Democrats have been possessed with taxation for decades.
I heard this quote from 1998 when Jerry Brown was running for mayor of Oakland….he won…..
The conventional viewpoint says we need a jobs program and we need to cut welfare. Just the opposite. We need more welfare and fewer jobs….I’m talking about welfare for all.”
Maybe one of these days people will learn, just because somebody is a constitutional law professor doesn’t necessarily mean he’s loyal to the constitution.
Obama was a mere lecturer, not a professor at all. It was understood by the law faculty at U. Chicago that his appointment to that job was purely at the behest of the Chicago Democratic Machine, and that it was intended only as a short-lived stepping stone to other things, i.e. political office. It carries about as much gravitas as Michelle’s do-nothing $300K “diversity coordinator” job at an organization to which her husband the state senator was then shoveling state money.
It was an arbitrarily-arranged quid pro quo and competence was neither required, nor evident. To the extent O has gained an understanding of the Constitution, it is for the purpose of finding ways to work around its restrictions on Federal Government power.
I got reminded of how obama got elected. Fox had a panel of people from Nevada. What a bunch of idiots. The liberals tried to lay low but they outed themselves with their memorized talking points (Angle too extreme, we need an experienced congressman to fight for Nevada).
The funniest one was a black woman who spouted nothing but dem talking points, but claimed she was the head of some Republican group and said she was a “sensible Republican.” Uh huh. She’s either a flaming RINO or an ACORN stooge who is the only member of her Republican group.
@ Hard Right,
Good pick-up. She was lying. Her voice, manner, movements of eyes and hands, breathing, loudly shouted, . . . “I am lying and I shouldn’t be here.” A wild guess would also suggest that she wasn’t a new crop of entrepreneur, but that her only paying job, was to be in that audience.
She (RE# 15 & 16) might be one of ~200 RINO’s Harry Reid said joined into a new group called: “Republicans for Harry Reid.”
Every other one I’ve seen named has been a RINO.
Bill Raggio is on the list and he ran AGAINST Angle in the primary!
Skookum, it looks like Steny Hoyer is getting a run for his money, instead of funneling it from his war chest to and compaigning for… fellow dems as he usually does, he’s being forced to stay home and fight for and spend his cash on his own seat.
A very big man made Hoyer look very small.
Meet Charles Lollar
Not only did Hoyer threaten Charles Lollar after their debate, he knuckle punched him twice in the back, Charles Lollar touched on that in the press conference video posted down page.
Hoyer’s campaign denied any of it happening, in the age of tiny little cameras and cell phones, silly people. 😯
http://somd.com/news/headlines/2010/12650.shtml
Apparently the young whipper snapper embarrassed Rep. “tax, tax and spend, spend Hoyer. Hoyer used to remind his voters that he was a tax and spender, this year he’s dropped that soundbite from his campaign rhetoric.
Note Marine Corps Major Lollar’s response:
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=117087611686398&ref=mf
And, if you really want to love this guy, it get’s better, visit his press conference video, 9:10 minutes of time well spent, he’s absolutely outstanding!
Everyone watch it! Hoorah!
Hoyer says he’s “going after” a black man.
You gotta love it.
Something just hit me yesterday — the GOP is screwed in 2012. The Dems have set a trap that is going to ruin the GOP and make them look like total fiscal frauds.
The GOP is set to take over the House in November; let’s assume they get it done. Just as the GOP refused to do the 2007 budget as they lost control in November 2006, the Dems have refused to do the 2011 budget. So the lame duck session will have before it no budget and expiring Bush tax cuts. And on December 1, the Obama deficit reduction commission’s report drops.
Now pay attention kids because here is where you are sunk. Assume that, somehow, all the Bush tax cuts are passed. That would add $157 billion to the deficit.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0913/Bush-tax-cuts-101-What-changes-could-be-in-store-for-taxpayers
The deficit for FY 2010 was $1.4 trillion, meaning adding on the Bush tax cuts makes the projected FY 2011 deficit about $1.6 trillion.
It is one thing for Obama to sign off in 2010 on $1.4 trillion in spending. It is quite another thing for Obama to get a deficit reduction report suggesting spending cuts and tax increases, then sign off on a GOPer budget with a $1.6 trillion deficit. Why in the world would he ever do that?
