Republican Leaders Draw A Line In The Sand
Both Boehner and McConnell have declined invitations to a state dinner by President Obama to honor the Chinese leader Hu. Obama is like a giddy schoolgirl getting ready for a date with the high school quarterback as he bends over to make the Hu feel special. Now Obama must feel smitten, since the White House had advised Congressional leaders that they were expected to attend the state dinner for Hu.
Nancy Pelosi, D. CA, has been a critic of China’s human rights record, but is anxious to be in the spotlight with a world leader and our gift from G-d. She will surely take the opportunity to quiz the Chinese dictator on China’s human rights’ violations with her inane sense of intellect and wit or perhaps Obama has wisely told her to keep her pie hole shut.
Shakespeare understood the addiction of the Progressive Socialists, and described the problem over 400 years ago.
Henry IV, Shakespeare:
I can get no remedy from this consumption of the purse; borrowing only lingers and lingers it out, but the disease is incurable.
This is only the third state dinner of Obama’s Administration and with his attention to extravagance and to show the dictator how we Americans can waste public funds, the dinner will probably be epic for a country that is mired in a recession and near bankruptcy. Every attempt will be made to show the man who wants, (has already decided) to dump the dollar as the international currency standard, that he is absolutely correct in his assessment of America’s financial leadership and wisdom, especially with the current administration.
For Boehner and McConnell to decline their invitation may seem like a lack of manners and etiquette to many; however, Harry Reid, who referred to the dictator as a dictator, is predisposed in Nevada and will meet with the Chinese dictator with Boehner and McConnell on Thursday as well.
Boehner, when quizzed about missing the state dinner, replied with diplomatic aplomb:
“Without accepting most of that question, the president of China is coming to the Hill on Thursday. We’re going to meet with him in a bipartisan fashion and I look forward to seeing him in the future.”
A rare show of diplomacy is appreciated in Washington these days; however, the question is remains in the shadows, like an assassin with a knife, how much of a friend is this country we call China. Can we trust them? or is their intention to destroy us economically and militarily. With a leader like President Obama, they know they can seize the advantage and manipulate his obeisance and hero worship of Communist leaders and dictators as if he were a gullible child.
(View all pictures of Chinese execution: Warning Graphic)
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
@Wm T Sherman: you question why “average” people didn’t demonstration against spending in 2009? Conservatives did. We no longer had a majority, thus less power. What scares the sht out of me is, the damage they have foisted upon this country so quickly.
My family is wondering if it’s time to head for the hills.
ps, “average” people are usually conservative.
What we, again, have here is a failure to communicate. And in your “attempt” to rebut, you will continually mischaracterize my acknowledgement of your extremely simple statement, Larry.
What you say is that if there is a “tax cut”, or in this case, no tax increase, there is “lost revenue”. In the most simple of views, that is true. At least for that moment. Obviously, if you have $100K, and last year I took a 15% cut of that, but this year I’ll be taking a 10% cut, that is… in the most base terms… a loss of revenue.
Now you want to expand it to increasing the deficit? Nope… two different critters.
I never said that, Larry. And I do believe that the Reagan tax policies, where he chose to take less revenue from the taxpayer, and then start working on the tax code credits and deductions proves quite handily that “tax cuts” did indeed result in a trend of increasing revenue to the government.
On the other hand, Clinton’s IRS increases, combined with his cuts in IRS tax code for credits did exactly the opposite.. they resulted in a trend of declining revenue stream.
Neither of them has squat to do with the deficit, because the deficit is a gap or ratio between income and spending. Your deficit will get larger if you spend more, and steal less from the taxpaying public. Your deficit will decrease if you cut spending, and still steal less from the taxpaying public. And your deficit will still grow if you steal more from the taxpayers, and spend yet even more.
Spending is the all important trend that needs addressing here. The entitlement programs – all of them – must be phased out.
The spending – which has been on the increase with every Congress and every admin – skyrocketed after 2007, and tripled since 2009. These are impossible figures to argue. But I’m sure you’ll constantly be refining the spin as to the responsibility for that.
Not only do I NOT care if B-rob is offended by the term, because it’s him I’m MORE likely to use it now. In fact, MANCHILD, MANCHILD, MANCHILD!!!!!
@Hard Right:
I concur.
Obama just fell into the ”manchild syndrome” arena when he proclaimed that IF the Chicago Bears make it to the Super Bowl he’d be there to see it in person.
What a d!*#.
No concern about the cost to us taxpayers.
No concern about the inconvenience laid on all the attendees.
No concern about anyone but himself!
Oh, and he dyes his hair!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1348933/Has-Barack-Obama-dyed-hair-black-hide-greying-locks.html
Sheesh, we’ve used that term since 2003, never thinking it was racist, sorry for starting all this.
Manchild was his hill to die on yet he never would consider that his term for the tea partiers was offensive.
No need to use my own “summary” of Billy Bob’s comment, and his insistence that any further usage of “manchild” would be interpreted (by him) as racist, Curt. I’ll supply his own words here that note just that.
As Billy Bob ‘fesses, he was deliberately race baiting, which was why@I made my comment #21. We all noticed, and I publicly called him on his racist views.
But now, the PC, easily offended, not-quite-as-educated-as-he’d-like-to-believe, would-be word Nazi has been banned. Will he be upset he can no longer spam FA? Not likely…
OMG… what a bunch of hoo’ey over a well used term in the current media for many a personality. “Manchild”, in the new O’faithful world, is now “racist language” if applied to the POTUS or anyone black. Give me a friggin’ break. Any other special concessions for language you lib/progs want? You’re so busy finding new words and phrases to place off limits daily, I’m wondering when any of you will ever realize just how un American you are in your quest.
Well, FA is far from an echo chamber. But it will be nice to lose an undeniable racist/word Nazi. LOL
ta ta, Billy Bob. I’d like to say I found you stimulating and shall miss you, but that would be lying. You were more the mouse to the cat… someone I could stalk and toy with when I had spare time and an over abundance of patience.
@B-Rob: the black constituents vote for your crowd only because you’ve bought and paid for it.
ps. Is Chrissie Matthews a racist since he called me a “cracker”?
No way this can be twisted as being ”racist.”
Politico is reporting that Carol Moseley Braun is very upset with Bill Clinton, after he campaigned for Rahm (dead fish) Emmanuel as opposed to any of the people-of-color candidates.
She went so far as to remind Bill that they (people-of-color) stood by Bill during his ”Monica Lewinsky problems….”
The whole story is here:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47818.html
@Missy, actually I think the forum owes you a big thank you for the boot that eventually kicked Billy Bob over the cliff. :0)
@mata:
The data from the very study you cited contradicts your assertion that Reagan’s tax policies led to increased tax revenue in an amount sufficient to overcome the loss of revenue as a result of the rate cut. His tax cuts were directly responsible for a massive loss of revenue, which is why he doubled the debt ratio, after 35 prior years of a continuous pay down. That’s what the very data showed, which you chose to cite. Vice-versa for Clinton’s tax hikes. Which is why Clinton reversed Reagan’s debt increase, only to have it go back up — way up — as a function of the Bush tax hikes.
http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=ny_gdp_mktp_kd_zg&idim=country:USA&dl=en&hl=en&q=gdp+growth+rate
I’ve addressed your “revenue trends” before. The curve slopes are relating to differences in where you start, GDP growth wise. Reagan inherited a big recession (and GHW Bush ultimately bequeathed a bit of a recession to Clinton, but this was short lived and small, compared to Reagan’s). Of course the “trend” will be steeper, when you are starting from the bottom of a bigger hole. Clinton didn’t start in a big hole, didn’t climb as high, but stayed near the top longer. This will produce a shallower trend line in revenues (which track with GDP changes), but increasing total revenues to a greater degree. Obama started in an even bigger hole; so his GDP recovery is going to exceed Reagan’s, and so will his “revenue trend.”
But these “revenue trends” are meaningless, in the present discussion of tax policy versus deficits.
According to your logic (it’s spending, not taxes), Reagan must have been the most drunk-sailor spender in history — but, no, he wasn’t. The growth of the Federal budget has been very constant over the past 40 years. Deficits didn’t track with the built in, steady growth in spending, they tracked precisely with tax policy and tax collections. Tax collections being a function of GDP and tax rates.