I can hear the speech now —
“The Republican Party ran on a platform of fiscal responsibility; and they won the House on November 2. I respect that election and the voters call for change in Washington. The Deficit Reduction Commission report, issued on December 1, called for drastic changes in federal spending. Instead of proposing less spending and smaller deficits, the Congressional Republicans just submitted a budget to me that increases the deficit this year by more than 10%. I will not sign off on this drastic increase in spending proposed by the Republicans. I have sent to the House some of my spending preferences and I am willing to work with the Republicans on details. But let me be perfectly clear: I will veto any spending bill that spends more in 2011 than was spent in 2010.”
Think about it, cons: if you DO push through all those tax cuts, you are increasing the deficit more than 10% in one year. In order to get back to the pre-2008 spending, the GOP would have to whack somewhere near $800 billion in spending without the tax cuts, but $957 billion in spending cuts WITH the tax cuts.
Now I understand that, in reality, cons don’t care about deficits; Dick Cheney disabused everyone of that fiction. But if you are going to run and win on fiscal responsibility, you have to produce. And you also run the risk that Obama will call you on that b.s.
I can see it now: GOPers offer too much spending (because none of them have set forth any plans to cut any spending), and Obama, relying on the deficit reduction report, vetoes those bills as “too much spending.” You have set yourselves a trap by not supporting the deficit reduction commission, by not getting those deficit reduction proposals out, then by “forcing” Obama to veto GOPer overspending! How the hell did y’all do that?
@ Missy…
Yep, you called it right.
Missy, that is a heart warming add by Lollar: how will the people of Southern Maryland resist him and his family?
Punching a Marine in the back illustrates the stupidity of the Democrat Congress and it’s leadership, but more importantly it illustrates the discipline of a Marine officer, while being provoked. Outstanding Major Lollar, outstanding indeed!
I think Hoyer has had the biscuit!
Hoorahhh!
Trouble with your little scenario is that there are a number of democrats in both houses that agree with saving the tax cuts on “the rich” and have campaigned on it. Allowing the “Bush” tax cuts to expire turns into an “Obama” tax hike against small business which would turn a very weak recovery into a second recession.
That’s the message that’s being sold across the country by the blue dogs and the Independent Joe Lieberman who favors keeping the cuts for at least an additional year. Moderate democrats are reluctant to put their name on something that will raise taxes while the economy is in the tank, they favor keeping the tax cuts in place until they see if the economy is heading for recovery.
So, if they intend to keep their word, Obama will have problems with the democrats he has left. Being as though he’s thrown many of those who voted for Obamacare under the bus, I doubt they are likely to stand with him again, that is, if they are returned to office.
Evidently the boys and girls on your side of the aisle have a clearer understanding of the value of those tax cuts.
@Old Trooper 2:
@Skookum:
You were both in my mind as I went link to link today reading about Major Lollar.
BTW, I believe Lucianne found the photo that pretty much book ends that one you chose for your blog:
http://lucianne.com/article/?pageid=revenge_of_the_nerd
It’s heartwarming to read illogical and pathetically presented pretence at argument such as the ideologue’s crap in Comment #20. Arguments mounted on weak assumptions will only fools the feeble who cower in front of insults and shouts. Socialists seem to have little grasp of human nature, or what fuels the America’s economic engines, and they don’t stand a chance of controlling America.
For an example of how Cutting Taxes can stimulate an economy, and help REDUCE the Deficit, look North of the 49th parallel to Canada in the mid 90s.
Canada hit a low point where it was actually being described as a Third World Nation because of its overwhelming debt – the debt had aggregated Federally and Provincially to 120% of GDP (this is almost 20% more than the current U.S. ratio). Canada had moved too far to the left in the political spectrum, and anyone who could leach off the taxpayer, did so.
Interest rates climbed and Canada lost its AAA rating. The abyss was around the corner. Drastic action was required.
In 1995, broad reaching changes were implemented to the taxation system – capital gains taxes were reduced, income taxes were reduced, corporate taxes were slashed by a third. Severe cuts were made to the Federal Government payrolls (14%) and a 9% ax was taken to all Federal programs. Welfare collectors were tracked and anyone capable of working was pushed out to the work force, and off the taxpayer’s back. The percentage of people on welfare dropped almost 50%. Canada’s economic growth leaped ahead of other developed countries.