As your study showed (and as all economists agree), tax cuts never pay for themselves by generating more economic activity to produce more tax revenue than they cost in revenue lost from the rate cuts. Which is why you didn’t hear McConnell or Boehner defending extension of tax cuts for the rich on the basis that doing so would help control the deficit. Instead, they were defended as “it would be bad to rescind them in these hard times.” Neither did they challenge the assertion that extending the Bush tax cuts would add $2.1 trillion more to the deficit. No one really disagrees with this. No one believes in the Laffer Curve anymore. Not even Laffer.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Curt and friends A manchild is a grown man that is extremely immature.Rush was first to so christen Obama and his minions of lemmings soon followed suit.No better or worse than the teabaggers here have referenced Obama previously.IMHO Brob is certainly not as bad as some of your far right fanatics.
A respectful Semper Fi to my fellow jarhead
@B-Rob #46
Ya know, last Sunday I had the pleasure of working with a kid named “Stevie”. Gymnastics is therapeutic for him. Stevie is pretty high-functioning autistic. He hasn’t done back flips on the trampoline since transitioning to the gym I currently work at. But Sunday I spotted him in the belt; then hand-spotted him; then turned him loose to try it by himself. At first he wouldn’t do it, so I hand-spotted him again to help his confidence. After that, he did it by himself. I wanted to shout out, “Attaboy!”, thought twice about it, and just said, “Good job, Stevie! Way to go!” After some more successes in the gym, I said to myself, “Eff it”, and gave myself permission to spout out “Attaboy!” if it felt spontaneous; if it felt right. Why would I hesitate in the first place? Because Stevie’s black.
But why should I treat him any differently than any of my other students? Because I’ve been made to be sensitive to certain words that have a history. But what is the context in which I wanted to use the word “boy”? What was my intent? How much weight and gravitas- how much power- do we give to such a common usage word? And when do we take away the power of that word to wound?
I used that word for Stevie in a colorblind way…my original suppression of it was not colorblind. I treated Stevie as I would any boy (Stevie’s 17) under my care and tutorship. Somehow, I don’t think Stevie cared that I referred to him as a boy. Is he ignorant of the negative, historical connotations? Maybe. I said it right in front of his mom, but she didn’t even bat an eyelash. Was it because Stevie’s mom is white? Certainly, it’s not because she is unaware of its ability to be used as a word to wound. The thing about Stevie’s mother is that she adopted him, knowing he was a mess (not just autistic, but under some pretty wretched background I won’t go further into). And she adopted him as a young boy out of love and compassion. Is it okay for her to refer to her son as “her boy”? After all, she’s white…she shouldn’t do that, should she? Lest it offend the B-Rob’s of the world…
Being sensitive to the power of words and how it affects the feelings of others should be taken into consideration. However, sometimes the power of “words that wound” can lose their power if they are simply reclaimed as ordinary, everyday words, applicable to anyone without regard to race. To make blacks exempt from a word that applies to all other “races”….that in itself perpetuates racism and keeps in the forefront of one’s thought the distinction of “racial differences” rather than “colorblindness”.
This isn’t to say that one should be completely insensitive to history and be sensitive to the feelings of others. But what is the path to moving beyond racism…?
I know I posted this before.
But you cannot negotiate with reality.
It is futile to try to increase tax revenues by increasing tax rates on the richest.
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/11/30/the-futility-of-tax-hikes-in-pictures/
Only three things can help us now:
Cutting spending
Shrinking government
Allowing for more economic growth
Obama opposes all three.
But since he’s kept open Gitmo and is now even going to start trying detainees in military tribunals there, who knows?
Maybe he can come around.
@John ryan:
Absolutely. Living in a Very small town, there are poor prospects for jobs; however there is plenty of housing available at very low cost. However, if there would be initiative for inventions, small business, small industries, those people could thrive here!
@nan: Heritage graph misleading. Can’t get back for a long time (gotta work), but will have at it, when able. – Larry W
@Nan G, #65:
And yet, during all the years when our top bracket rate was markedly higher, annual deficits were relatively low and the national debt was small and entirely manageable. We even managed to pay down the enormous debts that had resulted from necessary deficit spending during World War II.
For some odd reason, the national debt began its unrelenting climb at precisely the point the idea that “tax cuts increase revenue” set in. The most rapid increase in our accumulated national debt has coincided with the lowest tax rates since the 1950s.
all of those uber rich liberals attending the dinner wish to heartily thank ALL who supported the extension of the tax cuts for the super wealthy. The elites of America applaud those lower classes who helped to keep them rich. ELITES CANNOT AFFORD TO PAY HIGH TAXES BETTER FOR THE DEFICIT TO GO UP THAN FOR A SINGLE ELITE TO CRY!!
I hope that Maine lobster was caught at the mouth of the Saco River near where the City of Biddeford releases their waste water.
Oh and Skookum, there are some people on this earth that deserve to die. Charles Manson. The 7 guys in who kidnapped and raped a guy and his girlfriend, poured bleach down their throats, mutilated the girl while still alive. Child molesters, gangbangers, Mexican drug carriers, a certain leader of Iran……
@Nan (#66): Found what I remembered (and , along the way, found even better on a Perot web site — more on that later).
Anyway, here’s the rebuttal to Hauser:
http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/79495/lying-chart-the-day-classic-edition
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Greg, I think you will note also that government began to grow when politicians began complaining that a status quo for a department budget was akin to shrinking that department.
Then, more recently, a less-than-large INCREASE in the budget of a department was complained about as a cutting back of that department.
The more I think about it the more I am sure George Orwell was right.
Newspeak is here.
Only under Newspeak can an increase in a governmental department’s budget be ”doubleplus ungood,” because it is not enough to please the Big Brothers of today.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
I think your buddy forgets the huge tech bubble that burst just as GW Bush took office.
Not tax hike, tax-staying-the -same or tax cut was going to keep revenues where they were before it popped.
In fact, all the governmental employee unions that locked in retirement guarantees before that pop are what has our states in so much financial trouble today.
@nan: show me where government “began to grow”
http://perotcharts.com/category/charts/budget-deficit-charts/
– Larry
@Nan: (#74): But it punctures your theory that tax rates don’t matter. They clearly do. With the tech bubble recession, GDP went down, but the graph wasn’t a GDP graph and it wasn’t a revenue graph, it was a revenue/GDP graph. So this should have stayed at 19% of GDP — but it didn’t. It want down. And it continued to go down, even when the nation recovered from the (brief) recession and GDP went back up! And revenue/GDP went UP despite the GHW Bush brief recession, because GHW raised taxes. And the revenue/GDP ratio went up even more under Clinton, when he raised taxes again.
The Hauser Graph is simply an optical illusion by plottting revenue/GDP on a scale of 0 to 100 when the ratio hovers in the range of 20 (albeit rising and falling significantly, as tax rates go up and go down).
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@Larry, how very convenient you provide a graph that stops at 2007, when Pelosi/Reid and Dems seized both chambers, and supermajority Senate power. And of course, it’s extra convenient you leave out the Obama/Pelosi/Reid spending.
Shall we remedy that?
So Larry, wanna point out where those big arse humps of spending began?
While we’re at it on the revenue vs spending wars, let’s have a look at TTL US revenue vs public debt from 1970 thru 2014 projections, shall we?
My my… lookie at all that red/public spending/debt increase during the Clinton years, followed by again those huge arse bumps after 2007 forward.
You were saying?
@mata: The rise in spending was TARP + “stimulus” (more later, first…):
Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Does_the_executive_branch_prepare_the_annual_budget#ixzz1Bcf1Vtas
n.b. Please don’t give me grief over the link. I didn’t have the time to go searching for a more prestigious URL.
Now, as much as you want to say that the Dems were responsible for everything from 2007 on; they weren’t. Bush prepared the budget. Congress approved 99% of what Bush proposed (including through FY 2009, which was also Bush’s responsibility to prepare). They tacked on the usual 1% or so extra pork (always a bipartisan exercise). Congress doesn’t have the wherewithall to budget for executive agencies. That would be absurd. You think that the Foreign Relations Committee should prepare the budget for the State Department?