The Canadian fiscal “turnaround” was complete before the end of the decade. The country’s debt-to-GDP ratio is now the lowest of G7 economies at about 77% (U..S. = 98%) and it has a healthy deficit to GDP ratio.
TWO LESSONS:
Slash all spending, and Slash taxes => Energize the economy.
When the next Congress sits, take the biggest ax to the budget and to taxes, then, . . . DARE Obama to veto the budgets and the necessary bills.
U.S. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner said this week, “We will not devalue the U.S. dollar.” In my short life time, every time an administration anywhere in the world uttered these words, the currency was devalued. Guess we have something to look forward to! This couldn’t be another deception by the Obama administration. After all, Tim is a stand up guy after he pays his taxes. (He did pay his taxes, didn’t he?)
From BRob:
This is the simple spin leftists use time and time again with tax cuts. Yet, they cannot show any time in history that tax cuts have added to the debt. What can be shown is that every time tax cuts are enacted, federal receipts increase in the following years.
Ignorance of facts makes a leftist happy. Unfortunately, many misinformed people listen to their emotional pleas instead of looking at the factual evidence, and we get progressives voted into office.
@ Randy, I would not trust Geithner to park my truck, let alone look after the Treasury. As I recall Al Capone was sent off to the Big House for Tax Fraud. 😉
@ johngalt,
It is at the core of the socialist ethic that redistribution of wealth starts with Increased Taxation. The higher the taxes, the better, since they think that’s the way to Take from the rich.
These fools believe they are being sly, even coy. They pretend not to associate with or acknowledge the example of the USSR disaster which evidenced the outcome when oppression of the human spirit is applied to a whole society.
On the other hand, the positive example of Canada in the mid 90s when taxes were dramatically reduced, as I note in #25, is also ignored.
Meanwhile Obama keeps whining, and promoting victimhood.
@ johngalt, James and Missy —
The Bush administration, back in 2004, admitted that the tax cuts they enacted exacerbated the deficit. This is, of course, obviously true. When you cut taxes BY DEFINITION you reduce revenues; in fact, that is your intention, to take in less money. Indeed, the 2001 tax cut was sold on the premise that the government had enough money to run a surplus and so government “could afford” a tax cut.
What did the Obama tax cuts do, as well as the diversion of payroll taxes to find the COBRA subsidies? They decreased government’s tax collections and increased borrowing. That was the plan, of course, to fund economic stimulus by borrowing from the Chinese.
In fact, johngalt, if tax cuts actually increase government revenues, then why don’t states cut taxes when revenues are running short? Because they will take in LESS MONEY.
James you gave a political reason why Obama should sign off on the tax cuts; but you missed my point, James. If Obama DOES sign off on the tax cuts, that will make the projected deficits even worse because current projections assume that the rates will return to pre-Bush levels. The tax cuts, per the one estimate, will cut revenues by $157 billion per year. That represents about 10% of the deficit last year. So just to stand still, deficit-wise, the GOPers will need to find $157 billion in spending cuts. Having campaigned on defense, Social Security and Medicare being sacred cows, good luck with that!
This is, of course, why no GOPer will explain how they will get the budget back to balance; it makes the cons calling for “a balanced budget amendment” look even more foolish. You don’t need and amendment to balance the budget, you need, as Nike would say, to “Just do it!”
That, my friends, is where the GOP is now screwed. If Obama takes a hard line on the deficits that the GOP in the House will be sending him . . . good Lord, do you see how screwed you would be?
OH, I HOPE I HOPE I HOPE he does it! I fact, after HIS deficit reduction commission releases its report, I don’t see how he can’t.
I have always challenged liberals — why is it that liberals believe in conserving energy and saving the environment, but not in conserving tax dollars and not wasting money on low priority programs? I ask cons the same thing: why is it that EVERY government program is filled with “waste, fraud and abuse” (or as reagan called it “fat”) except Defense? How can the GOP call for adding back in $500 billion in Medicare spending that Obamacare cuts . . . where are we going to get that money from? In fact, there are cons who are arguing that we should INCREASE defense spending, because we spent more percentage wise during the Cold War. Why the hell would we do that? Just because? Defense dollars have to borrowed from China the same as welfare dollars; spending is spending is spending, whether it is a gun or a pound of butter.