The reason for stopping at 2007 was that we were discussing the effect of tax cuts on revenue and debt. ALL of the data, and I mean all of it shows that:
(1) Tax cuts ALWAYS cost the more in lost revenue from rate cuts than they ever make up for in revenue increases as a result of extra GDP growth, which wouldn’t have occurred in the absence of the tax cuts.
(2) Tax increases ALWAYS increase revenue above what would have occurred in the absence of the tax increases.
(3) Revenues grew more slowly under Reagan and under “W” Bush than under Clinton, contradicting your claims to the contrary.
(4) Spending grew more rapidly under Reagan and under “W” Bush than under Clinton.
Now, what’s happened post 2008 is an anomaly, resulting from an inherited catastrophe. There was a calamitous financial crisis, which threatened to become the next Great Depression. Paulson, Bush, Obama, and Geithner followed a consistent game plan of TARP and including the auto bailouts. Most people would now judge this effort to have been a success.
The GOP wanted a stimulus of $500 billion. Mostly tax cuts (to be paid for by borrowing from China, to return to the main theme of this thread) . Obama went with a $760 stimulus, including aid to state and local govts, tax cuts, and extension of unemployment benefits — later supported by the GOP — plus a small amount of infrastructure spending. This latter did indeed increase spending, but it was a one-off, emergency response to a crisis, and not some great permanent shift to a welfare state. This type of spending bears no relationship to anything ever done before, because it was in response to a fiscal crisis never before experienced.
And it has no relationship whatsoever to the underlying, present debate over the (direct) relationship between tax cuts and debt.
“Gross public debt” is a meaningless metric. By gross public debt, California’s debt burden looks massive. But in comparision with state GDP, it has an average debt burden, relative to the other states. My “gross debt burden” is about $400K. Verizon’s is about $20,000,000K. Even though Hard Right can’t seem to grasp the concept, the only meaningful way to compare debt — over time and place — is on the basis of debt to income ratio, inflation-adjusted, for individuals and companies, and debt to GDP ratio, inflation-adjusted, for states and countries.
P.S. (#78) You aren’t reading your own graph correctly, when you talk about “arse bumps in the Clinton years”). Look at the chart again. Those years were virtually flat. Anyway, those graphs are too difficult to read. Here’s a better one:
http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/National-Debt-GDP-L.gif
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Larry, the big arse bumps are in the Pelosi/Reid/Obama years, as I specifically said in that comment. Does that escape your eye?
Oh… right… that was all “tarp”…. LOL
Nor are the Clinton years “flat”, as I described it as an increase in the public debt there too… unless you have visual problems seeing curves.
BTW, I’ll ignore your condescending and absurd Wiki link about basic civics. I’m not giving you grief about an 8th grade cyber search. But I will say your snipe, presuming my lack of education on the workings of our government, is not lost on me. Instead, you might want to read up on the reality that only Congress controls the purse strings, by Constitutional law, and that they are under no mandate to pass a POTUS budget unaltered. I’ll let you find your own link to Wiki on the Constitution so you can spin your way out of that one, but I would suggest you up the quality of your educational sources, and go right to one of the various Constitution online sites available instead.
Needless to say, Congress (under either party) is long overdue in saying NO. However the delinquent “no” is more heinous of late. Which is why now the US voter is screaming *no!*
Secondly, you link to a New Republic article (what a deplorable site, BTW…. makes Huffpo look moderate!) For your rebuttal to Veronique de Rugy, a woman who did her PhD thesis on “Public Versus Private Tax Revolt”, and who has been visiting scholar and lecturer to both the University of Tours and George Mason U’s Dept of Economics, as well as her think tank policy work for economics, you dredge up self described “liberal hawk” Jonathan Chait, who’s journalism degree from U of Michigan doesn’t even indicate he’s qualified to balance a checkbook.
This is further evidenced by the chart Chait wants to show, while screaming “foul”, that depends upon a single source of an administration’s OMB, while Rugy’s chart sources not only OMBs, but also CBO and Tax Policy Institute data.
Now gee… which do I think is providing more complete and credible data and source? Don’t help……
Dissing Hauser’s theory, which I can see by Chait’s casual flippant remarks made to his adoring progressive readership, is a disservice. It is not just “making big changes look small” in a graph. Perhaps he should turn to his wife, who works for the progressive Center for American Progress for more informative input before he puts fingers to keyboard. Or else he’s blessed with one stupid readership….
But there’s two sides to the story, as usual. One side is that Hauser’s historical research is indeed true, and not the optical illusion that Chait claims.
Hauser’s economic research, first put out in 1993, bears out with the years he used as his research. However there is no where in there that says revenue can’t fall *below* that historic average… and has as a result of this recession/depression. I believe it was something like 15% of the GDP. Between 1946 and 2007, it’s hovered at about 17% of the GDP, fluctuation down to 14% and as high as 20.9%. This is, of course, including all types of tax revenue, and not just income tax. And when I speak of tax revenue, I speak of it all, encompassed as well.
It’s this trick that politically motivated economists like to play… like those who want it to only reflect individual income tax. But then, that’s not our entire tax revenue stream, is it? Very disingenuous. Keep that in mind… it resurfaces below.
The other side of the story? That can all change with an oppressive, greedy Congress.
Forbes writer, Daniel J. Mitchell, also points out that this hovering of revenue to US GDP does historically remain true. Mitchell is another one who’s credentials with Masters and PhD in Economics, make Chait look like the chump change he is. Mitchell notes that this theory is unlikely to protect the US taxpayer from money grubbing politicians… our only redeeming grace thus far being we don’t have a VAT or national sales tax, like the Euro socialist nations do. And also, the other nations have a much lower income that they consider the “evil wealthy”… i.e., they nail the low income with odious tax rates, and have therefore figured out a way to pad the government/politician coffers using income tax rates.
The chart he has, is based on OECD figures for each nation from 1965 to 2007. Remember what I said above about what “taxes” are used? These figures are based only on income and profit taxes. So the historic figures for the US are lower than when you include all forms of tax revenue (i.e. pensions, business, etc) The OECD info shows that New Zealand gets the #2 spot with tax revenues at 22% of their GDP, while Denmark is coming in at the highest with taxes making up 29% of the GDP. That same chart, by comparison, shows the US holding between 11.6% to 15.1% for years between 1965 and 2007. Of course, we’re also looking at two countries with populations between 4.5 and 5.5 million.
So is the graph by Rugy correct? Historically, yes. Absolutely. Can the US Congress blow the Hauser rule out of the water by implementing odious tax regulations? But of course… but it will also be the death of the US economy. What works (sorta) for countries with .016% of our population, and considerably less national land mass, doesn’t work for the US.
The other rule that holds true is that one called “blood from a turnip”.
“Let us never negotiate out of fear.But let us never fear to negotite” JFK Today is the 50th anniversity of his inauguration.
“Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.”
Larry, really…. all this is on TARP? LOL
TARP total was approx $750 bil… of which only half was spent in 2008 by Bush/Paulson. The other half was the demand by Obama for the beginning of his term. That’s $350 bil there.
Within 60 days, Obama/Pelosi/Reid had the so called “stimulus” bill … that topped the TARP in spending funds. Then add another $410 bil for the Omnibus. So far we’ve more than doubled TARP in less than a year.
Financial reform? Right… added to federal spending by hiring thousands of new federal employees on the taxpayers’ backs for new agencies created. And we haven’t even gotten into how many federal agencies created by O’healthcare and that added cost.
Sorry…. your whitewash just don’t sanitize the spin.
CML, you forgot Jarred.
Mata, You remember how you castigated me for changing the subject. This was a simple debate about the relationship of tax cuts to debt and you want to turn it into a full fledged debate on Obama, which, again, is why I didn’t carry data beyond 2007, because the only useful, evaluable information pertaining to the relationship between tax cuts and tax increases and debt ends at the time when the financial meltdown begins.
We can’t begin to have an intelligent discussion about whether Obama and Geithner were financial geniuses or financial fools until a period of time has passed. I’m happy to debate Obama at some other time, but I’d prefer to get to the end of the present debate before starting another one.
– Larry W/HB
Changing the subject? I am under the impression you and Nan G were carrying on a subject about spending the the growth of government. Not that it isn’t interrelated with taxes, etc.