No.cons, y’all have asked to be allowed to drive the car again now that it is out of the ditch. That means you have to figure out a way to keep between the lines this time, or Uncle Barack is gonna take the keys away AGAIN and not give them back.
@ johngalt —
Seems someone in the Bush administration disagrees with the assertion that tax cuts don’t decrease revenues!
http://www.slate.com/id/2078115/
Quoting from the Bush Administration’s 2004 budget report:
Got that? They admit that “tax relief” added to the deficit.
In addition, you will not find ANY GOPer who is advocating for the Bush tax cuts who claims that they will not increase the deficit; instead, they argue that its is not appropriate to increase taxes during a recession. That, of course, is not the question; the question is the effect of reducing revenues if you do not reduce spending dollar for dollar. Which is, of course, to increase the deficit.
I have no idea how the GOP is going to deal with this problem if they win back the House; God forbis they win the Senate, too, because then they will have no one else to blame. Indeed, when you castigate Obama and the Dems for running $1.4 trillion deficits, how do you NOT come back with lower deficits? That will be the test as to whether teabaggers are legit, or just partisan shills: will they be screaming and brandishing pitchforks if the GOPers try to ram through a $1.6 trillion deficit in 2011?
@ B-Rob,
If in your mind #25 is a political reason then no point pushing the rope further up the hill. Your attacks in response to Mata and John are continuing evidence of the fact that you don’t read the comments you pretend to respond to. Try just a little harder to demonstrate some cleverness. So far, . . . not much of it – ideological talking points are too easy to copy.
@B-Rob, what’s up, Billy Bob? Afraid to face the music?
Or just waiting to wash your undies before you have to eat your shorts?
That would be that unexpected truck labeled “reality”, Billy Bob. Your “facts” and “reality” are juxtaposition.
BTW… keep washing those shorts, dude. Will be a particularly nasty snack if you don’t. @See above.
I see that Mr. ParaLegal2, our resident slow learner, is still pounding away on the tax cuts / revenues meme.
Too bad the facts don’t support his conclusions.
Here’s the inconvenient truth that b-rob the liar wishes to ignore:
Capital gains revenue reality:
Furthermore, revenues were collected at record levels following the Bush tax cuts:
“Highest Level of Federal Receipts in History”…….
View at EasyCaptures.com
@BRob
I will ask this of you: Show me proof, either in a graph, or concrete evidence, that tax cuts do not increase federal revenue. I will wait patiently.
P.S. You can go back to any tax cut in the history of our country, if you want to.
If you cannot, then one must conclude, since we can show graphs that every tax cut DOES increase federal revenue, that tax cuts do not result in additions to the deficit.
@ Aye and johngalt —
Surely, aye, you are NOT claiming that the increase in revenues in the years after the tax cuts are BECAUSE OF the tax cuts, as opposed to the growth of the economy. And, surely, you are not claiming that the economy grew BECAUSE OF the tax cuts; because if that were true (and it is not) every state would CUT TAXES when the economy slows and, therefore, get more revenue. But, of course, that is not what they do, because it does not work.
Look, guys — no one on the right is still selling supply side economics. No one actually believes that a cut in marginal tax rates from 36% to 30% accounts for higher. Indeed, cons, if that were so, there would have been NO DEFICITS after the Bush tax cuts. And, as I pointed out, the Bush administration admitted in 2004 that the deficits were cause, in part, by tax relief. This, of course, is self explanatory. (I am using apporximate numbers, so bear with me). If I plan on spending $2 trillion and plan on $2.2 trillion in collections, I can afford a tax cut of $200 billion and still be in balance. The problem was that in FY 2002, after the $200 billion tax cut, decreased rates and decreased economic activity (recession followed by 9/11) conspired to deliver only $1.8 trillion in revenues against the planned $2 trillion in spending. We borrowed the remaining $200 billion. The economy slowly came back in FY 2003, but that was when the second round of tax cuts kicked in, and we then dropped another $200 billion in collections. Which is why after FY 2002.