Now I’m really confused as to why you wish to hold this administration, plus the 2007 forward Congressional purse string control, immune from your debate. When did they get a collect…er spend… $2 trillion and pass go for free card?
I will also remind you again of the 2006 results assessment, in text, of the analysis of the period from 1968 to 2006.
I will remind you that the latter category includes Clinton’s 1993 Omnibus tax increase.
Mata, there’s no useful data to be had from Obama relating to the impact of tax cuts and tax increases on revenue.
I know that you will never concede the totally obvious fact that tax cuts are paid for with borrowed money, as opposed to with increased revenue generated from greater economic activity; it’s against your DNA, and I won’t insist on an “uncle.” No big deal. Many great people have had stubbornness as a defining trait.
If you’ve nothing more to add on the general subject of tax cuts and debt, then by all means, let’s have an Obama debate. (Things are actually looking pretty good for him, at this point, as I’ll be happy to discuss).
I’ll consider your #82 as the opening salvo on the Obama sub-thread. Back atcha l8r.
– Larry W/HB
Tax cuts should be accomodated for with equal or greater reduced spending. It is not the tax payers fault that Congress continues to spend. Nor is the money we make classified as “open season” by big spending pols.
You consider me stubborn. I consider you somehow brainwashed into believing that what we earn is rightfully the government’s to take to support their ever increasing spending habits they insist is for societal good. But that’s okay. I won’t insist on an “uncle” from you either. No big deal. Just a difference with your concept of governance, your refusal to demand the government stop spending, and your stubborn insistance they own all rights to our wallets when they don’t.
What a childish display of arrogance and condescension, Larry. It’s also called projection. Again, typical of a liberal like yourself.
Call it a fact all you want it doesn’t make it so and it’s been proven you are wrong.
Yeah, Chris Christie sucked up to Hu and had dinner with him. I used to like Christie, but it would seem that only in the fiscal realm is he anything close to being a conservative.
He is in favor of amnesty, he appointed a muslim with Hammas ties to a judgeship, and of course he backed Castle, the ultimate RINO.
http://www.newjerseynewsroom.com/nation/gov-christie-goes-to-white-house
ANTICROCKS Remember Christie like Scott Brown is from a Blue state and to get re-elected they MUST be socially moderate-liberal.That’s politics.
@rich wheeler: You said:
Okay good point, but don’t talk down to me. I get that it is politics, but I was hoping against hope that he might just actually stand for something rather than just friggin’ pander.
Anyone who can look at that photo and get their undies in a wad over calling somebody “boy” or anything else for that matter, or can defend government’s “right” to get bigger and more intrusive has serious, serious issues. Behold the face of socialism, it’s true face stripped bare of platitudes and political “theory”. If this image does not haunt you the rest of your days you are seriously damaged goods.
You know, I was just thinking of that great Sinatra movie, The Manchurian Candidate. Doesn’t it seem like this bozo in the white house is acting exactly like what the Chinese were trying to implement in that movie? Seriously, it truly seems this President is hell bent to deliver us to the Red Chinese and the rest of the Marxist Socialists. Watch the movie and you’ll see what I mean.
What’s delivering us to the “Red Chinese” isn’t a fancy dinner, it’s refusing to pay our own way, necessitating the mortgaging of the USA to the “Bank of Red China.”
It’s all fine to talk about cutting spending, but, until that imaginary day comes, the conservative thing to do is to pay our own bills and not borrow any more money from nations we allegedly abhor.
By the way, China is probably more capitalist than Europe today. It hasn’t been “Marxist” in a very long while. A more accurate name for “Red China” would be “Green China.”
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@Larry: China is no longer Marxist?
Tell it to this couple:
Or tell it to the babies that are killed day in and day out in China:
I would say China is best described as Red China, red for the blood on their hands.
@anticsrocks: You are confusing economic systems (Marxism vs Capitalism) with systems of government (Authoritarian vs Democratic).
China is an authoritarian capitalist society. It is no longer an authoritarian Marxist society.
A very good analogy to present day China was the Chilean government of Augusto Pinochet. Prior to Pinochet, Chile was a democratic socialist society, led by popularly-elected Salvadore Allende, an avowed Marxist. The CIA didn’t like a Marxist (even though democratically elected) being in charge. So Allende was toppled in a military coup.
Pinochet changed the economic system from Marxist to capitalist. But he was every bit as much an authoritarian dictator as the current Chinese government.
Here’s the summary (from Wiki):
Now, do you see the precise parallels with China? Substitute “miracle of China” for “miracle of Chile,” and this provides yet another direct proof that capitalism is an economic system vastly superior to Marxism.
But you can have democratic capitalism (the USA); you can have democratic socialism (the former Chile, present-day Venezuela); you can have authoritarian socialism (Cuba, the ex-Soviet Union), and you can have authoritarian capitalism (China, Chile under Pinochet).
By the way, I think that it is a mistake to think that the best form of government for every nation on earth is Jeffersonian Democracy. There was an interesting segment on the PBS Newshour on Thursday or Friday (forget which). They interviewed a number of Chinese university students and they were quite defensive of their own government. What they tried to explain is that China is a vastly more complex country than the USA, of vast geographic size, with a hugely greater population, with a vastly more diverse population (which doesn’t even speak the same language), and without any history of democratic governance.
It was probably a big mistake to try and democratize Russia is such a short period of time. This led to near chaos, until Putin brought in a greater degree of stability. China has undergone tumultuous changes in a very short period of time. The country is held together by a strong, authoritarian central government, but the people of China are much more interested in improving their economic status than in improving their freedom of political speech. Their government will evolve over time.
In the meantime, the USA is in no position to go throwing its weight around to pressure the Chinese into speeding up the pace of internal human rights reforms, as we are unconscionably dependent on them to give us the money to pay the bills which we, ourselves, should be paying, but which we selfishly refuse to pay.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Larry, if you mean green as in cash you got that correct. If you mean green as in evironmental, then you are off your meds.
@Hard. I meant green as in cash.
The traditional, colloquial meaning of green, before it was hijacked by the environmental movement. As in, “long green.”
I’m really getting old. Probably no one here remembers that expression.
Is the designation, Authoritarian Capitalist Country an apologist’s expression for the mature Fascist State of China. They call themselves Communists and the Communists control the country and the people, but it is the corporate Elite of China that controls the purse and the future. It is the children of Elites who are buying homes in the US and in Europe, just in case. How else would you describe a fascist state, China is the perfect modern example. And always, we have these curious people whom we and Orwell call Elites: the ones who control the money, the ones who inspire all the Useful Idiots to dedicate themselves to Socialist ladder climbing and selfless service in the forlorn hope to become, but like our Elites with their legions of serving and self-effacing bureaucratic dilettantes and wanna be’s, membership is highly regulated and rarely attained.
@Skook: You say:
It’s ironic that the Chinese economy is becoming more like that of the USA, while the USA’s economy is becoming more like that of China, with wealth and economic power concentrated among a true elite class of people.
With the virtual demise of the estate tax and with the vast and increasing disparity between economic growth at the top 1% and everyone else, we are rapidly evolving into a society with its own, permanent, to-the-manor-born elite class.
It’s not entirely obvious that this is a positive development in our national evolution.
P.S. Anyone can Google “Is China still a Communist country?” and read all about it.
Here’s one particularly clear explanation:
http://www.teachabroadchina.com/china-not-communist-country-ccp/
(There’s also a lot of spirited debate in the commentary which follows).
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Larry, you can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still just an effing pig.
China is a communist country that ALLOWS capitalism.
Since you brought it up, why do you love the estate tax so much? I mean if I toil and bust my ass for 40 or 50 years, build up a business to the point where I am able to put away let’s say $5 million so that I can pass it on to my family, why should the government come along and take over half of it??
Don’t tell me you are one of those “uh-oh! there’s a ‘concentration of wealth’ guys.”
Aye, Sawbones:
Melville, Moby Dick
Isn’t it strange that our own most notable and wealthiest Progressives are always in Pursuit of the Socialist Utopia: perhaps it is to truly cement their Elitist status, so that none may steal the mantle.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: Pray tell Larry, which “class” were you born?