The GOP could have avoided this, of course, by continuing in FY 2001 the “pay as you go” rules that balanced the budget in the first place. Under that rule, every dollar in tax cuts had to be offset by a dollar in spending cuts; an additional dollar in spending increases here had to be offset by a dollar in spending cuts elsewhere. But what did the GOP shove through in early 2001? This load o’ crap:
http://old.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bartlett081902.asp
This article explains what dynamic scoring is and why cons supported it. But you know what sentence jumps out and obliterates your entire “we ain’t got to reduce no spending because the Magic Tax Cut fairie will bring us higher revenues” meme? This one:
Got that? And that is from 2002, written by someone who supported the Bush tax cuts! Tax cuts, be definition, reduce government revenues. Hell, all you have to do is do the math: if the baseline is 22.5% tax rate, and that is cut to 20%, on the marginal dollar, the government will collect 2.5 cents less. Now you may claim that EVENTUALLY, down the road, the 2.5 cents will turn into a gusher of dollars; but that is not how accounting works. In fact, even the Bushies admitted the obvious: tax cuts do NOT “pay for themselves”:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/882137/posts
The last sentence is the key: “There is no free lunch.”
This is the fact, cons: our current deficit projections ALL assume that the Bush tax cuts will expire and rates and tax collections will increase in FY 2011; that is the law that the GOPers shoved through in 2001 and 2003 and that is what Bush signed off on. If those tax cuts are reset, then whoever is in control of the House appropriations will need to adjust revenue numbers down by about $157 billion, a little more than 10% of our current deficit. Like I said — this years $1.4 trillion deficit becomes about a $1.6 trillion deficit if spending is flat.
Now, cons, I am wondering: will you and the teabaggers will be all boiled over about deficits when you guys are running deficits higher in 2011 than the Dems did in 2010? The GOP Congress in the 2001 to 2007 timeframe was running consistent $300 to $500 billion deficits. So will the GOP make any effort to cut spending off the current deficit and drop about $1 trillion in spending to get back to where they had the deficits in those years? I would LOVE IT if the GOP really becomes deficit hawks. But have reintroduced us to deficits in 2001 through 2007, and running huge deficits when the economy was expanding, I have no confidence whatsoever that they will do anything different now. And that, my friends, will probably earn Obama his second term.
@ B-Rob, as usual you missed the point entirely. The tax cuts enabled the growth of the economy and as usual, you missed the point.
This paragraph from a 2002 Bush era CBO report explains what was wrong with what the GOP did when it was handling the purse strings:
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/35xx/doc3511/05-09-02-SupplementTestimony.pdf
Short translation: if you cut taxes and cut spending to offset that revenue loss, the economy will grow faster. If you cut taxes and continue spending and use debt to fill the gap, the economy will grow slower. Why? Because debt today is nothing more than a tax increase delayed until tomorrow.
The GOP cut taxes in 2001 and 2003 but borrowed the balance, rather than cut spending. THAT, according to Douglas Holz-Eakins, was a recipe for slower growth when the inevitable tax increase has to come. There is no free lunch . . . .
The beef I have with you, johngalt and Aye, is that you refuse to even consider spending cuts to pay for the tax cuts. Because there are two possible outcomes: you are right and tax cuts increase revenues, or the CBO and I are right and you have to offset tax cuts with spending cuts. If you are right, everything is hunky doory. But if you are wrong, we have a disaster worse that where we are now. You guys, rather than doing the truly conservative thing and offsetting tax cuts with spending cuts, are relying on the same Magic Tax Cut Fairie to shower down dollars that Reagan relied on. But remember what happened back in the 1980s? Deficits exploded and Reagan had to raise taxes, and so did Bush I, and so did Clinton, before we got back to balance.
So there it is: if the GOP is REALLY going to try to get a tax cut through and get deficits back to FY 2007 levels (the last Bush and GOP Congress budget cycle), then the GOP will need to find somewhere in the area of $1.2 trillion in spending cuts. If they forego the Bush tax cuts, they have to cut a “mere” $1 trillion.
@Old Trooper 2:
Just add the basic principles of Economics 101 to the ever-growing list about which Mr. ParaLegal2 knows less than nothing.
I give him facts and figures…even charts and graphs (though not drawn with crayons)…and the reality of the discussion sails right over his head without even slowing down.
Of course, this is the same guy who falsely claims that Clinton had a budget surplus and that the CRA did not apply to residential mortgages.
As comedian Tater Salad says: “You can’t fix stupid.”
@ Aye Chihuahua, Good Morning Pardner.
“The Cure for Ignorance is Information. The Cure for Stupid is believing the last BS notion that a liar sold you and suffering under that delusion for the rest of your life”.
It is nice of B-Rob to share his delusions but some of us know better.
Old Trooper and Aye —
Just wondering — why are you cons so hostile to the concept of cutting spending as you cut taxes? Since you KNOW now that Bush’s CBO laid out the long-term dangers of cutting taxes and borrowing, how can you ignore the impact it will have on the budget?
Aye —
The Bush administration was handed a budget surplus. That surplus, and the projected future surpluses, was part of the rationale for the 2001 tax cuts.
But if you are right (and you are not), then you are saying there was no surplus, and you are telling me that the Bushies decided to expand the deficit on top of the deficit that was there when Bush came in.
So, Aye, why was the Bush administration and the GOP Congress so reckless as to add deficit spending on to of the supposed deficit Clinton gave them?
Aye —
Read the entire supplemental testimony by Douglas Holz-Eakins, the former CBO head who also advised John McCain on economic issues. He explains why the magical thinking, the “free lunch” philosophy behind “tax cuts increase tax revenues” is so flawed. The CBO agrees with me, not you and johngalt: tax cuts must be offset by spending cuts, otherwise you just explode the deficit. I am not getting this from Karl Marx or any of your other boogie men; I am getting this from the Republican CBO, which studied the issue long and hard before concluding that there was no free lunch. Tax cuts do not pay for themselves, so you need to get spending cuts with tax cuts otherwise you explode the deficit.
@B-Rob:
Such a tiresome waste of flesh you are…
We’ve covered this issue already. Of course, you dashed away, never to return to that thread.
Sort of like you did when Mata sliced and diced your azz yesterday and handed it to you on a Chinette platter.
Anyway, for the sake of the reading audience, here are the facts regarding the Clinton “surplus”:
For a guy who claims to have an advanced level of edumakashun you sure are a slow learner.
@ Aye Chihuahua…You can buy them books, send them to school…I reckon that you get my drift…
😉
@Aye and Old Trooper
Thank you both for taking the “fool to school” in my absence. I’m not sure that it helped much though, as BRob continually mistakes the liberal/progressive falsehoods as the truth. Anyone with one small iota of sense knows that tax cuts spur economic growth, yet we see the “enlightened” left still railing against the tax cuts “for the rich”.
This guy isn’t seriously a paralegal, is he? One would think that a paralegal, or fulltime attorney wouldn’t be stupid enough to fall for the liberal/progressive hash. But, then again, that is the intellectually lazy for you.
@johngalt:
He claims to be an attorney out in Ohio. 🙄
@BRob
Really?
http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=676
The fact is that the year following the passage of the Bush tax cuts, federal revenue growth was greater than the revenue growth during Clinton’s most prosperous years(27% for Bush vs 17% for Clinton). To what do we owe the increased federal revenue? Certainly not simple growth of the economy, as one has to consider growth during Clinton’s second term as pretty good, yet the growth of federal revenue following Bush’s tax cuts was better. A thinking man, who uses reason has to admit that tax cuts have positive effects on federal revenue.
http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/taxcutfacts.htm
Is it so hard to admit that you do not know?
Simplified economic engine for you:
You, an owner of a small business, have x amount at the end of the year after wages, overhead, insurance, etc.
Now, let’s say that instead of x, you are given x+y. What do you do? Most small business owners, wishing to increase business and market share, dump that money back into their business, either through expansion, or increased operating hours, both of which require more hours from workers. The workers make more and owe more in taxes. On top of that, the demand for a product, or products, through that store has increased thus, the supplier has to make more product, meaning more hours for workers, who make more, and owe more in taxes.
In addition, the workers themselves have more to spend, and they do spend it, increasing demand for products, forcing suppliers to increase supply to stores, workers work more hours, or more workers are hired, more money, more taxes, etc., etc., etc.
That is a very, very simplified explanation, but the drift is easy to catch for most people. Tax cuts spur economic growth, which spurs higher federal revenues, creates more jobs, more people are put to work, and so on, and so on.
@Missy
Really? I guess ignorance comes in many forms from all walks of life.